National’s Catherine Wedd is among the many National MPs who are parroting a moot message about the taxes that will be imposed if voters elect a Labour-led government at the general election.
In Parliament last week, she insisted:
Look, Labour is promising the free stuff, racking up $18 billion of so-called free promises. But let me tell you, nothing comes for free. It comes in the way of taxes—taxes.
First it was nine new taxes, then before the ink could even dry, it racks up to 11 new taxes: Labour’s capital gains tax and the bed tax, the Greens’ income tax and wealth tax, the Māori Party’s stamp duty on every household, a bach tax, an international companies tax, and The Opportunities Party’s land tax.
Look, we’ve already got a land tax. It’s in the form of rates. We pay our rates already. Just when you thought the list couldn’t get any longer, Te Pāti Māori comes out with a bottom line and has five new taxes. That’s a bottom line for forming a Government with Labour.
And then (how could she keep a straight face?):
For the Opposition, it just looks like tax has become an obsession.
The Hansard record of House proceedings raises questions about who is obsessed.
Tuesday, September 1
Labour’s Deborah Russell asked Climate Change Minister Simon Watts if New Zealand could afford another three years of a National-led coalition when its three component parties “can’t even agree about our commitment to combating climate change?”
He replied:
What this side of the House cannot afford is a transition to the other side with a Government that will introduce nine new taxes, which will ruin this economy and ruin our country. On this side of the House, we are committed to fiscal discipline and supporting New Zealand to thrive.
Wednesday, September 2
Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, questioning Watts in his portfolio as Minister for Auckland, asked:
Is the Government’s failure to fix the cost of living, failure to get people back into work, and failure to give Auckland the health services it deserves, just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?
Hon SIMON WATTS: What I know is that what New Zealanders cannot afford is nine new taxes, removing Investment Boost, increasing debt, increasing spending, putting a wrecking ball through our economy. On this side of the House, we’re about no new taxes, fixing the basics and building the future, and we will continue to deliver.
Later that afternoon, during the General Debate, National MP Catherine Wedd made the observation (recorded in our opening paragraph) about tax becoming an obsession for the Opposition.
In the same debate, Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop said:
Elections are always about many things, but I can tell the House what this election is definitely going to be about. It’s going to be about tax because, for the first time, actually—arguably, in a generation—this election is going to be about a massive new agenda of new and increased taxes across vast swaths of the economy and all aspects of New Zealand life, and a Government and a National Party that is running on a clear mandate: no new taxes.
Thursday, September 3
Labour’s Shanan Halbert asked Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds:
How many people were there in work-based learning last year, and how does that compare to the number of people in work-based learning in 2023?
In reply, Simmonds mentioned Treasury forecasts of 220,000 more jobs being created over the next four years,
… so we expect to see apprentice numbers track up as businesses feel more confident in training new staff—as long as they haven’t got to face nine new taxes.
Nine new taxes, eh?
Or 11, maybe, according to Wedd.
Today those claims were brought into focus in an editorial in The Post headed There is a lot of bullsh*t in this election
The editorial referenced the late Harry G Frankfurt, a professor at Princeton and Yale universities, whose 1988 essay On Bullsh*t was later turned into a 2005 book of the same name.
The essence of his argument: liars know they are lying and have some regard for the truth because they actively try to cover it up. Bullsh*tters are more dangerous because they do not care whether what they say is true or false, but whether it suits them in the moment.
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction,” Professor Frankfurt wrote.
The Post was minded to recall Professor Frankfurt’s work in the context of the National Party’s various tax campaigns.
Its editorial says:
The bullsh*t in them is legion. Consider just the following: “Labour wants the biggest tax on small businesses in NZ history.” Clearly bullsh*t. Or: “We’ve delivered $50 billion in savings across the last three Budgets.” Were that true, then how, on annual core Crown spending of about $150b a year, is New Zealand running bigger deficits and carrying more debt than forecast in 2023? More bullsh*t.
Then there is the claim that Labour wants nine new taxes, while National wants none. In fact, National is going to lift fuel taxes in 2028, correctly in our view. And what are these alleged nine new Labour taxes? Well, by adding “and their mates”, National cynically bundles every proposed taxes of Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and Opportunity together to create the number.
It might be theoretically possible there could be all nine new taxes under a left-wing Government after November and each party got all of its tax wishes implemented. But it’s still bullsh*t since National does not care at all whether or not it is remotely likely. Likewise bullsh*t is the claim to be “helping Kiwis with the cost of living by capping council rates increases”. Sure, in 2029, assuming the change gets legislated next parliamentary term.
The editorial hastens to note that National is far from the only purveyor of bullsh*t.
Labour has also done its bit, although it is rather more amateurish. “Make no mistake, National are keeping their cuts secret until after the election – leaving schools, hospitals, border services and family support at risk.” In fact, as fiscal conservatives lament, National has completely failed to deliver net savings or cuts. Government spending has increased, not least on schools and hospitals, and there is zero evidence of any planned cuts based on its forward spending track either.
Yet try also this from Labour: “National’s only ‘plan’ is more cuts to the services people rely on. You can’t cut your way to better.” The reference to the lack of a plan might give it a lower bullsh*t quotient than the previous examples, but bullsh*t it still is.
A PoO reader drew our attention to the editorial, exercised not only by The Post’s condemnation of election-campaign bullsh*tting (which he endorsed) but also with its critique of “spin doctors” (which he found ironical).
The editorial says that over recent decades, the world has seen the inexorable rise of spin doctors and “comms” professionals giving questionable advice to politicians, corporates, sports people and celebrities.
From corporations and bureaucracies, we have seen language develop that has become Sovietised and devoid of meaning. In the United States at least, the antidote was seen as the apparently straight-talking Donald Trump, which is deeply ironic since Mr Trump must surely count among the biggest and most successful bullsh*tters in world history.
Bullsh*t isn’t trivial. It matters and should be guarded against.
The Post’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Hooton, should have some idea of what goes on in the domain of “comms” advisers because he was a press secretary in the Bolger government and a strategist for National under Don Brash.
He is reported to have been part of a small team which helped Todd Muller’s successful challenge to Simon Bridges as leader of the Opposition in 2020, after which he became a consultant to the National Party for a few months.
He has also advised for the ACT Party and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown.
The Spinoff reported after his appointment to the top editorial job at The Post:
With a back catalogue spanning political speechwriting, corporate PR, commentary, scheming, philosophy scholarship and Mongolia, Hooton can boast a captivating CV. But, as the title he is about to take charge of pointedly noted this morning, “there’s one thing missing from his list of credentials: journalism. Hooton has never trained as or been a journalist, yet he’s now the new editor-in-chief of The Post”.
Hooton succeeded Tracy Watkins, who headed in the opposite direction: she stepped down from editing The Post and the Sunday Star-Times to move into the business advocacy sector as Director of Communications at BusinessNZ.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
First it was nine new taxes, then before the ink could even dry, it racks up to 11 new taxes: Labour’s capital gains tax and the bed tax, the Greens’ income tax and wealth tax, the Māori Party’s stamp duty on every household, a bach tax, an international companies tax, and The Opportunities Party’s land tax.
Look, we’ve already got a land tax. It’s in the form of rates. We pay our rates already. Just when you thought the list couldn’t get any longer, Te Pāti Māori comes out with a bottom line and has five new taxes. That’s a bottom line for forming a Government with Labour.
And then (how could she keep a straight face?):
For the Opposition, it just looks like tax has become an obsession.
The Hansard record of House proceedings raises questions about who is obsessed.
Tuesday, September 1
Labour’s Deborah Russell asked Climate Change Minister Simon Watts if New Zealand could afford another three years of a National-led coalition when its three component parties “can’t even agree about our commitment to combating climate change?”
He replied:
What this side of the House cannot afford is a transition to the other side with a Government that will introduce nine new taxes, which will ruin this economy and ruin our country. On this side of the House, we are committed to fiscal discipline and supporting New Zealand to thrive.
Wednesday, September 2
Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, questioning Watts in his portfolio as Minister for Auckland, asked:
Is the Government’s failure to fix the cost of living, failure to get people back into work, and failure to give Auckland the health services it deserves, just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?
Hon SIMON WATTS: What I know is that what New Zealanders cannot afford is nine new taxes, removing Investment Boost, increasing debt, increasing spending, putting a wrecking ball through our economy. On this side of the House, we’re about no new taxes, fixing the basics and building the future, and we will continue to deliver.
Later that afternoon, during the General Debate, National MP Catherine Wedd made the observation (recorded in our opening paragraph) about tax becoming an obsession for the Opposition.
In the same debate, Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop said:
Elections are always about many things, but I can tell the House what this election is definitely going to be about. It’s going to be about tax because, for the first time, actually—arguably, in a generation—this election is going to be about a massive new agenda of new and increased taxes across vast swaths of the economy and all aspects of New Zealand life, and a Government and a National Party that is running on a clear mandate: no new taxes.
