https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-david-seymour
Winston NO Peters - yesterday’s man mauled by Seymour.
Looks like Sunshine exposed Grandpa’s hypocrisy for all to see.
Printable View
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-david-seymour
Winston NO Peters - yesterday’s man mauled by Seymour.
Looks like Sunshine exposed Grandpa’s hypocrisy for all to see.
Act leader David Seymour wants the Human Rights Commission abolished because of its "left-wing manifesto".
Talk about living in the past, the Left Wing Manifesto was written 100 years ago in 1919. Left wing is used as a derogatory term but in politics left-wing is a position that supports social equality and egalitarianism, which sounds like a good idea to me.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/acts-david-seymour-calling-for-hard-left-human-rights-commission-to-be-abolished/OBX73GLPWXPTYNEUGRWCSJJMH4/
"The Commission is a hard-left organisation masquerading as a government department," Seymour said.
The Human Rights Commission today called for the new government to honour human rights and laid out 39 issues it wants politicians to adopt.
Included are creating a written constitution that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi, makes the minimum wage the living wage, creates more employment opportunities for disabled people, builds decent and affordable homes and a formulates national action plan against racism.
It also wants a national strategy to deal with family violence, an end pay discrimination, for police to collect hate crime data and to make the health and disability system work for all disabled people.
The Left Wing Manifesto
moses.law.umn.edu › darrow › documents › Gitlow_Le...
The world is in crisis. Capitalism, the prevailing system of society, is in process of disintegration and collapse. Out of its vitals is developing a new social order, the system of Communist Socialism;
The HRC is a joke. They need to stick to what they are paid to do and butt out of issues not related to their purpose. Furthermore, they need to stick up for the rights of ALL New Zealanders. An analysis of their facebook posts by me about 5 years ago revealed one article out of circa 200 that was aimed at men in general. Not trans men, not homosexual men, not disabled men but men in general. Less than 1%. I took them to task on this but I got the usual mealy mouthed response about every day being mens rights day. What a load of tripe. This was at a time when boys were actively not screened for HPV due to their gender, despite the fact they were potential carriers. Again I pressured the HRC to address this issue but they were not interested. This policy has since changed but not due to any thanks from the HRC whatsoever. In one breath the HRC post a team photo containing 9 women and 1 man and in the next photo they decry organisations that are not sufficiently diverse. What a pack of self-serving misandrist hypocrites. David Seymour is not wrong.
A free article on the man himself from Business Desk
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/t...vid-seymour-mp
Hard to believe I would agree with David Seymour on anything but there you go. I am surprised the party for the rich does not like centrally controlled monetary policy as it has done so well for the well off for so many decades. Nice to think ideological beliefs extend to policies that don't favour his voter base.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...?ocid=msedgntp
For a kick-off, Act does not have a flat tax proposal. They propose a 3 stage progressive tax, with the top rate remaining at 33%. I don't know what you said about the flat tax proposal, but I'd be all for it as long as it was percentage based, i.e. the more you earn the more you paid. I certainly understand flat taxes, both amount and percentage systems. I consider a flat tax with a fixed percentage is the fairest system. You may not - that's fine.
Well, at least David Seymour ensures that NZ has an opposition party in this term's parliament!
;)
Odd that I voted for the “party for the rich” but am far from it. Must’ve ticked the wrong box.
Have a read through this, let us know what you think. The central banking and money creation system is broken. This is a potential solution. https://www.positivemoney.org.nz/pm/
Yes they aren't wrong>>
While the Reserve Bank creates our notes and coins, this forms less than 3% of our money supply. The rest nowadays is electronic money for EFTPOS, internet banking and so on and is created by private banks when people take out loans.
This electronic money is created out of thin air (ʻex nihilo’) — merely by making accounting entries in the books of registered banks. The banks then lend it to you and me and charge us interest on money they never had. Nice business.
It means banks have an incentive to ʻsell’ as much debt as they can — more than the economy actually needs. This leads to excessive debt, overpriced housing, stressed families and an economy that isn’t working for many people.
I have never met a poor libertarian. rich or misguided, take your pick.
