By Chris Trotter*
President Joe Biden has walked a picket-line. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has threatened “price-gouging" grocery retailers with price control. The Democratic Party’s 2024 platform situates it well to the left of Keir Starmer’s British Labour Party, which is still “righting” itself after lurching leftwards under Jeremy Corbyn. Australia’s Anthony Albanese is the first Labor Party leader since Paul Keating to show signs of completing a full three-year parliamentary term without being rolled. New Zealand’s Labour Party, by contrast, shows virtually no signs of internal dissent, excitement, or even life.
And it should be showing all those vital signs. What other centre-left party, in any part of the developed world, would sit idly by after its leader – then the country’s prime minister – decided, without Cabinet sanction, and while he was out of the country, to scupper the tax policies of his Revenue and Finance Ministers, and who then went on to halve his party’s support at the next election? None with a political pulse.
Then again, what sort of leader, having delivered his party’s second-lowest share of the popular vote in 80 years, would think it in any way appropriate to remain in the top job? Sadly, such refusals to take personal responsibility for catastrophic failure are far from uncommon in electoral politics. Much rarer, however, are party caucuses so lacking in spine that they allow such failures to cling on to power.
Certainly, when David Cunliffe led Labour to its worst election result in 80 years: attracting a party vote of just 25.13% his caucus was utterly unwilling to countenance him remaining Leader of the Opposition. Interestingly, one of Cunliffe’s most vociferous 2014 critics was Chris Hipkins – the same man who, nine years later, would deliver Labour a party vote of 26.91%. Clearly, that additional 1.78 percentage points made a huge difference!
Those who have followed Labour’s political evolution post-Rogernomics will no doubt attribute this inconsistency to the debilitating factional in-fighting that nearly consumed the party as it struggled to chart a way forward following Helen Clark’s departure in 2008. It was Cunliffe’s election as party leader in 2013, over the strong objections of a majority of his parliamentary colleagues, that brought these faction fights to their final, bitter, denouement in the aftermath of the 2014 debacle.
The faction that should have won, and was widely expected to win, in the aftermath of 2014 was the caucus clique led by Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern. These were the “Clarkists”, all of whom had served as ministerial and/or prime-ministerial advisers in Clark’s government. They were determined to keep the party in its place, as Clark had done for 15 unyielding years.
A Labour Party liberated from caucus control could not be trusted to maintain the neoliberal order. On the contrary, it was likely to attack it. But, making an enemy of the neoliberal order, or even appearing to, is not a good idea – as Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, then in coalition with Jim Anderton’s left-wing Alliance, discovered in the “Winter of Discontent” that followed the Left’s 1999 victory.
Robertson came agonisingly close to replacing Cunliffe in 2014, losing to Andrew Little by a fraction of 1%. One can only speculate as to how successful, or unsuccessful, a Robertson-led Labour Party might have been in the election of 2017. Or, how any government he went on to lead might have performed when compared to those led by Jacinda Ardern. Would his handling of Covid-19 have been better? Worse? Essentially the same? The random contingencies of history can drive a person mad.
The questions that pose themselves in 2024 are mostly inspired by the political tenacity of the Clarkist faction, or, at least, of Chris “Chippy” Hipkins, its sole remaining representative now that Ardern and Robertson have departed the stage. While there are unmistakable stirrings among Labour’s rank-and-file – as there always are following the party’s loss of the Treasury Benches – there is little sign, as yet, of a Kiwi version of Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or even of Kamala Harris.
About the only political declarations Hipkins’ caucus colleagues have been prepared to make since the 2023 election, apart from the usual boiler-plate media releases, are those in which they vehemently deny even the slightest interest in replacing him. The nearest New Zealand Labour can boast to a political “disrupter” is the principal victim of Hipkins’ “Captain’s Call” on taxation reform, David Parker.
