Last night 1News did the calculation that Christopher Luxon stands to make $480,000 off the sale of his apartment in Wellington —he's moving out because he's going over to Premier House— and also a rental property that he's selling in South Auckland.
Now the implication of the story was that Christopher Luxon's making too much money off these properties, and he should be taxed.
Over the weekend, a newspaper in Wellington also reported that Jacinda Ardern is earning $316,000 per appearance every time she speaks on the international speaking circuit, and the implication there was —certainly in commentary afterwards— that it's unethical for her to be doing that. It's damaging her reputation by showing that she really does love money over doing good after all. And if prime ministers keep on doing stuff like this, how do we know that they're actually making the right decisions when they are in power and not thinking about what kind of money they're gonna earn afterwards?
Now, look, I don't mind the fascination with prime ministers and former prime ministers' earnings. I think it's completely human nature to be into it. We're fascinated by what our colleagues earn, right? So why wouldn't we be fascinated by what Luxon and Ardern earn? However, that is where I think it should stop – at fascination.
There's nothing wrong with Jacinda Ardern earning that much money off the speaking circuit. Frankly, if we're honest about it, talking was about the only thing she was actually good at, and she'd be a fool not to take that kind of money if it's on offer.
Same goes for Luxon. He was a well-paid businessman before politics. You would expect him to have plenty of money, you would expect him to put some of that money into property. And unless things have gone very bad for him in his calculations, you would expect him to make money off a property, especially one that he has apparently renovated. Nothing wrong here.
To suggest that Luxon's capital gain on his property is evidence that we need a capital gains tax and to suggest that Jacinda's speaking circuit means that we need to put some sort of restraint of trade on future prime ministers is just taking it a bit far, isn't it?
It's fine to be fascinated, just leave it at that.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
Bread and circuses for the plebs.
Great for calling this bull dust out, has anyone asked where JA has got her money and how much tax in NZ she pays, the great push for a tax on inflation and inept council building rules inflating housing will backfire on those stupid enough (Like Jack Tame) pushing a capital gains tax.
Individually I doubt most people give a rat bottom.
The people who do care are our mainly socialist media and the article about Luxon wasn't even a thinly disguised hit job.
The addition of Ardern into the fray was only to add some sort of balance to the hit.
Buying and selling property with your income is a different ball game to making income from a speaking circuit.
The comparison is as much strawman as it was lazy.
Beside all that what the heck is Luxon meant to do?
He owned it for very obvious reasons and sold it for very obvious reasons.
Rent it out and he'd be held up as some sort of slum lord, leave it empty and he'd be called out as one those nasty people who own property but wont rent to the needy....
The MSM will find any and all minor issue to stick it to him all the while ignoring all other 'opposition' MP's portfolios.....
If people are daft enough to pay Jacinda that much to appear and speak, more fool them. Anyone up for a give a little fund to get her to keep her lips closed?
Well said, Heather.
It is typical of TV1 to give a biassed, distorted report on anything political. Their Left wing bias is so blatant that they are actually the real opposition. We have seen their reporters actually showing personal glee when announcing items like a poor poll result for the current government
Also, your comment re Ardern:- "talking was about the only thing she was actually good at" is so true.
It is preposterous that anyone shoud pay such money to hear Adern. What profound utterance does she have to say that any audience are keen to hear? Why should anyone see her opinions as particularly worthy? Quite the contrary. Little wonder she does not return here. She woud be less at risk from maori nutters than are right wing politicians but woud still be cursed by thinking citizens whenever she risks the superanrket.
There's nothing that almost anyone could ever say to an audience that, in itself, is worth $300K. Particularly anything that a dullard like Jacinda Ardern says. I mean, are any of Ardern's repetitive vacuous slogans and disinformation worth that kind of money to anyone? I can't imagine why they would be.
No, what "speaking fees" for these sorts of people actually are is a way of laundering corrupt money paid for either favourable services rendered and for services/beneficial access to come in the future.
My reading of the Post article about Jacinda was that it was supportive. It was saying what a great "world leader" she was because people were willing to pay so much money to hear her speak. I can't imagine any of Stuff news outlet saying anything critical of her.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to hear her speak. She did a lot of gurning too. Not good to watch. I was almost going to print gooning to which I am glad I did not. You do have to be careful.
Post a Comment