Well, that appears to be the feeling in this country - where wealth seems to be something to denigrate rather than being seen as something to aspire to and celebrate, and that's sad.
If the naysayers had their way, those holding the country's top political office should be like Norman Kirk who left school at 12 and started painting roofs and then became a stationery engine driver.
Or Mike Moore who left school at 14 and worked as a labourer and then a printer.
The only label that was ever attached to them in terms of their achievement was successful, and that they most certainly were. But it would appear their saving grace was that they didn't make a great deal of money along the way.
The current incumbent has been vilified for his wealth - and more so because it's allowed him to own seven properties.
Surely if he didn't, after earning several million bucks a year in previous chief executive roles, there would be a reason to question his financial acumen.
The fact that he took a salary drop the equivalent of what many people could hope to earn in a lifetime is surely a reason for praise.
What it does show is that he sees the country as more important than the cash.
But that doesn't stop some in the media from painting him as a money grubber. State television breathlessly told us he made $200,000 after four years by buying and recently selling his apartment opposite Parliament.
It's been suggested that skullduggery's at play with his Government paring back the bright-line test to two years, where National originally set it at, rather than Labour's extension to five. Under their rules, he would have paid a hefty tax bill for the capital gain on the apartment.
Where that argument fails is that if the five year rule was still in place, he's got enough wealth to hold on to the apartment and rent it out for a year before selling it and avoiding the bright-line test.
He sold the apartment because he belatedly moved up the road to the drafty Premier House after new carpet was laid. It replaced the carpet which had been there since the early 90s, when Jim Bolger was Prime Minister and new curtains were hung with a new paint job applied.
Clearly, Luxon's fuse is becoming a little short with the alright-for-some whingers, with him reminding those who would care to listen that both his parents left school at 16 but they did quite well. He went to university in his hometown of Christchurch, paying his own way through his studies by working part-time at McDonalds and as a porter at the Parkroyal Hotel.
It's ironic that the Cullen 'rich prick' John Key also had his beginnings in a Christchurch, in a state house being brought up by his Austrian-Jewish refugee - a solo mother who escaped the holocaust. She raised them after his father died when he was 8.
He, like Luxon, made much of his fortune overseas, but came back to New Zealand because he felt he owed his country something.
It's also ironic that the four Prime Ministers mentioned here all came from Christchurch with the earlier office holders avoiding the 'rich prick' mantra of the latter two.
And that says something about the egalitarian society we once prided ourselves on.That's based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
We should be equal, enjoying equal rights but unfortunately that's no longer the case in many spheres. Woe betide anyone though who has the wit and uses that opportunity to personally make a financial success of it.
Barry Soper is a New Zealand political journalist, and has been featured regularly on radio and television since the 1970s. Currently, Soper's main role is political editor at Newstalk ZB, a radio network in New Zealand.
3 comments:
This is the usual envy of the far-left lunatics (as classified by me). It should be ignored by Luxon and other financially successful people. The envious should just concentrate on learning how to make yourselves financially successful. You could start by attending school every school day of every school year and actually learning something useful.
Primarily driven by the ideology that someone else made their money on the backs of others loss.
As Thatcher said socialism exists until you run out of other peoples money.
Like all the fake angst in our media the ideology of socialist thinking that rich people are evil never looks at the leaders in socialist societies with the same lens.
A primo example is a recent recipient of the DCM one J. Ardern whose wealth is quite extensive as is her landholdings but was and will never be held to the same bench mark.
We do not have to wonder why for too long as socialists/social justice warrior types tend to be jealous of everyone they percieve to be better than themselves and jealous people are almost always weak minded, indolent bullys.
This is a classic example of mainstream media's political bias. On my calculations Luxon received a capital gain of just under 4.7% pa on both properties (interest compounding daily). But for that he spent a lot on renovations. In comparison, if he now puts the money into a fixed term investment in Kiwibank for the same amount of time he'll receive 4.6%. Therefore his "profit" isn't that much.
However, the article says nothing about Jacinda making $330,000.00 profit on her house that she sold while PM. Wouldn't that have put her in a conflict just as much? On the subject of wealth, what about John Tamahere's half a million per year? That comes from taxpayer's money intended for poor Maori. TVNZ wouldn't criticize them because it agrees with their politics.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.