CGT Dumped

Written By: - Date published: 2:08 pm, April 17th, 2019 - 244 comments
Categories: business, capital gains, capitalism, class war, Economy, greens, labour, nz first, same old national, Social issues, tax, tenants' rights, uncategorized - Tags: , , , ,

Labour have announced they could not get a consensus within the coalition Government on the Capital Gains Tax proposed in the Tax Working Group’s final report.

Labour has decided not to pursue the matter during this term nor will it be an election 2020 campaign policy.

Making the announcement, Jacinda Ardern said she was dropping the tax “not because I don’t believe in it, but because I don’t believe New Zealanders do.”

National would have loved for the next election to be a debate around tax, particularly the CGT, but that doesn’t guarantee success.  The previous Tory leader, Bill English, held out a large tax cut as a sweetener at the last election and it seemed to make little difference to the voting outcomes.

By ending the debate on CGT, Labour have dramatically narrowed National’s field of attack. And whether the Tories like it or not, the concept of tax fairness is embraced by many Kiwis.

While the Greens and Labour will be disappointed that they cannot proceed with what is, after all, a fair tax,  NZ First can genuinely say that it was listened to and it’s views were respected.

Again, this is clever, pragmatic politics from Labour in an MMP environment.

This decision almost certainly shores up coalition arrangements after the next election and deals a fatal blow to National’s slim hopes of returning to power.

244 comments on “CGT Dumped”

  1. Enough is Enough 1

    What the actual fuck?

    This should still be their core policy going into the election,

    With Winston gone it can still happen

    • gsays 1.1

      Yep, well said.

      By good politics it means it is politically good for them personally, employment wise.

      Didn’t take long to see a political group turn into a coagulation of troughers.
      Oink oink comrade.

      Bitterly disappointing.

      Now watch all the teal ‘lefties’ come out with soothing noises- ‘it’s a shame, but….’

    • roy cartland 1.2

      Of course. Rename it a “greed tax”. Hard to argue that one, even with that idiotic party of Winston/Jones/Mark.

    • Wayne 1.3

      The PM has understood the lesson of John Key. You don’t spend political capital on unpopular policies. You use it to win elections.

      John Key was forever having to remind his Cabinet colleagues of this basic political lesson.

      • Kat 1.3.1

        Good try Wayne but Jacinda Ardern is better at chess, and drinks a finer malt. Just wait till the multinational corporations see what the govt has in store for them, any proposed CGT will seem like chickfeed.

        • Wayne 1.3.1.1

          Kat,

          I doubt it. She is not going to make NZ a highly undesirable place for international investment. Simply not the PM’s style. She is not a socialist, she is a social democrat.

          So likely some tweaking on corporate tax, probably in line with Australian changes.

          I am personally looking for something interesting and inclusive in policy terms on the climate change front. Seems very much the PM’s thing.

          • Kat 1.3.1.1.1

            Who said anything about the PM making NZ a highly undesirable place for international investment.

            The PM, in her own words is a “pragmatic idealist”.

            • Wayne 1.3.1.1.1.1

              Kat,

              We are talking about two different things.

              The distinction between socialist and social democrat is an ideological distinction.

              Being a pragmatic realist is a description of whether policies are seen as doable or not. I have no doubt the PM is a pragmatic realist.

              As for her ideology, everything she says and does indicates she is a social democrat. She seems reasonably comfortable with an open market economy, but she wants fairer outcomes within it. But nothing too dramatic.

              As you will know from my Spinoff articles and my posts here I have been impressed with the PM from day one. I expect her to do something interesting about climate change and New Zealand as a peacemaker. These will be uniting policies, not divisive ones. This is where the transformative policies will happen.

              Which is not to say I have changed my vote. It is quite possible to be impressed with someone from another political party and to wish them well in their endeavours and their ambitions for our country.

              • Kat

                Wayne, ok the PM is a ‘pragmatic idealist social democrat’….little to be achieved in nitpicking on labels.

                I am interested in your view on the PM and being impressed with someone from another political party. Following Jacinda Ardern taking over the leadership of the Labour party the views expressed publicly by many National party people, eg Michelle Boag, various Nat MP’s and commentators, was that having Jacinda Ardern as leader may be all very well, but the Labour party is still just the Labour party. Then there was the “lipstick on a pig” and the “little girl” moniker.

                Admit it Wayne, the way politics is structured its all about winning. No one wants to be on the losing side. Nothing can be achieved in opposition, apart from negativity. You know that. As Chris Trotter often analogises, the theatre of politics is like war and choosing to sit on the fence means getting caught in the crossfire and usually blown away. You may admire the PM, there is much to admire, but don’t kid me you wish her well in her political endeavours. Unless of course you are planning on joining the Labour party.

                The big problem for you National party people is the performance of the PM, she more than matches the rhetoric.

    • rozgonz 1.4

      With Winston gone there is no CoL

    • Labour_voter 1.5

      I sincerely thought Ms Ardern stood for something. Now she has proved she is no different. Shame on you for defending her as this is good politics. What about tax fairness she bleated for so long? She should have chucked Winston out and called an election. Labour and Greens will romp home easily.

      • BM 1.5.1

        Don’t forget her “Climate change is my generation’s nuclear-free moment”, it’s all bull shit and lies.

        Sorry lefties, Join the club you’ve been played, fuck no wonder everyone thinks politicians are self-serving arseholes.

        • left_forward 1.5.1.1

          No bummer, the whole point of the left is not being a self-serving arsehole.

      • left_forward 1.5.2

        Well so-called sincere labour_voter, reserve your judgement and recognise the reality of democratic politics. Jacinda, Labour and the greens, do not have the numbers to swing this – her decision not to pursue it now does not reflect what she stands for – she has made it very clear what this is.
        If this is really what you wanted too, then keep campaigning for it, and one day we may indeed have the maths on our side.

      • greywarshark 1.5.3

        Labour voter
        My eye! I spot you as a Gnat traveller, sneaking into first class when you haven;t even got a third class ticket.

    • BobandTurtle 1.6

      Yes for sure the Prime Minister has been savy and ensured the re-election of this ‘coalition’ Government. It sure was the death bell if they had gone into the next election saying it was going to happen. But I do think the tail has wagged the dog in this case with Winston really laying down the law and playing one of his many cards. You want to know who has veto power? Winston first. So much for any sway the Greens thought they had, not when it matters. Labour can lose a few hard core communists/socialists in the process as long as the ‘coalition’ stays in power and they keep Winston happy. Welcome to the real world.

      • left_forward 1.6.1

        No turtle and bobby, cbt is not about communism, but a pragmatic and fair tax. It has significant support, and one day we will have the numbers in parliament to turn it.

  2. Brutus Iscariot 2

    “This decision almost certainly shores up coalition arrangements after the next election and deals a fatal blow to National’s slim hopes of returning to power.”

    Comical! What’s the point of being in power if you can’t implement your core policies.

    This will cause a massive rift in the Labour-Greens relationship. Perhaps Labour are strategically positioning themselves to breathe new life into NZF and set them up as a long term partner (at the expense of the Greens)?

    • BM 2.1

      Of course they are, the Greens are just useful idiots.

      NZ First is their preferred coalition partner, they can take votes off National all the greens can do is take votes off Labour.

      • McGrath 2.1.1

        I’m liking this Labour govt as it’s seems to be running very similiar to the previous National govt.

        [lprent: *sigh* Sounds like a stupid troll line. I’ll keep an eye out for it. I like kicking ignorant trolls who are so stupid they use sound bites rather than developing an actual argument.

        This is a place for robust debate. You need to keep the self-indulgent wanking to private places.]

        • Siobhan 2.1.1.1

          Very accurate observation. certainly if I was a National suporter I would be fairly chill at life under Labour. I mean the rise in minimum wage is a downer if you own a small cafe..but on the up side it means you can increase the rents to your tenants.

          And I have to say..its very strange; one minute we are being told we have the most popular Prime Minister ever…with a Labour Government that could rule on its own, and a National Party imploding in a sewer pit of its own making, led by the most inept leader ever….

          Nec minute..Labour are crawling back under the rock of fear…exactly what is required to have a Government and Leader with vision and the balls to enact it?

          Some mysterious alignment of stars maybe.

          Just Do it“..maybe should be changed to

          Look, we’d love to do it, but, you know, its, like a great idea, but maybe, erm, latter..”

          • Rosemary McDonald 2.1.1.1.1

            Siobahn…it is indeed very strange. Seems there’s little actual political capital in riding high in the polls.

            What is going on?

          • roy cartland 2.1.1.1.2

            She didn’t need to rule it out completely forever, either. Something’s definitely afoot.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.2.1

              Much as we might like, she won’t rule forever lol

              The way I see it, a blanket CGT was seen as a dealbreaker by NZ1. But if Labour rule it out for that reason, then that provides a great point of difference for the Greens. So if Labour need green support next election because of that difference, and NZ1 aren’t big enough to help labour or the nats into power, cgt will be back on as a Green policy. If that happens after 2023 (i.e. if lan/g/nz1 = 42/6/6 in 2020 so both are needed, but 43/8/6 in 2023 so G are essential but nats are out of the picture even with NZ1 support), Ardern can bow out after 7 or 8 years and leave new blood in charge – with policy differences – for 2026.

              However, the TWG proposal was complete coverage with some exclusions – nothing is stopping a stronger enforcement of current inclusions (or even expansion thereof) even in this term.

