Well ... your argument about "vested interests" seems to have been supported by some of the comments here in opposition to any wealth or capital gains tax! 😮 Obviously if the current coalition are being truthful and there is not enough tax income to adequately support our Health, Education, Welfare etc. budgets, something has to change. About time everyone put the good of the people over their own selfish need for more & more $$$ in their personal grasp. I'm not convinced about the argument for losing significant investors - a significant number are here for more than the tax system surely, and what about the thousands of potential workers who are fleeing overseas for work right now? Human capital flight is much more consequential to our future IMHO 🤷🏾♀️
You make the mistake of assuming that Labour is anything other than a soft centrist party, hog-tied by the expediency of attempting to draw voters across from the right who for the most part are self-centered and change allegiances based on what any particular government is offering them as the plat du jour. The 2nd Ardern administration offered safety from a pandemic and was successful on those terms alone, whilst the troika under National promised tax cuts. The problem for the left in New Zealand is two fold firstly we dont have Compulsory voting. Secondly and of much more concern is that our media, across every platform is driven by right wing interests. It is virtually impossible to generate sustained positive news copy for anything that is remotely seen as socialist. Even when policies such as raising personal tax threshold for high earners to something comparable with Scandinavian or some European countries and introducing a CGTwould benefit the majority of Kiwi citizens.
I cannot think of any mass publication, TV news channel, or radio program in New Zealand that consistently provides a daily narrative that challenges the existing orthodoxy. We currently have the most appalling right-wing government lead by two outlier Parties introducing some of the most rabidly dangerous and destablising agendas with huge fiscal and social implications that if the Left was in power and had introduced them would have the likes of Tova O'Brian, Heather Du Plessis Allan, The Platform, Barry Soper, Jenna Lynch, NewsZB et al climbing up the wall with outrage and indignation. The fact that a character such as David Seymour has the gall to lecture the public on issues of democracy and can get away with this, with barely a murmur from the media, tells me everything I need to know about the crooked nature of constructed consent in Aotearoa.
Vested interests and conspiracy theories? Really? Here is the more serious juxtaposition- Singapore is not in the OECD yet tripled its per capita wealth in 3 decades, while NZ drank the high tax cool aid. Singapore, HK, most of Switzerland and Qatar has NO CGT. All closer to NZ than is Argentina and Chile (both just scrapped welath taxes btw). The smarter alternatives are compulsory super (now $ 3.8 trillion in Australia) or oil (now $ 3.6 trillion in Norway). CGT might, might, might raise 8 days of income asserted Cullen. Yet David Caygill killed the last CGT (estate duty) because it raised 11 hours of government revenue. CGT is a really , really, really, dumb idea. As per Sweden, expect a 25% GST when the rich move to Queeeeeensland. Mate. Just like the 20% of kiwis now paying tax to Canberra as a result of Labours last silly tax reforms.
A fair tax system in my view means that all income is taxed. Sound logic for taxing pensioners in NZ despite that many countries don't. On that basis income from capital gains should be taxed same as any other income but only when real money is deposited in a bank account as it were, certainly not on the basis of nominal value of an asset such as Labour has proposed. Would a CGT de-incentivise investment and indeed entrepreneurial effort? Undoubtedly to some extent but then most entrepreneurs don't create a business with a primary objective of making a killing on its sale. Other than that, there's far too much complexity and jiggery-pokery such as with tax bands, when a flat percentage would be simpler and fairer, with zero tax below some threshold.
Agree with you mostly, especially about realised vs. unrealised gains. Lots of small business owners will run a car and/or boat through the business but often won't pay themselves big salaries and look to an exit upon retirement for that nest egg. Kiwis invest in illiquid assets like homes and small businesses, not the share market. Let's keep the tax system simple.
Tax is the glue that sticks society together, and New Zealand seems to be coming apart, both physically (a failing free public health service, for instance), and socially (ram raids by ten-year-olds).
Sadly, the energy of those parties that once championed the poor has now been dissipated in chasing after the green herrings of identity, ethnicity, and sexuality, along with the vain mouse-that-roared enterprise of stopping global climate change.
