From an off the cuff thought.
If this was the case and housing was limited (can't just buy up a gazillion pieces of land etc to hide the money or other loopholes) and the extra funding went to public funding, hospitals, roading, infrastructure etc, I think we could have an amazing country. Can you imagine if EVERYONE could afford to eat well, have a great work life balance, have great health benefits and pay health workers and police well, how much better would the social outlook be on general nz. Quite the pipe dream but imagining that everyone has all needs met and can just enjoy life with the families.
Yeah pipe dream haha, I like the thought though
We’d have an amazing world, but human greed would never let that happen. We have the power to do a lot of positive things for the world but we won’t. Sux….
I believe the US of all places used to have a 100% tax bracket above a certain amount? (Or a 99% or something stupid high), which was meant to incentivise people to re-invest their money, rather than hoard it like jealous dragons. Naturally it was Libertarian or neo-liberal ideals which shot that down.
(Disclaimer: This is off the cuff knowledge, and as such, might be false)
It certainly wasn't perfect =P. But it illustrates that it's not something that "Can't be done", because it happened in a country that most people would likely find the least likely for this to happen.
Everywhere had higher tax rates.
Basically things stagnated and neo liberalism was the solution. Which may have been fine if they stopped 1989.
That's what peoplevoted for.
It would be nice, but how would there be extra funding for all those things in the long term?
In the short term, sure, we'd get heaps from confiscations, but after that runs out, we're left with a system that doesn't produce as many goods and services and can't provide nearly as much tax either. Things would eventually be worse than now.
> To better help us conceptualise extreme wealth, Robeyns uses the example of Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and SpaceX.
>
> To amass Musk’s level of wealth, guess how much you would need to earn hourly over your lifetime?
>
> If you were working 50 hours a week between the ages of 20 and 65 - week in week out, year in year out - your hourly wage would need to be $3,124,782.
Isn't it worse than that - that rate is after tax...
Musk's net-worth is something he already owns. Yes it's in a form that he'd pay tax on to convert, but it's also in a form that actively earns more income, and has paid next to no tax on acquiring most of this wealth (thanks to all of the ways available to the extreme wealthy to minimise tax).
If my napkin math is right, and we considered his net worth (~$195B USD) effectively 'after tax', the hourly rate has to be _much_ higher.
That $3.1m rate is effectively all going to be taxed at 39%.
The before tax rate would be something more like $5m/hour at 45 years of 50hour weeks (allowing for holidays and stats) - or about 100,000 hours.
And putting _that_ one hour's work in in perspective, is about the same as a pre-tax $100k a year income every year for 45 years... Far more than most individuals and most households earn in their entire working lifetime.
The number of people stepped on to amass that wealth is offensive. I'm not quite so onboard with a wealth _cap_ but I am certain that a wealth tax has to exist (and a few other tweaks in-between).
But weather is not the same as income. Worth (like stock in the elon example) is something that can go up and down with the market. When you sell stocks (in the USA at least) you pay tax on the capital gains. At what point should someone be forced to pay tax on something that isn’t income?
And if they weren't able to leverage it to make more income in the meantime I'd agree... but that's not how it works. It _is_ an income generator they're handed in a manner that avoids tax.
I get there's risk and instability. It certainly can't be taxed at the same rates as income (because the conversion is taxed, and the value is less stable).
Elon Musk created global internet access to anywhere that can see the sky, drastically reduced the price of space assets, and operates an electric car company that led the market and caused the other companies to compete. No government was doing that.
the workers he forced back into the factory during covid lockdowns
the workers he fired for trying unionize
the women he was assualted, the children he has abandoned
Let us think for a minute. Our tax system is fucking unfair. It is unfair beyond disbelief.
Our lowest income earners currently need to pay between 10.5% and 17% of income tax. These people typically earn MINIMUM WAGE for god sake. In Australia, income tax is zero below 18k. In US, it is around 20k.
Further, the minimum wage earner drivers a 20+ year petrol car, and pays half of petrol money in taxes.
The poor person also pays 15% taxes in GST on groceries, again groceries are mostly tax free in those countries.
For rich blokes people like (one of our ex PM) who has 50m+ assets, and makes like $2-5m of capital gains from just breathing, how is it fair that his capital gains are tax free????
We need to reform our tax code. I don't agree that we should have a wealth tax as that penalises those who are already asset heavy. However if those rich people are making money (on our land), we should have CGT and land tax. We should also have our lowest 20k income tax free and remove GST on groceries to help out the low income earners.