I don't understand money and the consequences of the proposal from Positive Money NZ enough to comment but if my understanding is correct. The NZ govt. would create the money and banks could only lend what they have in deposits or money from the reserve bank. Now you are really forcing me to make an effort to understand something I know little about. I will make an effort to improve my understanding of money and get back to you.
Would this system be any better as the reserve bank of NZ has no qualms about creating money. Historically govts have had no problems overprinting and currently we live in a world where money is quickly losing all value mostly due to govt action.
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/1042...%20rates%20and
Interesting to read in the paper this morning that the ASB bank has brought in a higher LVR for investors whereas the NZ Reserve Bank does not seem to have a problem with property price rises and the possibility of irresponsible lending.
Aaron, over the years you have railed against a ‘system’ that is founded in money creation. It has created a scary global economic situation, so it is ok to be concerned, as you say it seems unsustainable but it is so enormous and decade after decade it just gets bigger and more scary. Understanding money creation and who benefits and who doesn’t, helps but doesn’t diminish the fear of where it could all end up. Positive Money is a movement, not just in NZ. They propose an alternative, a proven alternative. There is detailed reasoning laid out to support their arguments. I support positive money and think what they propose is a viable and better system than we have currently.
Talk soon once you’ve appraised yourself off their proposal.
Even ex members from the party of the lower middle class agree with David Seymour
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...michael-cullen
Although Adrian Orr points out house prices are not in his mandate all he is doing is ensuring he meets his employment target. To deny responsibility for a large part of the rising price of houses seems a bit of a stretch though.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...med-at-housing
Scary to think Adrian Orr doesn't appreciate the effect low interest rates and money printing will have on asset prices. or that he doesn't care about it as it is not part of his mandate. Maybe Adrian needs to read the first lines on the Reserve Bank website.
manages monetary policy to maintain price stability, promotes the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system, and supplies New Zealand banknotes and coins.
Do rampant house prices and asset bubbles maintain price stability??? does it promote the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system??? I am not smart enough to know but I guess Adrian could say "well every other central bank in the developed world is doing the same thing, why shouldn't we"
Yes, Aaron. At the very least, the RBNZ's mandate needs to be urgently reviewed and revised. An early job for the govt, I would think.
I suspect this will be a do nothing, status quo govt much like John Keys national, very popular probably because they maintain the status quo. Although John Key did get in a GST hike(bast**d). Who knows, I would not expect much to happen other than some expressions of concern. Jacinda only moved to Mt Eden fairly recently so motivation to disrupt the housing market price rises will be low.
Gutless tinkering as expected.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-jac...3CIFIALBJMATQ/
This thread has strayed off ACT's David Seymour. Subject belongs on Labour Govt 2020-2023.
This might be the best thread for this article.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...0-12?r=US&IR=T
Tax cuts for the rich don't help the country as a whole? Trickle down economics doesn't work? Hard to believe.
Although targeted inflation brought in in the 1990s by good old NZ are supposedly about price stability through constantly rising prices (how did they sell that). This would seem to be trickle down economics as well particularly when central banks money printing and interest rate suppression are designed to inflate asset prices. I think this is also a bull**it policy.
He made a thing about earning a three figure salary yet not being able to buy a home. Sure that is a plight affecting many people in contemporary NZ. Even those earning above average incomes find it difficult - after income tax, iiving expenses and GST to save and buy and acquire a suitable property to live in.
However Seymour is also actually a beneficiary of his grandparent's and parent's trusts. Those trusts own properties which will probably have tax-free gains when realised or transferred to beneficiaries.
Coincidentally, Seymour is also against a capital gains tax - and was against extending the real estate bright line. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/...tealth-seymour
Maybe Seymour will now make a thing about how being born into a family, with real estate interests settled in trust structures, in Nineteenth Century Victorian Britain - oops I mean in present day NZ - is the best way to secure an interest in residential property in NZ.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/act-leader-david-seymours-embarrassment-cant-afford-to-buy-guy-has-an-interest-in-three-properties/H6PC3IOARTNTLTIKGBZP3NN34IAct leader David Seymour's embarrassment: 'Can't afford to buy' guy has an interest in three properties
I read the article. What a non news item I thought. So he is one of several beneficiaries in Trusts where his grandparents and parents are the Settlors. Like tens or hundreds of thousand other New Zealanders, many of whom have no idea they are Beneficiaries.