As Bryce Edwards puts it:
'Those interested in a fairer or more progressive system have been less organised and effective. Partly, this is due to the unhealthy state of the political parties and organisations of the left in recent decades. From Labour to the Greens to the unions, there’s now much less emphasis on fighting economic inequality than there used to be. The priority has shifted towards non-economic issues. Hence, when the wealthy focus on implementing tax policies that suit them, the left often retreats into identity politics, foreign policy, or culture wars.'
I fear the Greens are a lost cause: their entire constitution and political programme are shoals of green herrings.
I continue to hope that Labour will shake off the neoliberalism of the past 40 years and commit itself once more to addressing the true interest of the poor: the struggle for economic justice, of which tax reform will be a vital part. But it's a fading hope.
There's no CGT in Singapore (where I now live to avoid having a third of my income stolen) - not even tax on interest from bank and term deposits (which are funded by after tax income!)
The focus is on making sure the economy is productive so *everyone* gets ahead.
In New Zealand the focus of the left is on entrenching racial division, removal of freedom of speech and association (as seen in the contests over the use of correct pronouns) and a bizarre obsession with what can only be described as superstition - as evidenced by the refusal of consent for a windfarm whose noise might upset the ghosts of ancestors!
This in New Zealand, which prides itself on a clean, green image.
When the left bleats about opposition from 'vested interests' against taxing the 'rich', it neatly ignores the waste of taxpayer funding already seen for the pursuit of its *own* vested interests. Just look at funding grants such as this:
Māori whakapapa describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.
Productive members of the economy are of course not going to agree to more waste like that.
If the left wants a serious debate about tax, show those of us who work for a living what it will be spent on to make everyone's life better.
Sounds like you have left NZ in the pursuit of your dollar God. Why do you think you have any right to influence how future governments of NZ spend their resources?
My 'right' is that NZ citizens get to vote. I always vote and take comfort in cancelling one vote for the left.
In any event I have paid NZ tax in the past - but, as others have noted, at a certain point its no longer viable to stay when there are other, better options. Capital is mobile and other jurisdictions welcome it, without the moral obloquy that prevails in NZ against those who make money.
Singapore also happens to be a surprisingly dirigiste nation, by way of Temasek Holdings. It also helps that it's a stopover for flights between Europe and Asia/Australasia.
Before I feel the urge to respond, I would like to ask two questions.
1. Please stop hiding behind a false name and identify yourself. Not being prepared to stand up and speak honestly using your own name is gutless.
2. If you are interested in a debate on tax, could you inform us where you derive your income from. I have a bit of a discount factor on sectors of our community. I'd hate to prejudge you.
In conclusion, my name on this comment was the one I was born with. Who in all seriousness would use "Garry" as a non-de-plume.
As someone who supports a CGT on realised (NOT unrealised) capital gains, I offer two thoughts:
1. I wonder how much MMP is creating a dynamic whereby supposedly radical policies are simply too hard to get "over the line" in a world where you have to constantly pander to the median voter. A parallel with the endless flip-flopping of both major parties on whether or not to do seemingly obvious step to increase the age of eligibilityof NZ Super springs to mind. The decision to support MMP was, for many, an initiative to slow down the rate of economic and social transition in response to alleged horrors of Rogernomics. This has driven both the left and right to sometimes offer apparently radical change (such as a CGT or changes to the age to eligibility to NZ Super) but back down when the compromises demanded by MMP compel them to do so. Is this is case of "be careful what you wish for"? (Is it noteworthy that the most radical Government of the MMP age - the Adern/Hipkins government - was a majority government ..... and that much of what the current government is doing is reverting policy back to the pre-2020 median voter status quo?)
2. I hope that the Labour Party make a quick decision on a realised CGT and turn their attention to the policy shifts that really matter for NZ - that is, how to increase productivity and NZ's wealth. There is a risk that many think a wealth/CGT is a panacea that will solve all of NZ's social and economic ills ... such as issues in health, child abuse, poverty, education ... the list goes on. I fear that the tax income from any CGT has been spent many times over already. What REALLY matters for NZ is not to redistribute the small economic pie that we have, but to increase our wealth and therefore our productivity. Unfortunately no one on the left (and not many on the right) are talking about this at all; we seem happy as a nation to fight over the scraps that we already have. A really progressive left (and right) would set their sights higher and look to make NZ more prosperous, so that we can actually afford what we aspire to have.
