The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to
prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the
carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a
habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and
making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about
taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to
stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that,
annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable assertions.
HereÂ’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the
government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if
governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient
with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your
specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the
health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and
don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in
international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax
yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You
really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for
starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high
standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving
innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various
high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax
relief? It cannot, but thatÂ’s not giving the Prime Minister a momentÂ’s pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour
government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(ItÂ’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow
whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation.
Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive
sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and
another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger
points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if youÂ’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a
self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go
faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax
relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to
prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the
carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a
habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and
making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about
taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to
stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that,
annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the
government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if
governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient
with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your
specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the
health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and
don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in
international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax
yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You
really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for
starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high
standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving
innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various
high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax
relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s
pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour
government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow
whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation.
Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive
sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and
another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger
points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a
self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go
faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax
relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to
prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the
carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a
habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and
making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about
taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to
stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that,
annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >assertions.Pure political rhetoric. Pointless.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the
government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if
governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient
with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your
specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the
health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and
don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in
international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax
yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You
really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for
starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high
standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving
innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various
high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax
relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s
pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour
government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow
whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation.
Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive
sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and
another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger
points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a
self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go
faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax
relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to
prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a
habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to
stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that,
annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the
government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if
governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient
with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your
specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the
health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and
don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in
international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax
yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You
really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for
starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high
standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving
innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various
high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax
relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour
government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow
whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation.
Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and
another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger
points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax
relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects
- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce
the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility ofFor property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so
untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as
income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live
somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we
all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, soSimilar to your comments then?
the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a
habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the
government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient
with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your
specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in
international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for
starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour
government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow
whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and
another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger
points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax
relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects
- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce
the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for
the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the
cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses /
hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >leading economic recovery.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore
houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour
government. Already the current government is tanking health services
by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year
(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >limiting subsidies for vaccines.
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility ofFor property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so
untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as
income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we
all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.
many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the
current government changed the law
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in
tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
They also
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall,
a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >front-line health services.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, soSimilar to your comments then?
the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Why do you say that? the most popular housing developments by private developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our
dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did
not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when
you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply
misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you
all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public
infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and
what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the
ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch
and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in
there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the
actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than
other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the
recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the
prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a
buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects
- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce
the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for
the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the
cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>leading economic recovery.
the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is
debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major
other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally
pointless to debate them here.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built oreIn recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ
houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour
government. Already the current government is tanking health services
by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year
(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>limiting subsidies for vaccines.
spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression
that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered).
They have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investmentProperty Investment is popular not because of the possibility ofFor property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so
untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as
income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we
all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.
many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in
place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in
tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist
words as you often do when making a political point, I would
congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of
rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall,
a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>front-line health services.
investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the
cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense.
The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory
action, restoring the status quo.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Why do you say that?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects
- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for
the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the
cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>leading economic recovery.
the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is
debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major
other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally
pointless to debate them here.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built oreIn recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ
houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour
government. Already the current government is tanking health services
by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.
spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression
that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered).
the most popular housing developments by private
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are
happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and
separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been
to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now
having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will
be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if
immigration is slowed . . .
They have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so
many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in
place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in
tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist
words as you often do when making a political point, I would
congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of
rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall,
a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>front-line health services.
investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the
cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense.
The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory
action, restoring the status quo.
in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues
to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to
overseas new owners . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Why do you say that?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric.
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it.
The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for
the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>leading economic recovery.
the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is
debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major
other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>pointless to debate them here.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ
spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression
that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered).
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysisthe most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are
happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and
separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been
to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now
having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will
be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>immigration is slowed . . .
political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer
funds spent.
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state ownedThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in
tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would
congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>front-line health services.
cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory
action, restoring the status quo.
in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues
to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to
overseas new owners . . .