Parker has been addressing Labour gatherings around the country on the urgent need to re-design New Zealand’s fiscal architecture if Labour is to make any credible promises regarding health, education, superannuation, housing, welfare, and any of the other many calls upon the public purse. There are those in the news media, as there always are, who would happily represent such behaviour to Hipkins as a direct attack upon his leadership. For the moment, however, Hipkins is, quite rightly, affecting an easy indifference to Parker’s efforts. He recognises a Quixotic gesture when he sees one.
For the past seven years the Labour Party apparatus has been making it harder and harder for another Cunliffe to challenge the near-absolute power of the Leader and her/his factotums in the Labour Leader’s Office. Working alongside a party hierarchy carefully stacked with loyal apparatchiks – many of them readying themselves for life as an MP – the Labour leader can threaten any MP who fails to maintain caucus discipline (i.e. who demonstrates insufficient loyalty) with quiet deselection and/or a hopelessly low position on the Party List.
The party’s ability to assert itself, as it did with Cunliffe and Little, is weaker today than it has ever been. The collective grip of the Leader, his closest caucus allies, the people in his office, senior party office-holders, and all those ambitious parliamentary staffers in possession of embarrassing information about their bosses, will likely keep “Chippy” in place until he decides its time to go.
About the only thing that could upset this cosy oligarchic arrangement is a palace coup. And the problem with palace coups is that they are best remembered for changing faces – not policies.
With no realistic prospect of a Kiwi Corbyn, Sanders, AOC, or even Kamala Harris, taking control of the Labour Party, New Zealand’s wealthiest citizens can continue to sleep easy.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
108 Comments
Under Labour the wealthy had the greatest increase to their wealth ever thanks to QE.
Now talking about tax, my understanding is the bottom half pay no income tax in net terms. Whereas the top 20% pay half.
National did not decrease taxes on the wealthy, quite the opposite (trustee tax was increased). Meanwhile the 39% threshold is the same and with inflation creep will start to hit more 'normal' earners
Yes after rebates the bottom half pay no net income tax, but who does this actually benefit? I guess it really depends on who would suffer the most if these were taken away.
There'll probably be an awfully long queue at the Tenancy Tribunal for rent arrears. Maybe Landlords could go into bat, negotiate pay rises with their tenant's employers. The employers may counter-negotiate a reduction in rent on behalf of their employees.
Yes after rebates the bottom half pay no net income tax, but who does this actually benefit?
If you look at the document where that statistic is from, it doesn't just cover rebates. It also includes 'in-kind' benefits like health and education spending.
Plus, the majority of the rebates inflating that number come from superannuation spending. Even more when you consider that the older demographic typically requires more healthcare resources which further distorts that figure. I don't have anything against super but it's frustrating that people keep wheeling this stat out as if we have a huge population of working age people sponging off those around them when it just isn't reality.
lonewolfnz: "Under Labour the wealthy had the greatest increase to their wealth ever thanks to QE."
Here we go again.
The government were NOT RESPONSIBLE for what you describe as QE (quantitative easing).
It was the RBNZ (Reserve Bank of NZ). They are unelected. And accountable to almost no one.
lonewolfnz, you keep saying this.
Why do want to display your ignorance over, and over, again. (And why do equally foolish people keep giving you 'likes'?)
At present, the wealthy are staying put . (They're few in number and actually don't spend much time in NZ anyway.)
At present, it is the younger and skilled that are leaving. And in droves. 10,000's.
Dunno about you delboy, but I'd be pretty okay with the wealthy leaving, selling their hoarded assets as they leave, and keeping the younger and skilled.
You seem to worship the wealthy. And their right not to pay their fair share as they continue to gobble up more and more. Odd behavior from you as I doubt you are anywhere near wealthy, or are ever likely to be.
Ah. Another one who worships the wealthy while clearly not being even remotely in their league.
On a more serious note - the 'wealthy' can not shift the bulk of their 'assets' overseas at 'the press of a button' as you suggest. Should they sell them, hopefully at fire sale prices which would be figgin' awesome, they can shift the money, but not the asset. Prices will adjust, demand will still exist and business will carry on. Any effect of the wealthy leaving is temporary. (BTW, fewer than 10% will leave if history is any guide. And if history is to be our guide, we are probably better off without them.)
