National Party leader Christopher Luxon on his way to their caucus meeting yesterday at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
We are in historic times. The latest election polls show that the two major parties that have ruled the roost for so long can each draw the support of only about one third of the voting public, and a massive one third don’t support either. Of even more concern is that 75 to 80 per cent of electors don’t support these parties’ leaders. Under this situation neither National or Labour can talk about “When we are the Government”, rather it is, “When we are part of the Government”. Nor can they or should they be talking about having a “mandate” to govern. We are in a true MMP situation and this should be openly acknowledged by the two biggest parties, as it is by the smaller parties who understand very clearly the responsible position they will be in post-election.
David Hood, Hamilton.
Studying Thomas Coughlan’s article on the current political “poll of polls” (NZ Herald, July 18), I think we can plainly see that MMP is a failure. In the 17 elections over 50 years prior to the first MMP election in 1996, an average of 54 per cent of the electorate voted for parties who didn’t get to form the Government, so their votes effectively counted for nothing. If the NZH poll of polls is an accurate forecast of election night results, then 54 per cent of the votes will again go to parties that won’t be in the next Government. So, despite the bold claim that MMP would give us a “Parliament that was more responsive to different interest groups”, it’s still the same old, same old. Only now we have more small parties running around, making lots of distracting noise but actually achieving nothing, with the majority of the electorate still unrepresented.
John Denton, Napier.
I was interested to see the extensive space you gave to two former National ministers to uncritically air their views in your paper over the weekend. One column, from Steven Joyce, seemed solely focused on attacking me for being a Labour Government Revenue Minister, rather than a National one. I recall that Joyce enjoyed spending up large on roads in his day, so long as they were flash new highways - he wasn’t so keen on the more mundane task of maintaining existing roads. The other column, from National’s campaign fundraiser Paula Bennett, was devoted to telling us what a great guy Christopher Luxon is. Rust never sleeps! I hope your readers were enlightened.
David Parker, Minister of Revenue
I write in response to Barry Towers (NZ Herald, July 17). A capital gain is defined as “the increase in a capital asset’s value and is realised when the asset is sold. Unrealised gains are not considered a taxable gain”. So retain to avoid pain. Any improvement to a capital asset should be reflected in the sale price. I presume that where a vendor can substantiate the cost of capital improvements to a property, the cost will be deducted from the profit on sale. Where the owner has personally undertaken capital improvements, they are in effect paid by the increased profit and should be liable for tax on their efforts’ “earnings”. I can understand the confusion, but a business (investment) is taxed on its profit. A wage earner is taxed on their earnings (ie the investment of their time and expertise). What is the difference? No one enjoys paying taxes but this is how we can afford education, health, universal superannuation, the police and all the other benefits we enjoy in our comparatively privileged country. We should all be paying tax on all money we receive, whether from earnings or investments. I can’t see why capital investments should be treated any differently.
Barbara Lomas, Remuera.
It’s very interesting how quickly memories fade when it comes to remembering how thousands of our citizens, trapped overseas during the pandemic, flew home increasing our population. These people saw our country as a safe haven and were offered assistance and a managed isolation on arrival. What is not discussed today is whether or not they are part of the statistics of those migrating out of the country now. Why is this? Is it too hard to prove, laziness, or are we just enjoying the headlines? It seems logical that there would be many, many New Zealanders wanting to head back to where their life was interrupted, now they can do so safely. It may even calm reporters who seem to enjoy headlining our loss. It seems irresponsible not to check those statistics and note them alongside our usual OE travellers. Then we’d get a clear, truer picture of what is happening.
Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.
The current banking atmosphere is perilous. One repeatedly-learned lesson is that once banks get skittish, they exhibit herd-like behaviour and contract credit and foreclose on seemingly-delinquent mortgages all together. This precipitates a recession, possibly a bad one. That is, bankers hurt themselves as well as us. They should instead work with the Reserve Bank to maintain adequate credit flows and lengthen mortgage maturities, instead of foreclosing on the mortgages of struggling home owners. Also, the Labour Party could help banking stability by passing its promised $100,000 deposit guarantee scheme.
Robert Myers, Auckland Central.
Does Prime Minister Hipkins fully realise that the prime election issue really is the cost of living? Not for the money people - the unmortgaged homeowners, the landlords and high-earning workers who continue to enjoy comfortable lives but for the bottom third of Kiwis who are more or less desperate, and even the middle band who are feeling the pinch. The answer for them is not economic growth (which doesn’t produce enough “trickle down”), nor is it stopping “wasteful spending” (most of which will turn out to be necessary) in order to give-across-the-board tax cuts. It is rather a redistribution of wealth through new taxation structures, which is very acceptable to the majority. Why is Hipkins turning his back on this? So many of our burdensome social problems are related to intergenerational poverty. The Government must get money to where it is really needed, and not excuse the “haves” who have almost purchased the election.
B Darragh, Auckland Central.
Before coming to New Zealand from Australia, like all their population, I enjoyed almost the first $20,000 earnings every year as being totally tax-free. Here a person would pay $2100 on that hard-earned wage and couples $4200, each and every year. Now I wonder what I should do come election time in a few weeks. Although I always vote Labour, they say there is absolutely no chance of getting the tax-free $20,000, however I see the Act Party will achieve half of that with $10,000 tax-free every year, so should I change my vote to Act? I wish the PM would be kind to all of us with the same gift to workers as enjoyed in Australia for decades; even New Zealanders moving to Australia from the very day they arrive. Please advise me on this crucial topic.
