Our next national election - policies, promises and people

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#2482807 13-May-2020 14:48

Fred99:

DaveDog:

The next election won't be so much based on policy, but there will be a lot of promises and it'll ultimately boil down to people - which people/party can you trust.

Well that would truly suck. An effective media would of course probe politicians for commitment to policy goals.

The worst job in the world right now is Grant Robertson's. Pretty horrific presenting a budget that's inevitably going to haunt him forever, with a very slim chance of getting it right.

An effective media would be excellent, but we're not going to have any of that... We'll also get bombarded with an idiotic diatribe on social media of MPs (opposition or otherwise) catering to the lowest common denominator... Some are already in full-swing...

And you're right - Robertson is walking a very slim line indeed...

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482808 13-May-2020 14:50

Fred99:
Handle9:

The repeated spinelessness to introduce policies that may negatively affect boomers (from both sides) shows admirable electoral realism and zero willingness to confront inequity.

I wonder who you'll blame when "the boomers" are dead and gone? If you keep putting people into "boxes" defined by your prejudices - then you're on a slippery slope to end up in a very bad place.

Yawn. This is a political discussion and the is a large, relatively wealthy and politically active group.

It's also the largest group of beneficiaries in NZ. Clearly they are an important group to politicians who love to talk a good game but never do anything as it would be political suicide.

But hey enjoy your outrage.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482825 13-May-2020 15:06

GV27:
The CGT would have been a great idea before house prices took off. It doesn't make sense to bring it in when there are still supply issues and we can't build new houses to meet demand at sane prices. You've got to address those first or else the market just prices in lost revenue and asks even higher prices. A lot of stuff has fed into that (land/RMA/building supplies) and we'd be naive to think that any CGT wouldn't just get added to the pile of things pushing prices up like all those other things did.

Having said that, I think there would be many people who accept the need for more comprehensive tax treatments of things like property investment but found it hard to agree with the TWG report, which was pretty messy. That whole process is probably one missed opportunity. A more moderate, perhaps more low-profile TWG might have produced a more acceptable and pragmatic proposal.

That's not say some of the other debates around tax isn't abjectly lazy - comparing our top marginal rate as a percentage alone, which is low-ish compared to other countries, without comparing what that kind of money buys in a high cost, low wage country like ours is a classic. As are the discussions around GST, which point to the Australian exemptions for fruit and vege without understanding the Australian system was designed based on ours before politicians started playing with it, and created a giant mess in the process. We need a smarter discussion than that - these make for good slogans, but they're not really on the table.

I accept older people having more as a function of time, but I do think we need to decide at some point whether we want that to be at the expense of young people being able to get a footing without taking on huge debt for things like education or housing before they can start families. Yes, boomers paid higher interest, but on houses that cost them 1/10th to 1/4 of what younger Kiwis are being asked to pay for much smaller sections, with much greater ongoing lifestyle issues (long commutes, lower wages meaning working longer hours, putting off having families later and later, etc). These all have costs, but as long as it's younger NZers paying them, it's apparently OK.

We are very good at saying we're the best country in the world, but to me, that doesn't gel with what we ask young people to accept. Yes, getting a house should involve hard work, but it shouldn't be such an obstacle so huge that you don't think you'll ever get there, as dropping ownership rates attest. Many millennials who have worked to scrape together deposits are now facing losing their savings as house prices drop, and in some cases, negative equity. That doesn't strike me as being a fair go, and probably something people are less likely to accept when it happens to their own kids or grandkids.

If you were looking at a CGT purely to suppress house prices, it would be a waste of time. As a means of rebalancing who pays what it still has a lot of merit. Reducing consumption tax and/or income tax and moving some of that tax take to capital is IMO objectively fairer.

It's also internationally normal which suggests it doesn't negatively effect economies. Unfortunately it's also politically unpopular. Increasing GST to reduce income tax has a negative effect on those who spend all their money each week but helps those who can save. NZ has one of the highest tax takes from GST (relative to GDP) per capita .