Speak for yourself. Personally most of my assets are already offshore. I pay tax on them in NZ. All I have to do is pack a bag, and sell a couple of houses. Then its goodbye to my tax receipts.
Company headquarters can be relocated simply by filing some paperwork. Intercompany transfers means profits are easily shifted "at the press of a button" to an offshore parent company.
And as that top 10% of people who will leave are responsible for paying 44% of all income tax, what will NZ do then?
Will they leave though? When Labour looked at applying a wealth tax on couples with over $10 million in assets Treasury estimated that 3% of capital would leave and 97% would stay. Max Rushbrooke also describes capital flight as a "hollow threat" according to the data on whether wealthy people would leave if they needed to pay more tax. I also agree with David Parker on this “People stay in a country for lots of reasons. Their families are here. Their friends are here, their business contacts are here. They love their country. They like being a big fish in a small pond rather than a non-entity in a big pond.”
Sure GV, but David Parker aside, do you think there is any merit in the statement? There was an article in Saturday's Herald about the Sistema founder and he is one proud New Zealander who isn't going anywhere. He wouldn't budge when asked to remove made in NZ from the plastic containers as part of an American deal - "we should be proud of it. That's what we do as Kiwis. We're proud of where we come from". He got the deal. His children are involved in The Lindsay Foundation so his family links will keep him here also. As an aside, if anyone with a business is looking for funding, he invests in The Peninsula Credit Fund - loans range from $5m-$15million. The article is also an interesting read in that it proves that tall poppy syndrome is not alive and well where he is concerned.
My response to this would be there's probably not enough people with that kind of wealth to make the kind of taxes Labour are talking about stack up, so they'll have to kick in a lot lower and snare a lot more people to make them worth doing, and in the case of a CGT, continue to avoid talking about how things like people's Kiwisaver would be impacted while insisting that "it won't affect many Kiwis at all".
I have a hard time forgetting that thought taxing incomes over $60k at 39% was sane and who had multiple chances to bring in a Capital Gains Tax in power over decades, but chose not to. And after the last term, I do not think they will be honest with the electorate and these changes will end up happening even not having tabled them as policy, or possibly even ruling them out.
Unfair is that the top 300 in NZ pay 9.4% tax whereas working stiffs pay 33%.
Unfair is that the wealthy continue getting wealthier at rates far faster than those that are actually are employed to work.
Unfair is a tax system that disproportionally rewards rentier behavior rather than productive enterprise.
And where will this lead? Here's a hint: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edb84sIXoAIK5IK.jpg:large
I don’t worship the wealthy but I do admire the years of hard work many of them put into their businesses or profession to achieve their wealth.
For example a surgeon who’s spent their career learning and saving lives doesn’t deserve to have their wealth taxed in my opinion.
Except that the young and highly skilled wont stay - most of them will have aspirations to be successful in life. They will look at the setup and think "why bother working hard, sacrificing myself by saving and investing my money instead of spending it, only for for it to be taken off me as soon as I am successful?"
Only the young ones with a poor work ethic, low aspirations, and a sense of entitlement will stay in NZ. The rest will continue to seek their fortune (not just a mediocre sufficiency) elsewhere.
So CoNF, who would buy all these rich prick assets?( You want them to sell.)
More overseas, less tolerant, rich pricks.thats who!
Didn't think that one thru did you
Your constant obsession with people who earn money, mainly thru working and investing in NZ , is showing you to be a real left wing, Ardern loving, everybody must be equal and beholden to the leanings of the government, unbalanced person
The government spends the money.
Your lot, out NZ in Peril... And your solution is to remove the people supporting the economy the most.
You, my friend, would be the last person I would seek for advice on money. Second to Grant Robertson, and we'll behind even lone wolves .
Labour cannot win a general election until they oust those people who polarised & angered the populance during the dark days of Ardern & Covid19 ... Hipkins , Woods , Parker ... all of them ...
