Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

14 Comments

  1. Because neoliberal Labour is National Lite. Until the current iteration of the Labour Party shows signs that it understands there are alternatives to orthodox neoliberal economics (as there always have been) they will remain part of the problem, not the solution.

    They won’t go as far as to admit they were wrong to unleash Rogernomics on Aotearoa NZ and say sorry, but they need gene therapy. Neoliberalism seems to be part of their DNA.

    I see almost no hope for Labour. Especially while Hipkins with his captains calls remains at the helm.

    Our hope for a better, fairer ANZ seems to lie elsewhere.

  2. Deborah has a poor economic vision because the Labour party has tried to upskill but forgot the people is was supposed to look after in the process. They need fresh thinking which will probably require new leaders since the current lot has demonstrated a total lack of ability to learn.

  3. “So why is Deborah already surrendering before we have even gotten into the boxing ring?”–Bomber…

    Because Labour’s Caucus is largely intellectual light weights in class left, “sticking it to the man” terms.

    They know they fucked up with the Captain’s calls on CGT and Wealth Tax, but will still take the softest option they can get away with, which is why pressure has to be maintained on them from all directions, including ordinary members being consulted and having a vote. Jeeee-zus, polls showed even a number of Natzo voters supported a wealth tax!

    The obvious way forward is for a Green, Te Pāti Māori, NZ Labour united position on wealth tax/CGT. TPM led from the front with the day of action, organised labour needs to be next up with regional workers meetings, with non union members welcomed.

  4. I don’t know she is surrendering – rather she acknowledges what she is up against (in terms of wealth, spin and influence) and just how dumb most of those who could and should support this philosophy (taxing wealth and capital) actually are, as illustrated by the phenomenally low turn out at this years general election.

    It is well known that if the percentage turn out is low then right wing and centre-right parties benefit – as again evidenced at this years election. Getting past all the fucktard conspiracy mentality that appears to have impacted those more likely to vote left has resulted in an environment this group of people will hate even more but lack the insight to acknowledge their role in the establishment of this situation.

  5. A tax academic lecturing us on how not to pay tax. Let’s not do this, not in it for you.

  6. -Sugar Tax -Yes

    -Inheritance Tax -Yes

    -Wealth Tax-Yes, better described as a Capital Tax. The Greens proposal could be improved by dropping the threshold. All capital should be taxed at the same rate. Like GST no exceptions.

    -Financial Transactions Tax- Yes.

    -New top tax rate on people earning over $300 000 per year. – No (income and wealth are different, you can have a high income and not be wealthy, but someone who is wealthy is wealthy). This is described well in “The Big Kahuna: Tax and Welfare – Susan Guthrie”. If you tax wealth (capital) then the need to tax income is reduced considerably. A point to consider regarding income tax- why are these people earning $300k+, typically because their services are in demand (Medical specialists, CEO’s, technical specialists,…). Generally we want people to supply more of these services, increasing the tax on them reduces supply. Taxing capital rather than income will encourage more of these “in demand” services to be supplied – everybody wins.
    -Capital Gains Tax (No- ineffective and unfair, also not required if you tax capital). Again described well in “The Big Kahuna: Tax and Welfare”.

    -Windfall profit taxes (No- ineffective and unfair due to business cycles, not required if you tax capital)

    -First $10 000 tax free – If you taxed as noted above, you could do more than the first $10k. However it would be better to all drop the rates rather than have a tax free threshold. Dropping the rates is inflation proof. A threshold is not unless indexed to inflation.

    Plastic Tax – Much like a sugar tax. Try to internalise the costs of pollution.

  7. Norway 0%, Sweden 0%, Australia 0%, every other country in the world other than the 17 listed 0%.

  8. Labour – in an advanced civilised nation would have been convicted long ago for their many transgressions against their kaupapa. They don’t need to have the courage of conviction, they know they will get off scot-free?

    From Middle English scotfre, from Old English scotfrēo (“scot-free; exempt from royal tax or imposts”), equivalent to scot (“payment; contribution; fine”) +‎ -free.26 Oct 2022
    Scot-free – Language Log
    Language Log https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu › nll
    and/or
    The expression ‘Scot-free’ originates from the Scandanavian word, ‘Skat,’ which means “tax” or “payment.” The word mutated into ‘scot’ as the name of redistributive taxation meant to provide relief to the poor during the 10th century.
    Scot-Free | Phrase Definition, Origin & Examples
    Ginger Software https://www.gingersoftware.com › content › phrases

  9. That’s why ACT appointed van der Velden to this important role – because wimin can never be wrong. They are the earth goddesses who have come into their own power at last. Good and merciful heaven===

  10. Giving the government the right to possess people’s assets – I can’t see that going wrong.

    Having spent my whole life struggling to pay a mortgage, while bailing boomers out of their ponzi retirement system, the thought of the generation behind me passing a law to repossess what little I’ve managed to save for my own pensionless retirement fills me with so much joy.

    CGT – how exactly are we going to calculate that when NZ governments halve the value of our money every seven years. Assets just compensate for that little con trick. The thought that I’d then have to pay tax on that purely numerical gain is also another winner.

    I wonder if the left or the right can come up with an economic policy that doesn’t rely on stealing wealth from people. Maybe we could actually try and, you know, generate wealth?

  11. Giving the government the right to possess people’s assets – I can’t see that going wrong.

    Having spent my whole life struggling to pay a mortgage, while bailing boomers out of their ponzi retirement system, the thought of the generation behind me passing a law to repossess what little I’ve managed to save for my own pensionless retirement fills me with so much joy.

    CGT – how exactly are we going to calculate that when NZ governments halve the value of our money every seven years. Assets just compensate for that little con trick. The thought that I’d then have to pay tax on that purely numerical gain is also another winner.

    I wonder if the left or the right can come up with an economic policy that doesn’t rely on stealing wealth from people. Maybe we could actually try and, you know, generate wealth?

Comments are closed.