At his age and with his inquiring mind and intelligence, he may well have been aware of these family trusts but he may have not been aware (until recently) of the requirement to disclose his interests as a beneficiary. Other MPs may have realised that beneficiaries needed to disclose their interest or they may be involved with trusts as settlor-beneficiaries and for that it may have been more self-evident that disclosure was required.
Sure the wealthiest decile of NZers have a lot of wealth in trusts. We do not know the value of the assets involved and how many grandchildren are involved. He won't be the only person to benefit from NZ's family trust structures, lack of a comprehensive CGT and estate duties set to zero. However he will get an inheritance should he need a boost up from his high salary and a boost to any home ownership ambitions and to his (forgotten) KiwiSaver and his other pension fund.
What's more he is an MP and Party leader. That it was only his self-disclosure that revealed these interests is a wake-up call. How many other non-disclosures pepper the register of MPs financial interests? Transparency of financial and vested interests of our legislators should be key.
I don't know what the fuss is about, David Seymour was elected as MP in 2014 and in 2015 disclosed in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament his interests in these three Trusts:
As at 31 January 2015
David Seymour (ACT NZ, Epsom)
Beneficial interests in, and trusteeships of, trusts
BH & VA Seymour Family Trust (beneficiary)
The Beachcomber Trust (beneficiary)
N.N. Faithfull Family Trust (beneficiary)
Looks to me like Mr Seymour correctly declared his trusts interest back in the day but not that there were properties in the trusts. His 'problem' is that he talked about home ownership. Quite sensible politically saying he is embarrassed and will declare these interests in future because it closes the issue down effectively.
Most trusts have properties in them. I expect that all MPs will now be checking that interests in trusts are recorded.
There needs to be separate disclosure of interests in real estate. So if the trust, of which he is a beneficiary, owns real estate, he would need to make a specific disclosure of this interest. As I understand it, he has a beneficial interest in the trusts. This is disclosed as a pecuniary interest and then, as they own real estate, as an interest in real estate.
The Trusts Act 2019 (which took effect in Jan this year if I recall correctly) requires a much higher degree of disclosure to the beneficiaries, so presumably he has been informed about the consents of the trust.
Unfortunately the concept of trusts and those who are beneficiaries of them have been stigmatised in a very negative light by many.
I am not sure that the concept of trusts has been stigmatised but rather family trusts in particular by some. However whether or not that is justified is not necessarily the issue in this case.
The big issues in this instance are the need for the full required disclosure of MPs financial and vested interests. Plus, Seymour had used his lack of residential property ownership for political purposes when he actually has beneficial interests as a trust beneficiary in residential property. Also his criticism of the bright line test for taxing residential investment capital gains can no longer be seen as from the point of view of someone without any residential property interests.
Every descendant of any house owner is in the same position as a beneficiary of a trust settled by a parent or grandparent. They may or may not actually benefit in the future. Beneficiaries can be removed at the stroke of a pen.Descendants can likewise be disinherited although they have the advantage of contesting a will.
The average journalist doesn't know s*** from clay on most topics they write about.
The average member of the public does view anyone connected to a trust with a degree of disdain. Why else would you require any of the various types of trusts other than to hide assets, to avoid taxation, or to use them to deprive the rights of others? You need to look no further than the vitriol on social media that accompanies any discussion about trusts, including here. It does not even matter what type of trust is involved, just the word evokes a visceral negative reaction.
As you obviously know beneficial interest does not equate to actual ownership, nor is he guaranteed to ever own or even control the properties held in the trusts. His position on property based on his lack of ownership is therefore valid, but regardless of this the position is not predicated on the lack of ownership. As for the brightline test, it may not even apply to him in the future.
No doubt the media will now investigate all politicians for similar situations, exposing their so-called hypocrisy. A total non-event.
When a Trust is set up the settlors (parents/grandparents) pass ownership of the assets to the beneficiaries but manage the assets on their behalf and for the benefit of all beneficiaries. The truth is that beneficiaries can be removed with a stroke of a pen but with the new requirements to report to the beneficiaries people might become aware of their rights under the Trust deed. In theory once a kid reaches 18 there is no reason why they can't approach the trustees and ask for the transfer of the assets and control to pass to them as they are now capable of managing the assets in their own interests. Trustees can also be sued for not managing the assets well for the benefit of ALL beneficiaries.
