Hickey on the UBI

Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, March 27th, 2016 - 200 comments
Categories: class war, economy, jobs, john key, wages, workers' rights - Tags: ,

Bernard Hickey makes some excellent points on the Unconditional Basic Income / Guaranteed Minimum Income:

Key fickle on minimum wages

It may be a little early to be fighting an election over, but the idea of a Guaranteed Minimum Income deserves a lot more thought and debate than the dismissal it got from the Prime Minister.

John Key described the idea, suggested as one of many at Labour’s Future of Work Commission, as “barking mad” and “utterly unaffordable”. In 2004, he described Working For Families as “communism by stealth”, yet he kept that programme more than eight years as Prime Minister.

He is also a staunch defender of several other limited versions of Guaranteed Minimum Income New Zealand already has. …

Hickey goes on to discuss Superannuation and various other existing welfare categories.

Key is right that a true Guaranteed Minimum Income, where the Government essentially paid everyone a version of New Zealand Superannuation, could not be afforded with our tax system. Gareth Morgan’s Big Kahuna proposal for a Universal Basic Income of $11,000 a year per adult would cost $18 billion, which he proposed would be paid for with major new tax on capital.

This is where the debate gets interesting and where it starts to marry up with the reason so many other countries are debating a Universal or Guaranteed Minimum Income. Finland and the Netherlands have launched trials and Switzerland will vote in a referendum on one later this year.

After discussing the increasing automation of work…

If the bulk of incomes are generated by capital owned by a few rather than wages going to many, maybe capital or intellectual property taxes are a better way to support the machinery of government and a civil society. Some call this massive transformation a Fourth Industrial Revolution or a Second Machine Age. Whatever it is, New Zealand will not be immune from its stresses.

Final word on the UBI:

We should do some proper work on it.

What an excellent idea.

200 comments on “Hickey on the UBI ”

  1. Incognito 1

    We should do some proper work on it.

    Key will do everything to prevent this from happening; marginalise, ridicule, isolate, and try to stop it in its tracks as early as possible. Watch & wait for the textbook political warfare to rear its ugly head yet again.

    • Iceberg 1.1

      You mean like the flag debate?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      Of course he would. I’m sure that he’s intelligent enough to realise that a whole lot of National’s donor would go broke over night if there was a UBI simply because nobody wants to work for the arseholes.

      Have a close look at National’s changes to our welfare system. It’s all about forcing people to work.

      • Incognito 1.2.1

        I wonder what would happen to the 90-day trial period if we were to get a UBI in NZ. This thing is complex!

        • Andre 1.2.1.1

          Seems to me a UBI would justify freeing up some labour laws making it easier for employers to let staff go. Which would be a big selling point to business types.

          • Incognito 1.2.1.1.1

            I honestly don’t know. However, section 2.4 of the Discussion Paper covers this, but obviously the devil is in the detail. It does mention of a compromise between flexibility and security. It also alludes to the asymmetrical relationship between employer and employee (“power imbalance”) and suggests a UBI “could have a beneficial impact on workplace relations”. I therefore think that it is highly likely that the 90-day trial will be reviewed if it ever gets that far.

      • AmaKiwi 1.2.2

        “National’s changes to our welfare system. It’s all about forcing people to work”

        + 100

        And penalizing those who work without pay caring for those who cannot help themselves – young children, disabled, mentally ill, aged, sick, and alike.

        National knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

  2. The Chairman 2

    A UBI of $11,000 is insufficient. It’s less than many of the welfare benefits that are paid now. Thus, preventing many of the touted benefits from eventuating.

    A flat tax rate coupled with a capital tax (a tax on paper gains and not gains achieved) will capture a number of those a UBI is touted to assist, leaving them fiscally worse off.

    This is why Labour should stay well clear of the Big Kahuna.

    An intellectual property tax and a financial transaction tax would be far more worthy of further consideration.

    • Foreign waka 2.1

      And yet pensioners are being expected to live on this income.

      • weka 2.1.1

        Do you mean now? $11,000 is what the dole is. Super is $19,500.

        If you mean Morgan’s proposal, I agree with TC there are definitely problems with it. But we can use it as a starting point rather than the model we have to adopt.

        • The Chairman 2.1.1.1

          Yes, now.

          Keep in mind, $11,000 is merely the base single adult job seeker benefit rate without accommodation costs, which most beneficiaries also receive.

          And yes, it’s also far less than current super rates.

          Therefore, $11,000 is insufficient.

          Coupled with a capital tax, there are certainly problems with Morgan’s proposal. It’s largely an example of what not to do.

          • Craig H 2.1.1.1.1

            Big Kahuna intended for the accommodation supplement to continue.

            The Capital Tax is only paid if the person doesn’t pay as much or more income tax. The taxpayer can opt to defer, and pays interest if they do.

            • The Chairman 2.1.1.1.1.1

              “Big Kahuna intended for the accommodation supplement to continue.”

              Labour expects a UBI will replace benefits. See the misalignment?

              “The Capital Tax is only paid if the person doesn’t pay as much or more income tax”

              And how many low income earners will meet that criteria? None.

              Who will meet that criteria is the well off. See the problem?

              “The taxpayer can opt to defer, and pays interest if they do”

              Merely increasing the burden and putting off the hardship while robbing the next generation (with home ownership trending down) that will require that inheritance. For some, it will be their only chance of owning a home.

              This is meant to assist the poor and their offspring, not roll them.

              One would expect a model like that to be pushed by National, not Labour.

              • RedLogix

                Nope, it’s you demanding wealth in capital remain tax-free that’s the National party line.

                Here’s the odd thing; you seem ok with the idea of a CGT paid on sale and realised value, yet unhappy about a CCT which is much the same sort of thing being deferred and paid out of an estate. The details may be different, but in practise they will likely have similar outcomes.

                So why the acceptance of one, yet outrage at the other?

                The simple fact is that our housing market is broken. It needs a major restructuring and a CCT could be a useful part of that. It’s not the magic wand by itself as others have noted; but frankly the option of leaving capital wealth in domestic homes untouched just doesn’t work.

                If you tax all other forms of capital wealth and leave the domestic home exempt, all you do in increase the current distortion.

                • The Chairman

                  “Nope, it’s you demanding wealth in capital remain tax-free that’s the National party line.”

                  What rubbish. Your average worker has worked hard and paid tax on the wealth that was put into that capital/home. The problem is you want to tax them again on paper gains that may never eventuate.

                  “Here’s the odd thing; you seem ok with the idea of a CGT paid on sale and realised value…”

                  Wrong again. If you read my comments you would have seen why I’m not.

                  “The simple fact is that our housing market is broken. It needs a major restructuring and a CCT could be a useful part of that. It’s not the magic wand by itself as others have noted; but frankly the option of leaving capital wealth in domestic homes untouched just doesn’t work.”

                  The simple fact is we can address our housing market and those outrageous gains without a capital tax. A capital tax doesn’t prevent as much as it tries to cash in on those gains. It requires gains to produce revenue.

                  Moreover, once the market has been restructured and capital gains cease, there would be no actual capital gain to tax.

                  • RedLogix

                    What you are assiduously avoiding saying is that for years you’ve been making far more passive rentier money on the increased value of your home, than you ever did by working at anything productively.

                    And you don’t want the free ride to end. Fair enough.

                    You’ve gotten used to the idea that the state would pay you a guaranteed Superannuation to pay your living expenses, while expecting you could make north of $50k pa untaxed riding the Auckland property market.

                    Nice earner. I can see why you don’t want that to come to an end.

                    And then you could pass a big lump of it on to the kids untaxed as well. Cool, they could damn well do with it. Maybe thirty years late, but they’ll be pleased all the same.

                    But spare us the ‘poor me’ schtick.

                    The simple fact is we can address our housing market and those outrageous gains without a capital tax.

                    I’ve already stated that, and made at least one bullet-proof suggestion to bring it about. But the fact remains, if we are going to tax income, then it should be treated the same regardless of what source it comes from or what form it is in. Otherwise we merely finish up privileging one over the other and creating stupid distortions that harm everyone.

                    And once we decouple our tax/welfare system from this endless, venal squabble, defending various privileges over another … once we establish the principle of true equity where the system treats all people and all forms of wealth the same … then maybe we could get on with paying some attention to real problems that matter.

