It seems a bad name for a tax, but it is designed to have no impact on lifestyles, only a minor dent in the inheritance of those following. But the insatiable greed rampant in this country rules. Ardern complies. After all, she gets the family farm.
Jacinda Ardern - International Hero, Domestic Failure
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
What I hope is that Labour only gets <49% of the countable votes so they're forced to go to James Shaw.
Much as I despise the Greens, he would be crazy not to insist on a wealth tax as their price for going along. If he did that and Labour decline, we'd be up for a new election and I think all hell would break loose. National would be led by Luxon and Labour would be in danger of getting kicked out.
I reckon Collins is costing the Nats 5-10% of the vote right now.
Much as I despise the Greens, he would be crazy not to insist on a wealth tax as their price for going along. If he did that and Labour decline, we'd be up for a new election and I think all hell would break loose. National would be led by Luxon and Labour would be in danger of getting kicked out.
I reckon Collins is costing the Nats 5-10% of the vote right now.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
Nice piece here from a solidly left-leaning young woman writing in a solidly left-leaning NZ newspaper: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/po...leftie-woman--why-am-i-underwhelmed-by-labour
She encapsulates the problems fairly well, without going too deeply into them.
I failed to mention the light rail debacle.
If there hadn't been Covid, those things would have seen Jacinda on the Opposition benches next week, I'm quite sure.
She encapsulates the problems fairly well, without going too deeply into them.
I failed to mention the light rail debacle.
If there hadn't been Covid, those things would have seen Jacinda on the Opposition benches next week, I'm quite sure.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Minor impact? That's rubbish?
There are cases where a farm might not be able to be passed from father to sons because the CGT would be so onerous, the sons would not be able to afford to pay the tax, and the farm would have to be sold. The impact of this is huge on the families involved.
This happened back in the day with death duties, and it would happen again with CGT. I am totally against the idea of taxes on unrealised gains, in other words, tax on capital gains should only be payable at the time the farm or house is sold (not when it changes hands within) a family, and not because its estimated value has increased.
But this is a discussion for another thread.
I don't thing CGT is off topic. Anyway, we have had CGT in Australia for a long time (homes excluded) and the sky hasn't fallen. People who earn an income digging ditches pay tax on their earnings. I think it's totally fair that people who earn income from selling shares and other assets should also pay tax.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's how it is in the US. The terminology varies depending on whether you're earning income from your labor, or realizing gains from investment of capital, but the basic principle is the same: No matter where your money comes in from, the taxman gets a cut.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe it's time to rethink the entire concept of inheritance. Maybe one's possessions should revert to the state, or to the highest bidder, when one dies. Don't you think it's kind of weird that someone can make a decision about wealth they no longer possess, that's binding after they die and no longer possess it?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, not at all. For mine, that is normal.
I would find it weird (and unacceptable) if I were NOT to be allowed to determine who I give my material possessions to.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, but they're not really yours, are they? After you die? A dead person's estate isn't a person.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
That's why I said I object to the broad application of CGT.
I have no problem with people who sell shares or material things such as rental properties, paying tax on their gains. What I object to tax on unrealized gains, in other words, the government being allowed to speculate on what your property is worth, and then taxing you on that when you actually haven't actually received that money.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its a legal entity. Your instructions to your executor have legal weight, and they survive your death.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And that doesn't seem even a little bit weird to you? The dead having binding opinions on the affairs of the living?
Do you object to the concept of corporate personhood? But corporations are at least composed of living human beings.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That's an interesting side discussion. I realize this is subjective, nor am I well informed about inheritance law globally, but I think what some of the super super rich have done is good: keep aside a portion large enough that you and your dependents can live on in comfort not ostentatious jetsetting luxury, and hand over the rest to charity.
I think it's obscene to inherit unearned palaces and harems and eunuchs and coffers full of gold coins, and also inequitous to earn all of that and still have your sons and daughters have to go sweating their backside off simply to eat. The golden mean, is my view.
I realize this is subjective, both the very principle, as well as the measure of that mean. I suggest the greater of an averagely comfortable living and a small percentage say 5% of one's estate.
