NZ Politics



  • @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.



  • @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.

    Certainly consistent with the narrative that they have lots of ideas but no idea how to implement them



  • @canefan said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.

    Certainly consistent with the narrative that they have lots of ideas but no idea how to implement them

    what, throwing money at things doesn't get results? Quelle horreur



  • @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.

    Certainly consistent with the narrative that they have lots of ideas but no idea how to implement them

    what, throwing money at things doesn't get results? Quelle horreur

    Yes, I'm shocked



  • @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.

    It’s almost like they learned the theory but have never had to run an actual business or implement anything.

    Add in their consistent surprise at unintended consequences (like attacking landlords raising rents for the poor), and the damage these clowns are doing is huge.



  • @Kirwan said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.

    It’s almost like they learned the theory but have never had to run an actual business or implement anything.

    Add in their consistent surprise at unintended consequences (like attacking landlords raising rents for the poor), and the damage these clowns are doing is huge.

    And Cindy's penchant for recruiting lawyers, community medical people and probably more teachers instead of actual business people that run actual businesses into her caucus will not help.



  • That's because capitalists are evil, comrade.



  • @Kirwan said in NZ Politics:

    That's because capitalists are evil, comrade.

    I hope the Greens' proposed bourgeoisie tax will cost them votes



  • @canefan I think it's more likely to solidify their vote - maybe take a few off labour.

    Greens wet dream must be Labour get 47 ish seats, NZF fail to clear 5% and they hold the balance of power alone.

    Their wealth tax works towards that strategy. Takes away from Labour some of the less centrist socialists making them more important in any coalition but unlikely to cost them any votes.

    It's also good for everyone else too - except Labour. Gives all the centre right parties a stick to beat Labour and the Greens with. Terrible for Labour for that very reason. Last thing they want is a debate over tax



  • @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan I think it's more likely to solidify their vote - maybe take a few off labour.

    Greens wet dream must be Labour get 47 ish seats, NZF fail to clear 5% and they hold the balance of power alone.

    Their wealth tax works towards that strategy. Takes away from Labour some of the less centrist socialists making them more important in any coalition but unlikely to cost them any votes.

    It's also good for everyone else too - except Labour. Gives all the centre right parties a stick to beat Labour and the Greens with. Terrible for Labour for that very reason. Last thing they want is a debate over tax

    Labour would not agree to such a tax anyway I reckon, it would scare away centrist middle class voters



  • @canefan Labour won't have a bar of it, which is why the Greens want to be vital to them forming a govt and why it is bad news for Cindy and her minions.



  • @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    @canefan Labour won't have a bar of it, which is why the Greens want to be vital to them forming a govt and why it is bad news for Cindy and her minions.

    alt text



  • Muller said he doesn't think the border needs to be opened up anytime soon, but that the Government should provide a strategy and criteria for it.

    "I'm not saying in any way that this is short-term, but what I am saying is this thinking should be put in the public. We should be reflecting about that as New Zealanders and saying, how would that work?"

    Surely now would be a good time for National to front up with a strategy?

    It is easy to say one thing, but to do so without a plan seems like he is being oppositional for the sake of it, which I thought he said he wasnt wanting to do?

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/jacinda-ardern-warns-against-travel-to-europe-as-todd-muller-calls-for-strategy-on-reopening-border.html



  • Oh god, back to this whole 'tell us the criteria' rubbish.

    Every day new information comes out about the virus and about how countries are coping.
    To try and pin a target on a moving animal is hardly helpful for business confidence.
    Sure, it would be lovely if we had this clear situation where we could say international borders open to these people at these thresholds but what happens when those thresholds become redundant because of something else? Everyone then gets upset saying they have wasted planning and the goalposts have moved.

    We are 6 months into the world dealing with a previously unknown enemy. That isn't really that long.

    What happens if COVID gets back to communities in NZ? Do we go all L4 again and fuck over everyone getting back on their feet? Or do we say 'fuck it we tried and give up. Let the thing do it's worst and we'll see what is left at the other end'.
    Neither seem a good outcome for an economic recovery.
    At least in the current set up we can have people out working, making exports, getting on with their lives and businesses adjusting to known situations. That puts us in a better place to look after the casualties of the first half of the year.