... the future leaders are already in parliament , quietly biding their time : Barbara Edmonds & Arena Williams ... mark my words , Edmonds is sure to rise ...
Don't agree. 95% of the eligible population vaccinated was amazing. Imagine what the death toll would have been with our obese population if they had not followed the advice given to them by our health experts.
I think what polarised NZ was the vaccine passport, co-governance and an opposition with an enormous amount of money to spend on marketing.
We had a fabulous tour of the South Island when the borders were close and no tourists.
Which destroyed the tourist industry, wrecked Air NZ's balance sheet, sent businesses to the wall, cost the country billions, and left us billions in debt.
Well done Comrade Ardern and her bunch of no-hopers.
She didn't save anybody, I've had Covid twice, it was a cold.
....and as a result inceased inflation. In addition to that they increased compliance costs, fueling inflation even more, and then increased minimum wages constantly. Hospitality and retail are now a slow moving train wreck, as more restaurants, cafes and retail stores are boarded up as they go bankrupt....and this is still part of the hangover from Comrade Ardern and her merry men.
Agreed. Nothing at all to do with an out-of-control RBNZ throwing cheap money everywhere, and then realising they had screwed the pooch, and then deliberating engineering a recession which has now led to a triple-drip recession. Agreed. It was all Arden's fault and had nothing to do with COVID. /sarc (Have you seen an accountant yet, averagejoe?)
"OK, none of that happened."
LOL.
"What exactly do I need to see an accountant for ?"
https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/129615/chris-hipkins-says-new-taxes-…
Short memory huh?
OK, and who reappointed the RBNZ Governor despite opposition? Who restructured the MPC committee? Who excluded their response from the COVID response inquiry? Who decided an in-house review of their decision-making was better than an independent one? Who had an absolute majority and could have chosen to address any of these points themselves but didn't?
I'm of the opinion a huge chunk of Labour voters simply did so because it was more about their own political identity and less about any genuine concern or interest for the people they claim to represent or the issues that people found themselves facing over the last six years.
CoNF, you asked why others, like lone Wolf,get so many upticks, when they oppose your thoughts/ comments/thinking , and you believe them to be wrong ( even when they are right)
Well, I think you will find the majority see an Uptick, for a person that opposes you, as a way of giving you a down tick.
You have so many conflicts with people here that you are virtually negating any good points you make.
Add on people with heart issues and other from reactions to the vaccine. I won't go down any rabbit holes, but I can attest to having 2 family relatives with permanent injuries as a result, a family friend who had 2 years of severe myocarditis and spoke on the news about this at the time, and several others, all men in their 30's with kids, who have had lasting effects on their hearts and incomes. I appreciate there is risk in everything, however I can't accept the lack of due diligence done by the previous govt and such tactics as giving out KFC vouchers to entice people to undergo a medical procedure they likely never got nay warnings about, or guidance for risk factors to at the time.
Rule number 1, never trust the state. People need to start thinking for themselves and not be rounded up like sheep. Should have been 100% personal choice but many people were effectively forced to take the vax and the result is a lot of permanent injuries, in particular to males. I guess on reflection I was lucky, I'm in good physical shape and was not in a financial position where I could be forced to take it so it got the big middle finger.
Again, she did not save many people. What should have happened is that the vax should have been optional. Those that were weak and prone to becoming ill from colds and flu would have known that they should possibly take it. Others should have been left to their own devices to make their own choices. Long covid isn't really a thing anyway, hasn't been for some time. No worse than the after affects, of well, a cold. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/15/long-covid-symptoms-flu…
Where exactly were all these tourists coming from....Read this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747
The real no-hopes are comrade thumb,rat and hologram.
It can't be that hard surely?
All they really need to do is take their blinkers off and get in touch with the people. Ask them what is going on. Not slanted questions towards a predetermined answer. understand why the young are leaving in droves. Understand why people are increasingly frustrated and angry. Keep asking why until they get to a real answer?
What hope democracy today?