                    • The Chairman

                      “What you are assiduously avoiding saying is that for years you’ve been making far more passive rentier money on the increased value of your home, than you ever did by working at anything productively.”

                      No. That’s merely your attempt to paint me (thus my genuine concerns) in a bad light. Insinuating I have a sinister self interest, while attempting to diminish the concerns.

                      What I don’t want to see is more driven into poverty.

                      This tax (a CCT) fails to genuinely distinguish between the rich and poor, largely treating all capital the same. Therefore, will put more into fiscal hardship. Not all property owners are rich.

                      Moreover, it will put upward pressure on rents as the tax burden will largely have to come from incomes because the gains calculated have yet (if they ever) come to fruition. Creating more hardship.

                      Additionally, it will add to the cost of owning a home. Not only will people have to buy and pay off their home, now (if this tax is introduced) they will also have to pay this new tax burden. Making it fiscally more difficult to own a home.

                      The less disposable income people have (due to higher rents or higher home ownership costs) the less they have to spend. Negatively impacting consumer demand, thus business returns.

                      You seem to be blaming the soaring gains in property on those that own property. As if owning a property is a bad thing.

                      I’m more than happy to see soaring gains come to an end.

                      However, If you wish to addressee soaring gains there are far more effective measures one can take, instead of introducing a tax that seeks to capitalize off gains (whether they eventuate or not) while further putting a number into hardship.

                      You seem so out of touch with reality. Today we have a number of generations of poor living in the one family home, you want to tax that away from them.

                      Not only does that go against what is trying to be achieved, it’s also abhorrent. You and your ilk should be ashamed.

                      Poverty is not only a reality, thus problematic for some. The vast inequality prevents the wider economy from sustainably performing. Therefore, what you simply write off as venal squabble is actually one of the real problems we all face.

                      One can only hope Labour can see past your rubbish.

                      Grant, if you are out there, do you care to comment yet?

              • mikesh

                “The Capital Tax is only paid if the person doesn’t pay as much or more income tax”

                “And how many low income earners will meet that criteria? None.”

                In Morgan’s scheme homeowners would constitute major payers of this tax, even if they are low earners. The point being that the rent saved through homeownership is in fact income and should be taxed as such.

                • The Chairman

                  What is being overlooked is not having the burden of rent is what’s keeping a number of home owning low income earners out of further poverty.

                  Moreover, as a CCT is applied (whether or not gains eventuate) landlords will look to pass it on. Putting further upward pressure on rents. Negatively impacting on the renting class.

                  These are not the high income groups a tax should be challenging to redistribute wealth and improve inequality.

                  This tax will push more further into poverty, defeating the purpose and number of benefits of introducing a UBI.

          • pat 2.1.1.1.2

            If the government moved heavily into social housing with the likes of a state housing program and tenant tenure then the workability of a UBI is greatly enhanced….introducing a UBI without other significant change is unworkable IMO.

            • The Chairman 2.1.1.1.2.1

              “If the government moved heavily into social housing with the likes of a state housing program and tenant tenure then the workability of a UBI is greatly enhanced”

              Indeed. But as New Zealand’s wealth is largely tied to housing, that correction would have to be managed slowly to avert a financial disaster.

              Therefore, a UBI could be set at a high rate and reduced as the cost of housing slowed down. However, it would have to keep up with inflation.

              “Introducing a UBI without other significant change is unworkable”

              Indeed again. Hence, the consideration of new taxes and settings.

              As it’s a form of wealth redistribution, the cost of it has got to come from the top.

              The IMF claims that inequality due to growing high-end incomes is bad for growth, thus the upside of this UBI redistribution is the economy will better perform.

              • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal

                Good points both Pat and Chairman.

              • pat

                ‘Indeed. But as New Zealand’s wealth is largely tied to housing, that correction would have to be managed slowly to avert a financial disaster.”

                it would have to be managed, yes but it would by its nature have to be slow in any case….we cannot produce the required housing at anything other than an incremental rate as evidenced by the Christchurch rebuild(?) even with a large portion of imported
                labour.

                It comes with the additional bonus of resetting the investment drivers in the economy away from housing so addresses in large part the redistribution also required.

                • The Chairman

                  The Christchurch rebuild generally relied on the private sector, who lack the scale a willing Government has to build in bulk.

                  It’s not so much tax incentives that drives people to invest in housing.

                  First off, people require a home, therefore in that case it’s necessity that drives them.

                  Secondly, the risk factor. Productive investments are far more risky, hence it’s the reduction of risk driving investment into housing.

                  Thirdly, there is financing. Borrowing for productive investment is far more difficult as it is higher risk. Therefore, those that can secure a home loan and invest wouldn’t necessarily get the finance to invest productively. Leaving them little choice but to invest in housing.

                  Nations that do tax housing hard still face the same investment distortions. Highlighting, tax is not the major driver, if a driver at all.

                  • pat

                    “The Christchurch rebuild generally relied on the private sector, who lack the scale a willing Government has to build in bulk.”

                    beg to differ, take a look at the actual repair/construction stats for both the private ICs AND the Gov agencies….the majority are cash settled.

                    “It’s not so much tax incentives that drives people to invest in housing.”

                    Again I disagree, the driver in housing investment is the essentially tax free capital gain. match the supply to the demand and the capital gain will be by inflation and improvement.

                    “hirdly, there is financing. Borrowing for productive investment is far more difficult as it is higher risk. Therefore, those that can secure a home loan and invest wouldn’t necessarily get the finance to invest productively. Leaving them little choice but to invest in housing.”

                    On this i agree but point 2 addresses the bulk of the push to invest in non productive housing freeing more funds from individuals and banks to invest elsewhere…it is a question of return for both parties and with housing essentially removed from the equation investment must flow into other areas, likely productive or even offshore.

                    • RedLogix

                      Very quickly. Yes in all the other comment going on I overlooked seconding your original comment.

                      Absolutely the state must be a major player in the affordable housing sector, one way or another. All sorts of good reasons for this.

                      Cheers

                    • The Chairman

                      “Beg to differ, take a look at the actual repair/construction stats for both the private ICs AND the Gov agencies….the majority are cash settled”

                      You missed the point. Which is a willing government can build far more homes than the private sector due to its scale.

                      The Christchurch rebuild didn’t have a willing Government seeking to vastly increase housing supply. The restoration was largely left to the private sector.

                      There are basically three groups that invest in housing.

                      The increasing number of people requiring a home to live in. Capital gains for this group is generally a hindrance. It results in costing them more in rates and insurance. What’s driving them is the need to own a home and the security it provides

                      Next there are those looking to lease/rent out housing. Again, capital gains for this group is generally a hindrance, also costing them more in rates and insurance. What drives them is having a secure (as in bricks & mortar) long-term investment.

                      Then there are speculators, this group do seek capital gains.

                      However, a capital tax doesn’t prevent as much as it tries to cash in on those gains. While after tax gains remain, speculators will continue to pursue them. As the distortion in offshore markets (that do tax hard) highlights. And this is why most commentators agree, a capital tax is far from a solution in itself.

                      Therefore, to prevent capital gains from soaring, other measures are required. Once these other measures are put into place and soaring gains cease, there is really no need for a capital gains tax.

                    • pat

                      Sigh…
                      ” Which is a willing government can build far more homes than the private sector due to its scale.”

                      The capacity does not exist in the private sector (when i have time I’ll provide the links) and the government has zero these days so will be starting from scratch…..you don’t develop competent trades people overnight…..as evidenced by the problems in construction currently.

                      ‘Capital gains for this group is generally a hindrance. It results in costing them more in rates and insurance.’

                      Bollocks. The only aspect of CV that impacts rates is if your value increase exceeds the average increase….it is simply a method of apportioning the rates take, if all values increase then the proportion remains unaffected. IC premiums are calculated on rebuild cost and bear no link to market value.

                      ‘However, a capital tax doesn’t prevent as much as it tries to cash in on those gains. While after tax gains remain, speculators will continue to pursue them. As the distortion in offshore markets (that do tax hard) highlights. And this is why most commentators agree, a capital tax is far from a solution in itself.”

                      I made no mention of a CGT in my post so wonder if you have bothered to read it….my point which you have failed to grasp was the speculative capital gain is no longer available WHEN the supply meets demand.

                      “You missed the point.”

                      What point was that?