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2482845 13-May-2020 15:48

Handle9:

It's also internationally normal which suggests it doesn't negatively effect economies. Unfortunately it's also politically unpopular. Increasing GST to reduce income tax has a negative effect on those who spend all their money each week but helps those who can save. NZ has one of the highest tax takes from GST (relative to GDP) per capita .

And who was the one who kicked that up to 15%?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2482856 13-May-2020 16:09

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

So a large group of people with a common interest who vote, is quite a problem for politicians

Does representative democracy really suck?

You'd have to convince me that voting intention by maybe 20% of the voting population is so heavily biased around a common interest that this outweighs the 80% - many of whom also have common interests and could be seen to vote as a "block".

Firstly I didn't say democracy sucks, or even that it's bad that boomers tend to have a strong influence on party policies. Just suggesting that such a phenomena is a real problem for politicians, because it limits what their policy position can be. I was hypothesising, but I think it's fair observation than Labour and National would be concerned about what boomers think.

Farmers are another group, who have sufficient common interest to give politicians in the major parties pause when it comes to climate change. If Labour and National had a common climate change policy that would neutralise that position.

I do realise that parties like to differ on things - otherwise we will all figure out it's coke vs pepsi.

Mike

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2482858 13-May-2020 16:13

Handle9:

If you were looking at a CGT purely to suppress house prices, it would be a waste of time. As a means of rebalancing who pays what it still has a lot of merit. Reducing consumption tax and/or income tax and moving some of that tax take to capital is IMO objectively fairer.

I'm not sure that the words fair and objective belong together. Fair is a value judgement and therefore inherently subjective.

Mike

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2482863 13-May-2020 16:20

Handle9:

If you were looking at a CGT purely to suppress house prices, it would be a waste of time. As a means of rebalancing who pays what it still has a lot of merit. Reducing consumption tax and/or income tax and moving some of that tax take to capital is IMO objectively fairer.

It's also internationally normal which suggests it doesn't negatively effect economies. Unfortunately it's also politically unpopular. Increasing GST to reduce income tax has a negative effect on those who spend all their money each week but helps those who can save. NZ has one of the highest tax takes from GST (relative to GDP) per capita .

I'm not sure anyone would be collecting too much in Capital Gains Taxes over the next 12 - 24 months! Would have been a nasty hole in the revenue if we'd dropped other things on the assumption we'd be collecting decent CGT receipts.

As for effecting other economies - our supply-side and demand-side housing issues are sort of a perfect storm. Internationally there is little evidence of a 'lock-in' effect on prices but I'm not sure anyone has had the same issues we've had on this sort of scale. Cheap credit doesn't help in what was a seller's market. The report didn't really touch on the potential effect of these in addition to a possible CGT.

Fairness is always a hard one to argue with tax - the dollar effects on people are black and white but fairness as a notion is inherently grey:

Is it fair someone's accumulated income is taxed after the income itself was taxed when it was earned?

Is it fair to tax income that hasn't been realised yet?

Is it fair someone's personal assets are taxed if they are making a nominated income when that person isn't using them to make income at all?

Is it fair some people to repay student loans while current first year uni students get free education?

Who should bear the compliance cost when you change a tax rule - is it the taxpayer or the government?

You could probably fairness vs. greater good on any one of those and make a really convincing case either way. Threads-worth of discussion there alone!

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#2482864 13-May-2020 16:20

MikeAqua:

Firstly I didn't say democracy sucks, or even that it's bad that boomers tend to have a strong influence on party policies. Just suggesting that such a phenomena is a real problem for politicians, because it limits what their policy position can be. I was hypothesising, but I think it's fair observation than Labour and National would be concerned about what boomers think.

Farmers are another group, who have sufficient common interest to give politicians in the major parties pause when it comes to climate change. If Labour and National had a common climate change policy that would neutralise that position.

I do realise that parties like to differ on things - otherwise we will all figure out it's coke vs pepsi.

Trouble is that Labour and National like to differ on things for the sake of it - much of their beliefs are from the same playbook, but that try to hide that behind the waffle...