  • @Crucial said in NZ Politics:

    Every day new information comes out about the virus and about how countries are coping.
    To try and pin a target on a moving animal is hardly helpful for business confidence.

    I agree, this is fast moving and changing.

    That said, there should be some broad scenarios articulated that show paths out of this mess. Which one you choose is ultimately up to the government and the way that this plays out, but having some broad resilience responses is super important.

    So, top of my head:

    Scenario 1 - Best case
    Vaccine gets developed, tested, produced and deployed in the next 18 months
    Anyone who's vaccinated can enter NZ
    Once virus eradicated internationally, back to L0 and get on with your life.

    Scenario 2 - Intermediate case
    Vaccine expected in the next few years, maybe reliable fast testing available
    ... ???

    Scenario 3 - Worst case
    No Vaccine possible due to nature of virus (like AIDS), testing still slow and unreliable
    choice: open borders with consequent effects; ramp up quarantine/managed isolation and offer luxury upgrades, or continue to be a fortress

    What concerns me is that there has been no discussion about anything other than 'close the borders'. So, if Scenario 3 starts to pan out, what the hell do we do? What are the costs if we keep the borders closed? I think there is a good discussion to be had here, because there are pros and cons each way - there is no clear 'right' answer. But we do need to start thinking about what the hell we're going to do if a vaccine isn't available for some time.



  • The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.



  • @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.

    Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.



  • @Crucial So you keep saying. You’re still wrong.



  • @nzzp Several have tried, but they are outliers. They’ve pretty much failed though.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-happened-when-the-wealth-tax-was-implemented-in-europe-2019-10?r=US&IR=T



  • @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.

    Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.

    I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically, but here are the top bracket tax rates in the OECD (36 countries) with our 33% being 29th out of 36 (the Greens 42% on $150,000 would put us at 24th):
    https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I7

    For information on welfare systems in Europe:
    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2018-2019/europe/index.html



  • @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.

    Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.

    I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically

    ah, OK.

    The top tax brackets aren't incompatible with the last Labour government, which got up to around 36-39% from memory.

    It always flushes out the tax rate vs tax take discussion though - whether you actually get the money from teh top rate, as suddenly people are incentivised to move it into loss making ventures. The 80s was peak silliness for that sort of thing I believe, but tax avoidance is rife amongst the people with the money.

    One of the reasons I was cross with National under Key, was they (in my head) should have a consistent tax rate between company rates, trust rates and top personal tax rate. For me, that means you spend less time juggling money around businesses adn trusts avoiding tax, and more time just trying to make more money and grow the pie.

    This post brought to you by cliches



  • @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    One of the reasons I was cross with National

    haha, I think you are the first person that wasnt my Nan I have seen/heard use the word 'cross' 😆



  • @taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:

    @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    One of the reasons I was cross with National

    haha, I think you are the first person that wasnt my Nan I have seen/heard use the word 'cross' 😆

    how do you know I aren't your Nan? This is the internet, dude, we're not all 40ish white guys sitting on the couch with cheeto stained grubby white vests in our Y fronts.

    Most, not all.



  • @nzzp certainly a danger of seeing the schemes start back up. That said people avoid tax now through business via classics such as the company vehicle with full personal use but no FBT.

    I like that the Green's wealth tax uses progressive brackets, but would probably be easier to do as a land tax since that's already independently valued through rates, or deemed income from assets as in the TOP policies.



  • @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    @Godder said in NZ Politics:

    The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.

    Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.

    I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically, but here are the top bracket tax rates in the OECD (36 countries) with our 33% being 29th out of 36 (the Greens 42% on $150,000 would put us at 24th):
    https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I7

    For information on welfare systems in Europe:
    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2018-2019/europe/index.html

    That first table is interesting when you compare the tax rates to the US Dollar Avg Earnings by Purchasing Parity. Almost every country (bar Greece which is a basket case) that has higher top brackets has higher earnings. Switzerland is interesting in being higher tax but similar earnings to NZ but I think that is because of the purchasing power. Shit is expensive in Switzerland so money doesn't go as far.

    You could interpret that many ways but it kind of shows that net earnings and purchasing power is the real measure of earning worth and maybe we need to get the concept of 'the govt is taking my money' out of our heads. Gross earnings will adjust to compensate.

    With two party politics in NZ we get into a cycle of gross earnings going up to compensate for high taxes then not reducing when taxes reduce which is part of the equation to widening gaps.

    Before people jump all over me as a 'leftie socialist' can I say that I am not anti anyone having the incentive to earn more or make money or even demand a 'market rate'. What I am very aware of though is that widening earning gaps create social problems and everyone ends up paying for those one way or another.
    As a very simplistic example, in a more egalitarian flatter range of net earning abilities (like NZ had 50plus years ago) you didn't spend money on burglar alarms or painting over the graffiti on your business premises.
    I know that is extremely simplistic and can be argued to shreds but the point is that we should (IMO) be aiming at some kind of balance between incentives to grow and spreading purchasing power earnings instead of swinging back and forth every now and then as the parties we have would make us believe. That just leads to having to use interference to try and correct problems and imbalances (be it tax hikes or handouts)

    Strangely enough I actually think Roger Douglas was technically correct in wanting a low flat tax system with wide coverage and few exemptions. Seems to be a very fair method.



  • @Crucial said in NZ Politics:

    Strangely enough I actually think Roger Douglas was technically correct in wanting a low flat tax system with wide coverage and few exemptions. Seems to be a very fair method.

    Left and RIght are a circle - go far enough to one extreme, and you wind up on the other side of the fence. No surprise to me that Prebble and Douglas went from Labour to ACT. Personally, I'd probably have been with them in principle - economically dry, but socially liberal.

    ACT of the mid 90's would have been a fair representation of that thinking, but then they went crazy with conservative christians, dropped all the innovative economic thinking, and wound up with Don farking Brash and alliances with conservative christian parties. Seymour has been pretty impressive though; guess it shows when you get Engineers involved (don't remind me that Nick Smith was an PhD Engineer as well please, it's hate speech)



  • @Godder I don't believe the Greens have it right when they say their proposed progressive brackets are only going to affect 6% of Kiwi's.

    Nett worth of a mill for anyone in Akl who is mortgage free is a very average scenario. same for farms and small businesses. Seriously this proposition is mana from heaven for the right.

    Time to roll out the old "penalising those that have worked to be financially independent so they can give it to the dole bludgers" mantra again.

    Good news for accountants too - plenty of business making sure clients nett wealth comes in at 990K.

    CGT would be much fairer IMO At least you would have a profit to pay the tax out of. The wealth tax clobbers you for the same inactive assets repeatedly. I'd have to sell some of the investments that were being taxed simply to pay the tax. Even in a situation like this year when I would be selling at a loss.

    they really IMO have approached this the wrong way. Its a cop out to tax the "greedy rich" even if it pays well to their core constituency.

    If you want to improve the lot of the poorest just raise the fucking tax threshold. Do away with Working For Families introduce a flat tax system and make the first 30-40K (I don't know the number but something meaningful) - tax free. That will really put money in the pockets of the poor and removes any disincentive to get a job.



  • @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    Time to roll out the old "penalising those that have worked to be financially independent

    Which would pretty much be true, not necessarily the "dole bludgers" bit.

    The daft bit of the concept for me is that high value assets don't always produce much income, so the assets might have to be sold to pay the tax on the asset that is no longer yours.

    Which is why came up with "income tax" and did away with "land taxes", etc, a long time ago.

    @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    At least you would have a profit to pay the tax out of. The wealth tax clobbers you for the same inactive assets repeatedly.

    Exactly this ^.

    Have a big family home in Remuera that generates no income? You won't for long.



  • I should add that we already have a property tax based on value - we just call them rates.



  • @nzzp well she died about 12 years ago, so there's that 😉



  • @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    @taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:

    @nzzp said in NZ Politics:

    One of the reasons I was cross with National

    haha, I think you are the first person that wasnt my Nan I have seen/heard use the word 'cross' 😆

    how do you know I aren't your Nan? This is the internet, dude, we're not all 40ish white guys sitting on the couch with cheeto stained grubby white vests in our Y fronts.

    Most, not all.

    There's a lot of Polish chicks too. Which makes conversing a lot more attractive than your image.



