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.

  • Xcf456@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s really not, it’s the main way we’ve broken up mass inequality and uneven power distribution in the past.

    Why should simply owning things be more lucrative than producing things? Our entire system is geared to the former at the moment and as Bernard says, our economy is a housing market with bits tacked on as a result

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bernard’s being a tad dramatic, don’t you think?

      Besides, if owning something is lucrative, tax the earnings.

      • Xcf456@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That seems to be his thing, yes but there’s a lot to it. Capital gains tax and inheritance tax would fit the bill of taxing the earnings.

        But really the end goal is to not allow enormously concentrated wealth to accrue in the first place because it completely fucks up society and the power that comes with it makes it self-reinforcing.

        The only serious proposition for wealth taxes right now are very small rates (the wealth tax labour was apparently kicking around was 1.5%) and would only kick in at amounts above what the vast majority of people will ever see in their entire lifetimes.

        The fact that would provide massive amounts of desperately needed funding for schools, hospitals and other public services shows how fucked up the balance of wealth in this country is.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.

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

              • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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.