                    • The Chairman

                      “You don’t develop competent trades people overnight “

                      That’s correct. However, Government can hire the expertise required.

                      Rate calculations vary between council regions. In Wellington for example, rates are based on your property’s capital value.

                      Nevertheless, if ones property values are soaring, one will generally exceed the average regional increase.

                      While insurance premium calculations have not long changed to sum insured, one can still obtain full market value insurance. And a number do.

                      Nonetheless, the driving factor is the need to own a home and the security the property or investment provides. Not the tax free capital gain (speculators excluded).

                      Additionally, on a side note, sum insured is a misleading term in this regard. If a rebuild comes in under the sum insured, one is not paid out the outstanding balance.

                      Sorry, Pat. I thought when you stated (above) ‘the driver in housing investment is the essentially tax free capital gain’ – you were advocating a capital tax.

                      But yes, I agree, when supply meets (or better still) slightly exceeds demand.

                      The point you missed (twice now) was clearly stated in my post above, in which you copied & pasted into your post I’m replying to now. Therefore, I should be the one that’s sighing, lol.

                    • pat

                      you still appear to believe the capacity can be magic’d up from somewhere…
                      ‘That’s correct. However, Government can hire the expertise required.”

                      Hire from where pray tell?….the private sector haven’t got it and as you agree developing it will take time….therein is the method to transition and allow the market to adjust over time as previously stated

                      The insurance and rates issues you are focusing on are not driven by property speculation…..I agree that rates and premiums are an issue for those deemed wealthy due to property ownership but their causes are unrelated to the topic under discussion….and the recent insurance changes merely bring us back inline with the rest of the world and have no impact on premium setting…even a comprehensive policy of old only pays the cost of replacement….its basis is cost and risk, not forgetting what the market will bear

                      As to rates… price increases in a bubble are area wide (granted with variation but the biggest increases tend to apply at the higher end)….but unaffordable rates are going to have to addressed at some point in the not too distant future….particularly in less densely populated areas

                      The question was rhetorical…so sigh away.

                    • The Chairman

                      No magic required, Pat. Expertise and advance technology (speeding up the building process) can be brought in from overseas if required.

                      Insurance and rates issues raised were in relation to property value increases and why not all property owners welcome them.

                      Cost and risk. Yes, the cost part can relate to current market value. Sometimes cash payouts are required, hence the relation to market value (which is driven by speculation adding to demand) and the impact on premium setting which calculations take into account. Thus, the recent change to so called sum insured, it works out cheaper for insurance companies. Christchurch was a wake up call.

                      The biggest increases in property values and rates can also take place in up and coming surrounding suburbs.

                      I agree, the rate burden is becoming unsustainable for some, forcing people to move in an effort to reduce them.

                      Thanks, but I’ll leave the sighing to you, lol. It’s not in my nature.

                    • pat

                      I suspect we agree on many aspects of this problem however consider this fact….back in the day, (about 10/15 years ago) a three bedroom house would be built in 12 to 14 weeks…the average build time in CH CH for a standard 3 bedroom house now approaches one year……with all the ‘Expertise and advance technology (speeding up the building process) can be brought in from overseas if required.’….and the workmanship is crap

      • The Chairman 2.1.2

        @Foreign waka

        It’s still all under consideration, but they really do need a model that will give people a decent rate.

    • RedLogix 2.2

      I agree that by itself $11k is not enough to live on. I don’t think it’s intended to be.

      However it’s a mistake to evaluate that number purely in the context of our current system.

      First of all it applies universally. Think how this will positively affect many households with more than one adult. At present for instance NZ has a very low ‘partner qualifying income’ that effectively closes the door on any benefit for the unemployed partner in most low income households.

      Secondly I’d argue to extend it downwards in age to encompass a return of the Universal Child Allowance that NZ used to enjoy.

      Thirdly, and this is critical, most people on benefits are not entirely unable to earn other income. The current system punishes this with absurdly high abatement rates and effective marginal tax rates higher than 80%. Remove this big obstacle and I’d expect many people currently on unemployment benefits (with all the soul crushing bullshit, stand downs and form filling imposed on them) would happily find bits of extra income to bring the UBI up to a more comfortable level. This would especially apply in regional and rural areas.

      And fourthly, those who cannot work for reasons of disability should have access to top-up support and well funded assistance. I won’t try to speak on their behalf because the disabled know what they need better than I do, but with the bulk of the dollars flowing via the UBI, I would expect the extra needed for disability support to be well-directed and good value.

      • The Chairman 2.2.1

        It’s a mistake not to evaluate the number in the context of our current system.

        While you are correct, saying it will positively affect many households with more than one adult. It also has to benefit those living alone.

        The more we can benefit the struggling individual, the more struggling households with more than one adult will benefit.

        I also agree with your suggestion of extending it downwards in age to encompass a return of the Universal Child Allowance, but that still overlooks ensuring struggling individuals sufficiently benefit.

        If we set a low UBI rate with the expectation people will work Those that can’t work would be forced to continually seek top ups merely because their UBI rate is set to low to live off alone. Let alone giving consideration to their medical needs.

        Which, when all is taken into consideration, only reinforces why a higher UBI rate is required.

        • RedLogix 2.2.1.1

          Let’s go with the idea that say the level of the Super for a single adult at around $17k pa is a minimum liveable income. (And not forgetting that for couples, ie more than one adult in the household, Super is not twice this number.)

          Well if you already have $11k of this in the hand (tax free) then I’d argue that for able bodied people it’s reasonable to expect them to find another $10k pa of paid employment or added value to make up the gap.

          If you live in urban areas there are plenty of short-term gigs at all sorts of jobs that would achieve this.

          If you live in a rural town or area, it’s even easier. Heaps of contract labouring, picking jobs, or options to build your own food gardens, gather firewood, and so on. Sure they don’t necessarily pay much, but with a UBI to fall back on your not being forced to do that really shitty job if you don’t want to.

          Community based, collective enterprises suddenly start becoming a lot more attractive and viable. Bad employers would hate the UBI; it would force them to lift their game.

          And as I clearly stated at point 4 above, for disabled people who cannot work, I would absolutely expect a redesigned UBI system to ensure they have access to a well directed, well funded systems to account for their specific needs. When you’ve taken care of a large fraction of what is needed with a UBI as a of universal right, then I’d argue it becomes much easier to give quality attention to what is needed to address disability issues for each individual.

          • alwyn 2.2.1.1.1

            A couple of comments.
            “Super is not twice this number”. It is you know, pretax.
            Each person gets, pre-tax, $326.30 which is $17,000/year.
            After tax, on an M tax code you get $288.10 each

            ” Heaps of contract labouring, picking jobs, or options to build your own food gardens, gather firewood, and so on. Sure they don’t necessarily pay much,”
            Would you think it reasonable to lower the minimum wage. After all that would probably increase the number of jobs provided by a bit. This would probably help thos with intellectual disabilities who simply can’t justify being paid the minimum wage in what used to be called, I think, sheltered workshops.

          • The Chairman 2.2.1.1.2

            “Let’s go with the idea that say the level of the Super for a single adult at around $17k pa is a minimum liveable income.”

            OK.

            “Well if you already have $11k of this in the hand (tax free) then I’d argue that for able bodied people it’s reasonable to expect them to find another $10k pa of paid employment or added value to make up the gap.”

            First off, with a flat tax and capital tax, there is no guarantee people will get $11k in the hand. In fact, at this stage of the discussion, it’s unlikely they will.

            Nevertheless, that still overlooks the fact if we set a low UBI rate with the expectation people will work Those that can’t work would be forced to continually seek top ups merely because their UBI rate is set to low to live off alone.

            Moreover, work expectations robs us of other touted benefits.

            It may take time to find suitable employment, thus there goes the fiscal security that was being promoted. A low set UBI rate won’t provide enough to live off to sustain those looking for work while out of work.

            The reward for work not currently considered work, would be another lost.

            The ability to retrain/educate would also be negatively impacted.

            “If you live in urban areas there are plenty of short-term gigs at all sorts of jobs that would achieve this”

            Your expectation is also overlooking unemployment number suggesting otherwise. Moreover, the future changes of work, with many jobs destine to disappear.

            A low set UBI will force people into shit jobs because they will require the extra income just to live.

            $11,000 annually doesn’t even take into account accommodation costs, that most on benefits also currently receive. Hence, making it insufficient.