              • greywarshark

                Words of sense McFlock – we don’t have to throw our hand in. Just deal the cards and play everybody.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1.3

            (Can’t believe I’m doing this but here goes…)

            John Keys biggest failing (IMHO) is that he didn’t use enough of his political capital to push through all the things he should have done, possibly to not damage beyond repair his reputation with the general public

            Is Jacinda falling into the same trap?

            Its likely there’ll never be the same perfect storm for Labour to push through especially given the popularity of both the leader and the party.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.1.1.1.3.1

              Political capital is worth zip, if you don’t use it to achieve the policies you believe in.

              Unless a pointless “career” in politics is your only interest.

          • lprent 2.1.1.1.4

            Siobhan – the basic issue is the one that Wayne pointed out @ 1.3

            That is you normally achieve far more in government slowly pushing changes over years. To do that you expend political capital slowly. To achieve that you need to bring the electorate with you.

            Consider the periods that Labour has been in government (this is from memory)

            1st 1935 – 1949 4 terms (starts in depression continues through war – last win 1946)
            2nd 1957 – 1960 1 term
            3rd 1972 – 1975 1 term
            4th 1984 – 1990 2 terms
            5th 1999 – 2008 3 terms
            6th 2017 – ideally at least until 2026

            Most of the comments I’ve seen around indicate that there are a lot of political idiots on this site from the ‘left’.

            Consider the political costs. There was considerable opposition to CGT across the electorate – including on the left. It doesn’t raise a lot of revenue if it doesn’t include ALL forms of capital (including the ‘family home’), and having too many exclusions like that. And there are other ways of achieving the same objectives.

            In particular extending the existing brightline tests. Giving the IRD more teeth to pursue those avoiding existing CGT taxes (personally I’d go for seizing brightline disputed assets first and then allowing the courts to arguing if it is merited). Changing lending ratios. Changing expensing.

            But above all – increasing the supply of housing stocks in places that need it. Just look at where prices are too high a multiple of the median income and get them built there. Starting with the highest volume areas (because the effect drafts outwards).

            Plus just raising the question of CGT each term is pretty good at getting changes in the electorate.

            But FFS losing the any election before 2026 just makes it hard to effect real change. Just look at how limited the effect of a Labour government was in 1957-1960 and 1972-1975. And the problem of trying to do things too fast in 1984-1987.

            If this makes those on the left of left impatient – then I really don’t care. I want real progress and that takes at least 3 terms. It will also require both the Greens and NZF for the next two elections.

            Because who gives a stuff what the polls say now. What are they going to be saying in 2020 and 2023 is what the general left need to be concerned about. In the meantime there are other things to work on. Like increasing housing stock, planning on how to handle a rapidly aging population who are still renting, etc..

            • alwyn 2.1.1.1.4.1

              Whatever you may think of the actual things they did I think you would have to say that the two term Government of 1984-1990 made far greater changes than did the 3 term 1999-2008 one.
              And they achieved it in about four and a half years. That was from July 1984 until December 1988 when Lange lost his nerve.
              If that hadn’t happened and Douglas had remained Minister of Finance while Moore instead of Palmer had taken over as PM they would probably have won another term.

              • lprent

                …they would probably have won another term.

                It is highly unlikely.

                Sure, they would have retained more of the urban National voters. But they’d have lost far more of the Labour base vote.

                But it wasn’t like they were that popular in the rural and provincial areas to make up for their loss of support in the cities – dropping SMPs and the reduction of the welfare system for the farming community made them toxic there.

                The only thing that broadened Labour support in 1984 was simply that there was a reduction in voting on the right and an increase in in voting from the left because Muldoon was making such a crock of the economy and anything else was worth trying. The 1987 election was from soft Center/National vote finding a place to go to offset the the harder left losing heart.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.1.1.1.4.2

              “That is you normally achieve far more in government slowly pushing changes over years. To do that you expend political capital slowly. To achieve that you need to bring the electorate with you.”

              Some political changes that have profoundly improved things (and worsened things!) have happened quickly. Sometimes the changes themselves ‘bring the electorate’. Roosevelt’s New Deal was implemented in only about 3 years. Clement Attlee in the UK implemented social policies that benefited many for decades – in just one and a bit terms.

              • lprent

                Yep. And almost all of the reforms in NZ by the first Labour government were put in place in their first term.

                Each of these examples were caused by having a massive problem from the previous inept responses to the great depression. Atlee’s was just a little later after being disrupted by WW2, but mostly continued the socialisation of the UK already started by the war cabinet.

                However I suspect that wishing for a great depression with very high proportions of the workforce on the breadline to create the political capital for faster changes is just overkill (literally).

                Personally I prefer slower political changes with less agony than the political ineptitude of the kind that caused the great depression and world war 2. Don’t you?

                • UncookedSelachimorpha

                  True, much better to act before getting to crisis point if possible.

                  Problem is, since the neoliberal changes started in the 1980s the West has been slowly heading towards an inequality crisis, and all the indicators are still moving in the wrong direction. Incremental improvements won’t prevent the next crisis if they aren’t enough to actually change or prevent anything.

            • New view 2.1.1.1.4.3

              Well Lprent. The short version of your rambling is Labour is gutless for not implementing the capital gains tax that they campaigned on because they need to get elected again to to implement their other populist policies that will make law only if the people want them. Duh.

              • lprent

                Nope. That is not the short version – that is just stupid spinnning.

                The short version is that the method is less important than the results when it comes to changing behaviour.

                Or to put it as a new view in a short personal analogy that might be better at educating you…

                It is the same principle as why we aren’t concerned about how your parents got you to stop compulsively fondling your genitals in public.

                We are just grateful that they did so we don’t have to put up with it.

                Same applies to speculators in property driving up prices and other costs with unproductive economic behaviour.

                • new view

                  Wow that was intelligent Lprent. If you’re going to write so many comments you might use a little less abuse and a little more brain power.

            • Lucy 2.1.1.1.4.4

              This Government is way too slow in getting to grips with things. They needed to quickly ramp up new state housing and fixing existing state houses. Forget CGT and stuff that were always going to be a non goer – they needed to look at state funded building with apprentices the way the Savage government did. Yes they imported German builders but each builder had a number of NZ apprentices working with them. These are the guys who now wont train apprentices! We need the skills transfer as our work force is getting old. Our problem is not just income from profit not being taxed it is more fundamental in that, one generation is keeping the money, skill and jobs from the following generations. A CGT will not fix that

            • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.4.5

              There are two things that would be good. One is putting on a damper on speculative house buying and ratcheting up prices. Second is getting more tax and a fairer distribution of cheerful givers!

              I’d go for just No.1. But there is this thing about actually using the
              laws we have now for house trading.

          • Keesh 2.1.1.1.5

            Siobhan – Ovaries!

            • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.5.1

              Quiche
              Is your comment a code word for throwing eggs at dignitaries? It seems
              questionable otherwise. But if you want to be egg boy go ahead and create some gerfuffle amongst the hoopla.

          • Shawn 2.1.1.1.6

            Siobhan, the reality is that this is a coalition government, and Jacinda would not even be the PM were it not for NZF. Labour may be very popular right now, but they are still dependent on NZF to get policies enacted, and NZF was never going to support a CGT, especially when their own poll numbers are dicey.

            I like Jacinda, and I support Labour, but politics is the art of the possible, and that is even more true in an MMP system. I think she made the right call here. There is no point in losing the next election over one policy, and there is still much they can do, and are doing, to support workers and families.

      • Paul Campbell 2.1.2

        What bullshit, anyone’s preferred coalition partner is whichever other parties have enough votes period.

    • MickeyBoyle 2.2

      Seems it’s not about implementing policies, it’s simply to keep National out. So much for a transformational government eh.

      • Formerly Ross 2.2.1

        MB

        Transformational isn’t about adopting a policy that creates a lot of noise, your party then gets turfed out of office and the new government then abolishes that policy. I would say that’s bad politics. One day National might get its shit together and support a fairer tax system. But until National grows up, it’s unlikely to happen.

        • Shadrach 2.2.1.1

          Transformational is about being able to take the public with you on an issue even when they have reservations. The CGT is another key policy of Labours they have screwed up.

          • greywarshark 2.2.1.1.1

            Shadrach
            You are here so often that some of the conventional wisdom should have rubbed off on you – or perhaps you are a hopeless case. Labour had to get buy-in from NZF and though I wish they could have wooed them with something tasty, they didn’t in the end have the votes. They didn’t really screw up they screwed down and decided to sit tight as the best option. Anything I have said contrary to that was wishful thinking.

            • Shadrach 2.2.1.1.1.1

              The failure to get NZF agreement is the PM’s failure. Prior to the last election she personally supported a CGT, yet since the TWG reported she has been MIA on this, allowing the initiative to be taken from her by opponents of the tax. That is her failing, no one else’s.

  3. Peter 3

    One thing still in favour of National’s slim hopes is that many of their supporters have survived the inevitable fatal health consequences of a GST being introduced. And they have survived the apoplexy, heart attacks, stress and temper tantrums by it even being suggested and discussed.
    All those toys to now be picked off the floor, all those nappies unnecessarily soiled.

  4. mango 4

    I would like a fairer tax system as much as anyone but at this stage it isn’t worth the risk of national getting back in. There is so much that need to be fixed and it will take at least another term or two to reverse the damage that national did.

    • cleangreen 4.1

      Mango well said that is common sense you spoke.

    • The Lone Haranguer 4.2

      Mango, they wont even push thru policies that they believe in.

      What ever makes you think they will cancel out some of the ones from the nine years of the Nats, or even some from the nine years of Helen?

      I wonder if The Greens leadership still thinks the Coalition deserves to fall over this at the next election, or if they think living the limo lifestyle justifies everything?