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing
and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they
do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that
property to them.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Why do you say that?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A FeildingThe first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.)
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>leading economic recovery.
the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>pointless to debate them here.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered).
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built
Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom
and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and
separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been
to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now
having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will
be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>immigration is slowed . . .
political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer
funds spent.
- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in
cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer
funds spent.
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state ownedThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>front-line health services.
action, restoring the status quo.
in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues
to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to
overseas new owners . . .
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing
and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they
do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that
property to them.
housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned
housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual
reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent
conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather than
building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in
recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on
capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors
are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has
to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >difficult.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Not much of an argument really is it?
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A FeildingThe first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected.
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>
The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>>leading economic recovery.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>Why do you say that?
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built
Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom
and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been
to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now
having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>immigration is slowed . . .
political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer
funds spent.
- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in
cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer
funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various
comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state ownedThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment.For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>front-line health services.
to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>overseas new owners . . .
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing
and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they
do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>property to them.
housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent
conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather than
building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in
recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors
are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has
to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>difficult.
and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to
start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or
by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise
with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen
Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir
Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what
we know and understand.
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax.Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Not much of an argument really is it?
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>>>leading economic recovery.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding >>>>>>>>>The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected. >>>>>>>
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>>
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>>Why do you say that?
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built >>>Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom
and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your >>>>political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer >>>>funds spent.
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been >>>>>to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now >>>>>having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>>immigration is slowed . . .
- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in
cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer
funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various
comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state owned >>>housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent >>>conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather thanThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues >>>>>to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>>overseas new owners . . .
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment. >>>>>>>For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>>front-line health services.
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing >>>>and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they
do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>>property to them.
building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in >>>recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors
are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has
to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>>difficult.
and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to
start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or
by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise
with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen
Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir
Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what
we know and understand.
And it helps that Property is structurally more profitable through
lower taxation . . .
New Zealand is a small country, but we have a smaller than desirable
stock exchange, and many of the companies tradable on that exchange
are dominated by overseas shareholders. You are correct that avoiding
the exchange is common, in the interests of those who have developed a
small company to be of a size that in other countries it may be
listed, it is more profitable to approach large investors - often
overseas, to make a deal . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax. >>>>>>>Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Not much of an argument really is it?
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>>>leading economic recovery.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding >>>>>>>>>The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected. >>>>>>>
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her >>>>>>>>>boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was >>>>>>>>>in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and >>>>>>>>>then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that >>>>>>>>>much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that >>>>>>>>>to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend >>>>>>>>>and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga >>>>>>>>>Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit >>>>>>>>>for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among >>>>>>>>>the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does >>>>>>>>>that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and >>>>>>>>>improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it >>>>>>>>>get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s >>>>>>>>>pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for >>>>>>>>>people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount >>>>>>>>>it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them >>>>>>>>>is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's >>>>>>>>>got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the >>>>>>>>>ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>>
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>>Why do you say that?
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built >>>Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom
and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your >>>>political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer >>>>funds spent.
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been >>>>>to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now >>>>>having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>>immigration is slowed . . .
- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in
cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer
funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various
comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state owned >>>housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent >>>conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather thanThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues >>>>>to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>>overseas new owners . . .
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment. >>>>>>>For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>>front-line health services.
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing >>>>and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they
do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>>property to them.
building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in >>>recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors
are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has
to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>>difficult.
and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to
start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or
by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise
with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen
Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir
Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what
we know and understand.
And it helps that Property is structurally more profitable through
lower taxation . . .
New Zealand is a small country, but we have a smaller than desirable
stock exchange, and many of the companies tradable on that exchange
are dominated by overseas shareholders. You are correct that avoiding
the exchange is common, in the interests of those who have developed a
small company to be of a size that in other countries it may be
listed, it is more profitable to approach large investors - often
overseas, to make a deal . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax. >>>>>>>Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:08:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Perhaps you might find DPFs explanations of greater clarity:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Not much of an argument really is it?