Yep. People are sick and tired of the we know best attitude that comes from labour, the we know best followed by the now predictable massive failure (KiwiBuild, light rail, Covid money printing, education, health, crime you Name it), pick one. You just cannot claim to know everything better and constantly fail. So they have a real problem, people know this now and their talent pool is very shallow. McNulty would delivery a worse outcome than chippy. Labour needs a good clean out, they need a lurch to the centre, they need to re-establish their roots in the working class and massively tone down the Māori rhetoric or they are gone for a very long time. They need to start planning for the election three terms from now.
Amazing how despite getting fanged out, Labour's introspection over the last few months has resulted in nothing more than the prospect of doubling down on what got them thrown out.
The actions of a party who do not feel they should have to win power; this is the modus operandi of a party who thinks that they should have it unquestionably by-proxy, and bugger the electorate if they disagree. If this was ACT or National, there'd be all sorts of unhinged media questions about whether they would "accept the result of the election".
Labour may have accepted the count, but not the fact that they lost for a reason.
The fact that they keep losing when they talk about tax is because they need to drive the message past the wealthy that own MSM.
Reconfiguring our tax system isn't about collecting more tax.
1. It is about delivering tax cuts for the bulk of the people who are currently paying tax.
2. While re-directing investment decisions towards more productive enterprise.
3. While collecting tax from people earning income from sources that are currently untaxed.
Any political party considering a tax system overhaul should be selling their changes on the points above AND IN EXACTLY THAT ORDER.
Methinks the young and skilled wouldn't be leaving in droves if the wealthy paid their fair share. (The top 300 in NZ pay just 9.4% btw. Who wants to stay in a country where a young doctor, IT professional, lawyer, etc. gets taxed at far more ... while earning less?)
So, the 50% or so that pay no net tax are not the bulk of tax payers. Very interesting. Me thinks that the 50% that pay nothing plus churches, Tribes and other charities such as Sanitarium (which is a church based charity) should start paying their share, instead, of well, nothing.
So, the 50% or so that pay no net tax are not the bulk of tax payers.
The statistical literacy in this country is god-awful. People just keep parroting the same garbage without any critical thought about what it actually means. They never ask themselves where that data came from, what the actual figures are, and what demographics that statistic is actually reflecting. There is way more to it that can be summed up as a single sentence. But as long as it fits the self-victimizing narrative, people are happy to squeak it out like good little sheep.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/small-number-of-taxpayers-bea…
It does come from stuff so any sort of literacy might be problematic, but it does clearly state that 40% of all “tax payers” are actually tax takers and 1000s more are neutral. This was of course before Labour came to power and impoverished many 1000s more who are probably now net takers. So, 50% seems right on the money, according to stuff anyway.
It's doesn't come from Stuff, the actual source that people used to calculate that statistic came from a report that the Tax Working group released in 2018, there was also a more recent report with updated numbers which was released in March this year.
The issue is that it's an extremely surface level take that ignores what actually drives that statistic, who is actually collecting these transfer and why it is increasing. There are 842,000+ over 65's, it's literally 50% of the welfare budget. Given that more people every year are becoming eligible for Superannuation it becomes pretty f*cking obvious why that number has increased.
What also has to be considered, though, is that the calculation that leads to "50% of the population isn't paying net tax" includes "in-kind benefits," which encompass healthcare costs and education costs amongst some other things. So, basically, the bulk of those not paying net tax will be two groups: the largest one being superannuants because of superannuation and higher healthcare costs, followed by families due to WFF and education costs. The distribution is calculated by deciles but it is hardly representative because everyone's situation is different, there will be people on high incomes who are not net tax payers and those on low incomes who are not net tax payers, it's an enormously complicated thing to actually calculate which is why people continuously parroting that statistic is misleading because it really isn't representative of reality.
50% is 50%. you could always complain to stuff if you like for publishing misinformation, But I don’t think you will get very far. It also says that 3% of tax payers pay 24% of all taxes. I think that’s my group. I think it’s an unfair burden. What do you think, tax us some more, surely that’s a great idea.