So, Bruce, do you mean taxes would be all sorted but for the great right-wing conspiracy? Perhaps a more rational approach by advocates of higher tax would lead to a real debate? But that might require dealing with inconvenient questions? Here are some of them: Why did the Swedish Wealth Tax fail and get abolished in 2007? What is the evidence that Norway's Wealth tax is failing now too (hint, look it up in the Guardian coverage); Why is economic history littered with failed wealth taxes? Why would a high-net-worth taxpayer in NZ likely pay less overall tax in Sweden than in NZ? Why would taxing unrealised gains drive the venture capital and private capital (and thus industry) off-shore? Why would I advise the young guy setting up a business to leave NZ under a Wealth Tax regime and start it up in Melbourne? Why would a High-net-worth stay in NZ if the tax rules could tax him more than his total annual income? Why were virtually all high-net-worth's studying options to exit NZ when the previous government's interest in Wealth Taxes was being proposed? Why was David Parker claiming virtually no one would leave when key IRD Policy Maker's working for him expected a vast number would leave immediately for Australia and even the Greens appeared to have expected a 25% disappearance rate? Since virtually all wealth is invested capital and invested capital is the life blood of the private sector which in turn is the source of all net income tax to the government sector, why would you layer another tax on invested capital to make sure you had less of it in the economy? Surely you would want more of it so therefore you would tax it less... the questions could go on and on... it may be that if the left actually looked at these questions and understood the answers they would start their tax analysis with an understanding of the implications of their recommendations... and an even better idea, go ask real taxpayers what they think... not the virtual taxpayers in their ideological imaginations.
> The answer is: that vested interests have successfully blocked progressive reforms.
No, just no. If Labour really believed in tax reform it state it as its policy then wait it out in opposition for however many elections it tacks before voters get fed up with National. Instead Labour's main goal is to win control of the government and they willing to sacrifice basically any policy to get there.
Labour believe, above all, in polls, not policies. If the polls tell them there is something the voters don't like then they will stop doing it. This is what "professional politicians" are like, they have no ideology of their own and rely solely on others think to determine their actions.
This is where the "vested interests" come in. They can only tilt the scales because these parties are constantly looking for outsiders to help them decide what to do. They become trusted partners and friends because they have ready answers (which they spend the time on because they stand to profit from their adoption).
This is terrible for democracy of course, but people too quickly jump on profit-seeking and self interest as being the cause of the corruption of democracy rather than a symptom. The root cause is these parties, especially Labour, don't have an ideology they believe. When parties have consistent beliefs and ideologies that they can draw from it's much easier for voters to decide who to elect.
Thanks Bryce another brave thoughful assesment. Firstly democratic socialism needs to be fed and nurtured by political paries who claim to hold such principles and secondly fed and nurtued by an unbiased informed media.
Without that there is no fire in the belly, no vision or hope, to challenge the vested interests and corporate greed. There is an absence of the upholding of basic principles such as people having a right to share in the wealth of a country. God I am sick of this lame critic of socialism in the media. The country hasnt experienced anthing close to socialism since Norman kirk, and he had a very brief hold on it unfortunately. Progressive taxation is based on a principle of economic justice for all. Savage, and kirk era logic of working for the common good. We can't give up on this as difficult as it may appear. The crazy thing is that the working for the common good is seen as an old fashioned idea but it is exactly what the corporates and the vested interests do. They promote greed for their own common good. Thank you Bryce for your clarity. Stand up fight back !
All can say is all power to the Unions ! They are holding on !
Three thoughts on this. "Fair" is a subjective term bandied about as if we all agree on what that means. We don't. If I don't have enough I think it's "fair" to take what's yours to help me get by or to improve my family's standard of living. If I have enough, or more than enough, from work and saving I would think it's "fair" to keep most of that. Unlike most major countries, to the extent mum and dad investors have savings in NZ it's mostly in their homes or property or small business. Not the share market. These are not liquid investments easily sold to generate cash to pay tax. So taxing unrealised gains creates liquidity problems for those people, who in the main will not be Rich Listers. And when losses occur the taxes should be adjusted accordingly, that's only "fair" and what is done overseas under far more complicated tax systems Thirdly, the country does need to attract foreign investment for infrastructure if not other things. There isn't enough capital, and increased uncertainty over taxation really doesn't help that, it's political sabotage.
