NZ Politics

562 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

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

So this is how the story ends (open.substack.com)

submitted 1 year ago by jennifilm@beehaw.org to c/politics

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Absolutely great read from Bernard Hickey on Hipkins' wealth tax announcement and the treasury report released yesterday:

That’s it. It will now be almost impossible for a wealth or capital gains tax to be implemented within the next decade or two.

The future of Aotearoa’s political economy will now remain frozen in its stagnant, unequal, unjust, unproductive and unhealthy state for the forseeable future. That’s what our leaders, and ultimately the only voters that matter, have decided. Those hoping to change that frozen landscape should now look after themselves and their families, and/or hope and work for an electoral miracle that gives parties who want such taxes dominant positions in any post-election negotiation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Inheritance tax isn't taxing earnings, it's more like taxing a gift. Someone has built that wealth, paid tax on those earnings, and now that they want to pass that onto their children, the government wants another bite.

It's wrong, in my view. The underlying principle is wrong.

[–] Xcf456 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's true to a point. The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on and as a result you prevent dynasties forming that damage society and over time, amass so much wealth that eventually mean others can't build up anything to pass on to their children.

Being against inheritance taxes outright is actually worse for the outcomes you want.

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on

I'm also not a fan of this type of thinking either. If it's wrong to do, it's wrong to do it to anyone. The whole "it's only x% of the population" argument just makes me uneasy.

[–] Xcf456 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's literally how our tax rates work

[–] Ilovethebomb -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What percentage of the population pays some form of income tax, would you say? I'm not sure how you think the two are comparable.

[–] Xcf456 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're comparable because they're both applied progressively. Income tax rates scale at higher income points. Wealth tax, inheritance tax, whatever it is. If they're set to kick in at a certain threshold everyone pays the same amount up to that point - zero.

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago

If only 0.whatever% of the population paid income tax, you'd have a point.

[–] BalpeenHammer 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I earn money I pay taxes on it. When I spend that money the business takes money that I already paid taxes on and also pays taxes on top. Apparently there is nothing wrong with double taxation.

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.
They pay taxes on the profit, unless you're talking about GST.

[–] BalpeenHammer 1 points 1 year ago

Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.

Just like inheritance.

They pay taxes on the profit, unless you’re talking about GST.

That too. Let's put that in the mix.