I think that it's more on you for blindly believing whatever you read on stuff as long as it fits your narrative.
I've actually been consistent on saying we need to reduce taxes on incomes, it isn't fair that we expect income earners to prop up the whole country. And I actually agree with you that a wealth tax isn't a good move but ultimately something needs to be done to diversify tax revenue away from incomes as it isn't sustainable to rely on a shrinking pool of workers to support an ever growing retired group of people who are taking in far more resources whilst not contributing at all despite having significantly more wealth than the generations behind them.
The issue we are facing is driven by demographics more than anything else, it's the fact that as our country ages, we have an increasing amount of people who are reaching retirement age compared to people who are at a working age. And with how our system is currently structured, basically means that we are forced to spend more just to stand still.
Stuff is full of nonsense and half truths. I know that. It was first article I came across.
The problem we have now, being low wages, high housing costs, all of these things is a succession of governments, mostly labour giving people increasing amounts of handouts to get elected, and not focusing on the basics like education. It’s comical watching labour talk about higher wages. How does someone that can’t spell or do Math hold down a job where you have to have basic skills I perform the task at hand?. The problem then becomes the incoming government not having the nuts to reverse it. Over the years we have seen Accommodation allowances, and WFF introduced and increased, winter energy payments and all sorts of other rubbish give effectively as bribes. When they are not removed, people become reliant on them, and then we dig the hole deeper and deeper, until we get to, we’ll today, when we argue about who will actually pay for all this mess. The fact is if the government did not provide all this housing support to landlords (and it’s because they could not get their shit together to organise proper state housing), then housing prices would not be so expensive….and a lot of this problem would go away. But here we are.
What would you like to happen? Cut out all the tax credits that many landlords and businesses indirectly rely on for cash flow because wages haven't kept up? The tax payer is not giving the bottom 50% a portion (or all) of their tax back so they can go spend it on overseas trips, cars and houses. Unless of course they're in a freehold house, but what I've described there is a superannuant.
It's a line rolled out to deflect heat away from our growing structural economic inequalities. As you say self-victimizing or a "wealth inversion rhetoric" where the narrative is flipped to make the poor strugglers look like exploiters or unfair beneficiaries of the system, and the wealthy are victims unfairly burdened by tax. Even though the amount of tax paid is proportional to a higher income.
Our household is in the top 20% and I wouldn't for a second want to earn the sorts of income that makes you eligible to "pay no net tax". But I'm not a narcissist suffering from relative deprivation.
Hipkins had the sense not to bring in a wealth tax which--like the jurisdictions of New York and California are finding--would have resulted in the exit of many people who already pay the greater share of the income tax. But the majority of his MPs do not understand this. They think the rich do not pay. Well, a business pays 47% of its total revenue in tax. Add a yearly wealth tax based on yearly assessments for the total value, and it would not be worth having a small business--our biggest employer.
Well the deal most people offer with LVT is lower income taxes. So I can't that money back from extra government spending (show me a government who is actually serious about giving Auckland the infrastructure spending to match the share of population growth it currently mops up) if it's going to offset income taxes.
And if it isn't, then I'm sitting here paying a huge increase in tax in the here and now, for services that the government has shown it's quite happy to delay by decades (see ATAP) or blow out of all proportion to justify mega-projects (the undergrounding of Light Rail to justify harbour tunnels) that they actually want to build and will ensure a constantly flow of work for them.
In other words, pay even more to Wellington in the hope it will actually provide something on any sort of timeline, and not just spend the money on itself? Why on earth would anyone in Auckland vote for that as a deal?
Property taxes are their rates. There is no additional amount to pay. So they call rates, property taxes and the revenue collected goes to pay for the same things that rates do here. So they call it tax, we call it rates, but it is no different. So, they way they work, we already have the same property/land taxes already in place. The Texas rate is around 1.6%, with an average property price of 400K, and they are looking to make the first 100K tax free. So, on average their rates are $4800 per year.
