Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[slowpoke]

Most of the people I have met that earn $300k or more are useless fools with big personalities and credentials in the old boys club, not Randian Atlases that labour hard to hold the place up for the rest of us. Some exceptions, but few and far between.

Haha, you'd have to be the most well balanced individual I've met in quite a while....yep, got a chip on both shoulders.

And so wrong. They aren't a separate species like you make 'em out to be, it's just that with an attitude like yours the only wealthy dumb enough to let on around you are the type you speak of. The smart ones, 90% of 'em, would be flying well and truly under your radar.

Yep, good ol' NZ, god forbid you get ahead of the pack.

[short-circuit]

Aspirational plebs

[Winston001]

Do you mean, who did they steal it from, or who would I steal it from?

Oh no no that will not do at all. For shame!

WHOM - not Who. Tut tut. Lets try it:



"Do you mean, whom did they steal it from, or whom would I steal it from?"


Ah yes that is much better. A little clumsy but its Saturday...ok but no more of this sloppy construction please.



The BDOTGNZA rides again. Our work here is done.

[rainman]

And so wrong. They aren't a separate species like you make 'em out to be, it's just that with an attitude like yours the only wealthy dumb enough to let on around you are the type you speak of. The smart ones, 90% of 'em, would be flying well and truly under your radar.

Yep, good ol' NZ, god forbid you get ahead of the pack.

Nice turn of phrase - chip on both shoulders. Like it.

I'm not talking about chats down the pub with random people. I'm mainly talking about direct experience working with senior corporate types on $300k+, and people like the Act set. I don't personally know Alan Gibbs, Roderick Deane, and all of that lot, but looking at what they have "achieved" I can't say I'm impressed. In general, in NZ and Aussie, the shit floats to the top.

(Aside: And so many hard-working and decent.... well, fanbois, buy, and spin, the line that if only they worked a little harder, unlike those filthy lazy bennies of course, they too could be rich. And they get to be so absorbed by this fiction that all other mental functions seem to grind to a halt, particularly those that involve critical and independent thought. Many of them seem to hang out here).

Not always the case, of course - the exec team I'm currently working with are talented, principled, professional, hardworking, nice people, every man and woman of them. But they aren't in it for the money (which is convenient, 'cos it's not that kind of organisation). And I have, over twentysummat years, found a few others who would be well worth the bigger bucks. Not many though, and they are certainly outnumbered by the many shiny suits on $300 or 400k+ who are so effing incompetent that you have to wonder if they only hang on to their roles by virtue of having, as a former CEO of mine said, "pictures of the boss having sex with a goat". Or those that do socially useless functions like play with other people's money. (I think we should outlaw investment banking).

So yes I do know some deserving rich. Funny thing though is most of them aren't that rich. Might have a nice house and car, a bit of carefully shepherded wealth, an income well above average... but within reason. I can't see any real reason why, in NZ, anyone earns more than say $250k a year. That's $150 an hour, a solid 8 hours of every working day. Ten times minimum wage. Should be well enough to gain that psychological frisson we need to reward success.

Perhaps some would want to leave, and make more money elsewhere. OK by me.Don't need 'em, or shouldn't, had our clever and talented Atlases not flogged the whole damn country off and left us high and dry.

[rainman]

One for Winston:



Hat tip to The Standard.

[short-circuit]

One for Winston:

Great clip Rainman - thanks for posting that

[Winston001]

Or those that do socially useless functions like play with other people's money. (I think we should outlaw investment banking).


Perhaps some would want to leave, and make more money elsewhere. OK by me.Don't need 'em, or shouldn't, had our clever and talented Atlases not flogged the whole damn country off and left us high and dry.

Yeah I'm troubled by the effort put into complex financial systems too. I do not believe it adds anything to greater society and actually is a burden on savings.

But can't let you away with the hoary old "sold the country" stuff. Honestly - an infinitesimal part of our productive economy was sold under government privatisation. And a lot of that was to New Zealanders viz Contact Energy, Air New Zealand, BNZ, Telecom, Government Print etc.

Leaving that aside NZ's problems (small in the global sense) are that we produce little of high value, and even when we do, we are thousands of kms from the buyers.





Still, we live in a blessed country and it is worth remembering that.



And SOUTHLAND holds the Ranfurly Shield so there is a kind of natural justice after all.

[rainman]

Honestly - an infinitesimal part of our productive economy was sold under government privatisation. And a lot of that was to New Zealanders viz Contact Energy, Air New Zealand, BNZ, Telecom, Government Print etc.

Yeah, infinitesimal.
Air New Zealand, Auckland Airport, Bank of New Zealand, Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, Government Print, Ministry of Works and Development, Natural Gas Corporation (NGC), New Zealand Steel, The Post Office Savings Bank (POSB), Telecom New Zealand, New Zealand Rail Limited, and some other rats and mice. Nothing you'd notice, really.

Telecom alone was sold for 6% of GDP, according to Douglas himself. Infinitesimal.

And selling to NZers is irrelevant - they already owned it to start with, and had paid to build it with their taxes, so it was simply a theft and redistribution to those that had money to buy the shares. (This is how it seems to work in NZ. BTW how did Gibbs, Deane and the rest get the jobs they did during this time? Anything to do with the old boys network, I wonder?) And how much of the Telecom stock is still held by interests based here?

The history of this country is one of incompetence, short-sightedness and small-mindedness, at least since we got spooked by the first oil crisis. Think Big allegedly failed on account of it increasing debt levels (at least it built some shit), then we sold off a few infinitesimal things and opened our markets for little sane reason; some of the things we sold fell over so we had to throw more money at them, we've had the occasional winebox or H fee or Equiticorp or South Canterbury Finance or whatever other shonky business along the way - while we bicker endlessly with little forward progress. Politics has become a lesser-of-two-evils game, with limited options for either to fix our predicament.