      • mango 4.2.1

        As the saying goes politics is the art of the possible. If a CGT isn’t widely enough accepted then it can’t happen. We my not always like it but that is how MMP politics works.
        As far as I’m concerned things are heading in the right direction even if it is not as fast or as far as I would like and that is certainly better than the alternative of a national government dragging us backwards as we saw for 9 years.
        Sometimes you have to choose your battles.

  5. No, this is bad politics. It is a core element of their equity argument and should be prosecuted aggressively. I understand why it could be shelved this time around if they can’t get Winston on board but they need to keep the discussion, and what it represents, front and centre of the ongoing national debate.

    Otherwise, we just end up with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer, and that only leads to the sort of dissatisfaction and disaffection we are seeing in countries like the UK, US and Australia.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 5.1

      Dissatisfaction? From your point of view.

      i see over 1 million voting kiwi’s being very satisfied at this news.

      It just goes to show that words out of a politicians mouth, whatever their creed, aren’t worth much

    • lprent 5.2

      It just gets raised again. In this case after the 2020 election.

      • Nick K 5.2.1

        Nonsense. It’s off the table for 20 years now. The public don’t appear to want it, and now the PM herself has dismissed it. It cannot seriously be raised again.

        In case you’re interested, I’m on the right yet I have always thought a broad CGT is badly needed, with commensurate drops in personal income tax rates.

        Ardern is very weak on big issues, much like John Key was on raising the age of superannuation. The CGT and superannuation were two big ticket items, and our political leaders are too weak to deal with them. Quite pathetic really.

        • lprent 5.2.1.1

          The PM hasn’t dismissed it. In fact she did the opposite. However she has said that she won’t be raising it. That doesn’t mean that other (like me won’t be). Quite simply the current way that capital gains isn’t taxed is inequitable and a severe speculative distortion on the economy.

          And there is other work to do, including making the existing bright-line tests more effective to increase the tax take on speculative property and getting more affordable housing into the housing market. Both of which will reduce capital gains from property across a wider base and remove some of the economic distortions.

  6. Bewildered 6

    Great to see Winnie make a captains call as leader of the NZF led coalition Jacinda is also warming on me as a leader for the center right, or at least national / labour no real difference Greens why is really the question do they exist at all

  7. McFlock 7

    Bit of a bugger, but not catastrophic.

    Certainly not as constraining as the fiscal responsibility rules.

  8. McGrath 8

    What this has done is secured Labour for Term 2. National have no hope now of winning the election, and this is coming from a Nat voter! National would have loved a CGT to debate on (and to make Bridges still relavent) and now this last straw has been snatched away.

    [lprent: Stick to one handle. I corrected it this time. Next time I will regard it as being the deliberate act of an arsehole. ]

  9. Jimmy 9

    LMFAO! The progressives are not so progressive lol
    I have read for months on TS that without a CGT or even a CGT lite we would not have a fair tax system, then when it is not implemented TRP still talks about Tories… What a load of crap!

    [lprent: Perhaps you should try reading the argument in the post rather than simply being a troll. This is your warning ]

    • Peter 9.1

      We had health consequences, apoplexy, heart attacks, stress, temper tantrums toys chucked to the floor, and nappies soiled because of the possibility of there being GST being introduced.

      And now it’s not going to happen we’re going to have put up with complaining, whingeing and grizzling from the same people because they have nothing to thrash the coalition government about? Is that what it’s come to?

  10. NZJester 10

    Nationals big policy going into the next election they had been pinning their hopes on just went poof.
    “We will repeal the Capital Gains Tax” has been their only talking point they had gained a bit of traction on.
    They just got the rug pulled out from under them by Winston who will now likely use that to try and gain some of the anti-CGT crowd to vote for him at the next election.

    • cleangreen 10.1

      NZJester;

      Watch now their calling will be “Build more roads” …..for trucks. Lots of (owner driver votes) just for them.
      They don’t care about ‘climate change’ so they will loose.

    • Bewildered 10.2

      Who cares National or national lite, no real difference, both centrist parties with a little bit of difference at the margins The rest smoke and mirrors re Keeping the top job and the perks

    • Enough is Enough 10.3

      So you are more concerned with the politics of this rather than the death of a very good policy.

      Beating National is very important. But if they are getting these huge wins from opposition, are we actually beating them?

    • rozgonz 10.4

      Don’t worry, National can get their teeth into Kiwibuild now, its not like its going along swimmingly…

    • rod 10.5

      Best comment of the day NZJ. +100.

  11. Grantoc 11

    Te Reo

    Thats a hell of spin that your putting on this decision. Almost desperately so.

    CGT was one of Labour’s core policies. if not the core policy. To have to concede defeat on this (and, further imply that its the people of NZ who are to blame – they don’t believe in it according to JA) represents nothing more than a heavy defeat for Labour and the Labour led coalition.

    The real winner, once more, is Winston and NZ first. perhaps National may even get some runs on the board given their opposition to CGT

    As you point out NZder’s probably want ‘tax fairness’. CGT was one mechanism to deliver this. It won’t now and tax fairness will fade like the winter sun into oblivion. These NZders will not be happy campers.

    Many NZders will be deflated by this decision, and will blame the coalition for it.

    • joe90 11.1

      CGT was one of Labour’s core policies.

      Arse. Their 2017 policy statements on CGT noted that New Zealand is one of only three OECD countries that does not have some form of tax on capital gains, and committed to setting the up the tax working group and extending the ‘bright line test’.

      https://www.labour.org.nz/tax

    • To be fair, Grantoc, I had to re-write the post on the fly! I was expecting CGT lite, not this outcome.

      However, I seriously doubt that many Kiwis will abandon Labour over dropping a tax, even one that deserves to be in place. It’s a long time till the election and other matters will come to the fore in the next 18 months.

      However, if people are annoyed, then by all means party vote Green. It would be great if Labour had better, simpler options for coalition forming post election.

      However, as I said on MS’s post earlier today, given that National can’t win, I can see NZ First picking up votes from pragmatic Tories who want Winston to act as an anchor on Labour’s ambitions. This outcome strengthens that possibility.

      • alwyn 11.2.1

        “by all means party vote Green.”.
        That will be a bit futile if James Shaw should somehow, miraculously, turn out to be a man of his word.
        He is already on record as saying they do not deserve to be re-elected if they don’t implement a CGT. I suppose he will be moving to have the Party wound up and he will himself immediately quit politics.
        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/110541179/government-must-be-bold-enough-to-bring-in-capital-gains-tax-green-leader-james-shaw-says
        And pigs will fly.

        Well it certainly demonstrates who is the Boss, doesn’t it.
        Tsar Winston has laid down the law and both the Labour and Green parties have bowed down before him. Why don’t they just rename the “Coalition” to “NZF and the dags”, or if that is too much for all the delicate little flowers, “NZF and the Klingons”?

        • Psycho Milt 11.2.1.1

          From your linked article:

          “The last question we should be asking ourselves is, ‘can we be re-elected if we do this?’ The only question we should be asking ourselves is, ‘do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?'”

          He’s quite correct: the governing party responsible for this failure, NZ First, doesn’t deserve to be re-elected and hopefully won’t be.

          Well it certainly demonstrates who is the Boss, doesn’t it.

          It’s this level of understanding of what a coalition is that is the reason why Jacinda Ardern is Prime Minister and Bill English isn’t.

          • alwyn 11.2.1.1.1

            “doesn’t deserve to be re-elected”.

            You might, just, be able to make a case for this being only chargeable to NZF if Labour had said that they were dropping this policy for the rest of this term but would campaign on it at the 2020 election.
            She didn’t do that though did she? As far as she is concerned she has dropped it for good. One does wonder what the polls are saying when you ignore the temporary glow from the Christchurch tragedy and look only at the underlying numbers.

            As for your last comment. What utter piffle. There was no way that English would have offered anyone the control that Labour gave to NZF. A $3,000,000,000.00 slush fund and total control over every policy to a minor party. Only a Labour Party who were completely desperate to get into the Limo’s would have done such a thing.

            It was all irrelevant anyway of course. Winston was never going to go with National even if they had been stupid enough to offer him all the rorts and free access to the taxpayer money box that Labour provided.

            • lprent 11.2.1.1.1.1

              As far as she is concerned she has dropped it for good.

              No she didn’t say that. Perhaps you should learn to read?

              • alwyn

                But I can read Lynn
                The Press statement says
                ” That is why I am also ruling out a capital gains tax under my leadership in the future.”
                That, if she is telling the truth, means that as long as she remains the leader of the Labour Party there will not be a CGT.
                https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-will-not-implement-capital-gains-tax

                And as far as I am concerned that says what I am saying.
                “As far as she is concerned she has dropped it for good”.
                I refuse to accept that she might hang around after she loses the leaders job and can then support someone else bringing it in.
                The only ex-Prime Ministers who hang around are miserable in the House.

                Of course if you have good reason to believe she is lying then you may have reason for your statement.
                Are you proposing that she is Lying?

            • Wayne 11.2.1.1.1.2

              Alwyn
              I think you are being too harsh on the PM.
              Climate charge is where she will focus, plus children. Serious policy in either of these ares is not dependent on CGT.
              Ultimately it was distraction and a damaging one at that.
              The PM never really argued for a CGT. And seems relatively relaxed to let it go.
              She has other more important policy initiatives.

              • alwyn

                She will proclaim her good intentions, or at least she will call them that, only on things where all measurement of results can be ignored.
                Results of any climate change measures New Zealand might adopt can never be measured. We simply aren’t a big enough country for our actions, useful or not, to show up in measurable effects.
                I’m afraid people like our current PM love such things.