Yes, their property is much more affordable. Usually they have 30 year interest rates of 3-4%, and they don't have the massive bubbles they have here. So, you can buy a property there with say 100K down, and a 300K mortgage, and your repayments would be around $1200 per month (more now as they are going through a period of high interest rates). They also have a large and diversified stock market and the USA public invest there rather than trying to flip properties as a rule. Real estate as a percentage of their net wealth is must less than it is here. Over all, much better and cheaper. With the property/rates bill and repayments as they are, then your total cost of ownership would be around 16K per year, so, much cheaper than NZ.
"Property taxes are their rates. There is no additional amount to pay. So they call rates, property taxes and the revenue collected goes to pay for the same things that rates do here. So they call it tax, we call it rates, but it is no different. "
Man alive you are full of the sticky brown stuff. In NZ rates collected by territorial councils can only be spent on certain things, and in a certain area. In Texas, property taxes are collected everywhere and spent everywhere on whatever the state governments want to. They are very, very different.
Ok, so state property taxes that are levied for the purpose of maintaining infrastructure, roading, and other public works are not the same as rates, that are levied in New Zealand to maintain local roads, and infrastructure and other public works. Thanks, it's all so clear now.
They've been 'Tana'd!!' Good and propper!
Chloe took her out of the leadership challenge, which is now playing out in the public arena and High Court too. Darleen is smarter than all of those violent, lying, eco-terrorist, mentally retarded losers otherwise known as the Green Wash'n gween party. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of those wankas, & wankesescisss.
"What's the definition of 'rich'?"
Anyone that has accumulated so many assets that they are no longer in paid employment, and yet spend $300k plus per year, while their assets continue to return inflation adjusted gains of 3% plus per year.
I expect that definition will be far too hard for most of you to work out. ;-)
I will not apologize. You are once again confusing correlation with causation.
The oft quoted numbers are "16,500 millionaires left between 2017 and 2023"
What else happened just before that? Golly. It was Brexit. The "referendum on continued EU membership was held on 23 June 2016".
It says.....
As many as 9,500 people with at least $1 million in liquid, investable assets, will leave the country, more than double the number that left in 2023, according to provisional estimates contained in a report Tuesday by migration advisers Henley & Partners.
1000s will leave. It's what happens when you implement dumb ideas that punish hardworking people. There is also the fact that the UK is quickly going downhill overall so more will leave as a result of that. Lets hope by not increasing taxes here and getting things back on track we can keep our best people here, and hopefully cut taxes in years to come eh.
Those countries offer Golden Visas. Invest a few hundred grand, and you get residency and a special tax set up. Currently Italy is quite popular, as all you need to do is invest $500k in a publicly listed company. Piece of p*ss as they say. And you get full EU travel rights.
And you can take the option to pay a maximum tax cap of $100k a year on all your worldwide income and assets. So anyone earning more than $300k pa (assuming a 33% tax rate) will be better off.
Here we go again ... Personality politics. It is a scourge on democracy while ensuring the status quo never moves.
Show me the policies.
Show me the actual numbers.
Provide us with calculators so we can see the results.
Help us to understand the six serving men ('Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.')
Why do we get so much personality politics?
It's a form of celebrity worship as everyone can have an opinion based on nothing much more than gossip.
And who provides the gossip?
None other than gossip columnists posing as journalists.
Then again, what sort of leader, having delivered his party’s second-lowest share of the popular vote in 80 years, would think it in any way appropriate to remain in the top job? Sadly, such refusals to take personal responsibility for catastrophic failure are far from uncommon in electoral politics.
I think most people view it that the leader who lost the election fled before the end of her term, therefore Hipkins got a pass on this result.
Then again, it is also a case of is there anyone better?
Apparently, as these comments show, there's always going to be people who will die in a ditch to defend your lack of acheivement and track record fo failure. So maybe it's more about how much you can surround yourself with these types of people in your little bubble, and less about the actual concerns of the population at large.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.