Former Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe was on with Mike Hosking this morning and he says he has no insider knowledge, but thinks the conference members will be pushing hard for some sort of wealth tax.
“CGTs have actually polled really well, and one might, with a wry smile on your case, say that the CGT poll better than the Labour Party, so it's unlikely to be a net vote loser. Most middle ground National voters I know would also support CGT, no so a wealth tax. I mean a wealth tax has got a retrospective element sometimes, because it goes to accumulated wealth and high wealth individuals might vote with their feet, so I think that's a much riskier proposition. I think Labour should be moderate here and just do a sensible, relatively low-rate broad based CGT.”
Which is what David Parker and Grant Robertson last time wanted when they had a mandate. They had a mandate, they had the popular vote, they were governing alone – they could do pretty much what they wanted and what senior members of the party wanted, senior members of the government wanted was a capital gains tax. So I would argue with David Cunliffe that if there were votes in it, you can bet your bippy that Chris Hipkins would have been chucking it out there. He was desperate to stay in power. He was putting things on the bonfire and offering trinkets and displaying baubles, and you know if capital gains tax had had any votes in it, you can bet he would have put it out there.
Instead, he brassed off some really senior members of his government by saying it wouldn't happen. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The text machine went wild after David Cunliffe's interview with Mike. And in news that will surprise no one, the Newstalk ZB audience appears to be overwhelmingly against the idea of a capital gains tax. I don't buy all the criticisms of a capital gains tax, but one of them rings true: I simply do not trust that the Labour government will spend my money wisely when they take it off me, if the last administration is anything to go by. There has to be some sort of understanding, some sort of relationship between the government and taxpayers, some level of trust.
If the government is coming to us to tax us, they have to say we're going to take money off you, and you might not like it but look at what we can deliver for the whole country for future generations with your contribution. Look at what you can do when we all contribute towards the country, this is what we can deliver. And you accept that. You say okay, I don't particularly like it, but I don't agree with everything you're doing but I can see results. I can see the country is improving, I can see that services are being delivered, that people who are working hard can get ahead, that kids can get an education, that my grandmother can get a hip replacement, I can see that it's moving in the right direction. But to take money off us and be left worse off as a country and as a people than when we started, yeah nah. She's a harder sell there.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
The government needs to do something about it's huge deficit, and it seems superficially attractive to say "tax the wealth, pay for health" as the British Labour Party did effectively during their recent election. In other words, we need more tax but someone else should pay it.
I have no problem with paying more tax myself, if it was fair, but it isn't. If they were going to tax wealth, what about all these Iwi businesses, the so called $80B Maori economy that contributes nothing to the country, while being a huge financial drain. Then there is where the tax is going. The road cones, the useless public servants, the racist funding by Creative NZ, Royal Society, NZ on Air, junkets to COP29, all the deadbeats who rather protest than work ... etc, etc. There are better ways of balancing the books.
The headline to this opinion piece implies that any money raised by a CGT would be somehow earmarked by the Government for a specific purpose. That is simply incorrect. CGT will be an extension of the existing Income Tax, which like GST and FBT, is all put into the Consolidated Fund out of which Government draws its operational spending. So it's not actually a matter of trusting the Government to spend the proceeds of a CGT wisely. It comes down to whether the Government can be trusted to spend ANY tax wisely, and that is an entirely different conversation. The case for or against a CGT has nothing to do with trust. It's all about broadening the tax base and making Income Tax fairer. That then provides the opportunity to reduce the rates of income tax on ordinary wage and salary earners who currently bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden. If it raises more Income Tax overall, that's a bonus.
Post a Comment