sharetrader
Page 5 of 79 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 790
  1. #41
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,191

    Default

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...H6YOIJTXHJNVU/


    The most brutal barb came from Act leader David Seymour to the Green Party’s Julie Anne Genter, who was touting her party’s costed wealth tax plan.

    “Julie Anne, I wouldn’t trust you to run the economy of Venezuela let alone New Zealand,” Seymour said. The leftist government of Venezuela has struggled with hyperinflation.

    Seymour attacked Genter after she made the point that many other countries had capital gains and wealth taxes.

    “I’m glad Kate Sheppard never listened to that logic,” Seymour said, adding that Sheppard might have been an Act voter.

    “If we had taxed prosperity, all of Julie Anne’s mates would have won the Cold War,” Seymour said.

    VG - Seymour .. Keep on calling out the dozey Green excuses for Policy which are as dumb as a Bag of Hammers

    (likely after all the pixies in the bottom of the garden have hit themselves over the head with the hammers multiple times to see if the stars appear in other colours after earlier tries)
    Last edited by nztx; 05-09-2023 at 11:40 AM.

  2. #42
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    I’d actually support protecting 30% of our ocean, but the issue is that Greens don’t stop there….they quickly devolve into a load of ‘delivering for maori’ clap-trap including a meaty $100 million ‘Moana Fund’ for iwi and hapu to feast upon in pursuit of ‘delivering on marine conservation priorities’.

    In all honestly, the Green Party might just as well change their name to Te Pati Maori, and probably would if the name was not already taken.

    A vote for Labour or the Greens or Te Pati Maori is a vote for a radical LABGREETEPATI government.

    ————

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/polit...protect-oceans

    Greens propose Healthy Ocean Act, independent commission to protect oceans

    14:28, Sep 10 2023

    ‘The Green Party says it will set a legally binding target to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030 – and lobby to get the Oceans and Fisheries ministerial role to make it happen.

    If part of the next government, the Greens would introduce legislation to create an Ocean Commission in the first 100 days, and pass a Healthy Ocean Act in the next three years.

    The independent Ocean Commission would work with iwi, hapū, councils, communities, and the public to advise the government, similar to how the Climate Change Commission advises on climate matters.

    The advice would feed into the Health Ocean Act, to create a network of marine protected areas covering at least 30% of the ocean, and uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi.

    A $100 million Moana Fund would support iwi and hapū to deliver on marine conservation priorities most significant to their exercise of kaitiakitanga.’

  3. #43
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    I’d actually support protecting 30% of our ocean, but the issue is that Greens don’t stop there….they quickly devolve into a load of ‘delivering for maori’ clap-trap including a meaty $100 million ‘Moana Fund’ for iwi and hapu to feast upon in pursuit of ‘delivering on marine conservation priorities’.

    In all honestly, the Green Party might just as well change their name to Te Pati Maori, and probably would if the name was not already taken.

    A vote for Labour or the Greens or Te Pati Maori is a vote for a radical LABGREETEPATI government.

    ————

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/polit...protect-oceans

    Greens propose Healthy Ocean Act, independent commission to protect oceans

    14:28, Sep 10 2023

    ‘The Green Party says it will set a legally binding target to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030 – and lobby to get the Oceans and Fisheries ministerial role to make it happen.

    If part of the next government, the Greens would introduce legislation to create an Ocean Commission in the first 100 days, and pass a Healthy Ocean Act in the next three years.

    The independent Ocean Commission would work with iwi, hapū, councils, communities, and the public to advise the government, similar to how the Climate Change Commission advises on climate matters.

    The advice would feed into the Health Ocean Act, to create a network of marine protected areas covering at least 30% of the ocean, and uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi.

    A $100 million Moana Fund would support iwi and hapū to deliver on marine conservation priorities most significant to their exercise of kaitiakitanga.’
    This is crazy stuff from the Greens, yet again.

  4. #44
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    This is crazy stuff from the Greens, yet again.
    Chipkins wants Labour-leaning voters to think there’s absolutely no issue with his two potential coalition partners, when blind Freddy can see that both outfits have morphed into a seething hotbed of radicalism.

  5. #45
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    The problems with a wealth tax....

    https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/repo...ry-wealth-tax/

    THE CASE AGAINST A PREDATORY WEALTH TAX

    Dr Bryce Wilkinson NZ Herald 22 June, 2023

    'The Green Party’s proposed wealth tax plays to greed and envy. It blithely proposes that everyone can be lifted out of poverty by imposing a heavy wealth tax on a mere 0.7% of the population.

    What the supposed 0.7% think about that is of no consequence. Their views are apparently of zero value.

    But why seek to fund the policy out of such a discriminatory tax? Why not fund it out of an increase in general taxation. A civil society can agree to that without predating on the very, very rich.

    It seems as if the philosophy behind the wealth tax proposal is that it is fine for a political majority to tax or otherwise take property from a minority without compensation or consent. But such a philosophy is uncivil, with likely unintended consequences.

    One of the unintended consequences is that the very, very rich and their capital are internationally mobile. They do not have to stay and be fleeced.

    Taxing capital inevitably reduces its availability. That affects everyone. Less capital per worker means less productivity per worker. That means lower wages relative to prices.

    That is why taxing capital is not a free lunch for workers, or anyone else.

