I find it difficult (impossible) to comprehend how those with so much are prepared to do so little for those who have so much less. A government’s role is to serve society. My god, I would love to see that. The current system is broken. It has collapsed and no longer functions on behalf of citizens. Result: we all shout into the void for help while the echoes of our urgency just fade away into a background of meaningless, deliberate, confusion. Meanwhile, people suffer unnecessarily while those who should be helping them wax lyrical with professionally crafted excuses.
Thanks James. Those in powerful positions who know about the reality for low income families have and still are failing to acknowledge it and act on that information. Recently Treasury put a toe in the water with a paper on EMTRs but what was the outcome? What was their policy advice? I want to hear what Labour has to say about this issue.
Sadly, I don’t have much faith in Labour Susan. They coulda - shoulda - and woulda, but didn’t. Whilst they’re nicer (in my view) than the current coalition in power they will still face the same challenges and restraints. I have seen no sign of a strategy that deals with the nation’s problems. They continue to show up a day late and a dollar short. Somehow, the political system needs a circuit breaker to allow evidence-based research and expertise into the room. Quarterly to-do lists and ambiguous throwaway lines about magical levels of growth as a saviour are horribly flawed to the point they simply don’t stand any sort of scrutiny. Their growth thesis is indefensible. And into the void…
They are the only hope but I agree it is a forlorn one given their track record. They put the rate of abatement of WFF to 27% and froze the threshold at $42,700. They wasted our time with consultation and then failed miserably to grapple with the problem
It’s so sad. And why Susan, why? In the scheme of things it’s chicken feed money. Just sort it out already. Personally, I would like to see New Zealand turn into Denmark with some customised tweaking that shifts capital into supercharging the productive sector including fuel injecting education to underpin and secure a non-commodity trading future. I can but dream. Instead tonight we get a PM talking up his 2% of GDP defence budget. The focused spending of $10 billion over a decade will increase New Zealand’s lethality. His dream of being a force multiplier to the Australian Defence Force can come true now. Good grief, where are his priorities? As an Aussie I think Luxon is a misfired dud. I’m embarrassed for my kiwi wife.
Have just watched David Seymour on One News talking about the school lunch disaster in relation to his falling popularity in the One News political poll.
He stated that this has no relation to the result as most Kiwis thought parents should feed their own children.
The reporter didn't push back by questioning him about the polices and tax settings that makes it increasingly difficult for parents to do this.
Keep up the good work Susan keep holding the politicians to account.
The rest of us need to push back to against the nonsense that is spread in the media, online and where we work.
Thanks Russ. I was appalled at the comment from David Seymour. Gaslighting the public in my view- putting his words in their mouth - It is clear his intent all along was to destroy the school lunch programme because he thinks government has no place feeding low income children. Parental responsibility is a key justification. Food banks are shutting down, incomes are static or going backwards, the budget is not adjusting working for families, benefits fall further behind... where is the nation's responsibility for making sure everyone can access food
It bothers me that as a society empathy seems to be leaking away. Do we really hear Helen Robinson, an esteemed leader in Auckland city, when she says she goes home angry every day from the injustice she sees-- she has been warning us that the situation re funding and foodbanks is desperate. Do Aucklanders not hear?
Can it be a matter of what people feel they have power to do about what they see is so wrong. Joining forces in an alternative vision including the other political parties. If only they would.
This should surely be sent to MPs of the Labour and Green parties - and perhaps there are some National MPs who still have a heart. They might not agree to everything in your kaupapa but it would give them a strong starting point.
I think the CTU will be sending out their reimagining Aotearoa messages as far and wide as possible. The principles are very much an alternative to the coalition’s very narrow focus on ‘growth’ which is a meaningless term to people needing food, shelter and jobs.
land tax and GST are regressive though and offset a lot of the gains from 2 zero brackets which would be very very expensive. I suggest there are better ways-
While true, both also provide substantial efficiency gains with regard to the administrative and deadweight loss burden of taxation on the economy at large.