                As far as provision for children goes we seem, under her leadership, to be going backward. It is only by creating a new set of measures, and insisting we can’t measure results until we have a long history of numbers, that will let her hide the fact that actions she is talking about don’t work.
                Meanwhile we will drag along in the mud.

                • lprent

                  We simply aren’t a big enough country for our actions, useful or not, to show up in measurable effects.

                  In other words you prefer to do absolutely nothing and to be completely pathetic? Well why doesn’t it surprise me that you’re a completely limp individual?

                  • alwyn

                    That is not what I said and you really should be able to understand it.
                    I never said we shouldn’t do anything.

                    What I said was that the effects, good or bad, won’t be able to be distinguished from noise in the effects of whatever much bigger countries may do. We simply won’t be able to measure the effects of our actions with any precision at all.

                    Of course we should make changes. We must trust that what we do is useful rather than being able to accurately measure the results though .It won’t be like building houses though. There you can easily count the numbers and decide, accurately I’m afraid that Kiwibuild is failing.

                    With our actions on Climate change matters we can’t do that. Why do you find that so hard to understand, and why do you try and mask your confusion by simply abusing people who try and explain it to you?

                    By the way. Do you now understand that she really has dropped the CGT for good during her reign as PM. And that a fair description of that action was “As far as she is concerned she has dropped it for good”.

      • woodart 11.2.2

        I can see nz first picking up votes from disgruntled nats and the greens picking up votes from disgruntled lab voters. in my book ,a win win ,win. helping the two minor parties to stay relevant, and moving the nats further into the cold.

    • The Lone Haranguer 11.3

      The Nats gain nothing at all, but they have lost their best electioneering angle, and their ability to pinch NZF voters has gone down the drain.

      So NZF are the big winners as they hold their voters.

      The Greens are also losers, because this shows that Labour will feed them the dead rat meal as often as is necessary, and the Green leadership will eat it without public complaint. On this one, (and its a big one) the Greens have been shafted, and being at the big table was of no benefit to them at all.

      Maybe Jacinda is getting advice on how to use the Greens, from Helen? She had their support and gave them nothing tangible so maybe its just deja vu (all over again)

    • Sarah 11.4

      Oh I think we’re made from sterner stuff than that. I’m hugely disappointed as I’d thought this was the beginning of rolling back the neolib ideology, Winston has said has failed us. However we live for another few years as govt coalition and can slowly introduce a fairer system.
      It was Key who advised an Oz politician to take tiny steps so no one notices what you’re doing.

  12. Tiger Mountain 12

    Agree with TRP, good political management by the Govt. Getting a second term is incredibly important for a number of reasons.

    Little turns petit bourgeois innards turn to water like even the mere prospect of coughing up a contribution to society from their unearned incomes! It is a reflection of both the class composition of New Zealand, and 30 years of neo liberal psychology taking root amongst the populace. Essentially a whole bunch of people doing reasonably well by comparison, have pulled the ladder up on the 50% of New Zealanders with 2% of the wealth and few or no assets and savings.

    NZ has a preponderance of lifestyle blocks, owner operators, franchise holders, contractors, small and SME businesses. A lot of pandering–and Govt. subsidy–goes into satisfying the “be your own boss” aspirations of this group, including till recently, low wages, self regulation and transference of employment related costs to employees. It is a huge mind shift to achieve in under two years, but tactically CGT could have been restricted to property speculators, neo rentiers and “flickers” for a first stage, but not now of course. It is a no ifs, buts or maybes statement from the PM and will certainly not go down well with the Nats, even though they did not want a CGT!

    • The Lone Haranguer 12.1

      Hey Tiger Mountain, (and anyone else who wants to comment), (I voted TOP at the last election so Im not one of you guys, but I may also not be a Nat)

      Why is the real issue seen as income/wealth disparity if the poor are getting less poor while the rich are getting way richer?

      Surely the real issue is poverty.

      If a person is worth $50m and sells some stuff and is now worth $60m, why or how does that affect the level of absolute poverty for the poor person/family? (assumes the rich ones arent selling food or lodgings to poor folk of course)

      So even if the rich guy gains $10m over the year, is that really relevant if the poor guy gains say $2000 over the year also? That $2000 will reduce the level of poverty in the poor persons family. And that must be good.

      I think the argument should be about poverty and not about income disparity.

      • alwyn 12.1.1

        “Surely the real issue is poverty.”
        The problem is, of course that the poor aren’t getting any better of, at least as far as I can see. Statistics on people seeking State Houses, and Emergency housing as well as food baskets from City Missions would seem to indicate the opposite.

        It is only anecdotal but I was in town (Wellington City) around midday today.
        While walking from the Manners St/Willis St intersection down Willis St and then along Lambton Quay to Parliament there were 9 people begging, and apparently living, on the footpath. I cannot remember anything like that number doing so a couple of years ago. There were always a few beggars around but nothing like that number.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.1.2

        Problem is, in the real world there are only so many real resources. One person having heaps, is generally at the expense of other people having less. And you seem to be assuming the poor are also getting richer – at the moment they aren’t.

        Under our current policy settings:

        1) We live in a country where the poorest half has less than 5% of the nation’s wealth, while the richest 10% has about 50% of the nation’s wealth (put another way, 10% of what the richest 10% have, is equal to everything the poorest half have)

        2) Most economic growth accrues to the already-rich – and virtually none to the already-poor, e.g. “The net worth of the richest 20 percent of New Zealand households has risen $394,000 since 2015, to reach a median of $1.75 million, …
        Over the same period, from the year ended June 2015 to the June 2018 year, the net worth of the bottom 40 percent has not increased.” [stats NZ]

        So by simple mathematics:

        For the poorest 50% of NZ to double their wealth through the current distribution of economic growth, the economy would need to be tens or hundreds of times larger – incredibly difficult to achieve, and likely environmentally very damaging.

        or

        For the poorest 50% of NZ to double their wealth through modest redistribution, the richest 10% of the population would have to get by with 10% less wealth than they currently have – so John Key would have to have $90m, instead of $100m. And this can happen with no economic growth at all!

        • Wayne 12.1.2.1

          Uncooked,
          A basic misunderstanding of the economy in your post. Just because someone gets richer doesn’t mean some others have to become poorer. That would imply there is no economic growth and no innovation
          Zuckerberg having $100 billion is not because he made a whole of people poorer. It is because he has a new innovation that appeals to billions of people. No one got poorer, but billions of people got something they didn’t have before.

          • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.1.2.1.1

            You are right that the economy is only partially a zero-sum game, and yes, there is economic growth. One of my points is that economic growth does not generally benefit people who are already poor – who are the majority. That is the problem that needs fixing.

            But much wealth is gathered by mere extraction from others, usually facilitated by the leverage given by existing wealth (as Zuckerberg has done, following his initial innovation).

  13. Alan 13

    National Lite.

    [lprent: Troll! Banned for 3 weeks. ]

  14. SHG 14

    Labour governs at the pleasure of Winston Peters. Winston’s supporters are old white people. Old white people own lots of houses.

    Sir Michael Cullen, who chaired the Tax Working Group, said he was disappointed but “not in the least surprised”.

    A capital gains tax had been vetoed by Winston Peters, leader of Labour’s coalition partner NZ First, he said.

    • left_forward 14.1

      Each party of the coalition government governs at the pleasure of the others.

    • Bewildered 14.2

      Also add to old white people with coalition Politician own lots of houses and lifestyle blocks

      • Grant 14.2.1

        Do you ever think about how to construct a lucid sentence before you start tapping at your keyboard?

    • mikesh 14.3

      Labour governs at the pleasure of parliament. In this particular instance the majority of parliament seemed to be opposed.

      • SHG 14.3.1

        The most obvious culprit is the government’s senior coalition partner, New Zealand First. They’re opposed to a CGT. Given Winston Peters enormous power in this government – he seems to function as a virtual co-prime minister; he can veto anything Labour tries to do, and Ardern cannot retaliate or discipline any of New Zealand First’s ministers – it wasn’t possible to introduce a CGT during this term. That didn’t prevent Labour from campaigning on one next year though, but Ardern just ruled it out in perpetuity.

        https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-04-2019/four-months-in-labours-year-of-delivery-is-a-disaster/

        • mikesh 14.3.1.1

          Winston has been a long standing opponent of capital gains tax. Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robinson must have known that, and that they therefore didn’t have the numbers to push one through. So why did they waste a lot of time and money setting up the working group, hoping that its recommendation would induce Winston to change his mind.

          • greywarshark 14.3.1.1.1

            They wanted a transparent look at the tax system and had said they would do this.

  15. Rosemary McDonald 15

    The buggers blinked, eh?

    SSDD

    • cleangreen 15.1

      Ouch Rosemary.!!

      “It’s easy to be nice as it is to be nasty.”

      • Rosemary McDonald 15.1.1

        Come on cleangreen…it was always going to be a stand off. So Labour lost this one, I wonder what the trade off is?

        Perhaps Winston will allow MSD to make it much easier for the Boomers to opt out of the WEP?

  16. Phil 16

    Making the announcement, Jacinda Ardern said she was dropping the tax “not because I don’t believe in it, but because I don’t believe New Zealanders do.”

    Oof. I think my eyes just rolled the full 360. Yeah, that’s some real quality leadership there, alright.

  17. Dv 17

    Does that mean the bright line Test is gone?

    • lprent 17.1

      Nope. I’d expect that will be extended and made tougher.