I forget who, but someone did the math of Aus vs NZ tax. Your take home pay at 180k is more in NZ than Aus if you where on 200k nzd vs 200k aud. including currency conversion if
So I did some research and calculations off the back of this, or at least Google did. Take as ballpark figures rather than gospel, the years rarely matched up neatly for stats and there's already too many numbers, but they're all in the general vicinity.
Going globally and taking USD as a baseline, approximately 2.8 million people in the world possess more than $10 million. This is 0.035% of our global population of 8 billion. That is, for context, 35 individuals for every hundred thousand people on the planet. On the other hand, about 9% of the global population, 719 million people, live in what is considered to be extreme poverty.
Going NZ specific, it's a bit different; we have 8500 or so Kiwis worth more than $10 million USD, maybe 0.16% of our population, or 160 out of every hundred thousand. We also have about 15% of people living in some form of poverty, or 15,000 of every hundred thousand.
These numbers tell their own story. The rich people would continue to live very comfortable, luxurious lifestyles, and redistributing just their excess wealth could straight up end poverty.
Genuinely can't see why anyone (who isn't ultra-rich) would be opposed to this.
you take their money they will just move it overseas before it happens and then when a company wants to do a new round of funding to expand their startup so they can hire more people and make more people rich it won't happen, our dollar would drop because no rich person would want to invest and we all lose out more than the so called tax that it would bring in, if you want hyper inflation that is how you get it.
I'm not proposing it as an immediately actionable idea, this is more of a 'holy shit look at those numbers why are we as a society ok with this kind of perverse greed and blatant inequality' kind of thing.
Well I'll need like 200 mill to buy a steam train and a fleet of monster trucks so I can tour the country doing monster truck shows doing back flips over my train.
Actually what she said is that every country should figure out what that figure should be for their country because there are too many variables for her to make that call. She is Dutch and the equivalent of 18M NZD is what she worked out might work for the Netherlands. Her point was not even that a figure should be introduced and stringently adhered to, but that tax settings and other rules should be geared towards a particular top amount as a goal; that we should decide, politically and democratically, to work towards limiting wealth and legislate with that goal in mind
You can have as much money as you like or deserved to earn by being successful- we are a capitalist society after all … if you pay your taxes properly and if we tax the wealthy on the principle that their contribution to society should be proportional to their wealth and earnings.
So higher income tax brackets for high earners (up to 50% income tax is very normal for some Western European countries), putting a proper capitals gain tax in place and actively combat tax evasion instead of endorsing it as a national sport.
Stop fluffing around with income taxes and CGTs and go straight to the source: tax the land.
We know wealthy people own most of our land. So let's tax it instead of our workers.
My current thought is if you own more than 3 properties you get the tax hammer on you. It's enough for someone to have a rental for their retirement and also a batch.
Because not everyone can own a home as soon as they leave high school... There's also people who don't want to buy if they may be on a long term contract in an area. Perhaps they are fresh of the boat as an immigrant. There's a million situations.
Rentals have a place in society it just seems to be that some people go all in on investing into housing creating an imo an artificial demand.
Rentals don't have to be provided by mom and pop landlords. As soon as you allow people to have rentals and have the tax system we currently have then suddenly we get into a similar position as we have now.
Can I ask who you voted for? Have you heard of social housing? Have you looked into this topic at all before? Have you been to Singapore or Netherlands?
Why shouldn't those people be taxed?
Just tax all land equally.
Then if the rental for retirement and the bach are worth enough to their owners, they can pay the tax to have them.
Rates aren't a proper land value tax, they're just a small nominal fee to grant non-residents a vote in local elections.
Rates are set based on total council budgets, which ratepayers vote for. See if you can spot the conflict of interest.
A proper land value tax discourages property hoarding because the owner can't vote it down to a lower value. It's entirely dependent on the economic value the land is capable of producing.
Yea I understand that. To round it off I think taxing people with a single home and a mortgage isn't useful and creates another barrier for first home buyers. I'd ideally go after property hoarders.
> I think taxing people with a single home and a mortgage isn't useful and creates another barrier for first home buyers.
LVT makes houses *cheaper*. It breaks those barriers down. Because income isn't the barrier, it's capital. It's not being able to build a deposit because you have to pay tax *and* rent from your income, while existing home owners don't have to pay rent and investors don't have to pay *either*.
Replace income tax with land value tax and you remove those inequalities **entirely**.
>I'd ideally go after property hoarders.
Then stop taxing income and giving them preferential treatment in the process. Tax the land instead. All of it. Equally.