Shifting from income tax to land tax boosts incentives to earn, it also funnels capital away from land speculation and into productive assets growing the economy over time.
It is also the only way to tax capital that doesn't result in capital (& associated talent) flight.
GST may be regressive but it is also very efficient administratively. It's also a nice way for the state to collect more of the benefits from tourism (and proportionately more from wealthy tourists). Ultimately an increase in GST through this mechanism marginally shifts the taxation burden away from Kiwis.
There is just too much to say about this but a quick point is that the efficiency of GST relates to its original concept of broad base low rate. If GST is doubled to 30% here would be huge pressure for exempting basics and it would no longer be low rate. Would you expect prices to go up by that increase? How do low income people manage--a zero bottom two tax brackets is very expensive-$20b+ but wont help the bottom end much. How will they be compensated?
Personally would introduce a Fair economic return tax along with a much improved bright line capital gains tax. PIE has written extensively about this....
Because land is (broadly) not something that you can have more of.
If you tax land, people reallocate their capital away from land and into other capital assets to avoid the tax. Relative to the SQ (and assuming the tax is levied in a revenue neutral way) there would be more capital seeking a return from productive businesses after the imposition of a land tax. Capital requires skilled labour to get things done so those productive businesses using that capital to expand operations also are likely to increase the number of people they want to hire and the wages they want to give them. The overall picture following the imposition of a revenue neutral land tax is an economy that is more productive, with higher demand for talented individuals. So if anything, it would draw capital and talent in.
If you tax capital gains or wealth, people take their capital out of the economy to avoid the tax.
I find it difficult (impossible) to comprehend how those with so much are prepared to do so little for those who have so much less. A government’s role is to serve society. My god, I would love to see that. The current system is broken. It has collapsed and no longer functions on behalf of citizens. Result: we all shout into the void for help while the echoes of our urgency just fade away into a background of meaningless, deliberate, confusion. Meanwhile, people suffer unnecessarily while those who should be helping them wax lyrical with professionally crafted excuses.
Thanks James. Those in powerful positions who know about the reality for low income families have and still are failing to acknowledge it and act on that information. Recently Treasury put a toe in the water with a paper on EMTRs but what was the outcome? What was their policy advice? I want to hear what Labour has to say about this issue.
Sadly, I don’t have much faith in Labour Susan. They coulda - shoulda - and woulda, but didn’t. Whilst they’re nicer (in my view) than the current coalition in power they will still face the same challenges and restraints. I have seen no sign of a strategy that deals with the nation’s problems. They continue to show up a day late and a dollar short. Somehow, the political system needs a circuit breaker to allow evidence-based research and expertise into the room. Quarterly to-do lists and ambiguous throwaway lines about magical levels of growth as a saviour are horribly flawed to the point they simply don’t stand any sort of scrutiny. Their growth thesis is indefensible. And into the void…
They are the only hope but I agree it is a forlorn one given their track record. They put the rate of abatement of WFF to 27% and froze the threshold at $42,700. They wasted our time with consultation and then failed miserably to grapple with the problem
It’s so sad. And why Susan, why? In the scheme of things it’s chicken feed money. Just sort it out already. Personally, I would like to see New Zealand turn into Denmark with some customised tweaking that shifts capital into supercharging the productive sector including fuel injecting education to underpin and secure a non-commodity trading future. I can but dream. Instead tonight we get a PM talking up his 2% of GDP defence budget. The focused spending of $10 billion over a decade will increase New Zealand’s lethality. His dream of being a force multiplier to the Australian Defence Force can come true now. Good grief, where are his priorities? As an Aussie I think Luxon is a misfired dud. I’m embarrassed for my kiwi wife.
Have just watched David Seymour on One News talking about the school lunch disaster in relation to his falling popularity in the One News political poll.
