this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023

19 points (95.2% liked)

NZ Politics

560 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

So this is how the story ends (open.substack.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Absolutely great read from Bernard Hickey on Hipkins' wealth tax announcement and the treasury report released yesterday:

That’s it. It will now be almost impossible for a wealth or capital gains tax to be implemented within the next decade or two.

The future of Aotearoa’s political economy will now remain frozen in its stagnant, unequal, unjust, unproductive and unhealthy state for the forseeable future. That’s what our leaders, and ultimately the only voters that matter, have decided. Those hoping to change that frozen landscape should now look after themselves and their families, and/or hope and work for an electoral miracle that gives parties who want such taxes dominant positions in any post-election negotiation.

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Here's my voting struggle.

According to a political compass test I did last election, I'm most closely aligned to the policies of NZ first. I refuse to vote for them because they're headed by an immoral, racist, unethical, racing-industry-owned scumbag.

I'd vote greens except they're fighting hard to take the "most racist party" crown from Winnie.

I'd vote TOP except they don't exist outside the internet - none of my family or friends have ever heard seriously of their policies or what they stand for and it feels like a losing battle to get them to even 1%.

I'm not the right ethnicity to vote for te pati Maori, they don't want my vote.

And then labour completely lack the balls to actually make any form of change - they allegedly mean well but fuck it all up so badly it's worse than if nact were in power.

So I'm left with national and act as the least bad?

I want to see change but I'm so damn tired and worn out from trying to stay afloat that I can't be the change I want to see.

I wonder how many other median voters feel the way I do...?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Then vote TOP, at least you vote on principal....

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Labour are not as bad as if National/act were in power. It's not even close. They're streets ahead on the employment space alone.

Greens are absolutely not the most racist party in Parliament, not with the Maori bashing National and act get up to. Their tax plan is also the best any party has to offer for everyone except those with more than net $4 million in assets (I.e. 99% of the population) and it would be real, positive change if implemented. It's worth supporting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4000714/Meet-the-whanau-the-perils-of-dating-a-Harawira

Mr Harawira drew condemnation from Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres and Prime Minister John Key last week after saying in an interview that he "wouldn't feel comfortable" if any of his seven children came home with a Pakeha.

Definitely not the most racist, no.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Honestly, Seymour is one of the most reasonable people in Parliament right now, and I don't like it. Also one of the most consistently opposed to racial separatism, too.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

LOL. Calling the greens a racist party made you lose any credibility you might have had.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their co leader has made statements that are objectively racist, they haven't made her apologize or step down. They're a racist party.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their co leader has made statements that are objectively racist, they haven’t made her apologize or step down. They’re a racist party.

Which racist policies are they proposing?

Maybe you are the one that's racist. Ever consider that?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ooh, sick burn. Ouch, my feelings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You sure are a sensitive fragile special snowflake aren't you?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, you're right. I'm a cis white male and therefore I'm the cause of all the world's violence plus my opinions aren't worth anything. Thank you for showing me the light!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Your opinions are not worth anything but that has nothing to do with your white fragility.

[+] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I’m really puzzled at what they’re thinking. I suspect this most recent statement is entirely motivated by wanting to control the narrative going into the election after the treasury report yesterday, but I’m also confused as to why they didn’t continue with the tax switch plan in the report. Seems like an easy win and relatively easy to communicate - my (pessimistic) feeling is they’re just not wanting to risk any chance of an election loss at all.

I agree with you - I really like Bernard’s take and I think the tone of it is absolutely spot on, because this really is an ongoing issue of parties (and voters) ignoring obvious solutions - but I don’t think it’s off the cards for a whole generation. I think this election is going to be a fascinating one, especially with the amount the smaller parties are picking up in the polling. You’re right, in 10-20 years so many of the problems we’re facing now are going to be so much more evident and affecting so many more of us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

are Labour really that bad at managing their message?

I think they are. Remembering how they were between 2008 and 2017, at least. It was mostly luck that a constitutional clause let Ardern rapidly be elected leader because it was so close to the election. Before that Labour's image was endless infighting, and the inability to present a cohesive unit really hampered credibility of the messaging.

I think Bernard is overly pessimistic in saying that ends the debate for 20 years.

To me, at least, it seems the main way out of this would be if Labour lost the upcoming election, then somehow got its act together super quick to go back to arguing for a wealth tax, then National+ACT had a really difficult time working together so as to cause their collective popularity to drop horrendously in a short time.

Labour hasn't made a secret of the fact that it would like a wealth tax. It's just repeatedly committed not to do it, because it thinks that's the best way to win over the small number of swing voters it needs which National and ACT are also obsessively targeting with fears about what to expect from a Labour+Green+TPM tax policy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this is interesting, eh - I guess labour are aware that Greens & Te Pāti Māori are picking up a lot of their votes on the left and are trying to court the centre voters National and Act are picking up - which makes some sense, but boy is it not working in their favour huh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Personally, I'm opposed on principle to taxing someone just for having something. Tax economic activity, sure, but I dislike the concept of a wealth tax.

Same with land value tax, it's just a bad principle.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Agreed. No wealth tax, but capital gains, certainly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's really not, it's the main way we've broken up mass inequality and uneven power distribution in the past.

Why should simply owning things be more lucrative than producing things? Our entire system is geared to the former at the moment and as Bernard says, our economy is a housing market with bits tacked on as a result

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bernard's being a tad dramatic, don't you think?

Besides, if owning something is lucrative, tax the earnings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That seems to be his thing, yes but there's a lot to it. Capital gains tax and inheritance tax would fit the bill of taxing the earnings.

But really the end goal is to not allow enormously concentrated wealth to accrue in the first place because it completely fucks up society and the power that comes with it makes it self-reinforcing.

The only serious proposition for wealth taxes right now are very small rates (the wealth tax labour was apparently kicking around was 1.5%) and would only kick in at amounts above what the vast majority of people will ever see in their entire lifetimes.

The fact that would provide massive amounts of desperately needed funding for schools, hospitals and other public services shows how fucked up the balance of wealth in this country is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Inheritance tax isn't taxing earnings, it's more like taxing a gift. Someone has built that wealth, paid tax on those earnings, and now that they want to pass that onto their children, the government wants another bite.

It's wrong, in my view. The underlying principle is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's true to a point. The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on and as a result you prevent dynasties forming that damage society and over time, amass so much wealth that eventually mean others can't build up anything to pass on to their children.

Being against inheritance taxes outright is actually worse for the outcomes you want.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on

I'm also not a fan of this type of thinking either. If it's wrong to do, it's wrong to do it to anyone. The whole "it's only x% of the population" argument just makes me uneasy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's literally how our tax rates work

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What percentage of the population pays some form of income tax, would you say? I'm not sure how you think the two are comparable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're comparable because they're both applied progressively. Income tax rates scale at higher income points. Wealth tax, inheritance tax, whatever it is. If they're set to kick in at a certain threshold everyone pays the same amount up to that point - zero.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

If only 0.whatever% of the population paid income tax, you'd have a point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I earn money I pay taxes on it. When I spend that money the business takes money that I already paid taxes on and also pays taxes on top. Apparently there is nothing wrong with double taxation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.
They pay taxes on the profit, unless you're talking about GST.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.

Just like inheritance.

They pay taxes on the profit, unless you’re talking about GST.

That too. Let's put that in the mix.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Ilovethebomb @SamC personally I'm opposed to subsidising wealthy hoarders and taxes for the working poor

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Cool, thanks for contributing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Anyone else willing to believe that they can't do a wealth tax due to some back room discussion with political donors who are all standing to lose if it goes through? Seems plausible no?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea of taxing someone just for having something feels wrong to me. Tax income, certainly, but any sort of land value or wealth tax just feels wrong to me.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why? The lack of access to those things(typically land and housing) costs the rest of us a lot of money in inflated prices, so why not tax those who have more than their share?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Because they're either earning money, if it's a productive asset, which you can tax, or they're enjoying what they bought with their taxed income.

It also just comes off as mean spirited, to be honest.

You're also not addressing the underlying issue, which is a lack of housing supply.