The Progressives have a massive blind spot in their assumption that everyone else agrees with their views of what is 'fair'.
So progressives reduce their argument down to 'it's not fair, everyone I know agrees with us it is not fair, so the only reason we don't have a fair tax system is because of bad people like lobbyists and vested interests.'
Then they wonder why they lose taxation arguments!
I’m not into labels very much, “progressive” being one of them. But “fair” is definitely a word du jour that is subject to interpretation. As we all know, life isn’t “fair!” Words influence, and matter.
Why is there never any debate about inheritance tax in NZ? We're about to witness an insane amount of wealth transfer as the boomers shuffle off, so why is this not discussed?
So where is the group i can join that has vested interest in no taxes for the non rich? I'm very vested in that topic.
i was young and naive - 30 something - when a friendly farmer said quite comfortably, that if he paid any tax he'd be changing his accountant. That is when i found out i must be pathetic to be paying for him to drive on 'our' roads.
Further to my point, Chippy or whoever succeeds him could take a leaf from Helen Clark's 1999 pledge card: "No tax increases for 95% or NZers". He could also gather a meeting with the signatories of this letter:
The reason Capital Gains Tax is seen as unfair is simply because the Government(of all persuasions) is unable to control inflation. And inflation is the cause of most Capital Gain. So why should the average Joe Bloggs be taxed on it. It's the only hedge the average person has to maintain equity. As for Inheritance tax, most people seem to oppose it on the simple principal that you have paid tax all your life, so the Govt. should keep its thieving hands off it after you die. They are both envy taxes. If we think that the rich are getting away with not paying enough tax, then the system,(not the type) of tax needs overhauling
Well ... your argument about "vested interests" seems to have been supported by some of the comments here in opposition to any wealth or capital gains tax! 😮 Obviously if the current coalition are being truthful and there is not enough tax income to adequately support our Health, Education, Welfare etc. budgets, something has to change. About time everyone put the good of the people over their own selfish need for more & more $$$ in their personal grasp. I'm not convinced about the argument for losing significant investors - a significant number are here for more than the tax system surely, and what about the thousands of potential workers who are fleeing overseas for work right now? Human capital flight is much more consequential to our future IMHO 🤷🏾♀️
You make the mistake of assuming that Labour is anything other than a soft centrist party, hog-tied by the expediency of attempting to draw voters across from the right who for the most part are self-centered and change allegiances based on what any particular government is offering them as the plat du jour. The 2nd Ardern administration offered safety from a pandemic and was successful on those terms alone, whilst the troika under National promised tax cuts. The problem for the left in New Zealand is two fold firstly we dont have Compulsory voting. Secondly and of much more concern is that our media, across every platform is driven by right wing interests. It is virtually impossible to generate sustained positive news copy for anything that is remotely seen as socialist. Even when policies such as raising personal tax threshold for high earners to something comparable with Scandinavian or some European countries and introducing a CGTwould benefit the majority of Kiwi citizens.
I cannot think of any mass publication, TV news channel, or radio program in New Zealand that consistently provides a daily narrative that challenges the existing orthodoxy. We currently have the most appalling right-wing government lead by two outlier Parties introducing some of the most rabidly dangerous and destablising agendas with huge fiscal and social implications that if the Left was in power and had introduced them would have the likes of Tova O'Brian, Heather Du Plessis Allan, The Platform, Barry Soper, Jenna Lynch, NewsZB et al climbing up the wall with outrage and indignation. The fact that a character such as David Seymour has the gall to lecture the public on issues of democracy and can get away with this, with barely a murmur from the media, tells me everything I need to know about the crooked nature of constructed consent in Aotearoa.
Vested interests and conspiracy theories? Really? Here is the more serious juxtaposition- Singapore is not in the OECD yet tripled its per capita wealth in 3 decades, while NZ drank the high tax cool aid. Singapore, HK, most of Switzerland and Qatar has NO CGT. All closer to NZ than is Argentina and Chile (both just scrapped welath taxes btw). The smarter alternatives are compulsory super (now $ 3.8 trillion in Australia) or oil (now $ 3.6 trillion in Norway). CGT might, might, might raise 8 days of income asserted Cullen. Yet David Caygill killed the last CGT (estate duty) because it raised 11 hours of government revenue. CGT is a really , really, really, dumb idea. As per Sweden, expect a 25% GST when the rich move to Queeeeeensland. Mate. Just like the 20% of kiwis now paying tax to Canberra as a result of Labours last silly tax reforms.