He stated that this has no relation to the result as most Kiwis thought parents should feed their own children.
The reporter didn't push back by questioning him about the polices and tax settings that makes it increasingly difficult for parents to do this.
Keep up the good work Susan keep holding the politicians to account.
The rest of us need to push back to against the nonsense that is spread in the media, online and where we work.
Thanks Russ. I was appalled at the comment from David Seymour. Gaslighting the public in my view- putting his words in their mouth - It is clear his intent all along was to destroy the school lunch programme because he thinks government has no place feeding low income children. Parental responsibility is a key justification. Food banks are shutting down, incomes are static or going backwards, the budget is not adjusting working for families, benefits fall further behind... where is the nation's responsibility for making sure everyone can access food
So astute 👍🏼
Are we as a citizenry becoming more inhumane?
How could we have voted for, and continue support, such a bunch of sociopaths?
I wonder how far away our government is from the Curtis Yarvin comment about converting “unproductive” people into biodiesel to power buses?
It bothers me that as a society empathy seems to be leaking away. Do we really hear Helen Robinson, an esteemed leader in Auckland city, when she says she goes home angry every day from the injustice she sees-- she has been warning us that the situation re funding and foodbanks is desperate. Do Aucklanders not hear?
https://www.reimagineaotearoa.nz/policies_2025
Can it be a matter of what people feel they have power to do about what they see is so wrong. Joining forces in an alternative vision including the other political parties. If only they would.
This should surely be sent to MPs of the Labour and Green parties - and perhaps there are some National MPs who still have a heart. They might not agree to everything in your kaupapa but it would give them a strong starting point.
I think the CTU will be sending out their reimagining Aotearoa messages as far and wide as possible. The principles are very much an alternative to the coalition’s very narrow focus on ‘growth’ which is a meaningless term to people needing food, shelter and jobs.
Land tax + GST increase. Use it to completely remove lower income tax brackets. It'll help with this problem.
It won't solve it. Ultimately only a UBI does that, but it'll certainly help.
land tax and GST are regressive though and offset a lot of the gains from 2 zero brackets which would be very very expensive. I suggest there are better ways-
While true, both also provide substantial efficiency gains with regard to the administrative and deadweight loss burden of taxation on the economy at large.
Shifting from income tax to land tax boosts incentives to earn, it also funnels capital away from land speculation and into productive assets growing the economy over time.
It is also the only way to tax capital that doesn't result in capital (& associated talent) flight.
GST may be regressive but it is also very efficient administratively. It's also a nice way for the state to collect more of the benefits from tourism (and proportionately more from wealthy tourists). Ultimately an increase in GST through this mechanism marginally shifts the taxation burden away from Kiwis.
Keen to hear your better ways :)
There is just too much to say about this but a quick point is that the efficiency of GST relates to its original concept of broad base low rate. If GST is doubled to 30% here would be huge pressure for exempting basics and it would no longer be low rate. Would you expect prices to go up by that increase? How do low income people manage--a zero bottom two tax brackets is very expensive-$20b+ but wont help the bottom end much. How will they be compensated?
Personally would introduce a Fair economic return tax along with a much improved bright line capital gains tax. PIE has written extensively about this....
How is a land tax not going to result in capital/ talent flight compared to say, capital gains or wealth tax?
Because land is (broadly) not something that you can have more of.
If you tax land, people reallocate their capital away from land and into other capital assets to avoid the tax. Relative to the SQ (and assuming the tax is levied in a revenue neutral way) there would be more capital seeking a return from productive businesses after the imposition of a land tax. Capital requires skilled labour to get things done so those productive businesses using that capital to expand operations also are likely to increase the number of people they want to hire and the wages they want to give them. The overall picture following the imposition of a revenue neutral land tax is an economy that is more productive, with higher demand for talented individuals. So if anything, it would draw capital and talent in.
If you tax capital gains or wealth, people take their capital out of the economy to avoid the tax.