Nett result is that we are in even a worse position, economically, politically and psychologically, to deal with the next oil crisis than we were first time round. And this one will be more of a problem than the 70s, by some distance.

It's a pretty place, no doubt, but hardly "blessed". (Blessed with successive generations of political and business numpties, maybe). Little wonder our kids are leaving.

Leaving that aside NZ's problems (small in the global sense) are that we produce little of high value, and even when we do, we are thousands of kms from the buyers.

Indeed. And the most compelling reason why Rogernomics was idiotic. We should not have knighted the bugger, we should have jailed him.

Patriotism in it's most vehement flagwaving tubthumping varieties gets squarely up my nose, but dammit, I want NZ to be a strong, successful, proud, self-reliant country. Not just another Argentina, but with worse weather. And the current course we are on will not do what we need.

[mashman]

You post good arguments and many more read this stuff than actually post. I suggest you avoid emotive taunts except in jest. You may feel they are deserved - fair enough - but the reader is immediately drawn away from valid points and instead focuses on the personal.

irk alert

bit like rain stopping play at the cricket?

Passion/emotivity/hyperbole has no place in an "argument/discussion"... because that becomes the focus of the topic and the issue is ignored?

Not aimed at you Winston, just irked when I hear it.

I'd like to suggest that whoever (whomever?, Whomsoever? ) has a problem with Passion/emotivity/hyperbole laced "arguments", goes and pays a visit to the Dr... you seem to be suffering from some form of attention deficit disorder. T'ain't someone else's problem that you focus on playing the man and not the ball, is it? (the first step to healing is admitting you have a problem )

I hope our political system never becomes tainted with such weak mindedness.

sorry... as you were...

[oldrider]

One for Winston:

Video deleted.

Hat tip to The Standard.

Unimpressed, reminds me of the nursery rhyme:

Little Jack horner sat in the corner eating his Christmas pie,
he put in his thumb and pulled out a plumb, exclaiming, what a good boy am I.

Boring academic socialists playing at manipulating statistics while massaging their own ego's and practising mutual self admiration!

Statistics can be manipulated by all sectors of the political spectrum to support their own point of view.

[short-circuit]

Unimpressed, reminds me of the nursery rhyme:

Little Jack horner sat in the corner eating his Christmas pie,
he put in his thumb and pulled out a plumb, exclaiming, what a good boy am I.

Boring academic socialists playing at manipulating statistics while massaging their own ego's and practising mutual self admiration!

Statistics can be manipulated by all sectors of the political spectrum to support their own point of view.

Sorry? Didn't see any political affiliations mentioned at all. I do agree wholeheartedly with your assumption though as left wingers are generally smart and rightists are thick

[rainman]

Unimpressed
...
Boring academic socialists playing at manipulating statistics

It's always disappointing to see otherwise intelligent people resort to the "everything is relative, statistics can be manipulated, other viewpoints exist" mantra - with a healthy dose of ad hom, of course, when the facts don't align with their prejudices.

Me, I prefer truth and open inquiry to ideology, but YMMV.

[avgas]

Sorry, I'll try to use smaller words for you in future.

I checked, the words didn't get smaller. FAIL
Perhaps you should try SAYING IT LOUDER.



of course you could just try and portray what you are trying to say in a better (more acceptable) method.

Or you could just leave your swiss-cheese arguments around for people to poke their fingers in.

Sorry don't have much time (see its worth money if you earn it). So will make this quick:

Destroy wealth?
- Seen many unemployed, or low paid people with Iphones? I am sure that is creating wealth?
- Likewise those who "Invest" in flash mags when they don't own their own home.....

I have no doubt that the rich destroy wealth, but the poor aren't too flash at creating it. So therefore a redistribution via taxes is not the messiah law you expect it to be.

[Winston001]

So lets get back to this CGT question. The rationale is that some people increase their financial strength over time by owning property, allowing inflation to push the value up, and then sell for an untaxed profit. No argument.

The Labour proposal is to exempt the family home. That sounds nice and will encourage voters. Unfortunately that also removes 65% of property sales from CGT...which makes it an inefficient and skewed tax open to evasion (yes, ordinary people will evade tax if they can).

Another rationale for CGT is that the "rich" are not paying their share. Yet, the Tax Working group and other govt data show that 75% of nett tax is paid by 10-17% of the top taxpayers. In other words, the rich are paying for the rest of us.

From a social democratic perspective (which I support) it looks like our existing tax system is already working effectively. No new taxes needed.

[rainman]

Destroy wealth?
- Seen many unemployed, or low paid people with Iphones? I am sure that is creating wealth?
- Likewise those who "Invest" in flash mags when they don't own their own home.....

I have no doubt that the rich destroy wealth, but the poor aren't too flash at creating it. So therefore a redistribution via taxes is not the messiah law you expect it to be.

Now there you have a point. I was thinking poor like in (rural) Africa, India or Asia, rather than what passes for poor here. But give us time...

The Labour proposal is to exempt the family home. That sounds nice and will encourage voters. Unfortunately that also removes 65% of property sales from CGT......

Another rationale for CGT is that the "rich" are not paying their share. Yet, the Tax Working group and other govt data show that 75% of nett tax is paid by 10-17% of the top taxpayers.

Indeed, but CGT on the family home is unimplementable, doesn't mean what's on the table is bad. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.

And as I've been telling you, the income and wealth distribution in NZ is skewed, so should tax be, even beyond normal progressivity. Or we could fix the distribution issues, although that's hard to do unless you use tax as the mechanism.