      • Poission 17.1.1

        “There is already an effective capital gains tax through the Bright Line test brought in by the last National Government and New Zealand First’s view is that there is neither a compelling rationale nor mandate to institute a comprehensive capital gains tax regime,” NZ First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters said.

        • lprent 17.1.1.1

          Actually the bright line has been in place in place since the 1980s. It was put in as a useless sop by Muldoon as I remember it. It effectively relied on property owners voluntarily declaring that they needed to pay tax on their property transactions.

          What National did was to toughen it. That was a result of two things.

          1. National campaigned heavily in 2007/8 that housing prices were too high and that they would improve it. So eventually after a long wait they ran out of excuses and implemented some rather minor changes.

          2. The IRD was finally collecting enough information on changes in property ownership to actually implement some enforcement. That means that it is actually starting to get identified and collected. Plus not declaring it becomes more of a risk.

          Once the new IRD system goes fully online, I’d expect that the enforcement of the current bright line and future enhancements is going to make the lives of those hoping for large capital gains wealth more difficult.

          • Graeme 17.1.1.1.1

            Ah, the cross my heart and hope to die provision….

            Subtle changes to the intent test could be all that is needed, and my reading of what IRD wanted to make it easier to enforce.

            It’ll probably turn up as a tiny little amendment in some dry omnibus tax bill and will hardly be noticed.

            But as you say IRD are getting pretty good at enforcing it now and building up a body of case law.

            • lprent 17.1.1.1.1.1

              It mostly just requires one more thing. An ability for the IRD to be able to freeze all assets related to a disputed bright line determinations when they are disputed. That would get rid of a lot of the existing incentive to start forlorn disputes.

              In fact I suspect that the risk of frozen assets assist greatly in speculators trying to help the IRD collect the brightline test. After all it is better to have most of the profit liquid rather than illiquid.

      • Ed1 17.1.2

        There are equivalent “tests” that are used to determine when shares are being ‘actively traded” – so for example I believe some Kiwisaver portfolios do have tax paid on net capital gains, passive funds like index portfolios do not. Some Trade Me sellers know that they can be asked to pay tax on earnings when they are deemed to be running a business. The presumption for property depends on original intent which is of course an invitation to never invest with the intention of selling; it ignores the reality that some landlords are doing it for a living and do intend to sell up when they retire in 15 to 30 years – original intent doesn’t seem like a good basis for future taxation. A lot of beach baches / cribs are now available to rent for some part of the year – when should they be regarded as partly a business enterprise? – when the rental income is more than the maintenance costs? I don’t think tougher is the right word – fairer and more consistent may be what the current government wants.

        • lprent 17.1.2.1

          …do intend to sell up when they retire in 15 to 30 years – original intent doesn’t seem like a good basis for future taxation.

          Yep. However there is ‘more than one way to skin a cat’ (horrible expression). The presumption with that strategy is that the property prices will keep rising.

          Just at present, now that the speculative edge has been taken off the housing market, the best way to reduce property values is to decrease the artificial housing shortage that has been driving the price rises. In other words build more affordable housing – especially apartments that have a much smaller land footprint.

          Similarly in the countryside, reduce the hidden subsidies that have holding up slim profit margins.

  18. xanthe 18

    I saw a comment in a netflix prog “RAKE” where the intern asks the politician “if you know its wrong why are we doing it” the politician answers “You dont understand how it works, the tabloids tell the people what to think and we have to follow” that comment struck me as the most accurate description of the political process i had seen in a while.

    As far as CGT being off the table, thats a disappointment . but I would not be surprised to find there is another way to skin a cat here. fairly confident that ardurn is looking for that.

    • cleangreen 18.1

      Common sense policy today. – NZF is the Party of common sense.

    • SpaceMonkey 18.2

      Extend the bright line test to other asset classes…?

    • patricia bremner 18.3

      Xanthe, Is there a reason to spell Ardern incorrectly?

      • Siobhan 18.3.1

        Also a lack of capitalization. For the entire piece. Which is also entirely supportive of ‘Ardern’. So maybe a simple and easily done mistake. As someone whose name is endlessly misspelled and mis pronounced I would never worry about such things..unless a name is purposely manipulated into something offensive.

        And as someone absolutely demolished and vilified on TS for the misspelling of Metiria Turei name I feel Xanthes pain.

        • xanthe 18.3.1.1

          oh yeah spelling and punctuation not my strongest point. I do try and proof but things still slip through, absolutely no offense intended to Jacinda Ardern who I personally think is wonderful !

  19. ankerawshark 19

    Smart politics…………there is more than one way to create equality…………….

    • Bewildered 19.1

      This is not smart politics, it’s been managed terribly on a number of levels and is a massive back down, right from point of Arderns captains call and scuttling retreat pre election

      • ankerawshark 19.1.1

        Bewildered, I understand you would use this as an angle to find fault with Jacinda and the Coalition as that’s what you come on here to do……….

        When it comes time to tick boxes in 18 months very few with care about this and those who do will vote Greens. Win win.

        Meanwhile Simon is all dressed up with nowhere to go.

        • Bewildered 19.1.1.1

          Don’t care about Simon, as I said earlier national lite government is fine by me re lack of any true centre right alternative

        • rozgonz 19.1.1.2

          You are seriously deluded if you think this decision was made with Simon Bridges in mind. Winston poo pooed it because he knew political oblivion awaited him if he backed any form of CGT

          • Ankerrawshark 19.1.1.2.1

            Rozgonz don’t know if you were referring to me, but I don’t think the decision was made with Simon in mind. Simon being all dressed up with nowhere to go is a consequence rather than a cause of the decision

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 19.2

      “there is more than one way to create equality”

      What are some of the other ways?

      • McFlock 19.2.1

        Even in taxation, one can still make the income tax rates more progressive.

        Outside tax, one can increase government transfers to people on low incomes, up the minimum wage, create stronger protections for “casual” workers, guarantee minimum incomes for piecemeal labour (per-basket fruitpicking, payment on planting per tree, and so on), lower housing costs for low-income people (hitting AHC income inequality rates) and so on.

        That’s just off the top of my head. I guess we’ll see what’s in the budget soon.

  20. Rosemary McDonald 20

    Landlords are positively orgasmic…https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12222635

    ” Andrew King, NZ Property Investors Federation executive officer, said around 270,000 landlords owning 464,000 residences for more than 1m tenants could have been be at the centre of the changes which were predicted to hit the rental sector hard.

    “A great decision. I applaud the Government for realising this was not the right or fair thing to do. It wouldn’t help first home buyers and would negatively affect more than 1 million tenants by increasing costs,” King said.”

    I am so, so happy for them. Truly. Be absolutely a travesty if a CGT had been imposed, making the already difficult life of a property investor even more stressed.

    Seriously, do y’all think Winston would go for a Rent Freeze instead? Like a booby prize?

    • woodart 20.1

      I would have thought, that in a moment of generosity, the nz property investors federation might have given there tenants, a weeks free rent!.come to the party fellas!!!

  21. Booker 21

    Oh no. Here I was being all happy with the the way the government has been governing and then this comes out of the blue. In my mind it’s the first major drop of the ball since they’ve been in power.

    The only upside is the National won’t be able to CGT dog whistle all through the next election, but that’s small pickles compared to the long term economic and social damage from a tax system entirely geared towards buying and selling houses.

    • tc 21.1

      It’s a big upside as scaremongering is all they’ve got.

      Toughen up the brightline and look at all the subtle changes teamshonky got up to in compliance , reporting and gift duty removal.

      Bait and switch.

  22. Brutus Iscariot 22

    All those who think it’s pragmatic politics, should reflect on the fact that appearances are that National won the debate and forced them to back down.

    Weakness is seldom rewarded in politics.

  23. Tuppence Shrewsbury 23

    This is largely the same as tax cuts for the wealthy. When National did it all hell broke loose about vote buying etc. strange it’s only good political management when labour does it.

    How on earth can labour not get the message right on anything? It’s disingenuous for labour to argue that they listen to everyone when they’ve just embarked on a massive vote losing spree to get this far. Why even start?

    • lprent 23.1

      Because the debate needs to happen. Again and again.

      Yeah I’m aware that National tend to be too gutless to actually debate and instead tend to suppress (shows up in their blogs as well). But perhaps you should get used to discussing real things rather than expecting them to just be ignored National style, whilst chasing the latest inane and irrelevant dogwhistle by poodles like Farrar or Hosking..

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 23.1.1

        You missed the point.

        Labour couldn’t sell a starving man free food, their messaging is so dreadful. How can they be so woefully stupid as to fuck this up? They started with the wrong messaging and stuck their head in the sand rather than fix it so the conversation could progress

        A couple of caveats on this statement, but I support a Capital Gains Tax.

        • Psycho Milt 23.1.1.1

          How could they fuck up selling such a tempting proposition as additional taxation to the voters? Is that a serious question?

          In any case, it isn’t the voters they failed to sell it to, it was the provincial conservatives they’re in coalition with who scuppered it. And that was always going to be one hell of a tough sell.

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 23.1.1.1.1

            By not just walking round saying stupidly “we gonna tax this and this and this, but not racehorses”

            And having your fucking messaging sorted once the report from the TWG dropped

            And explaining in advance how income tax cuts for lower earners would be paid for

            But no. That would involve deep thinking and policy work by the government. Not it’s quango committees.

            I want a cgt and a more balanced tax system. Blaming it on conservatives is a lightweight cop out.

