On a few occasions recently I’ve had the opportunity to re-visit the area. I’ve clients in the vicinity and on more than one occasion had cause to spend time at the austere offices of the Financial Markets Authority that are housed in the northern wing of the arched complex at the heart of the Britomart re-development.
The re- vitalisation is well done, with an enclosed area for hospitality surrounded by modern office arrangements all adjacent the new railway station.
Like many parts of the city, like many parts of many cities, the process of urban renewal happens relentlessly; as if some invisible force was forcing these buildings from the ground. This is not the case. Development is expensive, and risky. Auckland has a surfeit of property developers who have become more famous for the magnificence of their failures than the legacy of their projects.
Development requires capital, an appetite for risk and an ability to juggle land use regulations, investors, contractors, health and safety laws and the complexities of building design and regulations. If you succeed you can unlock great personal wealth as well as a physical manifestation of your efforts. If you fail, bankruptcy, shame and matrimonial disharmony awaits.
Britomart is the result of the vision of one man; Peter Cooper. After a successful career in property he saw the same derelict wasteland that I would wander around between shifts sorting mail and, unlike me, realised the opportunity.
The re- vitalisation is well done, with an enclosed area for hospitality surrounded by modern office arrangements all adjacent the new railway station.
Like many parts of the city, like many parts of many cities, the process of urban renewal happens relentlessly; as if some invisible force was forcing these buildings from the ground. This is not the case. Development is expensive, and risky. Auckland has a surfeit of property developers who have become more famous for the magnificence of their failures than the legacy of their projects.
Development requires capital, an appetite for risk and an ability to juggle land use regulations, investors, contractors, health and safety laws and the complexities of building design and regulations. If you succeed you can unlock great personal wealth as well as a physical manifestation of your efforts. If you fail, bankruptcy, shame and matrimonial disharmony awaits.
Britomart is the result of the vision of one man; Peter Cooper. After a successful career in property he saw the same derelict wasteland that I would wander around between shifts sorting mail and, unlike me, realised the opportunity.
Britomart is the result of the vision of one man, billionaire Peter Cooper, writes Damien Grant.chameleonseye / Getty Images
Cooper saw the potential and had the capital and experience to make it happen; gifting to the city a wonderful corner of renewal and, presumably, a nice profit for himself. According to the NBR Rich List Mr Cooper’s net worth is well in excess of a billion dollars.
Cooper’s financial position is revealed thanks to the NBR Rich List, published last week, along with 118 other individuals or families. People who, mostly, made their fortunes themselves and have achieved wealth by building things other people wanted to buy.
The new superstars are the Mowbrays, whose company Zuru has achieved success by manufacturing things individuals willingly pay for; managing the complexities of international trade, manufacturing and heroic intellectual property litigation.
And this is how you make money in a free market society. By making other people’s life better through voluntary exchange with your staff, suppliers and customers. If you manage to accumulate great wealth you have the capacity to, as Peter Cooper did, complete large complex projects like Britomart that are beyond the capacity of us less- capitalised mortals.
In response the NBR’s latest list, the Greens claimed; “It’s time to tax wealth, and build a country where all of us can thrive” and made the claim that a wealth tax on the ten wealthiest kiwis alone would pay for free GP care for all.
Superficially the Greens are right; taking money off one individual can be used to give money to someone else; but the analysis fails on both practical and economic grounds.
The usual argument against a wealth tax is the well-heeled can avoid the imposition by moving their assets off-shore. Like many on the Rich List, both the Mowbray’s and Cooper’s commercial interests are primarily international and if we had a wealth tax those with capital may choose not to build assets on these islands.
But there is a better case against taxing wealth; it damages capital accumulation. A healthy balance sheet is a pre-requisite to building something like Britomart or investing in expanding commercial operations that employ staff and provides goods and services we want to purchase.
Taxing capital, either through a capital gains tax or the more pernicious wealth tax, reduces the existing pool of resources and the future accumulation of wealth required to invest and build New Zealand.
What makes this country a great place to live is the economic success that results from private investment; from a small builder borrowing from a private lender to someone raising equity fire rockets from the Mahia Peninsula, as fellow Rich Lister Sir Peter Beck has achieved.
The Greens imagine that the wealthy horde their cash like Scrouge McDuck swimming in his vault of coins; but this is not how capital functions. First you must create something by producing more value to those you trade with than it costs you to deliver. Then you need to this at scale; over decades.
Those who achieve this build the capital needed to fund the next generations of entrepreneurs......The full article is published HERE
Cooper saw the potential and had the capital and experience to make it happen; gifting to the city a wonderful corner of renewal and, presumably, a nice profit for himself. According to the NBR Rich List Mr Cooper’s net worth is well in excess of a billion dollars.