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>>>>leading economic recovery.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding >>>>>>>>>>The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected. >>>>>>>>
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of >>>>>>>>>>the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is >>>>>>>>>>not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands.
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and >>>>>>>>>>making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about >>>>>>>>>>taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think >>>>>>>>>>it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of >>>>>>>>>>recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting >>>>>>>>>>the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a >>>>>>>>>>recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at >>>>>>>>>>them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine >>>>>>>>>>to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted.
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote >>>>>>>>>>him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have >>>>>>>>>>we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You >>>>>>>>>>can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the >>>>>>>>>>economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates >>>>>>>>>>to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is >>>>>>>>>>just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and
improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon >>>>>>>>>>and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s
pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point: >>>>>>>>>>
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing >>>>>>>>>>more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former >>>>>>>>>>lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when >>>>>>>>>>it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go >>>>>>>>>>faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a >>>>>>>>>>Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>>>
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>>>Why do you say that?
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built >>>>Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom
and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>>>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your >>>>>political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer >>>>>funds spent.
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been >>>>>>to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now >>>>>>having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>>>immigration is slowed . . .
- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in >>>>cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer
funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various >>>comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/how_does_a_block_of_apartments_cost_so_much.html
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money >>>and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state owned >>>>housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>>>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>>>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent >>>>conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather than >>>>building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>>>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in >>>>recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>>>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factorsThey have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues >>>>>>to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>>>overseas new owners . . .
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment. >>>>>>>>For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>>>front-line health services.
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing >>>>>and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they >>>>>do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>>>property to them.
are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has
to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>>>difficult.
start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or
by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise >>>with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen
Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir >>>Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what
we know and understand.
And it helps that Property is structurally more profitable through
lower taxation . . .
New Zealand is a small country, but we have a smaller than desirable
stock exchange, and many of the companies tradable on that exchange
are dominated by overseas shareholders. You are correct that avoiding
the exchange is common, in the interests of those who have developed a >>small company to be of a size that in other countries it may be
listed, it is more profitable to approach large investors - often
overseas, to make a deal . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so >>>>>>>>>the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax. >>>>>>>>Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 07:36:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:08:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Perhaps you might find DPFs explanations of greater clarity:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Not much of an argument really is it?
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world >>>>>>>>>leading economic recovery.
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding >>>>>>>>>>>The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects >>>>>>>>>>- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce >>>>>>>>>>the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected. >>>>>>>>>
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands. >>>>>>>>>>>
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and
making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about
taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to >>>>>>>>>>>stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of
recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has >>>>>>>>>>>been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a
recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you >>>>>>>>>>>with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted. >>>>>>>>>>>
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax >>>>>>>>>>>you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government. >>>>>>>>>>>
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the
economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing, >>>>>>>>>>>are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and >>>>>>>>>>>don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes >>>>>>>>>>>to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You >>>>>>>>>>>really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what >>>>>>>>>>>does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians. >>>>>>>>>>>
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and
improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s
pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive >>>>>>>>>>>sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former
lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's >>>>>>>>>>>set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is >>>>>>>>>>>in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go
faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a
Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you >>>>>>>>>>>want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>>>>
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a year >>>>>>>>>(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.In recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>>>>Why do you say that?
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built >>>>>Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom >>>>>and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>>>>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis >>>>>- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in >>>>>cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . .
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your >>>>>>political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer >>>>>>funds spent.
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been >>>>>>>to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now >>>>>>>having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>>>>immigration is slowed . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer >>>>>funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various >>>>comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/how_does_a_block_of_apartments_cost_so_much.html
That is quite a fair post for once from Farrar - and yes it does look
to be an expensive build.
What we do know however is that the previous
government did build a large number of homes - the lost of any
government since the 1930s someone said, and they cannot have all been >over-cost like that one.
We now have a government that stopped nearly
everything, encouraging a lot of skilled tradies to leave, and are
only now getting back to encouraging homes to be built - largely
through the private sector. Meantime we have more homeless, and more
living in sub-standard homes . . .
Thanks for the link - it is of course carefully selected to suit a
political agenda, but for once for that blog the facts for that
particular project do seem clear.
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money >>>>and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to >>>>start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or >>>>by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise >>>>with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen >>>>Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state owned >>>>>housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>>>>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>>>>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent >>>>>conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather than >>>>>building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>>>>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in >>>>>recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>>>>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors >>>>>are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has >>>>>to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>>>>difficult.They have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues >>>>>>>to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>>>>overseas new owners . . .
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we >>>>>>>>>>all have a better handle on than any other form of investment. >>>>>>>>>For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall, >>>>>>>>>a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>>>>front-line health services.
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing >>>>>>and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they >>>>>>do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>>>>property to them.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir >>>>Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what >>>>we know and understand.
And it helps that Property is structurally more profitable through
lower taxation . . .
New Zealand is a small country, but we have a smaller than desirable >>>stock exchange, and many of the companies tradable on that exchange
are dominated by overseas shareholders. You are correct that avoiding
the exchange is common, in the interests of those who have developed a >>>small company to be of a size that in other countries it may be
listed, it is more profitable to approach large investors - often >>>overseas, to make a deal . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so
the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax. >>>>>>>>>Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:27:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Sure. At that time, we had a fairly long waiting list for
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 07:36:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:08:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Perhaps you might find DPFs explanations of greater clarity:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:40:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Not much of an argument really is it?
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:06:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:06:04 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:That was accepted by the electorate in 2020 and roundly rejected in >>>>>>>>>the 2023 general elections. The accuracy of what you claim is >>>>>>>>>debatable, but it is pointless to do so here. There are also major >>>>>>>>>other reasons why Labour lost the 2023 election but it is equally >>>>>>>>>pointless to debate them here.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:48:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The two areas where large amounts of money were spent was Covid for >>>>>>>>>>the cost of vaccines, the cost of keeping businesses going, and the >>>>>>>>>>cost of the additional services needed (police, army and nurses / >>>>>>>>>>hospitals). That gave us world-leading low rates of death, and a world
wrote:
The article below is by David Slack from More Than A Feilding >>>>>>>>>>>>The first issue to tackle is not how much tax the Government collects
This issue was free, but it is worth subscribing at >>>>>>>>>>>>https://subslack.substack.com/subscribe
A better way of living
Sunday 6 October
Nicola Willis and her boss have been peddling a fake short history of
the previous government that runs as follows:
They spent and spent, they had nothing to show for it and that is
not how you grow the economy, because You can't tax yourself to >>>>>>>>>>>>prosperity.
There is a sort of humour to be had from watching Willis inspiring her
boss to flights of rhetoric. What can look easy in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>>>>carpenter can turn to splinters in your own oafish hands. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Luxon, whose entire career appears to have been carried along by a >>>>>>>>>>>>habit of pricking up his ears when someone utters a catchy phrase and
making it his own, evidently liked that thing Nicola said there about
taxing your way to prosperity and in his usual hapless way, tried to
stuff this wisdom McNugget into the trousers of his own rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>>
No, we don't have capital gains tax in New Zealand, he said, we think
it would be bad for New Zealand because you don't tax your way out of
recession.
Has anyone been talking about capital gains tax as a means of getting
the economy out of recession? Not that I've heard. What everyone has
been talking about is capital gains tax as a means of tackling our >>>>>>>>>>>>dire problem of soaring and unaffordable house prices, which is not a
recession issue but an unsustainable boom one.
But never mind that. When the annoying reporters start pestering you
with their annoying questions, you garble your talking points back at
them, and if you can sex it up with a winning phrase that you imagine
to be apposite, well, you stuff that in there as well. Take that, >>>>>>>>>>>>annoying journo who envies me for being rich and sorted. >>>>>>>>>>>>
At least that's what I'm surmising, looking on. For all I know, it was
in fact an actual line fed to him by the same TikTok genius who wrote
him the cringe-making line about their K-pop.
But let's turn back to that fake history and its highly contestable >>>>>>>>>>>>assertions.
Here’s what Nicola Willis has been saying
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the >>>>>>>>>>>>government, and most New Zealanders would say well, what results have
we got to show for that? You get into a difficult situation if >>>>>>>>>>>>governments just spend and spend and don't deliver results for it, and
then their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax
you all more. That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You
can't tax yourself to prosperity. You actually have to be efficient >>>>>>>>>>>>with the way you use the tax that you collect.
Here are the bits I would contest.
We've had unsustainable spending in our economy from the government.
Really? As a percentage of GDP, the dial of government spending did >>>>>>>>>>>>not move all that much. Yes, the actual spending grew, but so did the
economy. As a proportion of the economy, the dial didn't move all that
much, and to the extent it did, you can attribute a good chunk of that
to protecting us from COVID. You're not saying that was a bad thing,
are you?
You get into a difficult situation if governments just spend and spend
and don't deliver results for it.
Correct. However, is this actually what happened? What are your >>>>>>>>>>>>specific objections? Getting started on the huge job of getting the >>>>>>>>>>>>health system remade to work better? Building record numbers of Kainga
Ora houses? Getting a Cook Strait ferry system going that would be fit
for a hundred years? You might consider these things a stretch when >>>>>>>>>>>>you apply your Corolla short-termism to it, but it is deeply >>>>>>>>>>>>misleading to characterise what they did as just spend and spend and
don't deliver results for it.
Their answer is to turn around and say well, we're going to tax you >>>>>>>>>>>>all more.
Did they though? Did they? Are you talking about regional fuel taxes
to deal with the climate crisis? Or the nudging of marginal tax rates
to move us back to the middle of the pack of tax rates, in >>>>>>>>>>>>international terms? A swing, and a miss.
That is not a way to get an economy growing faster. You can't tax >>>>>>>>>>>>yourself to prosperity.
This! My word, this is one audacious, gutsy proposition to make. You
really have to say it with your back facing to Scandinavia, for >>>>>>>>>>>>starters. Shall we briefly consider that as an example of why this is
just so much bullshit?
Despite high tax rates, Scandinavian countries consistently rank among
the most prosperous and competitive economies globally, with high >>>>>>>>>>>>standards of living and strong economic growth.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in education, and what
does that get them? Oh, just a highly skilled workforce, driving >>>>>>>>>>>>innovation and productivity.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in health, and what does
that get them? Oh, just healthier, happier Scandinavians. >>>>>>>>>>>>
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in public >>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure, including transportation and digital networks, and >>>>>>>>>>>>what does it get them? Oh, just more efficient business operations and
improved quality of life.
They take those high taxes and invest heavily in R&D, and what does it
get them? It has helped these countries become leaders in various >>>>>>>>>>>>high-tech industries.
Can any of this be squared with the bumper sticker sloganeering Luxon
and Willis dole out to the NewstalkZB army and other lovers of tax >>>>>>>>>>>>relief? It cannot, but that’s not giving the Prime Minister a moment’s
pause.
We don't believe in a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. We think, for
people who actually generate wealth in this country, it's a massive >>>>>>>>>>>>disincentive and as I've said along the way, this is a Labour >>>>>>>>>>>>government that took the keys to our economy, put the car in the >>>>>>>>>>>>ditch, says Luxon who seems to want to keep climbing into the ditch >>>>>>>>>>>>and get his suit trousers filthy just to make sure you get the point:
We're getting it out of the ditch and they want to put it back in >>>>>>>>>>>>there again by increasing taxes, by increasing spending and borrowing
more.
(It’s also pretty galling, if not much of a surprise, to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>actual editor of a major daily and weekly newspaper simply swallow >>>>>>>>>>>>whole this fake-history-with-highly-contestable assertions and recount
it as accepted fact in one of her insight-free opinion pieces.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
We have huge challenges with housing affordability and speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>Various large factors have brought about this problem, and one of them
is what?
Yes! The absence of a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Why? Because it has made property investment more attractive than >>>>>>>>>>>>other forms of investment. So instead of investing in the productive
sector, that's where all the capital has been going.
Do I have an example of this? Why yes I do. Christopher Luxon, former
lavishly remunerated management type, is in his own words sorted, he's
got plenty. So what has he invested his wealth in?