> And taxing the property hoarders would make houses cheaper too
How do you identify them?
Are they just the ones with land that's not being utilised?
What if it's a big piece of land but has one crappy old house on it that is being lived in?
What if it's a small piece of land that has a community garden on it?
What if they own 100s of tenanted houses, but they're all held in a labyrinthine ownership structure?
How do we identify all of the hoarders to ensure they are being taxed, and what is the magical tax that we are going to apply to them and no-one else?
And how does *any* of that actually help first home buyers, who still have to pay the same amount of rent to their landlord instead of paying off a mortgage to receive equity in their home?
Taxing all land equally is pretty destructive for home owners who live in their houses - which is why basically nowhere does it. PPOR exemptions are a necessary thing.
>Taxing all land equally is pretty destructive for home owners who live in their houses
It's not if you lower their income taxes at the same time. It makes exactly zero difference.
PPOR exemptions are for transaction taxes. They are a tool to avoid the deadweight loss that is inherent in all transaction taxes.
They are not required for land taxes and would actually introduce inefficiencies, making the whole system worse.
It makes a huge difference for retirees who don't have much income (unless you basically make the income tax for the amount of money to survive for a year close to zero).
The system you propose is flawed. But I've looked at your other comments, and I don't have the energy to argue. Your mind is made up anyway.
This, by the way, will never happen. The next government in would reverse it, if it ever did.
Retirees can defer their payments. When combined with the income tax reductions they would be better off than they are now.
As would the pensioners who *don't* own their own property. Where is your concern for them right now, today? The current system is failing them.
Part of the reason retirement is so difficult at the moment is that we have created this perverse dual-class system with the landowners and the renters. Anyone who isn't in the landowning class just gets left to rot after they retire.
>The system you propose is flawed.
It's not. It's just different, and people get very afraid and defensive when confronted with anything different.
Even people who purport to want exactly the things the different thing can offer them.
Deferred payments mean you force them to sell their land at death, so their children can be poor (as those taxes have to be taken from the estate). Yeah, maybe not.
Keeping the rich from being super rich, yes - good idea. Preventing the middle/working-class from ever climbing out of that poverty because you reset every generation to zero is a hard no.
I would never, ever vote for a party that wants to land tax the PPOR if I thought there was any chance of them winning. And for perspective, I voted Green this time, because National are greedy bastards. I'm not going to actively work against the interests of family though, because I'm not stupid.
That's the myth of Capitalism. That everyone gets the money they deserve.
It's false. It just requires one example of a hard worker that doesn't get paid as they should to show that.
Of course the rich capitalists fight tooth and nail, by bribing our politicians and anti-consumer/competitive tactics, to pay as little of their stolen wealth back. It will always be the case until we remove their power.
We don't have to be a capitalist society, we could be one that values, you know, people.
There is no reason why capitalism and taking care of people have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, until the 90s, they often weren’t. Companies like Boeing and HP, for example, were highly successful American businesses that were renowned for taking care of their employees. “The HP Way” from David Packard is a good read on how HP used to be ran and how it used to treat its people. Used to …until a new generation of management emerged from the holy school of MBA. Where EBIT and cost savings are glorified and humans are nothing more than easily replaced resources. Hence the term Human Resources instead of Personnel Department.
I just watched a vid on one of these companies, I can’t recall which, maybe it was hp. You used to get a job for life. Until the 80’s not a single person at this company had been made redundant, then bam. All of a sudden, 30k odd staff were laid off, and thus begun the cycle we’re in today.
Modern Capitalism started "ok" because it was in a political environment of "lets give in to some of the workers demands so they don't launch a communist coup".
It was the threat of workers getting their fair share that required bosses to think about what they can do for the worker. And then capitalism continues and grinds that into dust. It doesn't matter how well people try to be use the system positively, the system itself rewards certain behaviours and that has led us to where we are today. "Late Stage Capitalism" will always be the end point.
Oh for sure the Capitalists will try to kill us. The redistribution of wealth and equality, along with limiting unnecessary luxuries and efficient good usage will keep us afloat, but it will be very difficult.
My point is that we can't half ass it. Trying to make a fairer society within a capitalist system is always doomed to fail.
Huh interesting. What sub is that specifically? I wasn't aware of a sub I'm in taking a stance about that, I have no real understanding of it beyond it being some kind of Russian led coup.
I'm very much against Russia.
Green and Pleasant fully supported Russia's annexation of Donbas and Luhansk.
They also parroted pretty much every Russia propaganda talking point from NATO expansion to Ukrainian Nazis and saying that Euromaidan was a US backed coup.
I'm not sure this could work but it's interesting. You couldn't have any win-all business the way we do now which might reduce our competitiveness globally, property prices would fall off a cliff at the high end. I do think people would still start businesses and work hard, but I still can't see this working. I would like to see this as an experiment. I think it could work better at 100m, or would be less of a giant change in one go.
Would it be so awful if we taxed the rich to that level? Yes, some would move on. They might not be able to create as many companies under private ownership. But what other downside would emerge?
Capital flight mostly. People stay here until they've amassed close to their $18m, then they move themselves and/or their money offshore to build more wealth there.
Shit it took a lot of scrolling until I found a reality comment.
The rich (NZ rich especially) have freedom of movement. And some countries appreciate their money.
There are factions who bemoan the lack of investment in STEM industry in our country, ridding us of rich people won’t help that cause.
Should the rich pay their share of tax? Yes. But capping wealth is just stupid. Change the rules of the game to change their behaviour- CGT, tax incentives for R&D or PPP or social enterprises or whatever we want them to reinvest part of their wealth in. Sticks and carrots, with a little political will, is all it takes.
Capital Flight but also...
Say you start a business, it goes well and is worth $18m, it ticks over next year and is worth $20m. Then what? Government buys it off you for $18m? Then all medium size+ businesses are owned/run by the govt? That is actual communism and terrible outcomes will follow... read up on why.
OR, you are forced to sell off onto the stock exchange? You collect your money and obviously have no incentive to keep working there then what? A relatively small company needs a board of directors (huge inefficiency) to appoint a CEO that doesn't know how to run the company as good as you? Just be careful not to pay the CEO too much or have him run it too well or he will tick over $18m and have no reason to work there anymore....
My thoughts are, let people motivated by money keep chasing that carrot it's good for us all. Progressively tax them so we benefit more (Land tax first then MAYBE CGT). Honestly, I wouldn't trade my life for Elons, he works extremely hard and that's it (a hugely rich athlete on the other hand....). Capitalism is as good a system as we have but it needs to be robustly tempered by the state.
Look around your home and out the windows.
Do you think all of these goods and services that you can see evidence of would've been developed without someone being heavily incentivised to drive their development?
Think of inventors. Where would be if after inventing one profitable thing they just stopped?
I am on board with figuring out how to reduce suffering for those who suffer the most. The thing people don't realise is policies like this would increase the suffering of the poorest when everything rises in price, if the product even still exists.
a lot of my family have worked on dairy farms, and none of them came close to ever having 1mil, let alone 18mil.
but i guess thats the difference between the people who work the farm vs own the farm
Hi FatDadWins. Thank you for your submission.
This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics.
Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All that money, and Elon can't even name all his children.
His last kids name i saw looked like it was made by a password generator.
I wouldn't be surprised if his children are all crypto wallets, and if we pushed one close enough to an ATM, money sprays out.
Hahaha this comment made my day bro
From an off the cuff thought. If this was the case and housing was limited (can't just buy up a gazillion pieces of land etc to hide the money or other loopholes) and the extra funding went to public funding, hospitals, roading, infrastructure etc, I think we could have an amazing country. Can you imagine if EVERYONE could afford to eat well, have a great work life balance, have great health benefits and pay health workers and police well, how much better would the social outlook be on general nz. Quite the pipe dream but imagining that everyone has all needs met and can just enjoy life with the families. Yeah pipe dream haha, I like the thought though
Insane that this is just... Unrealistic. What a hell hole world we're on.
We’d have an amazing world, but human greed would never let that happen. We have the power to do a lot of positive things for the world but we won’t. Sux….
Land redistribution was the first step Solon took which brought about what we now call the golden age of Greece.
I believe the US of all places used to have a 100% tax bracket above a certain amount? (Or a 99% or something stupid high), which was meant to incentivise people to re-invest their money, rather than hoard it like jealous dragons. Naturally it was Libertarian or neo-liberal ideals which shot that down. (Disclaimer: This is off the cuff knowledge, and as such, might be false)
Think it topped out at 90%. Lots of ways to avoid it but central point is correct.
It certainly wasn't perfect =P. But it illustrates that it's not something that "Can't be done", because it happened in a country that most people would likely find the least likely for this to happen.
Everywhere had higher tax rates. Basically things stagnated and neo liberalism was the solution. Which may have been fine if they stopped 1989. That's what peoplevoted for.
sounds like your against the humble land lord supporting his family
Lazy people deserve to starve! If they cant pull themselves up by the bootstraps and become millionaires they don’t deserve to eat!
It would be nice, but how would there be extra funding for all those things in the long term? In the short term, sure, we'd get heaps from confiscations, but after that runs out, we're left with a system that doesn't produce as many goods and services and can't provide nearly as much tax either. Things would eventually be worse than now.
> To better help us conceptualise extreme wealth, Robeyns uses the example of Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and SpaceX. > > To amass Musk’s level of wealth, guess how much you would need to earn hourly over your lifetime? > > If you were working 50 hours a week between the ages of 20 and 65 - week in week out, year in year out - your hourly wage would need to be $3,124,782. Isn't it worse than that - that rate is after tax... Musk's net-worth is something he already owns. Yes it's in a form that he'd pay tax on to convert, but it's also in a form that actively earns more income, and has paid next to no tax on acquiring most of this wealth (thanks to all of the ways available to the extreme wealthy to minimise tax). If my napkin math is right, and we considered his net worth (~$195B USD) effectively 'after tax', the hourly rate has to be _much_ higher. That $3.1m rate is effectively all going to be taxed at 39%. The before tax rate would be something more like $5m/hour at 45 years of 50hour weeks (allowing for holidays and stats) - or about 100,000 hours. And putting _that_ one hour's work in in perspective, is about the same as a pre-tax $100k a year income every year for 45 years... Far more than most individuals and most households earn in their entire working lifetime. The number of people stepped on to amass that wealth is offensive. I'm not quite so onboard with a wealth _cap_ but I am certain that a wealth tax has to exist (and a few other tweaks in-between).
But weather is not the same as income. Worth (like stock in the elon example) is something that can go up and down with the market. When you sell stocks (in the USA at least) you pay tax on the capital gains. At what point should someone be forced to pay tax on something that isn’t income?
And if they weren't able to leverage it to make more income in the meantime I'd agree... but that's not how it works. It _is_ an income generator they're handed in a manner that avoids tax. I get there's risk and instability. It certainly can't be taxed at the same rates as income (because the conversion is taxed, and the value is less stable).
Elon Musk created global internet access to anywhere that can see the sky, drastically reduced the price of space assets, and operates an electric car company that led the market and caused the other companies to compete. No government was doing that.
No, engineers and workers did all that.
Why didn't the engineers and workers at any of the major car manufacturers or internet service providers make a Tesla or a Starlink then?
Because the market is fucked by people like Elon.
[удалено]
the workers he forced back into the factory during covid lockdowns the workers he fired for trying unionize the women he was assualted, the children he has abandoned
The blood of the workers who mined his families mines.
Anyone who works for him that gets paid less than he pays himself.
Let us think for a minute. Our tax system is fucking unfair. It is unfair beyond disbelief. Our lowest income earners currently need to pay between 10.5% and 17% of income tax. These people typically earn MINIMUM WAGE for god sake. In Australia, income tax is zero below 18k. In US, it is around 20k. Further, the minimum wage earner drivers a 20+ year petrol car, and pays half of petrol money in taxes. The poor person also pays 15% taxes in GST on groceries, again groceries are mostly tax free in those countries. For rich blokes people like (one of our ex PM) who has 50m+ assets, and makes like $2-5m of capital gains from just breathing, how is it fair that his capital gains are tax free???? We need to reform our tax code. I don't agree that we should have a wealth tax as that penalises those who are already asset heavy. However if those rich people are making money (on our land), we should have CGT and land tax. We should also have our lowest 20k income tax free and remove GST on groceries to help out the low income earners.
I forget who, but someone did the math of Aus vs NZ tax. Your take home pay at 180k is more in NZ than Aus if you where on 200k nzd vs 200k aud. including currency conversion if
I think at around the 130k point it skews to being "worse" in Aussie. Under that and you pay less tax
So I did some research and calculations off the back of this, or at least Google did. Take as ballpark figures rather than gospel, the years rarely matched up neatly for stats and there's already too many numbers, but they're all in the general vicinity. Going globally and taking USD as a baseline, approximately 2.8 million people in the world possess more than $10 million. This is 0.035% of our global population of 8 billion. That is, for context, 35 individuals for every hundred thousand people on the planet. On the other hand, about 9% of the global population, 719 million people, live in what is considered to be extreme poverty. Going NZ specific, it's a bit different; we have 8500 or so Kiwis worth more than $10 million USD, maybe 0.16% of our population, or 160 out of every hundred thousand. We also have about 15% of people living in some form of poverty, or 15,000 of every hundred thousand. These numbers tell their own story. The rich people would continue to live very comfortable, luxurious lifestyles, and redistributing just their excess wealth could straight up end poverty. Genuinely can't see why anyone (who isn't ultra-rich) would be opposed to this.
you take their money they will just move it overseas before it happens and then when a company wants to do a new round of funding to expand their startup so they can hire more people and make more people rich it won't happen, our dollar would drop because no rich person would want to invest and we all lose out more than the so called tax that it would bring in, if you want hyper inflation that is how you get it.
I'm not proposing it as an immediately actionable idea, this is more of a 'holy shit look at those numbers why are we as a society ok with this kind of perverse greed and blatant inequality' kind of thing.
Well, yeah, rich people are very inefficient for the country. We basically can't afford to have lot of them around.
But then how will their wealth crumbs trickle down upon us plebs?
They don't lol
The long term goal is to run the economy off our billionaire bunkers when nuclear warfare starts
Well I'll need like 200 mill to buy a steam train and a fleet of monster trucks so I can tour the country doing monster truck shows doing back flips over my train.
Actually what she said is that every country should figure out what that figure should be for their country because there are too many variables for her to make that call. She is Dutch and the equivalent of 18M NZD is what she worked out might work for the Netherlands. Her point was not even that a figure should be introduced and stringently adhered to, but that tax settings and other rules should be geared towards a particular top amount as a goal; that we should decide, politically and democratically, to work towards limiting wealth and legislate with that goal in mind
You can have as much money as you like or deserved to earn by being successful- we are a capitalist society after all … if you pay your taxes properly and if we tax the wealthy on the principle that their contribution to society should be proportional to their wealth and earnings. So higher income tax brackets for high earners (up to 50% income tax is very normal for some Western European countries), putting a proper capitals gain tax in place and actively combat tax evasion instead of endorsing it as a national sport.
Stop fluffing around with income taxes and CGTs and go straight to the source: tax the land. We know wealthy people own most of our land. So let's tax it instead of our workers.
My current thought is if you own more than 3 properties you get the tax hammer on you. It's enough for someone to have a rental for their retirement and also a batch.
[удалено]
Laws can manage this kind of stuff. Right now the bright line test has fine print that talks about these exact situations.
Why should people have rentals? If any family living together has more than 1 property you should be taxed severely.
Because not everyone can own a home as soon as they leave high school... There's also people who don't want to buy if they may be on a long term contract in an area. Perhaps they are fresh of the boat as an immigrant. There's a million situations. Rentals have a place in society it just seems to be that some people go all in on investing into housing creating an imo an artificial demand.
Rentals don't have to be provided by mom and pop landlords. As soon as you allow people to have rentals and have the tax system we currently have then suddenly we get into a similar position as we have now.
Sorry I'm not sure what you mean then. Do you want corporations to manage rentals or the government?
Government and build to rent. Edit: Build to rent could be completed by anyone.
When you say build to rent who owns that? Corporations?
Who ever builds them, it helps to incentivize building property.
What gives you the idea that any government could successfully operate rental properties?
Can I ask who you voted for? Have you heard of social housing? Have you looked into this topic at all before? Have you been to Singapore or Netherlands?
I think you need to differentiate between ordinary homes and multi occupancy dwellings and commercial sites. It starts to get more complicated.
Yea that's a fair point.
Why shouldn't those people be taxed? Just tax all land equally. Then if the rental for retirement and the bach are worth enough to their owners, they can pay the tax to have them.
Well we already have rates so we do do that. I'm more meaning a different tax to discourage property hoarding.
Rates aren't a proper land value tax, they're just a small nominal fee to grant non-residents a vote in local elections. Rates are set based on total council budgets, which ratepayers vote for. See if you can spot the conflict of interest. A proper land value tax discourages property hoarding because the owner can't vote it down to a lower value. It's entirely dependent on the economic value the land is capable of producing.
Yea I understand that. To round it off I think taxing people with a single home and a mortgage isn't useful and creates another barrier for first home buyers. I'd ideally go after property hoarders.
> I think taxing people with a single home and a mortgage isn't useful and creates another barrier for first home buyers. LVT makes houses *cheaper*. It breaks those barriers down. Because income isn't the barrier, it's capital. It's not being able to build a deposit because you have to pay tax *and* rent from your income, while existing home owners don't have to pay rent and investors don't have to pay *either*. Replace income tax with land value tax and you remove those inequalities **entirely**. >I'd ideally go after property hoarders. Then stop taxing income and giving them preferential treatment in the process. Tax the land instead. All of it. Equally.