            It’s more conceivable to see bad employers upping their game with a decent set UBI rate.

            A higher set UBI rate will also benefit businesses, increasing demand, thus business returns.

            Finally, your point four and last response didn’t address the point I made.

            If we set a low UBI rate with the expectation people will be required to work to get by Those that can’t work would be forced to continually seek top ups merely because their UBI rate is set to low to live off alone. Can’t see to many top ups being granted for that. This is apart from their added medical needs.

            If we set a low UBI rate with the expectation people will be required to work to get by, we therefore can’t expect those that can’t work will get by.

            You are taking about top ups for their medical needs, which is another issue. We are require to give them a decent set rate first, then look at individual top up requirements for medical needs.

            Again, this all reinforces the need for a higher UBI set rate.

            • RedLogix 2.2.1.1.2.1

              First off, with a flat tax and capital tax, there is no guarantee people will get $11k in the hand. In fact, at this stage of the discussion, it’s unlikely they will.

              Please read the BK again. Absolutely a UBI is tax-free and guaranteed. So yes everyone does get the $11k.

              Nevertheless, that still overlooks the fact if we set a low UBI rate with the expectation people will work

              At present I believe that remains a reasonable expectation. Especially if you are trying to achieve sufficient bi-partisan support to ensure the UBI remains durable into the future. Maybe in several decades more the impact automation will diminish the expectation to work, but not just yet.

              A low set UBI will force people into shit jobs because they will require the extra income just to live.

              The present system is way worse at this, especially with all it’s mandatory job-seeking requirements and stand-down periods. The UBI is not a magic wand that will make the world a beautiful place, but with the future of work predicted to trend towards more of a gig economy, with more short-term work … then an UBI is a far more natural fit.

              Disability is primarily a health issue, and best worked with in that setting. Every disability is unique, and the best way to help each person is unique. Our current WINZ system is very ‘one size fit all’ and punitive; surely we can do better. We can basically organise disability support services to do whatever we like … it’s just a matter of imagination really. As I said above, I’m not trying to speak on their behalf.

              • The Chairman

                “Please read the BK again. Absolutely a UBI is tax-free and guaranteed. So yes everyone does get the $11k”.

                No, not in the hand after the accompanying taxes are applied.

                In fact, a number of low income earners would be left fiscally worse off.

                It’s disappointing you believe it remains a reasonable expectation, considering I highlighted the extra hardship it will create. Moreover, it doesn’t align with a number of the benefits Labour has touted.

                As previously explained, a higher set rate UBI is also of benefit to businesses. It increases consumer demand, thus business return. This helps achieve the support of the right, thus helps muster bi-partisan support.

                And once again, you are completely overlooking that $11,000 is less than what many currently receive now. Therefore, a low set UBI is worse than the present system in that respect, effectively placing mandatory job-seeking requirements on people as the UBI alone won’t be enough to live off.

                The UBI is not a magic wand, but it can achieve so much more if set at a higher rate. Therefore, maximizing the potential benefits should be its aim.

                People are struggling now. A decent UBI can assist them. Therefore, the sooner a decent UBI is in place, the better off many will be.

              • weka

                “Disability is primarily a health issue, and best worked with in that setting”

                Nope. The MoH in many ways is not much better than WINZ. Btw WINZ aren’t one size fits all when it comes to dealing with disability and illness, there is actually a lot of discretion in the system. It’s how successive govts have chosen to implement it that’s the problem, plus more recently National making structural changes via legislation.

                At some point I’ll put up some ideas re how to solve the disability topups but it would help in the meantime if people recognised their relative lack of knowledge and expertise in this area. It doesn’t help having a meme about ‘it’s fine, put it in health’ being promoted.

                • RedLogix

                  As it happens three close members of my family have significant disability. They are all quite different, and all have quite different needs. What I do know absolutely for certain is that WINZ with it’s endless rules and hurdles to leap over is completely the wrong place for them to get what they need.

                  So while I’ve twice stated in this very thread that I’m no expert on the topic and I don’t want to try and speak on behalf of disabled people … at the same time on behalf of my brother and two daughters … I want to see someone who actually has some expertise come up with some constructive suggestions.

                  Because if disability is not a health issue then what is it? It clearly has a human rights dimension, but then we all share equally in that.

                  • weka

                    So maybe we’re talking at odds here.

                    In the context of a UBI, disabled people have income security needs in the same way that everyone else does. If you put those income security needs into health they become health needs and the state will decide how they should be met. That’s bad because now you have state bureaucrats deciding what is a real need and what isn’t, how it should be met and by whom (I think this is what Morgan is suggesting too).

                    We can look at all sorts of examples of how Health is currently failing vulnerable people. There are also huge cultural issues to do with the paternalistic nature of medical models and how they get applied to people with disabilities.

                    The MoH doesn’t have the capacity to manage income needs (that would have to be created), and it’s limited experience of direct funding is pretty uneven.

                    Yes, WINZ is horrible. But as I said, the structure of the system itself is pretty flexible, it’s how it’s being managed that is the problem. For people with higher income needs due to illness/disability, there are at least three barriers. One is structural (Labour removed Special Benefit and replaced it with TAS which is limited in what it can pay). The second is managerial (governments control how policy is developped and implemented, and there is a huge variation in how different beneficiaries get on with applying for assistance). The third is cultural (bludger memes). None of those thigns will be solved by either a UBI or shifting topups to Health.

                    “I want to see someone who actually has some expertise come up with some constructive suggestions.”

                    I’d really like to put up a post about this at some point, and would love to have you share your experiences from your family’s perspective. I don’t want to do that yet because I think there isn’t enough understanding yet about what a UBI is or what it is for, but I agree that getting to those questions about how do we might solve the topups problem is pretty important.

                    • RedLogix

                      Fair comment. There’s nothing there I disagree with at all.

                      I guess my concern is that while I’m aware that a UBI of $11k pa is insufficient for vulnerable individuals who cannot work, I don’t think that raising the UBI to say $20k pa to cover their specific situation is reasonable.

                      After all the UBI is universal, so paying everyone a rate to cover the needs of maybe 5% of the population (that’s a wild guess, feel free to correct it) just doesn’t work politically.

                      So if we are going to totally redesign the tax/welfare system, and disability support needs a special work-around as a consequence, then I’m totally open to exploring this opportunity to do a much better job of it.

                      My first thought is that if we ask the disability community the right questions, they will likely have the right answers. Acknowledging the issues you mention, I still expect the Health system to play a role, but not in the usual form it’s delivered in. I just want the WINZ we all know and hate a zillion miles away from it.

                      Surely there are plenty of innovative community based models around the world worth exploring and learning from? That’s where I freely admit to zero expertise. Guest post on the topic would be totally welcome when the time is right.

                    • weka

                      Yep, I think arguing about the money is starting at completely the wrong end of the conversation.

                      Myself, as bad as WINZ is I’d choose them over Health easily. But better yet would be a Department of Social Security.

                      (disabled people have health needs like everyone else, but not all disability needs are health related. Check out social theories of disability if you are interested).

                      Surely there are plenty of innovative community based models around the world worth exploring and learning from?

                      One big issue is how to tory-proof whatever gets created. The other is that I’d say having the govt fund people with disabilities directly is preferable to most other models, but I know there are lefties, including on ts, that find that abhorrent on princple because it means that NGOs are involved and that goes against the ideologicaly commitment to the govt being best at providing services. There are also righties who hate it too (can’t trust dependent people to know how to spend money!). That’s part of the reason I don’t want to go there yet, until the other aspects of a UBI are roundly understood.

            • Tom 2.2.1.1.2.2

              Why are we even talking about giving the rich an extra $11,000 a year. I dont even understand why someone in a well paid job like a teacher in Southland needs an extra $11,000 a yearwhen so many need it more!

              • Andre

                Most UBI proposals also include changing the tax structure so the well-paid pay more tax. Which means that after the UBI/more tax, what they keep in the hand is roughly the same as what they get now.

              • The Chairman

                @ Tom

                I guess it makes it easier to sell. But, in the end, it will most likely be clawed back in new tax settings.

                Labour have to clearly identify a decent UBI rate. Who they perceive should attain this full UBI rate? Moreover, who is going to pay for it? For example, what tax bracket will be hit the hardest?