  24. MickeyBoyle 24

    It’s an epic fail, and we all know it, dont try and play it down. Millions of taxpayers dollars wasted on a report, when they knew years ago, that the majority were against it. Ardern is PM in name only, Winston’s in charge. As James Shaw said, they dont deserve to be elected, if they dont implement a CGT. National lite.

  25. MickeyBoyle 25

    Ardern should have used her political capital to push through a slightly diluted version. Was Cullen correct, was this the last chance ever for a comprehensive CGT?

  26. Ed1 26

    I agree that this is good politics – there is too little known about how different taxpayers are able to reduce taxable income, or when capital gains are already included in income that is subject to Income Tax. I can see why a separate capital gains tax could be used – it could have an arbitrary rate set at somewhere lower than income tax to reflect that such capital gains may often include an inflation component, but there has been little discussion on a separate CGT compared with closing some of the loopholes in current income tax rules. The “Bright Line” test was a good idea, there is an argument that the number of years should be increased to say 10 or 20 years, but with clearer circumstances about when there may be exceptions. I suspect that the distortions in investment are real, although the effect very difficult to qualify, but in broad terms an investor is likely to put more money into property (to the detriment of non-investors trying to afford a house to live in), and less into shares (to the detriment of good companies being able to expand).

    I suspect we will increase government revenue more quickly by shutting off rules that mean the very wealthy pay very little tax, that makes leaving a property empty a good investment, and at a harder level getting at least some tax out of some well known international companies, without that being passed back as higher costs to New Zealanders. There is also the need to better balance income tax, WFF, minimum wage and income tax thresholds, consider using stamp, gift and inheritence taxes, etc, etc.

  27. Bewildered 27

    It’s not good politics, good politics world have been not even to go there at all based on it was never going to get up This retreat is a hit on Arderns credibility as a conviction politician, leadership to sell cgt to the people and NZF. It is however a massive up for Peters, in regard to keep voting for me I am the only one holding the socialist barbarians at bay

    • Ankerrawshark 27.1

      Bewildered Jacinda has never said she was a conviction politician. She has always said she is pragmatic. This is pragmatic

      • Bewildered 27.1.1

        Blah blah apologist

        Some times you need to stand up for what you believe, this was the time, big fail by Ardern here that she will look back and regret

        • alwyn 27.1.1.1

          “Some times you need to stand up for what you believe”.
          But she is. She believes in keeping the title, the salary and the perks of being PM. Nothing else matters.
          She is doing precisely that. What makes you think she would behave differently?

  28. OldManJim 28

    Question then – what’s the point of having good politics, hmm? We can’t use those politics to tax the rich, we can’t use it to give workers bargaining power, we can’t use it to make a fairer system for beneficiaries. There doesn’t seem to be any point in this ‘Good Politics’. Sure, maybe this will ensure that Jacinda is PM. So what, we’re making it more difficult to get a fair New Zealand with this walkback, not easier.

  29. McFlock 29

    Shouldn’t property owners like landlords or farmers who express relief at no blanket CGT actually be paying CGT anyway?

    Because obviously the difference between purchase price and sale price is a factor in their investment decision, so “bright line” be damned – they are buying property “with the intention of resale”.

    • Andre 29.1

      Not necessarily. It’s quite possible for a farmer or landlord to genuinely have no intention of later sale at the time of purchase, but now circumstances have changed.

      It’s the landlords saying they would have to put the rent up to get back to their expected level of return if a CGT came in that are the ones most obviously evading the existing law.

    • mikesh 29.2

      If a farmer is managing a dairy herd and selling milk it will be difficult for the IRD to argue that he has purchased for the purpose a later resale, even if a sale does eventuate. A similar sort of argument would apply to a landlord.

      • WeTheBleeple 29.2.1

        Most farms have farm managers installed these days. the ‘Farmers’ are investors not living on the land, not giving two hoots about the land. This illusion they’re all people of the land who work and live on the land was dissolving as early as the 60’s.

        The government did nothing but take abuse, then it folded.

        I will not bother with voting anymore.

        Why would anyone bother engaging with such a charade.

        • mikesh 29.2.1.1

          That is not really a rebuttal of my argument.

          • WeTheBleeple 29.2.1.1.1

            Yeah true.

            I guess my point was many farms have installed managers, so are not owner/operators. The IRD should be able to differentiate between the two types of owner. One is a Farmer, one an investor (in farming).

      • lprent 29.2.2

        So with a capital gains tax taken off the political table (for the moment), we can get back to dealing with the other causes of economic distortions from rentiers. Lack of housing supply, taxing property speculators, and the hidden subsidies for farmers.

  30. Sacha 30

    Doing nothing does tend to reduce the resistance. Sorry, young people. Another can kicked down the road.

    Now if they floated a land tax instead ..

    • BM 30.1

      Winston Peters is according to a poster on Kiwi blog he received this email from NZ First

      We`ve Heard, Listened, and Acted.

      On the 21st of February, the independent Tax Working Group submitted their final report to the Coalition Government. Their recommendations have had high public interest, especially the recommendation to extend the current Bright Line test to a more comprehensive capital gains tax regime.

      New Zealand First wanted New Zealanders to have time to discuss and debate the contents of the report. We thank those who took the time and effort to contact us, and those who took our online survey.

      We heard the feedback of our members, and the wider public.

      We listened very carefully to your sentiments and concerns.

      We acted by taking your feedback to consultation with our coalition partners.

      We welcome Cabinet’s decision not to implement an extension of capital gains taxation, following the Prime Minister’s statement in response to the Tax Working Group Report.

      This decision will provide more certainty to New Zealanders, and because the last National Government already brought in a capital gains tax through the Bright Line test, New Zealand First’s view is that there is neither a compelling rationale nor mandate to institute a comprehensive capital gains tax regime.

      Current tax policy, rigorously enforced by an Inland Revenue Department properly resourced will by itself

      Improve the administration of existing tax policy, and

      Target those multi-nationals not paying their fair share of tax
      We also welcome the announcement that the coalition government will be urgently exploring options with the Inland Revenue Commissioner, in concert with central and local government, for taxing vacant land held by land bankers and reviewing the current rules for taxing land speculators.

      Tightening these rules was a priority for New Zealand First.

      We thank those who have provided their views on this issue,

      We heard, we listened and we acted.

      Rt Hon Winston Peters.

    • greywarshark 30.2

      Perhaps a tiny tax on floaters instead. Go for volume like the Tobin tax – the FTT
      could then be a TFT. Something that everyone makes a lot of, an equal opportunity tax spent on water treatment. The farmers would like it instead of
      talking to them about their misdemeanours.

  31. indiana 32

    We would have been better off to have another flag referendum.

  32. Stuart Munro. 33

    Well I’m inclined to think this puts the coalition in policy deficit. Not sure an epiphenomenal government deserves even cursory support, especially when its opposition seems to be intent on shitting itself to death. What will it take for policies that even begin to reverse the massive trend toward inequality? Actual angels appearing to coalition members? A storming of the Terrace? Dredd seems to have called it: Democracy isn’t working.

    • Grant 33.1

      When the Tax Working Group was first mooted I told my wife that Labour wouldn’t have the bottle to touch a CGT with a barge-pole. Nice to know my powers of political insight haven’t totally deserted me.

      • greywarshark 33.1.1

        Chocolate fish for you Grant. I’ll be looking at your future predictions with interest.

        • Grant 33.1.1.1

          I only make them public when hindsight proves me correct. 😀

          • greywarshark 33.1.1.1.1

            Now that is canny, and shows good judgment. You have the makings of a politician should you care to consider this mission.

    • Kat 33.2

      Keep the faith Stuart, the endgame is what matters. Politics is not for the faint hearted.

  33. David Mac 34

    Winston gathering arrows for his 2020 campaign. I can imagine him soapboxing in venues around the country….

    “NZ First stopped the CGT and will continue to, you achievers of NZ need us.”

    Labour stand a good chance of attracting voters next year that haven’t voted Labour in some time. I can see how the introduction of a CGT could hurt such a trend. Those most upset to see the CGT thing shelved will continue to vote left.

    I think it’s not so much ‘NZers just don’t like it’ but ‘Those we’re trying to seduce don’t like it.’

  34. Ad 35

    We can now see why Robertson and King kept carefully knifing Cunliffe and Little until only Ardern remained: because she is malleable and fronts well, and will keep Labour in power for multiple terms.

    King is in Canberra to reassure our primary political sponsor that we will never be out of synch with them, and are about as ambitious in policy terms as Australian Labor.

    Robertson is in Finance to do the same for the markets and banking institutions.

    This decision is Robertson’s success, and humiliates his predecessor utterly. Nothing to do with Peters or Shaw. This is Labour’s policy. They hold Finance.

    There is no chance that there will be substantial tax bracket changes to make anything “fairer”, or Robertson would have signalled them at the same time to compensate for this policy loss.

    The word is reassurance.

    • Anne 35.1

      So, what you’re saying Ad is the Right faction won in the end. Not surprising. It’s the so-called middle ground that must be pandered to at all times. They’re the ones who aspire to heights most have no chance of ever reaching, but they like to know there are those who are below them on the social and financial scale.

      Not for them a tax system that is better for those at the bottom and forces those at the top to start paying their fair share. This, despite most of them not being affected by the proposed CGT anyway.

      Not only reassurance but reaffirmation of the class social system they, despite vehement denials, prefer to support.

    • greywarshark 35.2

      Is it a case of Robertson and Cullen being our comedy duo like Laurel and Hardy?

      • alwyn 35.2.1

        Can I suggest that the order should be reversed?
        “Cullen and Robertson being our comedy duo like Laurel and Hardy”
        Looking at the physiques of the people concerned seems to make this a more appropriate sequence.