A fair tax system in my view means that all income is taxed. Sound logic for taxing pensioners in NZ despite that many countries don't. On that basis income from capital gains should be taxed same as any other income but only when real money is deposited in a bank account as it were, certainly not on the basis of nominal value of an asset such as Labour has proposed. Would a CGT de-incentivise investment and indeed entrepreneurial effort? Undoubtedly to some extent but then most entrepreneurs don't create a business with a primary objective of making a killing on its sale. Other than that, there's far too much complexity and jiggery-pokery such as with tax bands, when a flat percentage would be simpler and fairer, with zero tax below some threshold.
Agree with you mostly, especially about realised vs. unrealised gains. Lots of small business owners will run a car and/or boat through the business but often won't pay themselves big salaries and look to an exit upon retirement for that nest egg. Kiwis invest in illiquid assets like homes and small businesses, not the share market. Let's keep the tax system simple.
As you say, "realised" value is the key term.
Tax is the glue that sticks society together, and New Zealand seems to be coming apart, both physically (a failing free public health service, for instance), and socially (ram raids by ten-year-olds).
Sadly, the energy of those parties that once championed the poor has now been dissipated in chasing after the green herrings of identity, ethnicity, and sexuality, along with the vain mouse-that-roared enterprise of stopping global climate change.
As Bryce Edwards puts it:
'Those interested in a fairer or more progressive system have been less organised and effective. Partly, this is due to the unhealthy state of the political parties and organisations of the left in recent decades. From Labour to the Greens to the unions, there’s now much less emphasis on fighting economic inequality than there used to be. The priority has shifted towards non-economic issues. Hence, when the wealthy focus on implementing tax policies that suit them, the left often retreats into identity politics, foreign policy, or culture wars.'
I fear the Greens are a lost cause: their entire constitution and political programme are shoals of green herrings.
I continue to hope that Labour will shake off the neoliberalism of the past 40 years and commit itself once more to addressing the true interest of the poor: the struggle for economic justice, of which tax reform will be a vital part. But it's a fading hope.
There's no CGT in Singapore (where I now live to avoid having a third of my income stolen) - not even tax on interest from bank and term deposits (which are funded by after tax income!)
The focus is on making sure the economy is productive so *everyone* gets ahead.
In New Zealand the focus of the left is on entrenching racial division, removal of freedom of speech and association (as seen in the contests over the use of correct pronouns) and a bizarre obsession with what can only be described as superstition - as evidenced by the refusal of consent for a windfarm whose noise might upset the ghosts of ancestors!
This in New Zealand, which prides itself on a clean, green image.
When the left bleats about opposition from 'vested interests' against taxing the 'rich', it neatly ignores the waste of taxpayer funding already seen for the pursuit of its *own* vested interests. Just look at funding grants such as this:
Māori whakapapa describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.
Productive members of the economy are of course not going to agree to more waste like that.
If the left wants a serious debate about tax, show those of us who work for a living what it will be spent on to make everyone's life better.
Sounds like you have left NZ in the pursuit of your dollar God. Why do you think you have any right to influence how future governments of NZ spend their resources?
My 'right' is that NZ citizens get to vote. I always vote and take comfort in cancelling one vote for the left.
In any event I have paid NZ tax in the past - but, as others have noted, at a certain point its no longer viable to stay when there are other, better options. Capital is mobile and other jurisdictions welcome it, without the moral obloquy that prevails in NZ against those who make money.
That “right” is one you are abusing. Keep screwing the poor from afar. How is your atlas membership going
Singapore also happens to be a surprisingly dirigiste nation, by way of Temasek Holdings. It also helps that it's a stopover for flights between Europe and Asia/Australasia.
Before I feel the urge to respond, I would like to ask two questions.
1. Please stop hiding behind a false name and identify yourself. Not being prepared to stand up and speak honestly using your own name is gutless.