                As it’s a form of wealth redistribution, one would expect those at the top end would have to cover it and those at the bottom would retain the full amount.

          • Foreign waka 2.2.1.1.3

            I just sincerely do hope that you don’t expect me to pick apples when I am 70, do you? I mean the doctor bill will kill me….

    • greywarshark 2.3

      @The Chairman
      A tax on paper gains? Would that mean that govt would start charging tax on rentable value of homes which they could choose to regard as income foregone or something.
      I think Don Brash was keen on this idea. Another way of stealing the commons it seems to me. You get a little property but if the tax is steep enough, you might as well sell it and rent thus meaning a mass of property owned by a few speculators. Same old land-owning pseudo-aristocratic leanings we escaped from in Britain.

      • The Chairman 2.3.1

        Everything is still under consideration.

        But, yes, if such a capital tax was adopted, people could find themselves being hit with a tax on a perceived (and not achieved) annual paper gain. Leaving many struggling to pay the burden.

        Hence, the concern.

    • Tom 2.4

      How can you pay if you only make a paper gain? you would have to realize that paper gain by selling of part of your business !

      • The Chairman 2.4.1

        “How can you pay if you only make a paper gain?”

        That’s the problem, hence the concern.

      • Foreign waka 2.4.2

        In the same way the rates are being assessed… artificially increased by increasing the land value. Another hit for the lower income/pensioner… god forbid you made it and really have a house to your name.

        • Craig H 2.4.2.1

          Here in Christchurch, rates don’t go up when there is a general increase in property values, they go up if the value of a specific property goes up faster than the average increase e.g a particular suburb’s values go up faster than the general increase in city property values.

          • The Chairman 2.4.2.1.1

            That may be the case, but Morgan’s capital tax will hit you regardless if your property value increases or not.

  3. UncookedSelachimorpha 3

    His reasoning for a tax on capital is excellent – we need such a tax.

    Unfortunately the owners of capital also tend to own the political, media and legal systems, so there will be powerful resistance.

    • weka 3.1

      Isn’t he talking about an annual tax on assets? Imagine a pensioner or ill person on a benefit having to pay that on a house they own which just happens to be in a neighbourhood or city where property prices have spiked due to the investment classes’ greed?

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

        The answer to that, and many other housing problems, is all housing being owned by the state.

        • Foreign waka 3.1.1.1

          Disagree completely. The hallmarks of democracy are that you can own what you buy – property law. The reality of such construct would be that women are once are the ones paying the price on so many levels. People have fought for this over centuries, I just hope you don’t mean we are to give it away without as much as a peep?

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

            The hallmarks of democracy are that you can own what you buy – property law.

            Wrong. That’s the hallmarks of capitalism and capitalism is anathema to democracy.

            The reality of such construct would be that women are once are [again?] the ones paying the price on so many levels.

            That too was the result of capitalism.

            People have fought for this over centuries, I just hope you don’t mean we are to give it away without as much as a peep?

            What have we truly fought for?

            Think about that for a second. Have we truly fought to have a few rich pricks owning everything so that we then have no access to the necessities of life? That the rich then get to tell us what to do?

            I’m pretty sure that the revolutions throughout history have actually been against that.

            • Foreign waka 3.1.1.1.1.1

              @Draco – If NZ goes back to the glory days of yesteryear where women had no rights, neither in society let alone own property – I am so outa here!

              • Draco T Bastard

                Why would we do that? Guaranteed housing leads to women being oppressed?

                I’m really not following your train of thought here.

      • RedLogix 3.1.2

        Capital gains taxes can be structured so as to be paid on either realised or unrealised gain.

        As you rightly say, CGT’s on unrealised gains, ie an asset that you still own but hasn’t generated any positive cash flow, always generate difficult cases like the one you mention.

        In most cases the tax is paid on realisation of the value of the asset, ie when it’s sold and there is cash generated to pay the tax.

        Well at least I think that’s the basics of it; CGT’s are a complex area of tax I won’t pretend to be an expert in.

        Of course for homeowners the simply and logical answer is to so structure our domestic property market so that it stops being a casino and asset prices settle down in line with normal inflation. At that point large CGT liabilities stop being a concern.

        In answer to DtB’s response above, given that the Crown is the ultimate owner of all land (property owners merely purchase title), and that most capital gain is on the land value, not the dwellings or improvements, then it’s quite reasonable for the state to claim back it’s share of that gain. Alternatively, as I’ve argued in my more radical moments, I’d be very comfortable thinking about the idea of all titles being leasehold. Instead of paying rates, you’d pay rent to the local authority.

        Crucially then the banks could not use the land value as an asset on the mortgage, and this would instantly stop property speculation in it’s tracks.

        • Dv 3.1.2.1

          Rates are a form of a capital tax.

          • Foreign waka 3.1.2.1.1

            Rates are paid for services that are paramount if you want to be part of a civilization: Rubbish collection, water, wastewater, infrastructure, recreation and conservation etc. At no time is the cost of services delivered through a municipal entity a tax collection tool. Mind you GST is collected on those rates too.

            • saveNZ 3.1.2.1.1.1

              @Foreign Waka
              Unfortunately rates (which are a capital tax) from the council seem to be being used to paid for Stadiums, malls, contractor cronies in poor projects etc.

              Stuff like rubbish collection, in many places is an extra cost to rates and you pay for rubbish bags. You pay also for water and wastewater separately from rates (in Auckland).

              In the Auckland more than a billion dollars has been spent on IT to unify the supercity structure imposed by the government, but not a lot to show for it.

              So increasingly the previous essential things that rates were spent on, are becoming ‘user pays’ while grandiose schemes like stadiums and convention enters and shopping malls like Westfield are what the councils are putting our ‘capital’ into from rates. If they go wrong, the rate payers have to pay more and nobody is held accountable.

              • Foreign waka

                Yes, I know but this is not the mandate. We as rate payers should be able to hold back payment (ref below the reference to democratic) if we feel that it is used for purposes that are not part of the councils brief:

                To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities
                To meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. (Local Government Act 2002, section 10 (1)).

                Regional councils’ responsibilities include –

                Sustainable regional well-being.
                Managing the effects of using freshwater, land, air and coastal waters, by developing regional policy statements and the issuing of consents.
                Managing rivers, mitigating soil erosion and flood control.
                Regional emergency management and civil defence preparedness.
                Regional land transport planning and contracting passenger services.
                Harbour navigation and safety, oil spills and other marine pollution.

                I think this just about covers it.

        • The Chairman 3.1.2.2

          Yes, capital gains taxes can be structured so as to be paid on either realised or unrealised gains.

          However, the Big kahuna is clearly a model that seeks to tax paper gains (unrealised gains). Negatively capturing a number of those the UBI scheme is being promoted to help.

          There is also the concern Labour were supportive of a CGT, thus this can potentially give them a backdoor, enabling them another crack at it.

          “Of course for homeowners the simply and logical answer is to so structure our domestic property market so that it stops being a casino and asset prices settle down in line with normal inflation. At that point large CGT liabilities stop being a concern”

          A correction in house prices has to been done slowly to avert economic disaster/collapse.

          Therefore, correcting property prices will take a considerable time frame, making it an inappropriate reliance to base a low UBI policy upon.

          Moreover, the suggestion (in the Big Kahuna model) is to annually calculate gains at 6% regardless of the CPI (rate of inflation) and then tax that at the deemed flat tax rate. Once again, negatively capturing a number of those the UBI scheme is being promoted to help.

          This is why a an intellectual property tax and a financial transaction tax would be far more worthy of further consideration.

          It would be good to hear from Grant on how much consideration has been given to an intellectual property tax and a financial transaction tax.

          Moreover, how much revenue they are expected to generate.

          It would also help alleviate concerns Labour are once again attempting to slip in a CGT.

          • RedLogix 3.1.2.2.1

            However, the Big kahuna is clearly a model that seeks to tax paper gains (unrealised gains).

            One option a CGT based on the equivalent rental value of a property, not it’s paper ‘market value’. Rental value tends to track real incomes much better.

            It’s been a while since I read Morgan’s book, but I’d want to refresh my memory before commenting further. IIRC his proposals were a bit more subtle than you are suggesting.

            Certainly there will be instances where a retired couple might find their CGT liability has become substantial. In the long run the BK system should allow people to plan for their CGT obligations, but in the short term you’d need a work-around for people already in, or close to, retirement.