  35. James 36

    Sure seems to make it clear that Winston calls the shots.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12223288

    “”The Government was unable to proceed because Mr Peters has ruled it out, let’s be quite clear what’s happened here.” – Cullen.

    And despite all the governments talk Winston told them just in “the last few hours”

    Very funny.

    Well done Winston.

  36. esoteric pineapples 37

    Quelle surprise!

  37. Enough is Enough 38

    Winston has humiliated his coalition partner today.

    He has stood against a CGT since time began. Why on earth did he allow them to go down this path when he had no intention of ever supporting it.

    Wouldn’t it have been better during coalition negotiations to say we will not support a GGT in any form so don’t waste your time and effort advocating for one.

    Reason 542 why I despise that man

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 38.1

      Shane Jones was about to reprimanded for his behaviour. Winston waited for the perfect time to remind labour who is really in charge, just when they thought they thought they could go it alone

  38. BM 39

    Christ what a come down for Ardern.

    I really doubt she’ll stick around, she’s absolutely lauded on the international stage, the world is her oyster.

    Yet back home she’s completely reliant on some old coot who can pull the rug out from underneath her at any time.

    Why would she stay? this is the way it’s going to play out for the 18 months and highly likely for the following three years if she wins again in 2020.

  39. Herodotus 40

    How to reconcile Min. Shaws comments
    https://www.interest.co.nz/news/98096/james-shaw-goes-bat-capital-gains-tax-during-parliamentary-debate-amy-adams-doesnt-miss-
    “The last question we should be asking ourselves is, ‘can we be re-elected if we do this?’ The only question we should be asking ourselves is, ‘do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?'”
    At least we have a solution to 1080 and the mast seeding … Govt ministers having to swallow even more rats !!
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/362711/green-party-to-vote-for-waka-jumping-bill
    And this being preceded by the “Labour” govt now protecting Fletchers profits (as if they are not making enough) !!!
    https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/the-weekend-collective/audio/peter-reidy-construction-accord-is-a-game-changer-for-industry/

  40. David Mac 41

    Winston stood to lose votes by supporting it and winning votes by blocking it.

    The phoenix needs to rise yet again and as Bewidered said above Winston now gets to wheel out his well worn ‘We’ll keep the socialists honest for you.’ routine.

    I’m reluctant to swallow the ‘Winston calls the shots’ lines. Aren’t we just getting the inevitable compromise of a healthy MMP coalition government.

    • Anne 41.1

      Winston stood to lose votes by supporting it and winning votes by blocking it.

      On the button. If his centre-right supporters had the cojones to recognise it created a fairer system for all concerned – especially for the less well off in society – NZ First would have been shouting from the roof-tops in favour of a CGT.

      Nothing to do with principles.

  41. A 42

    YES! Good call.

  42. AB 43

    Owning stuff that appreciates during a demand-driven asset bubble contributes nothing to society and has been excessively rewarded in the last 10-20 years. The winners drive Mercedes and holiday in Italy, the losers are the next generation who will become debt serfs for life in their quest to own a home, unless they inherit one.
    But the horse has bolted – vast unearned wealth has been accrued and a non-retrospective CGT wouldn’t touch it. A CGT from the Clark government might have had an effect, but Key would have repealed it anyway.

    So let’s not be wedded to CGT as a tool – it’s politically poisoned for a decade or more. We need other ways of achieving that greater equality of outcomes that will truly reflect the actual value that people contribute.

    • greywarshark 43.1

      Thanks for the cool stuff AB. Sounds right about Key. But what next?

      Estate and stamp duty. May take the pus out of the boil which is hot and red.

      • ScottGN 43.1.1

        Land tax? Financial Transactions Tax?

        • mikesh 43.1.1.1

          RFRM tax. But whichever way we go we need to be prepared to include the “family home”. This is the ultimate political problem.

  43. Ad 44

    Can I give a shoutout to the PM’s comms team for releasing the cgt decision, then the City Rail Link decision, within 2 hours of each other.

    City Rail Link dominates tv news not cgt.

    That is superior news cycle management.

  44. Pat 45

    All attention now on how the Zero Carbon Act is addressed…..even more scope for a disappointed base I suspect….and two for two would not be good

  45. Sacha 46

    Danyl Mclauchlan faults Labour’s poor management of coalition and communications: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-04-2019/four-months-in-labours-year-of-delivery-is-a-disaster/

    Ardern and her finance minister Grant Robertson probably just bought themselves a second term in government today. But at a cost of one of Labour’s most important, long-term policies, and it was their failure to control their coalition partner or even attempt to make the argument for taxation reform that forced them to pay such a bitterly high price.

    • mikesh 46.1

      Control their coalitian partner? What do think they are? Dictators? We live in a democracy, mate.

  46. indiana 47

    Somehow I don’t think these were the only 4 reasons why Labour failed on this front. However, what was very clear was that this was never about implementing fairness to what I think is already a very fair tax system.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12223208

  47. RedLogix 48

    Good. CGT’s are overcomplex, don’t achieve the goals claimed for them, and in the current market wouldn’t produce much revenue.

    Smart politics and leaves the door open for a more rational asset tax in the future. NZ isn’t ready for one yet, but this the horse I’ve backed all along:

    https://www.top.org.nz/top1

    • SPC 48.1

      It will cost Labour a lot of younger voters to either TOP or Greens. And will also reduce their campaign worker turnout.

      The first person to use the idea of a future assets tax to see off a CGT was Roger Douglas back in 1983-1984.

      • RedLogix 48.1.1

        I don’t see the link between a ‘future assets tax’ and TOP’s ‘minimum rate of return’ proposal.

        TOP’s ‘minimum rate of return’ idea is exactly how we currently treat income earned on a deposit in a low risk bank account. It’s simply extended to capture all capital assets regardless of what form they’re held in.

        It has the huge merit that it taxes passive assets that don’t produce cash flow income and are being speculated for capital gain, while having no impact on productive assets held in businesses that produce real things.

        Keep in mind, it’s a minimum tax. If a business asset produces more income than this minimum rate of return, no more total tax is paid.

        It’s simple to calculate and doesn’t rely on year to year changes in value. It produces revenue whether the asset market price is rising or falling. It has no obvious loopholes and is hard to avoid by shuffling money between asset types or over time.

        (In the case of elderly people in homes they no longer have the cash income it is deferred until either the home is sold or it becomes a defacto ‘estate tax’, which is something else NZ lacks.)

        This is the tax NZ really wanted instead of a CGT.

  48. Craig H 49

    Good to see, CGT is a dog’s breakfast of a tax. Wealth or land tax, or a bright line test are the way to go.

    It wasn’t even really Labour policy – after the 2014 election loss, the 2015 region 5 conference had stacks of tax policy remits, and the general agreement was that while we didn’t know which ones we wanted, CGT had failed twice and should be given up on. Thus, all the tax policy remits were replaced with a policy to have a working group at the suggestion of one of the MPs present, which was then carried through annual conference later in the year.

  49. mosa 50

    Well now that is over with ( C.G.T ) what other real tax changes will be adopted from this extremely expensive T.W.G and what will Jacinda and Grant be campaigning on in 2020 ?

  50. Herodotus 51

    Perhaps Labour should engage Andrew King in how to win an argument.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12222635
    The federation strongly opposed capital gains tax on rental properties, telling the Tax Working Group last year that landlords were already heavily taxed, the new regime would not bring down house prices and landlords already paid $1b-plus annual taxes.
    But they only receive in net income of $1.5B
    “Apart from providing accommodation for a third of all New Zealanders, the rental
    industry pays annual tax on a net rental income of around $1.5 billion”
    So net rental income is $1.5b and tax paid is $1b – 67% tax rate and in 2017 the Accomodation Supplement paid by the govt was $1.5+b.
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/accommodation-supplements-nudge-30m-week-put-pressure-welfare-system
    Year of Delivery !!!!! Lets do This (Not)
    Just as well Nat is “marginally” more hopeless than Labour

  51. vto 52

    Fuck that

    Wage and salary slaves paying tax on every cent they earn while capital bludgers pay nothing on any cent they earn.

    Repeat:
    One of us earns $22 per hour and pays tax on every cent
    Family member earns $22million and pays nothing.

    How the fuck is that fair?

    Fuck the system
    and
    fuck labour

    Bullshit

    Fucking old c&%$s again – the greedies. Vote to get super benefit even when they don’t need it. Vote to avoid tax on money they make from doing nothing. Selfish.

    Why the fuck would we feel anything positive towards this voting block? Eh?

    The gap just got wider.
    Resentment grows.
    The lower go underground
    Gravitate to the extremes

    It is this sort of politics (both the voters they are appealing to, and the politicians themselves) which led to Trump. Which politics has led to the current extremes globally. Which politics led to Christchurch. Adern is weak. She has just pulled a Key ffs. Not what was voted for.

    rant rant fucking rant

    no vote labour next time

    • Peter 52.1

      There’s guy in the Herald. Write to him and tell what you think. A capital gains tax according to him is “an envy tax designed to reward the hardcore left in the Labour Party by punishing those who have tried to provide for themselves.”

      Tell him “One of us earns $22 per hour and pays tax on every cent
      Family member earns $22million and pays nothing.” Tell him of other investors making scullions paying no tax sitting on real estate investments while ordinary workers get out of bed early everyday go to work and put their best effort and are taxed.

      His name is Ashley Church, former CEO of the Property Institute of New Zealand and the Auckland Property Investors Association.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12223342

      He’s one of the scumbag group who thought the tax would be the economic ruin of the country.