Solar tech startups? Exciting technology in a small Kiwi town that's
set to wow the world? Education, perhaps?
Nope. A house and a house and a house and another and a house and >>>>>>>>>>>>another house. Can we possibly see the problem here?
Journalists have focused on the CGT he didn't have to pay on the >>>>>>>>>>>>recent sale of his property. This in turn has attracted the ire of the
ZB army who have derided it as the politics of envy. But as ever when
it's an issue that has Barry Soper in the middle of it, the bigger >>>>>>>>>>>>points are getting missed.
It is no doubt convenient to assert if you’re wealthy that the >>>>>>>>>>>>prospect of being taxed discourages people from wanting to make a >>>>>>>>>>>>buck, and so you should lay off us. But the desire to make a buck is
in fact one of the hardest burning of flames. The rhetoric is a >>>>>>>>>>>>self-serving falsehood.
It is no doubt convenient to assert that lower taxes make the boat go
faster, so that you can treat yourself to some of that sweeet tax >>>>>>>>>>>>relief, but if you want a Scandinavian standard of living, you need a
Scandinavian level of taxation.
It is no doubt inconvenient for some people to hear this, but if you
want a better way of living, tax is a very good way of getting it. >>>>>>>>>>>
- it is about how wisely the Government spends it. The last Labour >>>>>>>>>>>Government vastly increased Government spending but could not produce
the evidence of wise spending that was required to be re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>
leading economic recovery.
The second area was Housing, where the Labour Government built ore >>>>>>>>>>houses than any equivalent government since the first Labour >>>>>>>>>>government. Already the current government is tanking health services >>>>>>>>>>by cutting back on spending, keeping Covid deaths at about 1000 a yearIn recent days there has been reportedly instances where Housing NZ >>>>>>>>>spent $1.2 million building apartments. This creates the impression >>>>>>>>>that money has been spent very unwisely (in other words squandered). >>>>>>>>Why do you say that?
(and we are seeing more long covid cases as well as a result) through >>>>>>>>>>limiting subsidies for vaccines.
That was $1.2 million per apartment:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/12m-per-apartment-new-kainga-ora-apartments-part-of-billion-dollar-scandal-developer-says/A5AL7FM7CJC3ZIYNW4VCWOPCXM/
Thanks Crash. From the article:
"The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built >>>>>>Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom >>>>>>and six two-bedroom apartments."
No comparison there to the cost of similar apartments built by private >>>>>>developers . . .
Absolutely - there appears to be some criticism, but no real analysis >>>>>>- some of the criticism appears to be that they were not built in >>>>>>cheaper areas . . . but the government already owned the land . . . >>>>>>
the most popular housing developments by privateAgain you miss my point, perhaps deliberately as it suits your >>>>>>>political bias. This is about wisdom in getting value for taxpayer >>>>>>>funds spent.
developers appears to have been apartments, and it still is. Many are >>>>>>>>happy to live in apartments; and Wellington for example has a large >>>>>>>>development above Webb Street that includes both apartments and >>>>>>>>separate houses. The key decision by the current government has been >>>>>>>>to stop building by government - and a lot of developers are now >>>>>>>>having to lay off staff, some of whom are going to Australia. It will >>>>>>>>be harder to gear up to build the houses that are needed even if >>>>>>>>immigration is slowed . . .
Nothing in the article shows that there is not value for taxpayer >>>>>>funds spent.
I don't know how you can have missed the headline and the various >>>>>comments made by Mark Todd. That is the basis of the argument.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/how_does_a_block_of_apartments_cost_so_much.html
That is quite a fair post for once from Farrar - and yes it does look
to be an expensive build.
What we do know however is that the previous
government did build a large number of homes - the lost of any
government since the 1930s someone said, and they cannot have all been >>over-cost like that one.
Pure speculation Rich. If there is one instance of overly-expensive >apartments built, why would there not be others? Take a look at
Housing NZ's debt increase in recent years and try to convince me that >increased volumes account for most of that.
We now have a government that stopped nearlyRemind me again about all those moved from Motels to proper housing.
everything, encouraging a lot of skilled tradies to leave, and are
only now getting back to encouraging homes to be built - largely
through the private sector. Meantime we have more homeless, and more
living in sub-standard homes . . .