            One approach might be to simply let the CGT obligation accrue and then pay out from the estate.

            • alwyn 3.1.2.2.1.1

              I don’t think Morgan was talking about a Capital Gains tax at all. He was talking about a simple tax on any capital assets you own, including your house. You would be liable for the charge even if the value of the property was falling. Sure it would become a lower amount each year but you would still have to pay it.
              On his default numbers, 30% tax and 6% deemed capital return rate a $1 million dollar house would incur a tax of $18,000/year. This would stay the same if the value of the property never changed. If the value dropped to $900,000 you would only have to find $16,200 the following year.
              Tough if you were a pensioner and your only income was the UBI.

                • Andre

                  For what it’s worth, I’ve paid Capital Gains tax on a primary residence I owned in the US, and regularly paid Capital Gains Taxes on US mutual fund returns, While the paperwork is a minor nuisance, it’s not a burden because you have received cash in hand which causes the tax liability.

                  I also regularly pay the Foreign Investment Fund tax here in New Zealand (which is basically a capital tax like Morgan proposes), and it really pisses me off every time because it’s due even when there’s no cashflow to pay it.

                  Rates in New Zealand are also a bizarre hybrid form of capital tax separated from cashflow, but at least it is nominally paying for council services received.

              • The Chairman

                @ alwyn

                Morgan was talking about a CCT, which is effectively a form of capital gains. However, its far more wide reaching, capturing many other assets.

                On the figures you touted, a pensioner in that position would be worse off.

                Their tax burden would exceed their UBI payment.

                • Andre

                  Morgan’s proposed CCT is a yearly tax on the capital value of an asset, nothing like a capital gains tax.

                  http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/comprehensive-capital-tax.aspx

                  It would be payable every year on the assessed capital value of the asset, regardless of whether the asset is gaining or losing in value. As you and alwyn identify, it would financially ruin pensioners, and even many regular wage earners such as a 55yr old bus driver that bought a home in Mt Albert 25 years ago. As a proposal, I think it kills the Big Kahuna stone dead.

                  On the other hand, a true Capital Gains Tax, applied when the asset is sold and the gain realised, is a totally viable proposition and is used in most of the rest of the world. Its only effect on pensioners is to slightly reduce the size of the inheritance after their grieving children sell the home.

                  • RedLogix

                    As you and alwyn identify, it would financially ruin pensioners, and even many regular wage earners such as a 55yr old bus driver that bought a home in Mt Albert 25 years ago. As a proposal, I think it kills the Big Kahuna stone dead.

                    In which case allow people the option, for a transitional period of many ten or twenty years, to shift their CCT liability onto their estate. Or any other number of constructive work arounds.

                    Besides right now your 55 yr old bus driver might well be making more untaxed capital gain on his old house than he is driving a bus. While his children struggle to think about getting into their first one.

                    The core problem here is that the median cash income for New Zealanders is still pitifully low, while asset prices have become a back door vehicle for making big money. It’s completely inequitable and distorts our economic incentives badly.

                    Now if we want to bring the free ride to an end, I’m happy to advocate we bring the bus to a gentle, planned and predictable stop so as not to hurt those already committed to it. But no more letting new passengers on board.

                    • Andre

                      I’m completely with you on your paragraphs 2,3,4.

                      But I have a problem with trying to fix those problems by forcing people to choose between 1: forced to move out of their long term home because of huge tax bills or 2: build up a massive tax debt that cannot get resolved in their lifetime. Especially if we don’t tackle hard other parts of the problem contributing to the property crazies going on, such as immigration, building constraints…

                      It also seems to me that in general, New Zealand has a bad dose of being unwilling to learn from the experience of others and often trying to reinvent wheels in different shapes, mostly with ugly unintended consequences. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that applies a CCT anything like Morgan’s proposal. However, there’s lots of countries that use conventional capital gains taxes that we could learn from in designing one here. Sure, it’s not a complete solution, but then problems with multiple causes rarely get solved by a single correction.

                    • The Chairman

                      One can only hope Labour are not as determine as you to introduce a capital tax.

                      Wanting to rob the next generation of their inheritance.

                      The objective here is to tax the well to do more, not seek to destroy the wealth of the low lying fruit.

                      “Besides right now your 55 yr old bus driver might well be making more untaxed capital gain on his old house than he is driving a bus. While his children struggle to think about getting into their first one”

                      The 55 yr old bus driver isn’t to blame for skyrocketing house prices. That merely costs him more in insurance and rates. And as for his struggling kids, they would get the inheritance if your ilk wasn’t so intent on robbing them of it.

                      You’re firing in the wrong direction if you want to address the skyrocketing cost of housing. The 55 yr old bus driver with his one home isn’t to blame.

                  • The Chairman

                    A traditional CGT applied when the asset is sold and the gain realised doesn’t generate much revenue as it relies on the amount of houses being sold that year, opposed to taxing all houses regardless if they are sold or not.

                    For a traditional CGT to be successful in generating revenue, it relies on house sales to surge on.

                    The more houses that are sold, the bigger the gain, the larger the tax revenue. Kind of setting the wrong incentive for slowing the housing market down.

                    Moreover, in areas in high demand a CGT can potentially be passed on, adding to the cost of housing.

                    Although fairer as it’s based on gains received, why would we want to further impoverish pensioners?

                    Home ownership plays a significant role in keeping many pensioners out of severe poverty. Therefore, we wouldn’t want to eat into that, running the risk of increasing poverty when the goal is to reduce it.

                    Thankfully, we have other tax avenues to pursue. Lets hope Labour take this discussion on-board.

              • RedLogix

                @alwyn

                And why would you want to defend this scenario? Basically your pensioner in the $1m house has made more capital gain than many workers earn in a lifetime … and paid no tax. What is in the slightest bit fair about that?

                Why perpetuate more of it? And why should the generation of young people with no chance of owning a home they need tolerate this?

                Now I get it that some people have fixed or very low incomes, and paying a CCT isn’t possible. By all means give people committed to the current system a fair path through via any number of transitional measures you can dream up.

                But at some point you have to recognise the current system is broken and unfairly privileges rentier capital over productive work.

            • The Chairman 3.1.2.2.1.2

              CGT based on the equivalent rental value of a property, is still calculating a paper gain.

              The rental value of a property is not the profit thus gain a property makes. Therefore, it’s largely taxing unrealized gain and not actual gain achieved

              Creating a fiscal disadvantage for those facing the burden. More so, if the home isn’t a rental.

              This problem impacts on far more than just retired couples.

              Any home owner on a low income will be negatively impacted by a capital tax and higher flat tax than their current lower rate.

              Which, once again, is why it would be good to hear from Grant on how much consideration has been given to an intellectual property tax and a financial transaction tax.

              Moreover, how much revenue they are expected to generate?

              • greywarshark

                Random thoughts. Seems like an ineffectual property tax, or an intellectual property tax. The UBI sounds like Communism, giving some stability to the peasants like me. There won’t be much chance of being able to acquire a house and leave it to your children, as was the past option.

                What about having an FTT. Possible?
                I do hope that government will pass some useful legislation for the people, like well written laws for euthanasia. At preent the trend is to interfere in the supply and quality of any available product that is useful for bringing death when wished by the citizen.

        • weka 3.1.2.3

          He’s not talking about a CGT.

          As well as reducing the level of basic income provided to retirees, the Big Kahuna proposal introduces a new tax on all capital – the Comprehensive Capital Tax or CCT. It applies to all economic capital – all real assets including land and housing. The tax applies a minimum ‘required’ return of 6% to the capital, permits the deduction of interest costs and taxes the balance at the flat tax rate. For an owner occupied home, with no mortgage, the CCT amounts to an annual charge of 1.8% of the home’s value.

          http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/retired.aspx

          My brief readings thus far on how Morgan would solve various problematic aspects of his model UBI tell me that he definitely shouldn’t be the person to design one for NZ 😉 His work is still useful, but we really shouldn’t be treating it as the overall model.

          These combined policies would have a severe effect on retirees if implemented immediately. Various complementary policies or self-help strategies would modify the adverse effects on retirees and ease the transition.

          For some, sizeable Kiwisaver balances will be available, providing ample income to supplement the UBI and pay the CCT.

          The CCT payment can be delayed (but an interest cost would be added to the amount each year). This amounts to retirees eating their house. For an average house, if the CCT were rolled forward as an accumulating debt (incurring a 6% real use-of-money charge each year), it would take around 25 years for the loan to equal the value of the house.

          Retirees would have the option of downsizing their homes (which would, of course, reduce the ongoing CCT payable). They might choose to share accommodation with their family (or with others).

          • Tom 3.1.2.3.1

            So let me get this right. In Auckland where poor people and ordinary working men and women struggle the plan is to make them pay more? I wouldnt go to voters with that!

            • Andre 3.1.2.3.1.1

              Yeah, either Gareth Morgan really is clueless about real people’s lives, or he’s trying to play mind games again. Maybe both.

              • RedLogix

                Try actually understanding what is proposed before slagging it Tom. Poor people and ordinary working people will emphatically be better off under the UBI aspect of this plan. The exact opposite of what you have said.

                There will be of course some people who own substantial capital assets who would need to deal with the CCT aspect of the system. There are ways to mitigate this for them, but in the long run if you have a million dollar home, you can scarcely be described as either ‘poor or ordinary working men’.

                • weka

                  “Poor people and ordinary working people will emphatically be better off under the UBI aspect of this plan.”

                  Or they won’t. There are definitely low income people who will be worse off (DPB, disabled people, retirees).

                  Are you suggesting that a CCT would be asset/means tested?

                • The Chairman

                  That’s incorrect, Red.

                  Any low income earner with a modest home will be worse of when a higher flat tax and a capital tax is added to the equation.

                  Their income tax burden will increase, then not only would they be hit on their home, but many other assets they’ve accumulated over the years.

                  Which is why other taxes (an intellectual property tax and a financial transaction tax) or exemptions and a tax free threshold of some form will be required.

                  No sign of Grant yet for comment?

                  I see Grant was commenting on here the other night.

                  His input would be welcomed in this discussion.

                  • RedLogix

                    The point is quite simple. Why should someone with an asset worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars be considered ‘poor’? Sure they may have a low cash income, but they are sitting on a valuable asset.

                    That’s the core problem the current system has encouraged for decades, that people could make far more untaxed money on their homes than they could actually working or investing productively. It’s created all sorts of perverse outcomes and distortions. Why would anyone want to defend more of the same?

                    At some point we have to bite the bullet and accept that capital gets taxed in some form of another. And yes that will mean some people will no longer enjoy the free ride they’ve had under the current system.

                    • The Chairman

                      “Why should someone with an asset worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars be considered ‘poor’?

                      Ones income contributes to their wealth, thus incomes can’t be overlook and discounted.

                      Therefore, we have to acknowledge if home owners are cash poor and treat them accordingly.

                      Eating into their home will put them further into hardship. According to Morgan, in 25 years they would have eaten their home away in taxes.

                      What sort of message is that sending? Work hard, buy a home, only to have the state take it away in new taxes.

                      Labour need to distance themselves from this attitude quick smart.

                      Hope Grant shows up soon to clarify.

                      The tax is to wide reaching, failing to take into account ones ability to pay.

                      “That’s the core problem of the current system has encouraged for decades, that people could make far more untaxed money on their homes than they could actually working. It’s created all sorts of perverse outcomes and distortions. Why would anyone want to defend more of the same? “

                      This wasn’t done by the cash poor. Moreover,countries that do have a capital gains tax have also been impacted. So a capital tax is no panacea.

                      Opposing a capital tax to fund a UBI isn’t supporting or defending the mess our housing sector is in. There are other culprits, thus other solutions to better deal with that.

                      If Labour are going to push ahead with a capital tax one can only hope they don’t overlook the cash poor. If not, it would be another let down by Labour.

                      Where’s Grant to clarify?

                    • RedLogix

                      So you’re very concerned about those who’ve so organised their affairs under the current system so as they are asset rich (and untaxed) and cash poor (and so also remain untaxed).

                      I’m real keen to hear you defend all these people who pay no tax on their wealth, while effectively locking out their own children from ever owning their own home. I don’t suggest they did it deliberately; for the most part they were merely responding to the loud signals the current system was making to them.

                      But when the signals get changed, and the incentives corrected, then yes some people will get stranded unless we use our imagination and work out ways of transitioning to a CCT or CGT most people can live with.

                    • The Chairman

                      “So you’re very concerned about those who’ve so organised their affairs under the current system so as they are asset rich (and untaxed) and cash poor (and so also remain untaxed).”

                      No. I’m concerned about those who have found themselves in this situation.

                      Those that organise their affairs tend to have their assets tuck away in trusts.

                      The people I’m defending don’t generate any income from their modest home. In fact, they have paid most of their hard earned cash (while also paying their fair share of tax) into their home.

                      And the up keep (insurance, rates and maintenance) continues to eat into their income. Therefore, their homes cost them money. However, it’s a step up from renting and further impoverishment.

                      You may know some of them, they are the working poor. You know, people a Labour party is meant to look out for. Yet, you’ve deemed they deserve to lose their homes.

                      One way to avoid this is not to take a capital tax option. Luckily, there are other tax avenues to explore.

                    • weka

                      The thing that freaked me out about Morgan’s proposal was that he appeared to be saying that if the elderly didn’t want to pay a CCT they could downsize or have other people live with them. Having to sell your house to avoid tax because you are poor is not a good mechanism to build into social security. Encouraging people to live with others is great but you can’t do it by economic force and definitely not in a culture that’s just spend a couple of generations socialising everyone to not look after their oldies and to live with people other than their spouse. It’s all too devoid of understanding what is real for people.

                      Red – “Why should someone with an asset worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars be considered ‘poor’? Sure they may have a low cash income, but they are sitting on a valuable asset.”

                      I’ll tell you how. If you are on a long term benefit and can’t afford the CCT ($3,600/yr on a $200,000 house, for someone whose base income is $11,000/yr), according to Morgan you can sell your house. When you sell that house, WINZ will count the asset as cash after the first year. You will then lose all your supplementary income apart from if you get disability allowance. So no accommodation supplement, no hardship grants. You are expected to live off the money from the sale of the house until it is gone and then you can go back to WINZ for extra income support.

                      In the meantime you are now renting, so wherease before you had very small accommodation costs, now you have very large ones, plus all the insecurity that goes with renting. WINZ only pay part of accommodation costs, so now you are having to use your core benefit to cover the rent. Plus all the potential social disadvantages from having to move. The system could solve some of that, but I’m just pointing out that owning a home doesn’t stop one from being poor or in a precarious situation despite it making them better off than most poor people renting.

                      I also don’t think one’s home should be considered primarily a function of the economy, whether someone owns or rents. It should be considered a home (social security).

                    • RedLogix

                      So in essence you are telling us that organising your affairs so as to pay almost no tax is a fine thing that Labour needs to protect at all political costs?

                      Or maybe not.

                      Because you cannot tell me this is a fair or sustainable situation, it needs to change. And the tax system that enabled it needs dismantling.

                      In the meantime, as I said elsewhere, if we need to devise ways to protect those people who’ve taken advantage of the tax-free ride the current system let them get away with, then I’m all ears. Never suggested that selling their home should be their only option.

                      But no more new passengers.

                    • The Chairman

                      “So in essence you are telling us that organising your affairs so as to pay almost no tax is a fine thing that Labour needs to protect at all political costs?”

                      No. I was highlighting the total opposite. The problem is targeting them (those that organised their affairs to avoid tax) in the manner you are suggesting (a capital tax) also captures those that didn’t.

                      Hence, we need to look at other forms of taxes that are more direct.

                      Clearly you need fresh eyes on the matter.

                    • RedLogix

                      So your answer is leave untouched the one form of tax avoidance most damaging to the NZ economy?

                      Not convinced.

                      I think you need to take another close look at the numbers and read the Big Kahuna book. It was a while back when I read it, and I don’t have my copy at hand anymore. But in it Morgan did traverse this topic is some detail, and clearly identified a number of ways to deal with it.

                      Sorry but my memory isn’t clear enough to give any details.

                      However what I do recall is that the vast majority of people on or below median incomes were indeed MUCH better off. And it could be expected that as they passed through their working lives they would be in a good position to avoid the asset rich, cash poor scenario in retirement you are concerned about.

