Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[rainman]

It's called the real world. The one where money doesn't REALLY grow on trees and "rich pricks" are as common as pixies at the bottom of the garden.

It always confuses me when you start arguing in support of the points I'm making.

the politics of ignorance and greed.

I think that's the problem too.

[avgas]

Of course in one sense it's not unreasonable to earn over $150k - the narrative of hard work and just deserts has some validity - but when the proles are on $25k a year despite working their arses off and the cost of living is what it is, that does not make for a healthy society. So we get stuck in this dialogue about rich pricks and greed/envy dichotomies that is not very mature or useful, but we flip-flop back and forth regardless.

Yes and no.
As someone who used to earn sub-$25K not so long ago - I can tell you right now, that the number of people who had money then is probably not too far from those who have it now.
My circumstances have changed, but I was not given a golden ticket by the elitists.....therefore it begs the question.
Are there really Rich and Poor in NZ, or are we distributed along the pay curve?
If so the only thing that separates one from the other is not the haves and have nots, but those whom complain, and those whom do not.

Something tells me this won't change, as those whom complain will not escape their own predicament. Many a minimum worker struggles in NZ.......but you won't see them all complain. Some of them see a way out.

[240]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...our-struggling

[avgas]

The other is from the great poet and visionary Mick Hucknell..
"The wealth of a nation cannot be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down."

I prefer my one.
"You don't have a forest if you cut down the trees to feed the weeds".

[avgas]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...our-struggling

Every day I'm struggling.....

[rainman]

Some of them see a way out.

The problem with this aspirational claptrap is that we can't all seem to raise ourselves up by our bootstraps and live the high life. Individually, sure - subject to the vagaries of health, good fortune, and good/evil people - some people can lift their game (at least for a while) and enjoy greater financial success, and this is mostly to be applauded. It seems at least to be better than wallowing in worthless indolence, which ain't good for the person or the society.

But, the problem is distribution, and the fact that our silly economic system is making things worse. And we're too dumb/juvenile to see it properly.

Where we seem to go wrong is in the aggregate. There's a helluva lot of poor starving people out there, more than ever, in fact, but about the same number of billionaires, although they probably have more and more billions than before. And these people (the uberwealthy) are actually wealth destroyers, somewhat counter-intuitively. The marginal utility of $1m when you have $1b is effectively zero. Hoarding more and more money/cars/ rolexes/cocaine/high-class hookers does little for the greater good - the value is further down, where spending moves it around a bit (although that's not an unqualified endorsement of trickle-down), and when it's spend on creating things of productive value, not penis-deficiency compensating Veblen goods. As a species we don't need more (any?) Rolexes and Lear jets, we need better food sources, clean energy, education, contraception, environmental rehab, water, support to solve conflicts.

The marginal value of $1m to almost any 100,000 of the 1.4b people living on $1.25 a day or less is way closer to infinity, and such a windfall would lead to new businesses being created and many lives being improved. Almost nothing at the bottom end gets wasted on pointless consumption. Most is wasted at the top end. And yet many here would aspire to be wealthy. It's just stupid and unbalanced.

(For NZ, you have to scale my story above as our wages are low to start but not $1.25 a day low, so we have a misguided view of the problem).

[Winston001]

You are behaving as one of the 200K earners that think they are 'wealthy, rich pricks' that are getting their hard earned cash stolen off them to give to the dole bludging losers that won't get off their arses to earn a crust.
Get over yourself if you are in that category.

I'm afraid you have fallen into an argumentative trap: when you do not have a strong counterpoint, you attack the other person, personally and emotively. Not just you of course, it is a mistake made on both sides.

So far as I know Ocean is on the bones of his bum but he's able to offer rational perspectives. You can disagree certainly, but please recognise that many people on the right of centre are ordinary and decent - as they are on the left.

Let me leaven these comments by saying I agree with some of what you say.

[Winston001]

There's a helluva lot of poor starving people out there, more than ever, in fact, but about the same number of billionaires, although they probably have more and more billions than before. And these people (the uberwealthy) are actually wealth destroyers, somewhat counter-intuitively. The marginal utility of $1m when you have $1b is effectively zero....