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482868 13-May-2020 16:25

GV27:
Handle9:

If you were looking at a CGT purely to suppress house prices, it would be a waste of time. As a means of rebalancing who pays what it still has a lot of merit. Reducing consumption tax and/or income tax and moving some of that tax take to capital is IMO objectively fairer.

It's also internationally normal which suggests it doesn't negatively effect economies. Unfortunately it's also politically unpopular. Increasing GST to reduce income tax has a negative effect on those who spend all their money each week but helps those who can save. NZ has one of the highest tax takes from GST (relative to GDP) per capita .

I'm not sure anyone would be collecting too much in Capital Gains Taxes over the next 12 - 24 months! Would have been a nasty hole in the revenue if we'd dropped other things on the assumption we'd be collecting decent CGT receipts.

As for effecting other economies - our supply-side and demand-side housing issues are sort of a perfect storm. Internationally there is little evidence of a 'lock-in' effect on prices but I'm not sure anyone has had the same issues we've had on this sort of scale. Cheap credit doesn't help in what was a seller's market. The report didn't really touch on the potential effect of these in addition to a possible CGT.

Fairness is always a hard one to argue with tax - the dollar effects on people are black and white but fairness as a notion is inherently grey:

Is it fair someone's accumulated income is taxed after the income itself was taxed when it was earned?

Is it fair to tax income that hasn't been realised yet?

Is it fair someone's personal assets are taxed if they are making a nominated income when that person isn't using them to make income at all?

Is it fair some people to repay student loans while current first year uni students get free education?

Who should bear the compliance cost when you change a tax rule - is it the taxpayer or the government?

You could probably fairness vs. greater good on any one of those and make a really convincing case either way. Threads-worth of discussion there alone!

Income tax and GST are going to be brutally suppressed as well.

They are all good points and as you say well.worthy of discussion. IMO the fundamental issue is if you base taxation on a level of income(salary / wages) why should passive income (capital gain) not be taxed? We're going a bit OT but it's an interesting discussion.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482888 13-May-2020 16:43

Handle9:

But hey enjoy your outrage.

"Boomers" is a derogatory and ageist term as is being used in this thread. You don't get it do you? If you do get it and still deliberately offend people based on their age - then that's just being a dick.

You seem to be very bitter - have a big chip on your shoulder. It's as if "negatively affecting boomers" is your goal - not correcting a deliberately borked system that's been used for political expediency over the past 50 years.

If you look at a demographic pyramid for NZ, there is no "baby boom bulge". So you're arguing a myth. Get over it.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482894 13-May-2020 16:49

Fred99:

Handle9:

But hey enjoy your outrage.

"Boomers" is a derogatory and ageist term as is being used in this thread. You don't get it do you? If you do get it and still deliberately offend people based on their age - then that's just being a dick.

You seem to be very bitter - have a big chip on your shoulder. It's as if "negatively affecting boomers" is your goal - not correcting a deliberately borked system that's been used for political expediency over the past 50 years.

If you look at a demographic pyramid for NZ, there is no "baby boom bulge". So you're arguing a myth. Get over it.

Pot, kettle, whatever.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2482919 13-May-2020 17:25

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

Does representative democracy really suck?

You'd have to convince me that voting intention by maybe 20% of the voting population is so heavily biased around a common interest that this outweighs the 80% - many of whom also have common interests and could be seen to vote as a "block".

Firstly I didn't say democracy sucks, or even that it's bad that boomers tend to have a strong influence on party policies. Just suggesting that such a phenomena is a real problem for politicians, because it limits what their policy position can be. I was hypothesising, but I think it's fair observation than Labour and National would be concerned about what boomers think.

Farmers are another group, who have sufficient common interest to give politicians in the major parties pause when it comes to climate change. If Labour and National had a common climate change policy that would neutralise that position.

I do realise that parties like to differ on things - otherwise we will all figure out it's coke vs pepsi.