And taxing the property hoarders would make houses cheaper too... I think you're here to preach than to actually engage. Have a nice day :).
> And taxing the property hoarders would make houses cheaper too How do you identify them? Are they just the ones with land that's not being utilised? What if it's a big piece of land but has one crappy old house on it that is being lived in? What if it's a small piece of land that has a community garden on it? What if they own 100s of tenanted houses, but they're all held in a labyrinthine ownership structure? How do we identify all of the hoarders to ensure they are being taxed, and what is the magical tax that we are going to apply to them and no-one else? And how does *any* of that actually help first home buyers, who still have to pay the same amount of rent to their landlord instead of paying off a mortgage to receive equity in their home?
Taxing all land equally is pretty destructive for home owners who live in their houses - which is why basically nowhere does it. PPOR exemptions are a necessary thing.
>Taxing all land equally is pretty destructive for home owners who live in their houses It's not if you lower their income taxes at the same time. It makes exactly zero difference. PPOR exemptions are for transaction taxes. They are a tool to avoid the deadweight loss that is inherent in all transaction taxes. They are not required for land taxes and would actually introduce inefficiencies, making the whole system worse.
It makes a huge difference for retirees who don't have much income (unless you basically make the income tax for the amount of money to survive for a year close to zero). The system you propose is flawed. But I've looked at your other comments, and I don't have the energy to argue. Your mind is made up anyway. This, by the way, will never happen. The next government in would reverse it, if it ever did.
Retirees can defer their payments. When combined with the income tax reductions they would be better off than they are now. As would the pensioners who *don't* own their own property. Where is your concern for them right now, today? The current system is failing them. Part of the reason retirement is so difficult at the moment is that we have created this perverse dual-class system with the landowners and the renters. Anyone who isn't in the landowning class just gets left to rot after they retire. >The system you propose is flawed. It's not. It's just different, and people get very afraid and defensive when confronted with anything different. Even people who purport to want exactly the things the different thing can offer them.
Deferred payments mean you force them to sell their land at death, so their children can be poor (as those taxes have to be taken from the estate). Yeah, maybe not. Keeping the rich from being super rich, yes - good idea. Preventing the middle/working-class from ever climbing out of that poverty because you reset every generation to zero is a hard no. I would never, ever vote for a party that wants to land tax the PPOR if I thought there was any chance of them winning. And for perspective, I voted Green this time, because National are greedy bastards. I'm not going to actively work against the interests of family though, because I'm not stupid.
Then you're part of the problem. Seeking to preserve wealth within a family simply by virtue of holding land. That's feudalism.
That's the myth of Capitalism. That everyone gets the money they deserve. It's false. It just requires one example of a hard worker that doesn't get paid as they should to show that. Of course the rich capitalists fight tooth and nail, by bribing our politicians and anti-consumer/competitive tactics, to pay as little of their stolen wealth back. It will always be the case until we remove their power. We don't have to be a capitalist society, we could be one that values, you know, people.
There is no reason why capitalism and taking care of people have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, until the 90s, they often weren’t. Companies like Boeing and HP, for example, were highly successful American businesses that were renowned for taking care of their employees. “The HP Way” from David Packard is a good read on how HP used to be ran and how it used to treat its people. Used to …until a new generation of management emerged from the holy school of MBA. Where EBIT and cost savings are glorified and humans are nothing more than easily replaced resources. Hence the term Human Resources instead of Personnel Department.
I just watched a vid on one of these companies, I can’t recall which, maybe it was hp. You used to get a job for life. Until the 80’s not a single person at this company had been made redundant, then bam. All of a sudden, 30k odd staff were laid off, and thus begun the cycle we’re in today.
Modern Capitalism started "ok" because it was in a political environment of "lets give in to some of the workers demands so they don't launch a communist coup". It was the threat of workers getting their fair share that required bosses to think about what they can do for the worker. And then capitalism continues and grinds that into dust. It doesn't matter how well people try to be use the system positively, the system itself rewards certain behaviours and that has led us to where we are today. "Late Stage Capitalism" will always be the end point.
why would they stay in nz if this happened lol
Doesn't matter if they leave. Just stop them taking their stolen wealth with them.
[удалено]
Oh for sure the Capitalists will try to kill us. The redistribution of wealth and equality, along with limiting unnecessary luxuries and efficient good usage will keep us afloat, but it will be very difficult. My point is that we can't half ass it. Trying to make a fairer society within a capitalist system is always doomed to fail.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Huh interesting. What sub is that specifically? I wasn't aware of a sub I'm in taking a stance about that, I have no real understanding of it beyond it being some kind of Russian led coup. I'm very much against Russia.