2. If you are interested in a debate on tax, could you inform us where you derive your income from. I have a bit of a discount factor on sectors of our community. I'd hate to prejudge you.
In conclusion, my name on this comment was the one I was born with. Who in all seriousness would use "Garry" as a non-de-plume.
As someone who supports a CGT on realised (NOT unrealised) capital gains, I offer two thoughts:
1. I wonder how much MMP is creating a dynamic whereby supposedly radical policies are simply too hard to get "over the line" in a world where you have to constantly pander to the median voter. A parallel with the endless flip-flopping of both major parties on whether or not to do seemingly obvious step to increase the age of eligibilityof NZ Super springs to mind. The decision to support MMP was, for many, an initiative to slow down the rate of economic and social transition in response to alleged horrors of Rogernomics. This has driven both the left and right to sometimes offer apparently radical change (such as a CGT or changes to the age to eligibility to NZ Super) but back down when the compromises demanded by MMP compel them to do so. Is this is case of "be careful what you wish for"? (Is it noteworthy that the most radical Government of the MMP age - the Adern/Hipkins government - was a majority government ..... and that much of what the current government is doing is reverting policy back to the pre-2020 median voter status quo?)
2. I hope that the Labour Party make a quick decision on a realised CGT and turn their attention to the policy shifts that really matter for NZ - that is, how to increase productivity and NZ's wealth. There is a risk that many think a wealth/CGT is a panacea that will solve all of NZ's social and economic ills ... such as issues in health, child abuse, poverty, education ... the list goes on. I fear that the tax income from any CGT has been spent many times over already. What REALLY matters for NZ is not to redistribute the small economic pie that we have, but to increase our wealth and therefore our productivity. Unfortunately no one on the left (and not many on the right) are talking about this at all; we seem happy as a nation to fight over the scraps that we already have. A really progressive left (and right) would set their sights higher and look to make NZ more prosperous, so that we can actually afford what we aspire to have.
The elephant in the room is what Bernard Hickey describes as a "housing market with bits tacked on":
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/the-climate-landmine-under-our-economy
So, Bruce, do you mean taxes would be all sorted but for the great right-wing conspiracy? Perhaps a more rational approach by advocates of higher tax would lead to a real debate? But that might require dealing with inconvenient questions? Here are some of them: Why did the Swedish Wealth Tax fail and get abolished in 2007? What is the evidence that Norway's Wealth tax is failing now too (hint, look it up in the Guardian coverage); Why is economic history littered with failed wealth taxes? Why would a high-net-worth taxpayer in NZ likely pay less overall tax in Sweden than in NZ? Why would taxing unrealised gains drive the venture capital and private capital (and thus industry) off-shore? Why would I advise the young guy setting up a business to leave NZ under a Wealth Tax regime and start it up in Melbourne? Why would a High-net-worth stay in NZ if the tax rules could tax him more than his total annual income? Why were virtually all high-net-worth's studying options to exit NZ when the previous government's interest in Wealth Taxes was being proposed? Why was David Parker claiming virtually no one would leave when key IRD Policy Maker's working for him expected a vast number would leave immediately for Australia and even the Greens appeared to have expected a 25% disappearance rate? Since virtually all wealth is invested capital and invested capital is the life blood of the private sector which in turn is the source of all net income tax to the government sector, why would you layer another tax on invested capital to make sure you had less of it in the economy? Surely you would want more of it so therefore you would tax it less... the questions could go on and on... it may be that if the left actually looked at these questions and understood the answers they would start their tax analysis with an understanding of the implications of their recommendations... and an even better idea, go ask real taxpayers what they think... not the virtual taxpayers in their ideological imaginations.
This you?
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-new-zealand-herald/20220905/282007561218416
> The answer is: that vested interests have successfully blocked progressive reforms.
No, just no. If Labour really believed in tax reform it state it as its policy then wait it out in opposition for however many elections it tacks before voters get fed up with National. Instead Labour's main goal is to win control of the government and they willing to sacrifice basically any policy to get there.
Labour believe, above all, in polls, not policies. If the polls tell them there is something the voters don't like then they will stop doing it. This is what "professional politicians" are like, they have no ideology of their own and rely solely on others think to determine their actions.