    • Anne 52.2

      On 19 October, Winston Peters announced he was forming a coalition agreement with Labour, with the Greens in a confidence-and-supply agreement.[5][6] The Greens’ support, plus the coalition, resulting in 63 seats to National’s 56—enough to ensure that Ardern maintains the confidence of the House.

      Coalition 63 seats
      National/ACT 57 seats

      NZ First refuses to support CGT. That is, 63 seats minus 9 seats = 54 seats

      There’s your answer vto. The coalition did not have the numbers. You’re blaming the wrong party.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/52nd_New_Zealand_Parliament

      • mikesh 52.2.1

        Winston Peters is a man of integrity who for years has consistently opposed the introduction of a capital gains tax. He was not about to change his mind just because a working group was set up to convince him otherwise.

        Even Michael Cullen said he was not surprised at Winston’s unwillingness to play ball.

      • vto 52.2.2

        Thanks Anne, yes I know I know..

        It was a pure rant, on reading the news a few minutes previous that it would be dropped – with consequence that those on minimum wage will continue to pay tax on every cent they earn while the capital bludgers (and they really do bludge) pay nothing on the money they earn.

        The inequity of the situation leaves me red hot with anger.

        Two things:
        One, Adern had better have a replacement plan to deal with this inequity

        Two, No capital gains tax, no income gains tax. Ban income gains tax.

  52. Jackal 53

    Ardern is incorrect. The blanket statement that New Zealanders don’t want a Capital Gains Tax is clearly disingenuous.

    Labour ignoring the recommendations is particularly imprudent in terms of social justice. By choosing not to fix this tax loophole the current government shows that they’re not interested in repairing our run down housing stock or poverty stricken communities over and above token gestures that are years away from being implemented.

    Playing politics shouldn’t be more important than creating a fairer system where every Kiwi can prosper. Ruling out a policy change because it’s too hard to debate the right wing on it in an election year is a weak and unwise excuse. Likewise Labour perhaps losing some political capital by implementing a CGT isn’t a valid reason for not doing the right thing.

    Putting the interests of wealthy property speculators and farmers ahead of minimum wage workers and renters trapped in the poverty cycle will be particularly galling to many of Labours core supporters. It’s not pragmatic politics when you consider that the concerns of a substantial political party and potential government maker in 2020 have been dismissed.

    Instead of creating stronger communities and prosperity through increased home ownership the current government is willing to continue paying extensive social costs in the form of homelessness, transience, child poverty and increased third-world diseases just to name a few negative things our declining home ownership rate facilitates. Another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff government in other words.

    I guess at some cold-hearted decision making level keeping people in poverty and suffering is actually good for the economy.

    • If one of your coalition partners refuses to have a CGT and without that partner you don’t have the numbers to pass a CGT, rejecting a CGT is not “playing politics,” it’s “recognising that mathematics is a real thing.” Stamping your feet doesn’t change arithmetic, which is why Ardern wasn’t up there throwing a tantrum about it.

      • left_forward 53.1.1

        Yes, PM, that is it in a nutshell.
        I’m very disappointed, but l accept the political reality.
        I am pleased that we have such strong advocates in Labour and the Greens.

      • Jackal 53.1.2

        If the decision to not implement a CGT was just about the numbers Psycho Milt then why did Ardern rule it out under her leadership anytime in the future?

        Under current poling Labour won’t need NZF to form the next government.

        Instead we have another middle of the road administration that believes in continuing a broken system of class warfare.

    • new view 53.2

      The only way to hold political parties to account was with FPP. That way they couldn’t hide behind their COL partners. They were voted in or out on their policies and whether they adhered to them. A different form of COL Government might work but certainly not MMP. Labour were greedy for power when they went with Winston and having NZF running the country is not what the voters wanted. We’re getting what we voted for.

  53. Richard@DownSouth 54

    Look at MP’s and their assets in housing (bet most MP’s own at least one house, if not more)… that alone would be enough to make many lobby against supporting a CGT

    Sad times, but these MP’s dont represent a majority of kiwis who are struggling week to week, and want a fair tax system…

    How hard would it be to say that tax should be paid on income, whether from property, shares, investments in the bank or wages

  54. millsy 55

    Egalitarianism is well and truly dead in this country. I think the PM’s announcement removed any doubts about it.

  55. MickeyBoyle 56

    Ardern keeps saying we have listened to the NZ public, and will not implement a CGT because they don’t want one. Is she really saying that even if Winston supported it, that she would turn one down? Come on Jacinda, you aren’t fooling anyone.

    • McFlock 56.1

      Winston has good senses for what the public want. If he supported CGT, there wouldn’t be an issue.

      • Sacha 56.1.1

        Winston has a good sense of what 5% of the public want.
        That’s all he needs to do.

        • McFlock 56.1.1.1

          fair call. But that’s still the difference between a majority supporting CGT and not.

  56. Colin 57

    W P. Let them get away a Ban on Future Oil & Gas Exploration, what a Rat to swallow, Now He Chokes Labour & Lemon Limes with a Grapefruit, some would call it Political Chess.

  57. Colin 58

    W P. Let them get away a Ban on Future Oil & Gas Exploration, what a Rat to swallow, Now He Chokes Labour & Lemon Limes with a Grapefruit, some would call it Political Chess. THIS IS MY FIRST COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT

  58. Al 59

    Can’t believe how gutted I am about this. Let’s just carry on the injustice … but I have also to accept this is how MMP works and hadn’t really considered that those prats in NZF would screw this up. Hopefully next election Labour will have the numbers to govern alone then enact CGT. Te Reo has a valid point in that this will blunt a lot of what the Tories might throw at Labour during the upcoming election, but it would be good to see a government that is actually able to loosen the neoliberal controls on our political environment.

    • RedLogix 59.1

      I understand your motivation,NZ needs an asset tax, but CGT’s are over-complicated and ineffective.

      Instead of being gutted, I’m treating this a bullet dodged, and an opportunity to get a better form of asset tax in the future.

      • mikesh 59.1.1

        Whatever tax one introduces with respect to property, in the interests of fairness it has to include the “family home”. This is the ultimate political problem. Politicians should be driving this point home at every opportunity until the public comes round.

        If a tax is universal it can be levied at a lower rate, and therefore would have a better chance of becoming politically acceptable

        • SPC 59.1.1.1

          There is no CG if the home is sold and a new one purchased.

          In CGT regimes there is the principle of rollover, whereby if say a farmer went from a small to larger farm they would not pay a CG on the profit of the sale of a smaller farm, only when they retired from farming. This prevents taxation from limiting “growth”.

          In home ownership if a couples flat was sold, so they could have a family home with children, the same would apply or the couple wouold not be able to afford children without losing home ownership.

          In another case, if a person moved around a lot – a CGT on property would discourage them from ever owning property (because each CGT payment made would reduce their equity in property over and over again). Any reduction in labour mobility would be bad for the economy.

          There are only two valid forms of CGT on homes, on the top end high value (where there was a form of investment in scarce land for CG), or on the estate (end of rollover exemption) of the deceased. Many regimes with CGT exemptions for the family home simplay have an estate tax at this point (some with an exemption level).

        • greywarshark 59.1.1.2

          In the interests of fairness a property tax would have to include the family home?? I think you mean – in the interests of simplicity for those who can’t cope with complexity and human needs.

          As Yoda said ‘Do. Or do not. There is no try’. The Coalition could have done it if it wasn’t for Winstone’s tribe. Now PM JA has made sweeping statements that it won’t happen ever on her watch? She just doesn’t have the force. Back to the swamp for more lessons – she may yet be able to raise the edifice of well-designed property tax by sheer strenth of mind and purpose.

      • SPC 59.1.2

        The first person to use the idea of a future assets tax to see off a CGT was Roger Douglas back in 1983-1984.

      • greywarshark 59.1.3

        We would get our fingers jammed in the door trying to utilise CGT you say RL. So what jam tomorrow have you in mind?

    • Bazza64 59.2

      This is just democracy in action. There weren’t enough in parliament that would support it so Labour made the pragmatic decision to try & stay in power rather than martyr themselves over the CGT.

      No doubt Cullen will be spawing.

      • Bazza64 59.2.1

        …spewing

        • RedLogix 59.2.1.1

          He only has himself to blame. I like Cullen, he’s a smart guy and has decades of high level experience. Yet the TWG report was a disappointment, a lost opportunity that nobody could get enthusiastic about.

  59. Observer Tokoroa 60

    The Right and the Trolls

    I have enjoyed reading Lprent analysis throughout this Topic. It is convincing. It is also seriously on Target. In my opinion.

    By dint of Housing need; Control of excessive Rentals; Management of fair pay, The labour Party will bring NZ’s Tilting Unfair Ship back on keel. There is Plenty to do.

    Primitive national scribblers on here have shown their hatred for Jacinda ever since she took command of Parliament. They thought they would trip and cripple Her on Capital Gains Tax. They are messing themselves today.

    You see, Key and English, kept wages pitifully low. They actually spent Billions of Dollars ignoring things. They made our deficits needlessly very high. National Wealthy are pathetic.

    They can’t do mines. They swear our Youth are Hopeless. They can’t build infra structure. They struggle with engineering; even Milk gets difficult for them; Cows drop dead suffering; A long list of failures. The cannot keep our water clean ..

    The Workers are paying for the Poverty of our Nation. let National Wealthy never forget that ! The IRD will be required to do some work.

    Let them feel the knot a bit tight around their greed. The same knot they have put around the People of Aotearoa for decades.

    .

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts