GUEST BLOG: Gerard Otto – MMP is to blame – not Jacinda
Blaming others is something we all do at times, especially when it’s bloody well right.
That’s bloody well right!
This morning Heather du Plessis Allan was busy at the “blame game” again in Dumb Town.
Dumb Town woke up to a few dirty dishes and Heather’s article …both unclean.
Heather strove strenuously to solely blame Jacinda for the CGT decision and to exonerate all “credit” to NZ First from it’s freshly reunited diaspora, all in the one propaganda bash on behalf of the National Party.
Heather’s blame logic went like this :
If you remove the time when Jacinda spoke out for a CGT, Jacinda never fought for a CGT.
The end.
Which seems sensible in Dumbtown.
Remove the time when there was a fight and there was none.
Magic. Presto. Ta-fucking-da!
If Heather wanted to advance the argument that it was all Jacinda’s fault, then surely this “wounded argument” of hers needed help from some other fact or supporting argument?
But there was none.
A tumble weed blew across the empty street of any further legs to Heather’s position.
My theory is that Jacinda was correct to blame MMP, if blame must be placed anywhere.
MMP does actually have articles of accountability, tangible real world documents that spell out shit that is in agreement between parties.
Nobody in Dumb Town ( including Heather du dumb du dumb dumb ) has actually read the Coalition Agreement between NZ First and Labour because if they did they would discover and mention – that under Housing there is only one point of agreement between NZ First and Labour.
That point of agreement was to establish a Housing Commission.
Not to implement a CGT.
So – then add to this missing fact that – Dumbtown has never heard about “consensus decision making” neither – which is what is agreed as the protocol between NZ First and Labour in the fucking Coalition Agreement.
Which says unequivocally when it comes to these issues like a CGT that are not agreed :
“The Parties will work collaboratively and in good faith to reach agreement on particular policy and legislative initiatives. The key directions for the first term will be set out in the
speech from the throne.
• The Parties endorse and will operate in accordance with the Cabinet Manual.
• As provided for in the Cabinet Manual, the Parties will “agree to disagree” where negotiated between party leaders, and in such circumstances the Parties will be free to express alternative views publicly, and in Parliament.”
All of which never made it into Heather’s article about how it was all Jacinda’s fault.
Plus if you do read through the “speech from the throne” – you also will not find any mention of a CGT.
So that’s two articles of accountability that do not mention a CGT. Only two more exist – the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens – and the budget.
What about the confidence and supply agreement with the Greens?
No it does not mention a CGT neither – but it does mention “consensus decision making” again.
Could it be that this thorny issue was long ago never going to be agreed between these three and the evidence is actually how it is not an item of accountability anywhere in this MMP government’s promises to the people?
Well fuck!
Why didn’t Heather use that argument instead of trying to apportion blame upon one sole party with a dumb fuck argument relying upon denying reality?
Because this is NZME not university.
As it turns out NZ First had always said no to a CGT, but was cool with extending the bright line test to five years.
After all is said and done, Labour probably had a good go at getting somewhere further with this with NZ First – but could not actually agree anything “worth enough” with them.
Consensus decision making applied.
For all of the above reasons, I don’t blame Jacinda one bit.
I do however think Heather’s nonsense is believed in Dumb Town.
MMP is to blame – not Jacinda
Gerard Otto is an activist and a writer.
First we have to assume that Heather Du Plessis Allens ratings remain stable instead of looking like following TV3 down with all the other ad revenue fleeing to Facebook and YouTube. They deserve to be mocked for fake news and Russian conspiracies.
Imagin if you’re a journalist and you where told that your one job is to hold the powerful to account and you go to work believing this to be true so hard. You also meet all your friends through this truth of holding the powerful to account, and you meet your wife or husband through holding the powerful to account and you salary is dependant on holding the powerful to account.
Well some one like that isn’t going to listen to people who say they’re fake news merchants.
Democracy is probably to blame, not MMP.
MMP is the form of democracy we operate under. Therefore, if democracy were to blame, it would have to be the form in current practice.
I assume that Mikesh ‘s point is that any democratic process would have produced the same result.
D J S
To which I would strongly disagree, David.
Why?
When paired with an income tax cut, TVNZ polling during the heat of the debate found that a CGT actually had majority support.
Therefore, under a more direct form of democracy the polling suggests it wouldn’t have produced the same result.
Moreover, was it NZ First standing strong or Labour not bargaining at their best that failed to get this over the line? After all, Jacinda did seem to throw in the towel rather soon (on ever getting it in on her watch) further bringing into question if they genuinely gave it their best shot?
Additionally, are we to believe there was nothing at all Labour could have done to have swayed NZ First’s support?
As we’re not fully privy, we can’t say for certain that it was the structure and not those operating within it that halted this.
When Jacinda made her announcement she said that “New Zealanders do not want it”.
I expect they did some pretty thorough research into that aspect of the decision.
D J S
Was Jacinda asked what she based that assertion upon?
The majority of voters who would have supposedly benefited from this (via the tax cuts) outweigh the number of those who are currently gaining.
Jacinda now asserting people don’t want this only brings her stance further into question.
Sadly, that they would benefit from it doesn’t mean they want it. RW media has brainwashed people into thinking CGT would be bad for the economy.
The TVNZ poll suggests otherwise.
If Labour had really wanted to pursue CGT they have enough votes in Cabinet with the Greens to get it over the line ?
We live in a “representative” democracy. It is assumed that the makeup of parliament, and the way parliament votes on each issue, represents the majority view.
Yet, polls often indicate that assumption (parliament represents the majority view) is far from true.
The current representative system can be improved upon and should be improved upon.
“MMP is to blame – not Jacinda”
At this juncture, perhaps. Nonetheless, Jacinda (and those within that supported it) are responsible for completely ruling it out under her watch.
This is worse than that time Liza told me to fetch water with that bucket with the big hole in it. She was scamming on using me as a water sprinkler the whole time. Liza with the poker face, you know her
Good points, – people fail to see this is a coalition , not an autocracy.
And there are better ways to slow down overheated , un-affordable housing markets than a simple CGT. Such as extending the brightline tests.
In fact there are many ways.
People need to see Heather Du Plessis Allan’s NZ Herald write up for what it is : an oblique attack on the coalition by trying to advance the notion that there is division between it. She does that by criticizing Adern and placing Peters as the neutral party. And as you have mentioned, in so many ways,…it is the coalitions rights under MMP to reject a CGT.
People need to get over themselves in order to get ready for the next phase that WILL set Heather Du Plessis Allans knickers in a twist…the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report in early May.
Now that , is where we are going to see the action and the far rights chagrins begin.
Now,… about those corporate taxes….
“And there are better ways to slow down overheated, un-affordable housing markets than a simple CGT. Such as extending the brightline tests.”
The bright line test is a simple CGT.
And while a CGT will do little to reduce the cost of housing, it was projected to generate a strong annual return broadening and increasing the Governments revenue stream. Hence, vastly improving their fiscal ability to do far more.
Labour made a big mistake leaving another void straight off the bat of their CGT announcement/abandonment. Outlining an alternative now would have helped offset, thus reduced the widespread outrage, growing distrust and disappointment currently being displayed.
Ponder this:
Imagine an organisation who’s leaders inspired hope and built up dreams only to later go on and diminish those very hopes and dreams at every given chance.
Now imagine the damage that would inflict on its wider members.The hopelessness, the disillusionment and the trail of distrust would be all too real.
It would be more internal damage than the opposition could ever hope of inflicting.
Now, if this brings the actions of the Labour Party to mind, we’re on the same page. While they could be our political saviors, it seems they’ve decided (intentionally or not) to become the lefts worst enemy.
“And while a CGT will do little to reduce the cost of housing, it was projected to generate a strong annual return broadening and increasing the Governments revenue stream”
I think as long as it was set up so as to be unavoidable by overseas companies and effective in it’s capture , reducing house price inflation is what it would have done. Quite possibly collapsed the market and a good thing too. But what I don’t believe it would have done is produce any revenue. Unless imposed at a very low level of 2 or 3% max so as not to effect the market. I just think a more fundamental and comprehensive change needs to be made to the whole financial governance system. A tax that earns heaps in a boom and nothing in a stagnant market would be a dangerous revenue source if government revenue came to depend on it.
D J S
Regardless if it effectively captured the lot, as overseas examples have shown, a CGT won’t rid us of property speculators. The reason being there will still be good money to be made despite the tax burden.
Moreover, banks are the ones that largely fund property investment and widening the scope of a CGT won’t change their investment preference, thus result in significant market change.
In fact, the unintended consequence of this (CGT) may be that investors simply start flipping more homes than they currently are to help offset the new tax burden.
The availability of credit, our growing population coupled with our weak crackdown on offshore investors is driving demand and due to the current housing shortage, will do for some time to come.
Market fluctuation has a large impact on tax revenue, thus there is no added danger or risk. It’s something finance ministers routinely manage through their budgets.
To 1st para… Yes depending on the rate, it would fall most heavily on people who have owned a property for a long time, for non speculative purposes and will heavily penalise them , or prevent them from upsizing or relocating.
2nd …Absolutely; that’s where the focus should be. If nobody borrowed from banks houses would be priced at what most people can earn and save in a reasonable time. A radical adjustment to the monetary system would occur immediately.
3rd… there has to be enough inflation to cover purchase and selling costs. I assume they work to maximise net profit. Hard to see this making much difference.
4th…Agreed
5th… The property market can tank or spike with little effect on general income levels, especially of wage and salary earners. Income tax is a much steadier and more reliable revenue than the property market.
D J S
It would fall most heavily on people who are taxed at the top rate and who have made the largest capital gain.
As the monetary system and the wider economy are all interrelated, reform is complex. Thus, one would have to tread carefully.
When the property market is on the up consumers are more confident, thus tend to spend more, increasing employment opportunities.
In turn, this helps lift employment figures, hours worked, products sold and produced, wages, business and company returns. Which in turn impacts tax revenue.
It’s all interrelated and volatile, hence has to be managed.
If an increase in the government’s revenue stream was what was wanted then it would have been simpler to to simply increase tax rates, particularly at the upper part of the scale. But of course it wasn’t just about revenue. We needed to do something to fix the housing market. A CGT would probably not have made much of an impact.
It was largely about addressing tax free capital gains while helping to address inequality.
Its stated impact on the housing market was questionable at best.
We have to keep in mind that strictly speaking the results of the last election did not give Labour a mandate. I am hoping that changes at the next election, but until then Labour is limited in how far they can go on the policy front.
Heifer Doop….she is such a dullard, doesn’t have a clue.
Agree it was the result of not enough NZers wanting CGT including coalition partner NZ First.
Shame.not enough people yet get the fairness of taxing capital as well as income.