This is where the "vested interests" come in. They can only tilt the scales because these parties are constantly looking for outsiders to help them decide what to do. They become trusted partners and friends because they have ready answers (which they spend the time on because they stand to profit from their adoption).
This is terrible for democracy of course, but people too quickly jump on profit-seeking and self interest as being the cause of the corruption of democracy rather than a symptom. The root cause is these parties, especially Labour, don't have an ideology they believe. When parties have consistent beliefs and ideologies that they can draw from it's much easier for voters to decide who to elect.
Thanks Bryce another brave thoughful assesment. Firstly democratic socialism needs to be fed and nurtured by political paries who claim to hold such principles and secondly fed and nurtued by an unbiased informed media.
Without that there is no fire in the belly, no vision or hope, to challenge the vested interests and corporate greed. There is an absence of the upholding of basic principles such as people having a right to share in the wealth of a country. God I am sick of this lame critic of socialism in the media. The country hasnt experienced anthing close to socialism since Norman kirk, and he had a very brief hold on it unfortunately. Progressive taxation is based on a principle of economic justice for all. Savage, and kirk era logic of working for the common good. We can't give up on this as difficult as it may appear. The crazy thing is that the working for the common good is seen as an old fashioned idea but it is exactly what the corporates and the vested interests do. They promote greed for their own common good. Thank you Bryce for your clarity. Stand up fight back !
All can say is all power to the Unions ! They are holding on !
Three thoughts on this. "Fair" is a subjective term bandied about as if we all agree on what that means. We don't. If I don't have enough I think it's "fair" to take what's yours to help me get by or to improve my family's standard of living. If I have enough, or more than enough, from work and saving I would think it's "fair" to keep most of that. Unlike most major countries, to the extent mum and dad investors have savings in NZ it's mostly in their homes or property or small business. Not the share market. These are not liquid investments easily sold to generate cash to pay tax. So taxing unrealised gains creates liquidity problems for those people, who in the main will not be Rich Listers. And when losses occur the taxes should be adjusted accordingly, that's only "fair" and what is done overseas under far more complicated tax systems Thirdly, the country does need to attract foreign investment for infrastructure if not other things. There isn't enough capital, and increased uncertainty over taxation really doesn't help that, it's political sabotage.
How is it fair for those at the high end of the wealth graph to pay income tax at a 55% discount to those at the low end?
Very good point about 'fairness'.
The Progressives have a massive blind spot in their assumption that everyone else agrees with their views of what is 'fair'.
So progressives reduce their argument down to 'it's not fair, everyone I know agrees with us it is not fair, so the only reason we don't have a fair tax system is because of bad people like lobbyists and vested interests.'
Then they wonder why they lose taxation arguments!
I’m not into labels very much, “progressive” being one of them. But “fair” is definitely a word du jour that is subject to interpretation. As we all know, life isn’t “fair!” Words influence, and matter.
Life wasn't fair in France... until something major happened in 1789.
Why is there never any debate about inheritance tax in NZ? We're about to witness an insane amount of wealth transfer as the boomers shuffle off, so why is this not discussed?
So where is the group i can join that has vested interest in no taxes for the non rich? I'm very vested in that topic.
i was young and naive - 30 something - when a friendly farmer said quite comfortably, that if he paid any tax he'd be changing his accountant. That is when i found out i must be pathetic to be paying for him to drive on 'our' roads.
The odd idiot has always mouthed off. If a farmer is not paying tax he is not making much .It's not a tax free ride.
RNZ has just started a new investigative series, "Rich":
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/rich
Further to my point, Chippy or whoever succeeds him could take a leaf from Helen Clark's 1999 pledge card: "No tax increases for 95% or NZers". He could also gather a meeting with the signatories of this letter:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/05/11/90-wealthy-kiwis-sign-open-letter-asking-to-pay-more-tax/
The reason Capital Gains Tax is seen as unfair is simply because the Government(of all persuasions) is unable to control inflation. And inflation is the cause of most Capital Gain. So why should the average Joe Bloggs be taxed on it. It's the only hedge the average person has to maintain equity. As for Inheritance tax, most people seem to oppose it on the simple principal that you have paid tax all your life, so the Govt. should keep its thieving hands off it after you die. They are both envy taxes. If we think that the rich are getting away with not paying enough tax, then the system,(not the type) of tax needs overhauling