Because it doesn't happen it doesn't mean it won't in the future. I imagine the legal cost to challenge trustees will ensure nothing changes.
As the word beneficiary implies he benefits from the ownership of the real estate held in the trust. So the current ownership of real estate benefits him.
So definitely a relevant interest which should be on the register. I don’t know whether or not these interests on the register affect the various MPs stance on proposed legislation.
The current ownership of an asett does not benefit a beneficiary until the title or ownership passes; which may never happen for various reasons, like predeceasing the settlor, or discovering previously unknown debt, or some similar claim. Try mortgaging a property you don't own but are a beneficiary to and the bank will soon show you the door. Until the estate is settled the trust may not be worth any more than an undrawn lotto ticket.
Sure the beneficiary may or may not get eventually the legal title to the property when the trust assets are finally distributed. However it does not affect their current position of having a beneficial interest in the property. The property’s legal ownership is held on behalf of the beneficiaries.
How on earth can you be required to list a beneficial interest? It may be a complete unknown. Its very existence may not even be known. And certainly its value cannot be known, or even estimated. Not that it applies to Seymour's case. I understand he did list it as an interest.
I did not understand your point.
It is the interest that is important and not the value. It is his current interests (as a beneficiary) in the real estate properties (owned in two of the three trusts, his interests in which he had already declared) which was what he had overlooked. He has now rectified his mistake.
When is seymours euthanasia policy going to be implemented?
I would prefer Medsafe to deregulate medicines at the point a person considers euthanasia to be a viable option for them.
Did dave seymour vote to remove the british flag in the referendum?
If so another hyprocriticial stance from him but not surprising, add it to the extensive list.
Seymour's questions in the House today so stupid, he invites PM to make him look like a fool, which after asking if she really needs to answer, she does.
Actually it’s the other way round - he made Cindy looked dumb because she could not spin her way out of the question. Which she is of course (dumb) - eg. working in a fish & chips shop being the grand sum total of her business and real world experience.
No wonder she is all spin and no delivery. Kiwibuild or child poverty eradication, anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seymour asked: "Has the Prime Minister only just realised that there are new variants of COVID, and if not, why is she so unprepared for them?"
"Mr Speaker, do I even have to answer that?"
House Speaker Trevor Mallard said he could have ruled out Seymour's remarks as ironic, but he settled on Ardern being "absolutely capable of answering".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe its my left leaning bias but David says
But Seymour, who is opposed to the (wealth) tax, had a different view. When asked by AM co-host Ryan Bridge whether he has an issue with the inequality of wealth, Seymour said no.
"No, I have a problem with poverty, I have a problem with people lacking opportunity…"
I am probably misguided but isn't the reducing opportunity for social mobility largely due to an increasing wealth gap.
David Seymour will need the crackpot vote at the next election to bring in any other MPs with him.
David putting himself forward as protector of a minority group.
At least he doesn't called them an "oppressed" minority at this stage.
But it is laughable.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...7b556ae9bcea7e
Hey FP is the lack of social mobility due to 90% of the country being lazy and stupid or is that just the bottom 50%.
The lazy maybe, I can't help it if I am stupid though.
Social mobility currently depends more and more on what family you are born into, not whether you are lazy or stupid. I can't see how David Seymours policies provide more opportunity for those with the wrong Mum & Dad.
Sadly he probably believes trickle down economics works.
I thought this headline might add some perspective as I am obviously biased.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...8062124faa065f
Agreed just taxing rich people may not help alleviate poverty but I guess we also have to assume all govt is corrupt or incompetent and alternatively the invisible hand will provide an answer.
Trish Sherson obviously a trickle downer and I can't help but agree with Chris Patterson's view although he is probably a bleeding heart lefty.
Hundreds of thousands of migrants cd to NZ over the years and the majority of them have nothing but their education, qualifications and skills - and they end up doing very very well. In fact, many of them sacrificed everything and paid to get educated in NZ and then, stayed on and prosper.
Guess why?
Education is the greatest leveller known to mankind.
In NZ, this useless spin driven government throws money and demotivates the lazy so much that they become even more useless than they already were - so they skip school and commit crime.