  • wealth tax too difficult to admin too many loopholes. net neutral land tax off set by income tax reduction or UBI whatever is best.
    cost of housing/rent is strangling western economies, hurting families and communities. if assets are not productive they should not be the backbone of our economy (housing-and credit creation)

    how to work the land tax without crippling farmers who are mostly running on poor yields with huge debt i dont know.

    land tax is better than TOPs and greens asset/wealth tax as it encourages development of land to allow higher yields. whilst also reducing speculation and land banking. Would expect drops in house prices and rents to reduce whilst median take home pay to increase with drop in taxes. more money floating around the economy, instead of going to australian banks.



  • @muddyriver People (like me) will just move their assets. Land /property tax has been tried before. It doesn't work. Rates are bad enough.
    Yes, property prices will drop resulting in lower net worth to tax.
    Yes, lower rents and lower spending overall from land owners.
    So a general recession in the economy is what they are after?

    It's a race to the bottom and yay, everybody can be poor.



  • @Snowy said in NZ Politics:

    @muddyriver People (like me) will just move their assets. Land /property tax has been tried before. It doesn't work. Rates are bad enough.
    Yes, property prices will drop resulting in lower net worth to tax.
    Yes, lower rents and lower spending overall from land owners.
    So a general recession in the economy is what they are after?

    It's a race to the bottom and yay, everybody can be poor.

    It's about punishing "rich" people who have only known success because of who they have oppressed.



  • Although TBF, our tax brackets probably do need amending more than anything.

    I mean someone earning $70k is in the top bracket (33%) and then the next one down is $48k - $69k (30%)

    NZ Average salary is supposedly just under $80k, yet those earners are all in the top bracket.



  • @Kirwan said in NZ Politics:

    @Snowy said in NZ Politics:

    @muddyriver People (like me) will just move their assets. Land /property tax has been tried before. It doesn't work. Rates are bad enough.
    Yes, property prices will drop resulting in lower net worth to tax.
    Yes, lower rents and lower spending overall from land owners.
    So a general recession in the economy is what they are after?

    It's a race to the bottom and yay, everybody can be poor.

    It's about punishing "rich" people who have only known success because of who they have oppressed.

    Not that I am rich but, yeah I'm not doing very well with the oppression thing. I need to try harder. The 40+ years of work, and bringing the money back to NZ, and employing people, and I'm about to go on another rant...

    Tax my assets and at least one of my staff would have been out of work during this mess. I paid for them, not the government, they still could pay their rent, feed their families, etc, and I don't trust the powers that be to do so. Take that ability to manage away from SME is a horror show of unemployment and poverty.



  • @Snowy Coincidentally the Chief Economist for Akl Council published his thought on this very subject today

    https://mcusercontent.com/b43f285355c582c3f958c1c0c/files/e7def893-b1fc-4fa6-846b-4c3f7f4b636e/Landing_on_the_right_ratings_base_for_Auckland.pdf

    @Snowy 's head to explode in
    5
    4
    3
    2
    1



  • @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    @Snowy Coincidentally the Chief Economist for Akl Council published his thought on this very subject today

    https://mcusercontent.com/b43f285355c582c3f958c1c0c/files/e7def893-b1fc-4fa6-846b-4c3f7f4b636e/Landing_on_the_right_ratings_base_for_Auckland.pdf

    @Snowy 's head to explode in
    5
    4
    3
    2
    1

    Absolutely not. I agreed with a lot of that. The way rates are "valued" is one of my gripes.

    Most of what I said earlier was on an additional land / wealth tax from central government. We already have that from local government.

    LV versing CV makes more sense and does encourage sensible development. At the moment if I build on a property the CV goes up and the rates do too. The land value won't have changed much, it's got a view, etc. The incentive to improve a property with planting, building isn't there if you have to pay increased rates. The whole services and roading thing is relevant too.

    Thanks for putting that up. A good read and appears to be really practical.



  • @Snowy Glad you liked it. I'm in favour as well. David Norman (Chief Economist) puts out a monthly newsletter which is usually thought provoking. I've met him and he has a knack of communicating detail in a simple way.



  • @dogmeat said in NZ Politics:

    @Snowy Glad you liked it. I'm in favour as well. David Norman (Chief Economist) puts out a monthly newsletter which is usually thought provoking. I've met him and he has a knack of communicating detail in a simple way.

    I think that you just called me simple...


Log in to reply