Murray Hunter, Titirangi.
In the debate on tax reform, there hasn’t been any mention of the “black” or “hidden” economy, estimated five years ago at well in excess of $1 billion. “Cashies” are still alive and well. The IRD know the indicators and have, in the past, been given funding to investigate. Their success rate seems to depend on the size of the business, keen to show value for money on large recoveries rather than local tradies, cleaners, gardeners etc. It’s hard to imagine anyone dobbing in their cash-based cleaner or painter but it would be immoral if those targeting the rich are also subsidising “under the table” work. Perhaps more focus on the effects of tax avoidance would help.
Mike Brooke, New Plymouth.
After reading the article “Trump’s plan for more White House power” (NZ Herald, July 18), I felt sure I’d read a similar story before, then it hit me: during either 1976 or 77, I’d read a biography of Idi Amin in an attempt to understand why. The attitudes of both are very similar, the blaming of migrants and the previous president was another commonality, the wish to concentrate power in the presidency another. Uganda was a middling post-colonial African state before Amin took power; he left it a basket case. History never repeats; but it does rhyme.
Wesley Parish, Tauranga
On slogans
Labour’s 2023 slogan was adapted from when young Chris was sent to wait outside the school principal’s office: “You’re in for it”. Arch Thomson, Mt Wellington
On school lunches
Kids’ lunches are not a waste of taxpayers’ money but what is is the greed taken along the chain before it gets to them. There is where the issues are. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.
On scams
Just been watching Nigel Latta’s You’ve Been Scammed. I received an email a few weeks ago. “They” had got hold of my photos of the porn I’d been watching, and my activities while watching it, and unless I paid $950 in 48 hours they would send the pics to all my contacts! I’ll be 84 next month and my contacts are eagerly looking forward to the show. Anne Martin, Helensville.
On crime
Wasn’t Labour saying until very recently that tough-on-crime policies don’t work, or do they only not work when National or Act announces them? Mark Young, Ōrewa.
On sentencing
Last week a teenager, 18 at the time of two ram raids he was involved in, was being sentenced by Judge Ophir Cassidy. The judge told him the two charges each carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison: “Let that sink in. 10 years.” Goodness, is a judge going to give a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the two crimes? Off he went to to start seven months’ home detention, and with name suppression. Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
On potholes
National (NZ Herald, July 17) if elected is pledging $300 million over the next three years into a Pothole Repair Fund. Roading repair companies Fulton Hogan, Higgins etc must be rubbing their hands with glee. The roads are a disgrace, owing to the shoddy material used to fix the potholes. It seems we need a watchdog to oversee the types of material being used, as quite often the potholes are back again in a very short time. Sharon Marks, Te Aroha.
On politicians
Visionary New Zealand politicians; Wayne Brown declares war on traffic cones and National declares war on potholes. The sad message from this is many voters probably applaud this near-sighted thinking. Hopefully some will see the fallacy of this approach and will reward future-thinking political manifestos with their vote. Neil Anderson, Algies Bay.
On rail
Niall Robertson makes some good points in his letter about motorways versus rail. But he misses an important point in his comparisons, which is time. Unless we have rapid rail, trains will never compete with cars. For example, Auckland to Tauranga in two hours would make rail attractive. Population density is also a factor, and ours is very low. Achieving rapid rail will need massive investment in upgrading the rail tracks and be fully electric. This is unlikely to happen for now. Derek Paterson, Sunnyhills.
On the Greens
The Green Party are so hopeless at being New Zealand’s environmental party that they are now trying to be another Māori party. Yeah, right. Gary Carter, Gulf Harbour.
On a Carlossal champ
Alcaraz played a Carlossal match of tennis to end Djokovic’s domination at Wimbledon. Djokovic was gracious in defeat but the breaking of his racquet and arguing with the umpire wasn’t a good look. Wimbledon could stop rackets being broken by insisting players play on with their broken equipment. Dave Miller, Tauranga.
Simon Wilson: The Prime Minister’s Stockholm Syndrome and National’s potholes
When has this Government ever considered innovation and promoting small business to increase revenue? All they ever consider is what they can take via new taxes and the land they can grab for free. Try putting something back into this country instead of sucking it dry. Dan M.
I’d humbly suggest that cutting costs, not increasing them, may be the most prudent thing any Government can do currently. Anthony C.
Excellent article Simon. Labour has missed the boat by ruling out a CGT (on other than the family home). Goodness knows there are enough reviews and reports around proving the inequities of our current tax structure. Labour had an opportunity to make the real change that National and Act will never make and Hipkins blew it. Alfred T.
We do need something to reduce the preferential treatment of wealth that comes from wealth and not from work or other productive activity. And I do think a capital gains tax is preferable to a wealth tax. As wealth taxes go, however, the proposals rejected by Labour make more sense than the Greens’ version. Great care would still be required to avoid unintended damage: to farming families, for example. We don’t need even more corporatised industrial farming. Ed W.
Robertson boasted about the higher than expected tax take after Covid. However, where has it gone? Now, they are desperate for more revenue. It appears to be poor management skills and poorly thought out policy. Sandra H.
Three of the whales succumbed on the shore.