    The venerable benefit principle of taxation is not predatory. Under this principle, taxes are levied on those who will benefit from the spending their taxes fund. That does not preclude taxation by general consent to help those most in need, just as it does not preclude charitable donations from rich and poor alike.

    Under the benefit principle it is the benefit as assessed by those who pay that tax that counts. To seek their general consent respects their human dignity. Predation does not.

    One problem with proposing a tax on the basis that it will only hurt a small minority is that once in place it is easy to increase the scope of the tax. The Green Party’s assertion that its tax will only affect 0.7% looks problematic, right from the outset.

    Figures obtained from Statistics New Zealand show that over 8% of two-person households over the age of 65 have net assets in excess of $4 million. What then is the basis for asserting that it will only affect 0.7%?

    Moreover, it seems that the proposed 1.5% annual wealth tax on trusts would apply to the first dollar of such wealth, not just to amounts above $4 million.

    The following illustrative example shows how penal the Green Party’s proposal is in principle towards retirement savings.

    People build retirement savings out of tax-paid income. They pay tax again each year on the income from that saving. When they spend those savings after retiring, they pay GST on that spending. (Any increase in the rate of GST is essentially a wealth tax on retirement savings.)

    To these three layers of tax, the Green Party would add a fourth, at a very penal rate.


    Suppose someone holds their retirement savings in a government bond portfolio worth $1 million and that the wealth tax will apply to this portfolio. Suppose it earns 5% a year. That gives a modest taxable income of $50,000. If that is the person’s only taxable income, income tax would take $6,800 under the Green’s party’s proposed tax rates. Now add the wealth tax at 2.5%. It would take half of the $50,000. The sum of these two taxes is $31,800 which is 64% of pre-tax income.

    This is still not the full picture. Suppose inflation is 2% pa. This is effectively a 2% tax on bond holders. It reduces the purchasing power of a $1 million bond portfolio by $20,000 in a year. That loss is the government’s gain. The sum of these three taxes is now $51,800 a year – over 100% of taxable income.

    Now add GST at 15% to the equation. If the individual spends $40,000 a year (GST exclusive) on consumer purchases and household maintenance, the GST component adds $6,000, taking GST-inclusive spending to $46,000.

    The upshot is that funding GST-exclusive spending of $40,000 costs this person $97,800 in the first year. They have to sell bonds each year to get the cash to pay the taxes, and inflation reduces the purchasing power of what is not sold. This person has no bond portfolio left from age 80 if they retire at age 65.

    How might the Green Party respond to such critique? It might suggest deferring the wealth tax for cash flow reasons.

    But government would have to charge interest at a penal rate on the deferred taxes. Otherwise, no one would pay the tax and the Green Party would not get the $12 billion of revenue it wants in its first year.

    Another response must be that it would only tax the very, very rich. That might be the unworthy intention, but it is unlikely to be the reality even at the outset, yet alone in the fulness of time.

    The bottom line is that sound tax principles are important. If government wants more revenue, raising it by general taxation should be the default option.'

  6. #46
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    "Tune in to OneNews tomorrow where the Greens will have a big new policy release", says Maiki Sherman on the telly.

    They want to increase the annual leave entitlement from 4 weeks...to more than that. Tune in tomorrow for details.

    Should do wonders for our productivity figures!

  7. #47
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    "Tune in to OneNews tomorrow where the Greens will have a big new policy release", says Maiki Sherman on the telly.

    They want to increase the annual leave entitlement from 4 weeks...to more than that. Tune in tomorrow for details.

    Should do wonders for our productivity figures!

    Let them keep up pushing out their portfolio of worthless never never fairy tale dreams .. every vote they con out from those falling off the Labour bandwagon will be a wasted effort as the Lab/Green/Tepuck Up mess of circus tricks slides down the greasy slope

  8. #48
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nztx View Post
    Let them keep up pushing out their portfolio of worthless never never fairy tale dreams .. every vote they con out from those falling off the Labour bandwagon will be a wasted effort as the Lab/Green/Tepuck Up mess of circus tricks slides down the greasy slope
    Every vote that goes from Labour to the Greens and Te Pati Maori increases the leverage that these parties will have over the power-mad Chipkins, ensuring that if - by some miracle - the Left get more votes than the Right....then the Greens and TPM will be in a prime position to force Chipkins to adopt their radical policies.

  9. #49
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    Every vote that goes from Labour to the Greens and Te Pati Maori increases the leverage that these parties will have over the power-mad Chipkins, ensuring that if - by some miracle - the Left get more votes than the Right....then the Greens and TPM will be in a prime position to force Chipkins to adopt their radical policies.

    Can you see either of the rival splinters giving way for the other across various seats though ?

    there's bound to be a huge volume of wasted & ineffective votes

    the further the cake gets diced & sliced the better .. at Labour's expense ..

  10. #50
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nztx View Post
    Can you see either of the rival splinters giving way for the other across various seats though ?

    there's bound to be a huge volume of wasted & ineffective votes

    the further the cake gets diced & sliced the better .. at Labour's expense ..
    Yeah, but in MMP it's all about the party vote. That ultimately determines the number of seats a party gets.

    In the electorates, I can certainly see that in some urban seats - where there are a number of high-profile candidates per seat - the Greens and Labour will split the vote and National will come through the middle. In some seats, the Greens will do better than Labour and may take the seat off them. There are a lot of lack-lustre Labour electorate MP's out there.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •