Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Labour's Fiscal Plan: Explaining without losing?

57 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • Gareth Ward,

    Well they could start explaining with a much better website/comms - the linked site is fine if you want to wade through fairly detailed economic targets, but neither that or the media release say plainly what it is they are doing?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Gareth Ward,

    Agreed.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason,

    Joyce was simply rude on Morning Report, and he clutched at straws when challenged by Parker. Joyce appeared to be saying that what was wrong with the proposed capital gains tax was that it didn't apply to all houses. Yet his party won't implement that solution across any houses. Go figure.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    A weird Joyce being Joyceless and blustery. It almost sounded as though they are worried.
    I wonder if the twists and turns of the English response will be highlighted as much as the Cunliffe dolphin switch?

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    National Ministers are used to spouting unchallenged talking points to fawning presenters in soft interviews. Joyce thought he was doing a routine he said/she said until Espiner pretty much ambushed him by keeping Parker in the studio.

    Since refusing to debate anything with anyone in a serious forum has been the hallmark of this governments six year in power, I reckon Joyce will be seething at Espiner.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Ken Double,

    English has really struggled to make Labour's economic policies sound looney or dangerous. He and Key both claimed that they rescued the country from imaginary deficits. Labour have more problems than Iraq right now but a lack of coherent, imaginative economic policies is NOT one of them.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2012 • 119 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Well, Labour actually managed to competently release a policy without the leader and/or relevant spokesperson needing to “clarify” matters a few hours later.

    So credit where due and keep it up, say I. The policy is probably neither as terrible or totally amazeballs as any of the usual suspects would have you believe, but at least it seems to have been assembled by grown-ups and is worth serious consideration.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • tony j ricketts,

    "In a remarkable exchange on Morning Report today, Steven Joyce seemed fairly determined not to let that happen."

    I rarely agree with Joyce, especially when Espiner is one-sidedly chairing a debate, but he seemed to be arguing for Capital Gains to include the family home. Exemptions make it easier for the well-resourced to manipulate things, tax-avoidance that in other ways Labour is aiming to reduce.

    wellington • Since Aug 2012 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    My response was "well I don't mind paying a little extra tax to put through the policies after all as far as I can tell I'm rich" and then I realised "holy crap I'm not even close to being taxed anything extra!"

    Essentially, the $150k mark means anyone bitching about an extra couple of percent tax on earnings over their $150k really does need to check their privilege. And nailing trusts at the same time seems perfectly reasonable since most folks use trusts as a means of avoiding tax, including most MPs.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    I would like to see a party of the Left respond to the tired, old "tax and spend" cliche with "Well, yes, we are going to tax people, we're going to pool all of the money gathered from the taxes, and we are going to use it to build a better, fairer, more equitable society for all citizens and residents of our country."

    What would be so wrong with that?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Euan Mason,

    Joyce was simply rude on Morning Report, and he clutched at straws when challenged by Parker.

    I thought Parker was excellent this morning, Joyce got flustered and resorted to muttering disconsolately in the background...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew C, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    And nailing trusts at the same time seems perfectly reasonable since most folks use trusts as a means of avoiding tax, including most MPs.

    Could you explain how this is done Bart?

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Essentially, the $150k mark means anyone bitching about an extra couple of percent tax on earnings over their $150k really does need to check their privilege.

    What I’d like to see the media doing to everyone, is not just transcribing the claimed benefits (or drawbacks) of any policy but foregrounding the assumptions that inevitably go into arriving at them and putting them into context. If I want to read raw press releases, Scoop does a fine job of making them available. Journalists need to do more and better.

    And how about the media checking the social, economic and that other C-word class privilege in assuming the only metric to measure any policy against is how it benefits the “middle-classes” with children and mortgages on over-priced urban property to support? That excludes an awful lot of people from the conversation and (surprise!) they’re the people who don’t look much like those who run this country’s newsrooms.