The marginal value of $1m to almost any 100,000 of the 1.4b people living on $1.25 a day or less is way closer to infinity...

No argument from me.

However lets reduce the argument to New Zealand which I contend is an egalitarian society without the extremes of wealth and poverty found in other parts of the world. I'm not even sure the USA fits your description although there are graphs suggesting it does.

Anyway - just who and where are all these rich people in NZ? The few I've come across put their trousers on one leg at a time, experience the same highs and lows of life as the rest of us, and you wouldn't notice them on the street.

There are sod all of them. I honestly think this is an empty debate in NZ. Straw men set up by Labour/Greens etc to draw political support from the bitter and envious. Hardly inspiring stuff.

[Oscar]

No argument from me.

However lets reduce the argument to New Zealand which I contend is an egalitarian society without the extremes of wealth and poverty found in other parts of the world.

There was an interesting exchange between the left and right a couple of elections ago about poverty in NZ.

I don't recall the politician involved, but he asked the Auckland City Mission to back up statements they'd been making about poverty in NZ. The examples that were forthcoming involved families having to seek help due to massive credit card debt.

Now I'm not saying there is no poverty in NZ, but to listen to some on left (the Green Party for instance), you think that the streets of South Auckland were blocked with starving children...

[Winston001]

What is "rich"? $5 million in family assets after repaying the mortgage? $300k family income per year?

[Ocean1]

Now I'm not saying there is no poverty in NZ, but to listen to some on left (the Green Party for instance), you think that the streets of South Auckland were blocked with starving children...

What is "rich"? $5 million in family assets after repaying the mortgage? $3000k family income per year?

Ask your grandfather about the standard of living when he was young. I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of shit the average standard in his day was below what we now consider the poverty line.

Perspective. What would the standard be if you took all the rich prick's cash and sharde it out? The same as if you let them keep it: on par with the Jones's.

[Spearfish]

Perspective. What would the standard be if you took all the rich prick's cash and sharde it out? The same as if you let them keep it: on par with the Jones's.

Let me know if that's going to happen I'll open the first KFC with a liquor licence with a dealership specialising in compact MPV's off the side.

[Clockwork]

2/ ....

5/ Companies list on the share market to raise capital to assist them to grow. you are in effect backing the company to grow & give an increased return that results in a dividend paid to shareholders. Company grows = more jobs = more profits = more tax = growing economy. Michael Hill , Warehouse have looked to privatise because like Famers they have worked out that growth is cyclical & the shareholders demand for a return can stunt long term growth, but that is another story.

Yeah but I think the point that was being made is that once the company has floated those shares they get no other benefit from the ongoing trading of those shares. In effect, asking society's savers to buy shares isn't necessarily going to make the companies or the country any wealthier or more productive.


edit... unless that company earns overseas income and redistributes it as dividends to local share holders. Of course that aint going to happen when we sell power companies the earn all their income locally then redistributes some of those profits to the overseas share holders.

[trustme]

Yeah but I think the point that was being made is that once the company has floated those shares they get no other benefit from the ongoing trading of those shares. In effect, asking society's savers to buy shares isn't necessarily going to make the companies or the country any wealthier or more productive.


edit... unless that company earns overseas income and redistributes it as dividends to local share holders. Of course that aint going to happen when we sell power companies the earn all their income locally then redistributes some of those profits to the overseas share holders.

Not quite. The shareholders are in effect the owners of the company, they want a return on their investment . For the shareholders to get a return, the company must trade profitably & growth is usually a requirement to generate increased income & therefore an increased return to the shareholder. Increased profit means an increase in share value.
If the share holder is not seeing an increased return in dividend or share value that company is going backwards.
I'd rather we invested in companies & fostered economic growth than continue land banking, hence my partial support for a CGT but not in the form Labour proposes

[Oscar]

Ask your grandfather about the standard of living when he was young. I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of shit the average standard in his day was below what we now consider the poverty line.

Perspective. What would the standard be if you took all the rich prick's cash and sharde it out? The same as if you let them keep it: on par with the Jones's.

I agree and what winds me up is when politicians crap about poverty in NZ.
There is child-abuse, child neglect and homelessness (which is mainly to do with mental illness), but by global standards, no poverty.