Yes I know you didn't say that. I agree what you've said above. But I suspect that the impact of so-called "boomers" has been overstated lately in NZ. We kind of fixed it short term by large scale immigration - which caused another issue of course with housing demand, thus prices - and sure that probably favoured older property investors some of whom may have been born prior to 1964. Is there a name we need to give to deride the "middle-aged bulgers" Oh - I might have found it :-)

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#2482929 13-May-2020 17:32

Fred99:

Yes I know you didn't say that. I agree what you've said above. But I suspect that the impact of so-called "boomers" has been overstated lately in NZ. We kind of fixed it short term by large scale immigration - which caused another issue of course with housing demand, thus prices - and sure that probably favoured older property investors some of whom may have been born prior to 1964. Is there a name we need to give to deride the "middle-aged bulgers" Oh - I might have found it :-)

This might be a more valuable term of reference... https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2017-general-election/voter-turnout-statistics-for-the-2017-general-election/

It's not about the population age, but rather the levels of enrolment and voting as the demographic age increases...

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482936 13-May-2020 17:40

DaveDog:

CGT – Labour campaigned on it, didn't get it through... That's largely due to the boomer influence, but no one will go into the election seeing it as a major failing. It's MMP at work...

Unlike some parties who just say NO, at least they cast aside the mandate and had a working group, and the country said no.Re the funeral issue with Covid-19. many have objected. So they gave way. or we could have a mandate issue and stuff you all, we have a mandate, tough bikkies. Democracy doesnt just mean elections. You can have democracy, which when elected is authoritarian. Until the next election. Its called a mandate. Or you can listen to the people. Wish that happened when CERA was created. Then, 11 years later you may not have claims unresolved, still.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2482943 13-May-2020 17:49

GV27:

The CGT would have been a great idea before house prices took off. It doesn't make sense to bring it in when there are still supply issues and we can't build new houses to meet demand at sane prices. You've got to address those first or else the market just prices in lost revenue and asks even higher prices. A lot of stuff has fed into that (land/RMA/building supplies) and we'd be naive to think that any CGT wouldn't just get added to the pile of things pushing prices up like all those other things did.

Having said that, I think there would be many people who accept the need for more comprehensive tax treatments of things like property investment but found it hard to agree with the TWG report, which was pretty messy. That whole process is probably one missed opportunity. A more moderate, perhaps more low-profile TWG might have produced a more acceptable and pragmatic proposal.

That's not say some of the other debates around tax isn't abjectly lazy - comparing our top marginal rate as a percentage alone, which is low-ish compared to other countries, without comparing what that kind of money buys in a high cost, low wage country like ours is a classic. As are the discussions around GST, which point to the Australian exemptions for fruit and vege without understanding the Australian system was designed based on ours before politicians started playing with it, and created a giant mess in the process. We need a smarter discussion than that - these make for good slogans, but they're not really on the table.

I accept older people having more as a function of time, but I do think we need to decide at some point whether we want that to be at the expense of young people being able to get a footing without taking on huge debt for things like education or housing before they can start families. Yes, boomers paid higher interest, but on houses that cost them 1/10th to 1/4 of what younger Kiwis are being asked to pay for much smaller sections, with much greater ongoing lifestyle issues (long commutes, lower wages meaning working longer hours, putting off having families later and later, etc). These all have costs, but as long as it's younger NZers paying them, it's apparently OK.

We are very good at saying we're the best country in the world, but to me, that doesn't gel with what we ask young people to accept. Yes, getting a house should involve hard work, but it shouldn't be such an obstacle so huge that you don't think you'll ever get there, as dropping ownership rates attest. Many millennials who have worked to scrape together deposits are now facing losing their savings as house prices drop, and in some cases, negative equity. That doesn't strike me as being a fair go, and probably something people are less likely to accept when it happens to their own kids or grandkids.

I don't disagree. but whose fault is that? You can't blame the current Government, they inherited it. Which in these discussions it always comes down to the current Govt. They brought in Kiwibuild, yes we all know about Kiwibuild, but at least someone wanted to attack the problem. Cast your mind back to leaders debate 3 in the last election campaign. "There is no housing crisis" Copyright Bill English. What grinds my gears is sporing about housing, and ignoring how housing became what it is.

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33