    (ETA: Or at the very least, why can't the media-political complex just be honest and say straight up: "We don't really care about talking to you people because you don't win elections and sure as hell don't attract ad revenue.")

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • artig,

    Perhaps someone could explain why "borrow and spend" or "sell assets and spend" is preferable to "tax and spend".

    BoP • Since Oct 2010 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Andrew C,

    Could you explain how this is done Bart?

    Bearing in mind I am not a tax accountant (huge sigh of relief) my understanding is that trusts will attract the top tax rate on the assumption that those benefiting from trusts are doing so to avoid paying the top rate of tax.

    There are situations where trusts are set up that do not simply exist to make rich people pay less tax and again IANATA but I suspect IRD would have a mechanism to rebate that tax.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • Carol Stewart, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I thought Parker was excellent this morning,

    I thought he was also excellent on the TV news last night in responding to the bottle of wine story. Calm and authoritative.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I thought Parker was excellent this morning, Joyce got flustered and resorted to muttering disconsolately in the background...

    I'll have to listen to it because when I occassionally check out recent Question Times I generally think he fails to make meaningful points in preference for technical matters that don't cut through (and he's taking airtime from other Labour shadow spokespeople who are more effective in that forum)

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    I would like to see a party of the Left respond to the tired, old "tax and spend" cliche with "Well, yes, we are going to tax people, we're going to pool all of the money gathered from the taxes, and we are going to use it to build a better, fairer, more equitable society for all citizens and residents of our country."

    What would be so wrong with that?

    Remember those infamous "Benefit Fraud. It's A Crime" PSAs from the 1990s? How would the usual suspects like it if there was a similar campaign for tax evasion? If I were to design one, Al Capone would be the obvious figurehead.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Swan, in reply to Euan Mason,

    "oyce appeared to be saying that what was wrong with the proposed capital gains tax was that it didn't apply to all houses. Yet his party won't implement that solution across any houses."

    The capital gains tax has been sold as a means of directing investment away from residential property. But the tax will apply to 100% of the commercial property market, 100% of industry, shares, agriculture etc, and only about a third of the residential property market. Go figure.

    Birkenhead • Since Feb 2011 • 86 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson, in reply to Swan,

    But businesses don't buy property to make untaxed profits, they buy it to have somewhere to run their business (without being at the whim of a landlord). I expect a CGT would have neglible effect on businesses that aren't in the business of trading commercial property. I'm not sure what the plan is wrt farms. If the farmer/owner lives on the house on the farm does that make it their primary residence and thus immune to CGT ?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 620 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB, in reply to Swan,

    The capital gains tax has been sold as a means of directing investment away from residential property. But the tax will apply to 100% of the commercial property market, 100% of industry, shares, agriculture etc, and only about a third of the residential property market. Go figure.

    How much of the residential property property market is people with spare cash looking to invest for profit, and how much is people who are simply paying for somewhere to live?


    If it's about that third you just mentioned... that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason, in reply to FletcherB,

    Thanks FletcherB. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    many farmers currently rely on (untaxted) capital gain in their land value as their main profit stream, leveraged against to the hilt. Expect them to fight a CGT tooth and nail.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    I’m not sure what the plan is wrt farms. If the farmer/owner lives on the house on the farm does that make it their primary residence and thus immune to CGT

    The usual thing with a CGT worldwide is to exempt the family home. On a farm, that means that the house and curtilage would be outside the CGT net.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1447 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah, in reply to Swan,

    There are a number of reasons for introducing a CGT, Swan, including having another tool for slowing down housing prices in places like Auckland. It's one tool among a number there ie. no one is expected a CGT be the sole solution for Auckland housing problems.

    And it's just one reason for a CGT. Another one is straight out fairness: why is it that income that we earn quickly (eg. wages) is taxed, whereas income that we earn slowly (increases in value of assets) is not taxed at all?

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1447 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.