That’s why NZ has over 100,000 on the jobseeker benefit while employers are screaming out for workers.
Anyone else smells turd from some zoo animal swallowing Ardern’s manure hanging around this thread?
Thanks for that, you have answered my earlier question which was "is the lack of social mobility due to 90% of the country being lazy and stupid"
Obviously it is. Hey Balance I assume you are not in the top 10% otherwise you probably would not have as much time to post on here.
Why are you not in the top 10%? Not aspirational enough or too lazy and too stupid?
It is sort of comforting to know I am not alone.
Maybe he's retired and on super welfare.
Or is a maori.
Those who tend to hate things the most are usually the same things they loathe about themselves.
Brooke van Velden opines in the herald this morning on the brain drain.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...DJAKQBK223CUI/
I think she hits the nail on the head when she says "anyone who works hard, saves, and budgets is just punished here."
Yet she is not smart enough to know it is monetary policy and an out of control central bank largely responsible for this situation. She must know that loose monetary policy and low interest rates are a big driver of the housing market. Interest rate repression and inflation are killing savers etc. How else would house prices have gone up 30% in a pandemic without the RBNZ.
Her earlier proposal to fix the housing crisis was less govt and building more houses. Her solution to the brain drain is ACTs budget which is less govt. And in some cases I am sure there is waste which could be cut.
I find it hard to believe ACT has libertarian leanings when they never address the role central planning by the RBNZ has on just about everything happening in society at the moment.
I guess they are concerned where central planning takes from the rich to give to the poor or build society but where it takes from the poor to give to the rich they turn a blind eye. (much like Labour and National)
Also note they will raise the retirement age but not until all boomers are suckling on the taxpayer teat, that is smart politics. I notice also they don't suggest to stop paying national super welfare payments to those that don't need it. Maybe they can recommend this once the younger generations have enough in their kiwisaver accounts.
Maybe young people are leaving because the older generation keep sh*tting on them. Reckless monetary policy to shut them out of the housing market, kiwisaver deductions to save for their retirement while paying tax to cover retired boomers who never put money aside for their own retirement but want the comfort of high house prices and guaranteed super, student loan deductions as the free education boomers were given was denied to following generations.
I imagine despite all this NZ is still pretty good relative to most other countries but maybe boomers could think a bit about the future generations rather than themselves when voting next time.
Any comments/reactions to Act's recent proposal to make policy scrapping a few government ministries?
Have those ministries delivered any justifiable cost or social benefits to NZ?
Axe the treasury?
Behind such ideas as borrowing to invest in the NZ super fund is a bad idea among other incorrect thinking.
Maybe they don't anymore but they favoured a flat tax over a progressive income tax back in 2019.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113...-tax-ever-work
I think I pointed out how a flat tax would work in reality in earlier posts. David Seymour has said the progressive tax system is too difficult much like a capital gains tax.
Don't worry FP David has said he is there to fight for a minority and if he wins at the next election that minority should get even smaller as wealth concentrates amongst fewer and fewer people.
David thinks it is unfair that 3% of the population pay 24% of the income tax. With his policies everyone else can chip in more so they can pay less and not be so oppressed.
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/informa...ays-income-tax
Much like GST being a regressive tax. Wealthy people would pay a lot more GST but as a percentage of their income poor people would be paying a lot closer to 15% of their income in GST than someone better off who can save and invest some income.
I am not going to suggest anything is fair or not but society as a whole might be happier without David in charge. I would look to the happiest countries on the planet and see what they are doing if I were a politician.
No matter what, no system will keep everyone happy. Personally I wonder about our system of social welfare when e.g. our local motels can't even get cleaners, full or part time, no experience required; and the same applies to other industries that have simply given up advertising for staff because it's a waste of money.
Maybe talk to Adrian Orr at the RBNZ he has been running monetary policy pretty fast and loose. Low unemployment and high inflation might be a sign the economy is running hot and he is not doing his job of providing price stability. An interest rate rise or two might see a reduction in activity.
What is worse some of the motels that need cleaners might have welfare bludgers filling them up but not wanting to work, maybe that is South Auckland not the South Island.
No doubt all the beneficiaries have reasons for not working but in this day and age of people shortages I get a bit cynical.