Cooper’s financial position is revealed thanks to the NBR Rich List, published last week, along with 118 other individuals or families. People who, mostly, made their fortunes themselves and have achieved wealth by building things other people wanted to buy.
The new superstars are the Mowbrays, whose company Zuru has achieved success by manufacturing things individuals willingly pay for; managing the complexities of international trade, manufacturing and heroic intellectual property litigation.
And this is how you make money in a free market society. By making other people’s life better through voluntary exchange with your staff, suppliers and customers. If you manage to accumulate great wealth you have the capacity to, as Peter Cooper did, complete large complex projects like Britomart that are beyond the capacity of us less- capitalised mortals.
In response the NBR’s latest list, the Greens claimed; “It’s time to tax wealth, and build a country where all of us can thrive” and made the claim that a wealth tax on the ten wealthiest kiwis alone would pay for free GP care for all.
Superficially the Greens are right; taking money off one individual can be used to give money to someone else; but the analysis fails on both practical and economic grounds.
The usual argument against a wealth tax is the well-heeled can avoid the imposition by moving their assets off-shore. Like many on the Rich List, both the Mowbray’s and Cooper’s commercial interests are primarily international and if we had a wealth tax those with capital may choose not to build assets on these islands.
But there is a better case against taxing wealth; it damages capital accumulation. A healthy balance sheet is a pre-requisite to building something like Britomart or investing in expanding commercial operations that employ staff and provides goods and services we want to purchase.
Taxing capital, either through a capital gains tax or the more pernicious wealth tax, reduces the existing pool of resources and the future accumulation of wealth required to invest and build New Zealand.
What makes this country a great place to live is the economic success that results from private investment; from a small builder borrowing from a private lender to someone raising equity fire rockets from the Mahia Peninsula, as fellow Rich Lister Sir Peter Beck has achieved.
The Greens imagine that the wealthy horde their cash like Scrouge McDuck swimming in his vault of coins; but this is not how capital functions. First you must create something by producing more value to those you trade with than it costs you to deliver. Then you need to this at scale; over decades.
Those who achieve this build the capital needed to fund the next generations of entrepreneurs......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
12 comments:
The dangerous Greens are marxists - and peddle marxist economics which always fail. i.e. redistribution of wealth.
But ignorant and greedy voters love the simplistic idea of free money and wrap around care. As would Iwi - as they would be exempt. Vote Green and TPM at your peril.
Auckland, and NZ become less of " a great place to live" every day because of the Councils and government forcibly taking my hard won efforts and giving them to Maori.
Take money from the dynamic folk and give it to the lazy. Logic???
Footnote: there are some who genuinely need social support- part of the social contract.
Exactly - the social contract is sidelined.
The "some" have become " too many" - even "most" as time advances in the tribal paradise.
The big gamble now for those carrying the tax burden: will the wake-up call come sooner or later ?
I remember the downtown Auck Bus depot only too well. Greasy spoon takeawys, a stamp and coin exchange. A famous chip shop and the PO sorting centre. It was a dive alright and once while waiting for a bus I was assaulted by a bunch of brown girls who stole my greasy spoon food. Glad that's all gone
The Greens and it seems local govt official and too many rubber stamp councillors believe the state knows best through its various arms and would prefer asset and wealth grabs and five_year plans . TPM are different. They want tribal chiefs in charge .
Tax the rich, great sound bite but totally flawed in logic.
However, who said the Greens were logical?
A Green Party advocating for a Marxist agenda, bugger the climate!
Thank you.
Society must tax
Taxing wide and small is best
Like a Trump tariff of 10%. A capital gains tax of 10% say, wont upset any capitalist
Steve
Simply put,capital is the goose,while income is the golden egg.We shouldn't reduce capital's laying efficiency.
And who are the tribal chiefs? The clown with the cowboy hat and the other clown with the bar-codes on her chin
It’s those idiot greens combined with labour policies that prevent people from having a go at making this a great place - throw in a legacy journo comment that chastises anyone who dares to make more than minimum wage and people wonder why we have such poverty issues.
Get rid of middle class social welfare, make it a country that is genuinely friendly to business with lenders who treat customers like grown ups…& cut off all funding for media and watch this place recover!
Yes there are negative effect of taxing wealth but what most societies have found is that the rich do not even pay the taxes they owe. They use off shore accounts and they use creative accountancy. This article is one end of the spectrum and the comments are the other. Catastophizing. Why should Amazon, and other big companies pay no taxes or almost none and yet use the infrastructure (roads, airports and so on) built by tax dollars? There is a middle ground. Not all government 'handouts' are wrong or wasteful e.g. school lunches. Unfettered, unbridled capitalism is not the answer either. Just read some Charles Dickens novels to understand that.
Post a Comment