Posts by Sam M
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Hebe,
Probably, but the Greens for me need to translate their stellar poll showings into actual election results. We never really know what they will bring to the party until the night.
On current numbers, Labour won't have any choice. The 'left' block only looks meaningful when you add the Greens and Labour together. Divided, they are both also-rans.
The question which I always come back to is who will Green/Labour have to deal with to get over the line.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to ScottY,
But she lost that marginal seat in the context of an election where her party had lost the national debate. I would think losing a marginal seat when your party has won the day should be more indicative of some failing.
I'm in the Cunliffe camp, though I am not truly in any camp, not being a member any more. Would possibly re-join if he were at the helm.
-
Wow, 8 pages and not a single advocate for the traditional approach? I'm starting to worry that I may be on the wrong website. All these years as a loyal Public Address reader (and even VERY occasional poster) and it turns out I may better belong over at Kiwiblog? Please someone tell me it aint so.
I (think possibly I) recognise the selfishness of it, but it was always important to me that my wife would take my name. In my younger (less mature) years I may have gone so far as to call it a show-stopper - though that was never tested.
It may stem from the fact that from a very young age it was impressed upon me by my grandmother that my role was to carry on my (father's, admittedly) family name. Even as an adult, I could recognise the silliness of that, but it has always weighed on me nevertheless.
I also felt that I wanted to create a strong sense of family and that we all had to have the same name to do that (and, it had to be mine - yes, the less defensible part).
I had one girlfriend who always swore she would not take the name of her husband and what seemed to me to be driving it was her strong connection to her own family. My response was always that I wanted to create that strong connection in my own kids. Always wondered how that would have ended up had we stayed together.
Anywho - no real reason to post except to add to the myriad of approaches recorded I guess. One poster who preferred the traditional approach (as flawed as it may be).
Were I to have my time over, it most certainly would not be a show-stopper. Even the most immature 20 something year old can grow up eventually - though I would always be a little sad on the inside.
-
Speaker: The Voyage: Dutch Disease –…, in reply to Islander,
Yep, I agree there is a need to address Maori Trust owned land - that is tricky. And conservation land as well, and I am sure there are others. There would be SOME exemptions. Though I'm not sure how they would be chosen. There are Maori trusts in the North Island who make a lot of money from their land.
But in some ways, it just speaks to the need to be able to accurately value the land (in pakeha economic terms, for this purpose!). If it has very low economic value, the cost of the impost will reflect that.
-
$350k? Seriously? I would have thought it MUCH lower than that. Would be interested in a reference.
But it also speaks to my concerns - we concentrate all our efforts on income without really trying to identify wealth beyond that.
I also think most of that 25% would be better off under my regime. 2% land tax on a $400,000 plot of land is $8k p.a. (for example). Could easily lower taxes for a lot of people by that much (say introduce a significant chunk of tax free income at the base).
On the other side, Shania Twain and James Cameron would suddenly start paying some NZ tax (in addition to the GST I am sure they already pay).
-
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/pdf/tax-report-website.pdf
Here is the Tax Working Group's final report from 2010. They came down favouring land tax though at a lower level than I would aim it. They suggested .5% land tax could raise up to $2.3b. I would aim higher with the intention of lowering other taxes (income or GST) in a really meaningful way.
I recognise there will be adjustment pain for some but there ALWAYS will be when a fundamental shift in economic model occurs. I don't think the current system is fair, and concentrating on the pain felt by those who have a vested interest in the status quo gets us nowhere.
Maybe I live in too simple a world, but I reckon there is a good way to identify the 1%. They own all the land.
-
Not much. Just more and funds to central govt.
-
Will have a look when I get home. I think tax working group provided some figures.
I don't think cgt comes close in amount raised and therefore in ability to change model
-
How much unproductive land does one person need (or should be allowed to monopolise)?
I do feel a little sympathy for those who may struggle to pay a land tax on desirable land through lack of sufficient income or other funds, but I feel more sorry for all those who can't even get a look in on the property ladder because of where it has got to.
In my view a modest but broad land tax would fund sufficient revenue to provide for a meaningful reduction in income taxes and allow an attempt at a 'different way' of chasing economic prosperity (as a nation) than the path we are currently on.
Anything else in my view is tinkering at the edges.
-
I’ve always thought a land tax would be rated depending on the value of the land so highly productive land would be worth more and would attract a higher level of tax. The counter would be true for marginal land.
All tax systems have winners and losers. The current system’s winners are the rich and the losers those who work for an income.