Thanks for the link - it is of course carefully selected to suit a >>political agenda, but for once for that blog the facts for thatSee my next thread. That will be full of facts but I doubt you will
particular project do seem clear.
find them as comfortable as this case.
There are many ways to start a new enterprise with other peoples money >>>>>and always has been. The NZX is one option, but it is far easier to >>>>>start with private means then expand with either an IPO on the NZX or >>>>>by approaching 'angel investors' once the business plan shows promise >>>>>with actual achievements. If in doubt about this ask Sir Stephen >>>>>Tindall how he opened his first The Warehouse store.
That has been for two reasons - first there has little state owned >>>>>>housing prior to the first Labour Government - we started state owned >>>>>>housing later than other countries. Second there has been a gradual >>>>>>reduction in state owned rental housing post WW2 - with recent >>>>>>conservative governments deliberately selling houses rather than >>>>>>building more. There have also been relatively light requirements on >>>>>>landlords relating to either quality or value for money; and then in >>>>>>recent years favourable tax treatment relating to the lack of tax on >>>>>>capital gains compared with alternative investments. So the factors >>>>>>are not just tax, but that has become a critical difference that has >>>>>>to an extent starved our sharemarket and made floating a new company >>>>>>difficult.They have again skewed the investment markets in favour of investment >>>>>>>>in property, at the expense of investing in shares - which continues >>>>>>>>to be a bi reason why so many of our small companies are sold to >>>>>>>>overseas new owners . . .
Property Investment is popular not because of the possibility of >>>>>>>>>>>untaxed capital gain (the IRD routinely classifies capital gain as >>>>>>>>>>>income and taxes that accordingly) but because we all have to live >>>>>>>>>>>somewhere so dealing with housing property is a form of investment we
all have a better handle on than any other form of investment. >>>>>>>>>>For property, the law now says that capital gains on sale within so >>>>>>>>>>many years of purchase are _not_ taxed - IRD follows the law, and the >>>>>>>>>>current government changed the law
Correct. The Bright Line test has been reverted to the same test in >>>>>>>>>place in 2020.
to benefit people such as Chris
Luxon who has sole of with an additional profit from that change in >>>>>>>>>>tax law that he put through to the tune of about $70,000.
Why single out the current PM when there are hundreds of thousands of >>>>>>>>>landlords punished by the last Labour Government? If I were to twist >>>>>>>>>words as you often do when making a political point, I would >>>>>>>>>congratulate you on supporting the Government as the sole source of >>>>>>>>>rental housing. But I won't do that ;-)
They alsoThe last Labour Governments openly discriminated against property >>>>>>>>>investor landlords by singling out one of their business costs (the >>>>>>>>>cost of debt) and refusing to allow it to be a tax deductible expense. >>>>>>>>>The current Government has ended this incredibly discriminatory >>>>>>>>>action, restoring the status quo.
changed the law to make interest on borrowing tax deductible. Overall,
a big reduction in tax income that could have otherwise paid for some >>>>>>>>>>front-line health services.
The preference for investors for the property market is long standing >>>>>>>and nothing to do with taxes. Everyone who lives in a property they >>>>>>>do not own does so because an investor chose to buy and rent that >>>>>>>property to them.
Most of us don't quite have the vision, drive or expertise that Sir >>>>>Stephen has, so we get into property development because that is what >>>>>we know and understand.
And it helps that Property is structurally more profitable through >>>>lower taxation . . .
New Zealand is a small country, but we have a smaller than desirable >>>>stock exchange, and many of the companies tradable on that exchange
are dominated by overseas shareholders. You are correct that avoiding >>>>the exchange is common, in the interests of those who have developed a >>>>small company to be of a size that in other countries it may be
listed, it is more profitable to approach large investors - often >>>>overseas, to make a deal . . .
The author of the article above is clearly not politically neutral, so
the point of the article is clearly not solely about tax. >>>>>>>>>>Similar to your comments then?
Absolutely. I don't pretend otherwise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:23:14 |
| Calls: | 9,794 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,252 |