No offense to people posting on this, but this is a discussion I find interesting, even if I don't have much by way of well informed content to contribute myself, and rather than have these OT posts consigned to AAH I'd like to have them branched into a separate live thread. So I'm reporting my own post, the Mods can cut it off, if they so choose, at whichever point they think is apt.
I think it's obscene to inherit unearned palaces and harems and eunuchs and coffers full of gold coins, and also inequitous to earn all of that and still have your sons and daughters have to go sweating their backside off simply to eat. The golden mean, is my view.
I realize this is subjective, both the very principle, as well as the measure of that mean. I suggest the greater of an averagely comfortable living and a small percentage say 5% of one's estate.
No offense to people posting on this, but this is a discussion I find interesting, even if I don't have much by way of well informed content to contribute myself, and rather than have these OT posts consigned to AAH I'd like to have them branched into a separate live thread. So I'm reporting my own post, the Mods can cut it off, if they so choose, at whichever point they think is apt.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Consider the flip side, though. The palaces were earned.
You don't begrudge the birthday boy his cake because he didn't go out and earn it himself. If inheritances has value for you, then "earning" cannot.
You don't begrudge the birthday boy his cake because he didn't go out and earn it himself. If inheritances has value for you, then "earning" cannot.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
First off, it was a couple of weeks, not a couple of months.
Secondly, she's allowed to do it and Trump isn't, so there's no comparison at all.
Third, it was a sensible option. As it happened, the election needn't have been delayed, but the country is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping Covid out of the community and there was some danger at the time.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Funny how time flies, I could have sworn we were still in 2020!
KiwiBuild
Inequality = rent prices, got it.The Atheist said:
New Zealand Average Hourly Wages
6/2019 32.42
6/2020 33.37
change +2.93%
Infoshare: CPI Monthly Rents
9/2019 1475
9/2020 1523
change +3.25%
Hardly 'double'. In fact there is less than 1% difference between rent and wage increases.
The Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 passed on Dec 20 2018, setting 3 year and 10 year goals. Expecting a 'fix' for such an intractable problem less than 2 years in (including a worldwide pandemic) is a bit too much to ask for IMO.
But let's take a look at those child poverty statistics:- are they really getting worse as you imply?
"But" you say, "she promised to 'fix' it!". If New Zealand has a long-standing poverty problem, is that the fault of the current government (which has been in power for less than 4 years) or the previous one which spent 9 years selling off state housing, bribing wealthier voters with tax cuts and hoping that 'trickle down' would do the trick? Would you choose the party with a proven record of abject failure rather than the one that might be starting to make a difference?
Deplorable. Anything to win an argument, eh?
Jacinda Ardern is an abject failure for not pursuing a policy of Social cleansing, got it. That idea is quite obnoxious, especially to someone who has been poor and will soon be old. But hey, I guess it would be an economic paradise for the well-to-do - until they wanted a job done cheaply or were looking to retire.
So I hope you are joking. But when the choice is between a leader and party that genuinely cares more for human lives than money, and one that does the opposite, I would not joke about it lightly. Don't make the same mistake we did. Too many democrats whined about Hillary being a 'terrible candidate', then acted surprised when she lost to Trump.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And don't call out 'abject failure' on policies that haven't had time to be effective. Poverty isn't something you can fix overnight - even by killing people. Expecting a quick fix is one of the worst political attitudes. It replaces effective action with wildly oscillating policies that never get anywhere because people are too impatient. No policy is perfect, and adjustments must be made to improve it as flaws become apparent. But one thing is for sure, genuinely caring more for human lives than money generally leads to a better result for people - which is what really matters.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That was my thinking. That daddy's sweat does go to give birthday boy his cake; but not a super luxury jetsetting lifestyle funded by the profits (or sale proceeds) of a cake factory or a whole multi-unit cake empire.
And as for bequeathing the running of the factory or the factory chain, that, if we separate out that aspect of it, then this should be a purely business decision. Let the son be the next CEO if he's the best man to run it, as well he may be having received daddy's tutelage and genes; and not if not. Family and blood ties should not matter in influencing the business aspect of the decision.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Fourth, all five parties and the Independent MP in Parliament agreed the election needed to be postponed
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.