this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)
NZ Politics
556 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Labour is spineless, she isn’t wrong. Also what happened to the inquest into the supermarkets? Nothing was done.
This really pissed me off. The government doesn't have the power to overrule the Commerce Commission, but there are other options.
When Chris Hipkins came in, I was saying he should introduce legislation to break up the supermarkets. He would have differentiated himself from Ardern, and won over people from all sides of the political spectrum. People are really feeling the squeeze, and they know the supermarkets have a lot to do with it.
It was a wasted opportunity politically. And something that actual needs doing. Maybe they'll announce it before the election, but I'm not holding my breath.
Honestly it makes me very angry when I think about the missed opportunities that could’ve been taken in the last few years. Labour was sitting on an unprecedented amount of political good will post COVID19 and I swear they just pissed it all away. They could’ve done more.
Jacinda turned up her nose at every opportunity to use her popularity to do some good. To her, making real change wasn't worth losing a few percentage points in the polls.
Hipkins can't follow in her footsteps if he wants to win. People want things to change.
I think you are mistaken about how many people want the radical change people online are demanding.
I'm not talking about radical change. Things like CGT are a no-brainer. I've never heard someone make a coherent argument as to why we should leave a tax hole that every other wealthy nation has closed. A hole that encourages people to invest in non-productive assets.
That's why everyone knew the Tax Working Group would recommend a CGT - because it's the first thing any tax expert says about our system. And yet Jacinda couldn't even bring herself to do that.
How has the CGT worked out in the other countries? Is there no inflation in those countries, do they have a fairer taxation system? Do they have better income inequality?
If you're expecting fixing a single loophole in tax law will solve all those problems at once, I've got some bad news for you.
But obviously that's no reason to leave a loophole there. As I said, any expert in tax law will tell you that it's stupid not to have a CGT. And I've never heard a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets.
My point is that it hasn't done what you are claiming it's going to do. So what's the use of it?
What am I claiming it will do?
Fix our economic woes? Raise the tax take? Provide better public services? Make the tax system fair?
Any of those?
If not then feel free to tell me what you think it's going to accomplish.
I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.
Have a think about this - given that experts in the field all believe that we should have a CGT, what do you know that they don't? Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?
On a side note: You'll have a much easier time understanding the world if you realise not everything is black and white. Outlawing murder didn't fix all our societal woes, but that's doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Has it done this in other countries when it was introduced?
This is economics. For every "expert" there is an equal and opposite "expert". What do you know that the opposing experts don't?
it did fix some of our societal laws. This was demonstrated in places where it was outlawed.
Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?
Define "investment in non productive assets".
What do you mean by " investing in non productive assets"? Can you give some examples?
My impression was that Labour's overwhelming majority after 2020 has also been extremely fragile, largely made up from soft National voters who were disillusioned by National's leadership problems, and tightly connected to the Covid response.
This doesn't excuse not doing anything, but the dilemma for Labour from a political perspective was that as soon as it started addressing anything besides Covid people started to remember they had other options.
I like MMP a hell of a lot more than what we had before it, but one of the interesting things with FPP was that governments could still win with a minority of support if they had their tactics right, and this is a big part of why there was such a push to shift away from it. Muldoon's National came out of the 1978 election with 51 seats from 39.8% of votes compared with Labour's 40 seats from 40.4% and Social Credit's 1 seat from 16.1% of the vote. In 1981 he did it again, winning 47 from 38.8% to Labour's 43 from 39.0% and SC's 2 from 20.7%. This was the era of Think Big, with massive borrowing and spending on some huge but often very controversial government projects.
By comparison, MMP often devolves into two big parties scrapping over a handful of swing voters, who resist change, whilst taking their base for granted and hoping they don't lose too much of it to the parties more on the fringes, but even if they do they assume they can make a deal with those fringe parties. Parties are constantly watching the polls, and opposition leaders from both major parties are repeatedly getting rolled if they don't appear to be getting the popular support high enough. To-date since MMP began (with the exception of Helen Clark who remained in opposition after '96), no major party leader has remained leader to the following election after leading through an election loss. Some opposition leaders have even been rolled before having a chance to contest their first election. That's quite different from FPP, where it'd be common for a party to keep a consistent leader through several lost elections before sometimes finally winning an election. (MMP also makes leadership changes more possible because when you can simply go to #1 on the party list to be guaranteed re-election, any MP can be a candidate rather than only those holding a safe seat.)
Governments and oppositions under MMP are terrified of losing short term popular support because without it, they definitely can't win the next election, and significant change of nearly any kind tends to lead to loss of at least some support - at least amongst people who reliably vote.