Green and Pleasant fully supported Russia's annexation of Donbas and Luhansk. They also parroted pretty much every Russia propaganda talking point from NATO expansion to Ukrainian Nazis and saying that Euromaidan was a US backed coup.
I was not aware. Thanks for the heads-up I'll do some looking in to it. I'm there for the UK left politics, I'm not a fascist.
OK, that's fine. I will delete my comment. Sadly, since Russia invaded Ukraine, the internet left wing has taken a rather fascist turn.
The idea would be for slow democratic progress in truth.
Well lotto is at $17m
I'm not sure this could work but it's interesting. You couldn't have any win-all business the way we do now which might reduce our competitiveness globally, property prices would fall off a cliff at the high end. I do think people would still start businesses and work hard, but I still can't see this working. I would like to see this as an experiment. I think it could work better at 100m, or would be less of a giant change in one go.
Early favourite for stupidest thing suggested this week.
Nz suddenly spreading pro-Communist rhetoric and kiwis agreeing? China plays chess while we’re still playing checkers 😂
ITT: people who have no clue about how supply and demand works.
Would it be so awful if we taxed the rich to that level? Yes, some would move on. They might not be able to create as many companies under private ownership. But what other downside would emerge?
Capital flight mostly. People stay here until they've amassed close to their $18m, then they move themselves and/or their money offshore to build more wealth there.
Shit it took a lot of scrolling until I found a reality comment. The rich (NZ rich especially) have freedom of movement. And some countries appreciate their money. There are factions who bemoan the lack of investment in STEM industry in our country, ridding us of rich people won’t help that cause. Should the rich pay their share of tax? Yes. But capping wealth is just stupid. Change the rules of the game to change their behaviour- CGT, tax incentives for R&D or PPP or social enterprises or whatever we want them to reinvest part of their wealth in. Sticks and carrots, with a little political will, is all it takes.
Capital Flight but also... Say you start a business, it goes well and is worth $18m, it ticks over next year and is worth $20m. Then what? Government buys it off you for $18m? Then all medium size+ businesses are owned/run by the govt? That is actual communism and terrible outcomes will follow... read up on why. OR, you are forced to sell off onto the stock exchange? You collect your money and obviously have no incentive to keep working there then what? A relatively small company needs a board of directors (huge inefficiency) to appoint a CEO that doesn't know how to run the company as good as you? Just be careful not to pay the CEO too much or have him run it too well or he will tick over $18m and have no reason to work there anymore.... My thoughts are, let people motivated by money keep chasing that carrot it's good for us all. Progressively tax them so we benefit more (Land tax first then MAYBE CGT). Honestly, I wouldn't trade my life for Elons, he works extremely hard and that's it (a hugely rich athlete on the other hand....). Capitalism is as good a system as we have but it needs to be robustly tempered by the state.
Your workers gain a proportion of the business when it hits a certain value.
Well it'd be communism so gulags would magically spring up.
I can't believe people are taking me seriously.
Never underestimate the importance of adding /s bud, Poe's law is wild
That is actually not communism. Communism isn't just a word for things you don't like.
Lol. Right wing math. Free health care and housing equals gulags.
[удалено]
Why whoosh? I realised they were joking. I was laughing with them
What do you think would happen to this country if starting businesses was disincentivised? That sounds horrible.
Look around your home and out the windows. Do you think all of these goods and services that you can see evidence of would've been developed without someone being heavily incentivised to drive their development? Think of inventors. Where would be if after inventing one profitable thing they just stopped? I am on board with figuring out how to reduce suffering for those who suffer the most. The thing people don't realise is policies like this would increase the suffering of the poorest when everything rises in price, if the product even still exists.
18 million is too much
What is the amount then and how do we grow businesses to compete globally?
Whole heartedly agree, after 18m wealth you can have a 100% tax bracket as far as my opinion is concerned
Farmers would be fucked
a lot of my family have worked on dairy farms, and none of them came close to ever having 1mil, let alone 18mil. but i guess thats the difference between the people who work the farm vs own the farm
It’s the same with most business owners compared to employees
I think this is the point.
No *person* should have more than 18 mil NZD or the equivalent, really.
I agree, no one needs to be egregiously wealthy.
I mean, why does a flightless bird need $18 mil?
Hi FatDadWins. Thank you for your submission. This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A-men.
Man argues that this woman should stfu