Thursday, September 3
Labour’s Shanan Halbert asked Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds:
How many people were there in work-based learning last year, and how does that compare to the number of people in work-based learning in 2023?
In reply, Simmonds mentioned Treasury forecasts of 220,000 more jobs being created over the next four years,
… so we expect to see apprentice numbers track up as businesses feel more confident in training new staff—as long as they haven’t got to face nine new taxes.
Nine new taxes, eh?
Or 11, maybe, according to Wedd.
Today those claims were brought into focus in an editorial in The Post headed There is a lot of bullsh*t in this election
The editorial referenced the late Harry G Frankfurt, a professor at Princeton and Yale universities, whose 1988 essay On Bullsh*t was later turned into a 2005 book of the same name.
The essence of his argument: liars know they are lying and have some regard for the truth because they actively try to cover it up. Bullsh*tters are more dangerous because they do not care whether what they say is true or false, but whether it suits them in the moment.
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction,” Professor Frankfurt wrote.
The Post was minded to recall Professor Frankfurt’s work in the context of the National Party’s various tax campaigns.
Its editorial says:
The bullsh*t in them is legion. Consider just the following: “Labour wants the biggest tax on small businesses in NZ history.” Clearly bullsh*t. Or: “We’ve delivered $50 billion in savings across the last three Budgets.” Were that true, then how, on annual core Crown spending of about $150b a year, is New Zealand running bigger deficits and carrying more debt than forecast in 2023? More bullsh*t.
Then there is the claim that Labour wants nine new taxes, while National wants none. In fact, National is going to lift fuel taxes in 2028, correctly in our view. And what are these alleged nine new Labour taxes? Well, by adding “and their mates”, National cynically bundles every proposed taxes of Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and Opportunity together to create the number.
It might be theoretically possible there could be all nine new taxes under a left-wing Government after November and each party got all of its tax wishes implemented. But it’s still bullsh*t since National does not care at all whether or not it is remotely likely. Likewise bullsh*t is the claim to be “helping Kiwis with the cost of living by capping council rates increases”. Sure, in 2029, assuming the change gets legislated next parliamentary term.
The editorial hastens to note that National is far from the only purveyor of bullsh*t.
Labour has also done its bit, although it is rather more amateurish. “Make no mistake, National are keeping their cuts secret until after the election – leaving schools, hospitals, border services and family support at risk.” In fact, as fiscal conservatives lament, National has completely failed to deliver net savings or cuts. Government spending has increased, not least on schools and hospitals, and there is zero evidence of any planned cuts based on its forward spending track either.
Yet try also this from Labour: “National’s only ‘plan’ is more cuts to the services people rely on. You can’t cut your way to better.” The reference to the lack of a plan might give it a lower bullsh*t quotient than the previous examples, but bullsh*t it still is.
A PoO reader drew our attention to the editorial, exercised not only by The Post’s condemnation of election-campaign bullsh*tting (which he endorsed) but also with its critique of “spin doctors” (which he found ironical).
The editorial says that over recent decades, the world has seen the inexorable rise of spin doctors and “comms” professionals giving questionable advice to politicians, corporates, sports people and celebrities.
From corporations and bureaucracies, we have seen language develop that has become Sovietised and devoid of meaning. In the United States at least, the antidote was seen as the apparently straight-talking Donald Trump, which is deeply ironic since Mr Trump must surely count among the biggest and most successful bullsh*tters in world history.
Bullsh*t isn’t trivial. It matters and should be guarded against.
The Post’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Hooton, should have some idea of what goes on in the domain of “comms” advisers because he was a press secretary in the Bolger government and a strategist for National under Don Brash.
He is reported to have been part of a small team which helped Todd Muller’s successful challenge to Simon Bridges as leader of the Opposition in 2020, after which he became a consultant to the National Party for a few months.
He has also advised for the ACT Party and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown.
The Spinoff reported after his appointment to the top editorial job at The Post:
With a back catalogue spanning political speechwriting, corporate PR, commentary, scheming, philosophy scholarship and Mongolia, Hooton can boast a captivating CV. But, as the title he is about to take charge of pointedly noted this morning, “there’s one thing missing from his list of credentials: journalism. Hooton has never trained as or been a journalist, yet he’s now the new editor-in-chief of The Post”.
Hooton succeeded Tracy Watkins, who headed in the opposite direction: she stepped down from editing The Post and the Sunday Star-Times to move into the business advocacy sector as Director of Communications at BusinessNZ.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.