Among all but the poorest countries, the happiest and healthiest countries are the most equal ones.
Reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. From the point of view of happiness and health, it doesn't matter whether you do that by redistributive taxation or structural change.
The most often quoted example is Japan in the postwar period, when the newly democratic govt put tremendous emphasis on education, social welfare, stable labour relations, and adoption of new technology. I know that the govt did things to encourage the banking system to support productive investment, but I can't remember what. I understand that part of what made this possible was the destruction of the prewar oligarch dominated social order.
Monetary stimulus direct to the people rather than banks / stock owners.
Whether that improved things for the average folks who knows, probably did but it's so long ago it's not contextually relevant, as afterwards came the 'lost 30 years'. Japan is not a good example of how to get out of recession which holds everyone back from prosperity, and apparently the happiness that comes with it.
Past a (fairly low) level, it is not the prosperity that brings health and happiness, and Japan is not quoted as an example of how to get out of recession (though it remains a very rich country despite recession). Health and happiness is improved for EVERYONE when the difference between the wealth of the richest and the poorest is reduced,
I would have thought this shows the opposite. Wealth is HUGHLY concentrated in a few hands for example Kim Jong-un and his mates, Miguel Diaz-Canel and the communist elites, Nicolas Maduro and more recently whoever recently resigned/fled in Sri Lanka (I don't think he was a communist, maybe a meo-liberal).
Whether it is the concentration of power and/or wealth (as wealth = power) in a few hands it usually results in a corrupt miserable sh*t hole country. Was Ferdinand Marcos Snr a communist??
It remains a rich country due to a highly educated population and a work culture and commitment that would never be possible to achieve in NZ, nor do I think we'd want that job culture. I work with a few Japanese guys. Incredibly committed workers and good at their jobs, but very little personal or family life.
I agree Japan is not a good example for NZ.
I don't know, I have never studied it. I imagine sanctions didn't help. What would be more interesting is to know what sort of country was it before communism.
The fastest way to pure communism is pure capitalism I reckon. What was Cuba like that the general population would accept communism instead of what they had prior, I think Cuba was quite a wealthy country prior to Fidel but to be honest I have never studied this.
The wealth divide in the US is ahead of NZ, interesting to see if communism/socialism starts to become more acceptable in some sectors of society over there.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ion-159682020/
Read at your leisure.
NZ does not have a huge wealth gap - what it has is an incompetent socialist government with prolific wasteful spending and clueless economic policies.
Looks like corrupt politicians are the biggest problem a country faces if Batista is anything to go by. America doesn't come off too well in the link you provided either.
Probably getting off track anyway as this thread is about ACT policy.
How do you measure the wealth gap and what would be considered big.
Despite all my angst Stats NZ says the distribution of wealth has not changed between 2015 and 2021. Whether 10% of the population holding 50% of the wealth is huge or not is subjective I guess?
What would you consider a huge wealth gap? 80%-90% owned by the top 10%??
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/distr...%20%2411%2C000.
Per the earlier treasury page it appears 9% of the population earn 42% of the taxed income. whether that represents a huge gap might be considered subjective as well I suppose?
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/informa...ays-income-tax
The surveys might be wrong.
Don't get me wrong I don't begrudge people their success but I just think they are in a better position to contribute to society so a progressive rather than flat tax makes sense to me.
And a capital gains tax wouldn't go amiss but ACT is not alone not wanting this.
The majority of fair minded wealthy NZers would not mind paying more tax and would, I believe, support a capital gains tax. What they want in return however is for their taxes to be spent wisely, effectively, fairly and with full accountability & transparency. The quality of government spending matters greatly to them as they want to see their contributions genuinely improving the society as a whole.
This is NOT what this Ardern government is capable of delivering, pure and simple.
Ask any of your friends or contacts from the Scandinavian countries - they pay very high taxes but they do not begrudge paying the high taxes because there is a very close interaction between the taxes paid with social services & assistance (be them health, education, welfare or retirement) provided. And those countries enjoy relatively high employment too, despite the high taxes.
Simple, isn’t it?
Most of our spending is due to the aging population... both super and healthcare.
National refused to pre-fund this so it has to be paid from current revenue. Some parties other than Act/National are being sensible on the tax issue (it should mostly come from those who can afford it).