                      As time does it’s work, people would adjust to the new rules and plan accordingly. Yes there are issues around the transition period, but they are totally manageable.

                  • Andre

                    I don’t want Grant to come on here and tell us what Labour is thinking just yet. I want him to come here and read what we are thinking, and hopefully pull the good bits out of our different viewpoints to come up with something better than just what the caucus can come up with by themselves.

                    • Incognito

                      @ Andre 27 March 2016 at 8:59 pm:

                      Wise words!

                    • weka

                      Totally Andre!!

                    • The Chairman

                      Labour wanted a public debate, it would be nice to see them partake more.

                    • Incognito

                      @ The Chairman 27 March 2016 at 10:42 pm:

                      That’s a fair comment but we here on TS can rave & rant to our heart’s content but Grant Robertson and Labour are not quite in the same position, are they? The DP gang is always watching …

                    • The Chairman

                      Grant doesn’t have to come here to rant and rave. They do enough of that in the house.

                      But it would be in the party’s interest to help keep the discussion on course by putting an end to a lot of the speculation that is taking place from the lack of detail.

                      One would also expect he would want to put the concern that Labour are using this as a backdoor to have another crack at pensioners (and reintroduce some form of capital tax) quickly to bed.

                      Last election policies are still fresh in a number of voters mind.

          • RedLogix 3.1.2.3.2

            Thanks weka. Now it comes back to me.

            Gareth’s CCT is not exactly the same thing as a CGT. Most people will think of them as the same, but the CCT is a small tax on total capital paid yearly, while the latter is a large tax paid on the increase in capital paid on realisation.

            To be fair Gareth does realise that there will be some people worse off under his system. But mainly this comes about not because his system is inequitable, but because the present system is so very distorted and unfair. It’s inevitable that transitioning from one to the other will create winners and losers.

            Of course if we want to we can find plenty of ways to mitigate the impact. For those of you raising these objections, why not put your thinking caps on and come up with four possible ways to deal with these impacts?

            • Andre 3.1.2.3.2.1

              One real easy way to mitigate the impact is make it a Capital Gains Tax, due when the gain is realised. Then you’ve got the cash in hand when the tax comes due. Most countries do it this way so there’s plenty of examples of what to do and what not to do.

            • weka 3.1.2.3.2.2

              “But mainly this comes about not because his system is unfair, but because the present system is so very distorted and unfair. It’s inevitable that transitioning from one to the other will create winners and losers.”

              Who are you thinking of? Because I can’t see the point if it’s low income people that are the ‘losers’.

              “Of course if we want to we can find plenty of ways to mitigate the impact. For those of you raising these objections, why not put your thinking caps on and come up with four possible ways to deal with these impacts?”

              Yeah, working on that. I was a bit shocked to see how cavalier Morgan was with some aspects of his proposal. One really useful thing him or other high income/asset people could do is fund the involvement of low income people in designing a system. I don’t mean consulting (they did that), I mean enabling them to have power in the actual design process.

              • RedLogix

                A UBI absolutely works for the vast majority of ordinary people, most of whom own very modest assets. It baffles me to see so called lefties here slagging the idea to defend capital owners.

                Personally Morgans BK leaves me a lot worse off financially, but I support it because I would be living in a fairer country.

                • BM

                  And because you’ve made a ton of money and it wouldn’t have any effect on your lifestyle?

                • weka

                  A UBI could leave most people better off but Morgan’s leaves some vulnerable people worse off. I’m not going to support that and it has fuck all to do with caring about the assets of rich people. How about you acknowledge that some poor people would get screwed by the Big Kahuna? Unnecessarily so imo.

                  I’m pro UBI, I can’t see how you have missed that.

                  • RedLogix

                    How about you acknowledge that some poor people would get screwed by the Big Kahuna?

                    How about you stop whining about it and make some positive suggestions to work around these issues? The BK is as many people, including Morgan himself states, is a starting point, something to be built on.

                    Tearing it down before we’ve even got the foundations in place seems peculiarly daft to me. I really am all ears.

                • Foreign waka

                  RedLogix, it is simple.
                  If a person has a fixed income, it stands to reason that this income will – I would assert must- be worth less with every year that passes. Inflation adjustments in NZ is based on buying a fridge or a car each year for crying out loud. Hence, the disposable money available wont stretch to pay another tax “to make things fairer”.
                  Why not set these people out in the wilderness with a rucksack containing a tent, matches and a knife? I would say it would indeed would be a fairer deal on the issue of survival.

                  • RedLogix

                    Please read http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/.

                    Then get back to us with more questions or ideas. Because honestly I’ve read your question several times and I just don’t understand it.

                    • Foreign waka

                      I think you know what I mean. By the time you hit retirement age, the income will be too little to live on and too much to die. If a retired couple has a house and hits hardship they first have to realize the money of the property before they get any further assistance. This may have been their home for many decades, with memories and a feeling of security. Now that they are basically “defenseless” they are being trotted on. These people are not just physically but also emotionally at a different place than they were just a couple of decades earlier.
                      To take from them what is left of most likely a life of work work work is not just cruel but anti social in its true form.
                      Hence my sarcastic remark about a tent, but hey it might be not possible as freedom campers are now not welcome either.

                      I personally think that any system change has to have a period where the switch is made from one generation to the next.
                      1/ system = generational contract if you will. The current taxpayer sustains the need of the older people
                      2/ You introduce a compulsory insurance “tax” that is held in trust by the treasury or a branch of the law/court fraternity under the rules of “public service”. Either has to be accountable to the taxpayer and NOT to the government of the day. Regular updates of trust holdings, contributions etc have to be provided to each individual person who pays into the trust. The only admin cost allowed has to be stipulated as a number of hours per year at a professional going rate, distributed fairly by number of trust holders. The person(s) looking after the fund can be voted for if need be.

                      I do not belief that any private insurance can provide any functioning civil service as the interest is opposite the intend of a profit seeking entity.

              • Andre

                One of the big problems with our current system is it really screws over beneficiaries that go out and try to earn a bit more. It looks to me like Morgan blithely assumes that if you remove that problem, almost all beneficiaries will suddenly be instantly able to go out and earn more than enough to cover whatever supplements they were getting, regardless of personal circumstance. What’s in the Big Kahuna website seems very anti paying any supplementary benefits for any reason. Which doesn’t seem realistic.

                On the other hand, if the UBI is set high enough to eliminate the need for supplements, say at current Superannuation levels, it really does look like a “license to laze” for the fully fit, and would be politically unsellable.

                So the only solution I can come with that truly covers people’s needs and is politically sellable is a UBI for absolutely everybody at about the current unemployment benefit level, plus a much reduced WINZ dealing in supplementary benefits for the disabled, ill, elderly etc.

                Pretty much as RedLogix argues starting at 2.2.

                • weka

                  I’m still in two minds on which is the best way to go on that.

                • The Chairman

                  “On the other hand, if the UBI is set high enough to eliminate the need for supplements, say at current Superannuation levels, it really does look like a “license to laze” for the fully fit, and would be politically unsellable.”

                  A number of retirees continue to work on, disproving the theory it would be a license to laze.

                  Moreover, while one could live off the super, the lifestyle isn’t that great for the young, fit and able.

                  Thus, a number would want to work and grow their wealth, giving themselves a better lifestyle, attaining a home etc…

                  But not if it’s going to be taxed away as Red is advocating for.

                  • Incognito

                    I thought that one of the issues is that there won’t be enough work to guarantee everyone full-time employment; this is already the case and will get worse with time. So, if some choose to “laze around” on a UBI because they can then others will fill the gap. I am not convinced that competition for paid work will all that dramatically shift in the early years and similar notions were made in the Discussion Paper (Section 3.3) and there is not much evidence to support this risk to be as major as some think it might be.

                    • RedLogix

                      While changes in the availability of paid work as we currently know it may well have a real bearing on the justification for a UBI, it’s not the core issue for me.

                      Personally I think people work for two main reasons; to achieve mastery and excellence in their trade or profession, and to contribute meaningfully to a collective or social goal. From this many of us gain a sense of self-worth and respect.

                      But equally there are many people who do these things outside of paid employment, and their achievements frequently go unrecognised and unrewarded. Our communities are all the poorer for this.

                      To my mind a UBI is one of the critical components towards restoring vitality and energy to our community life, so eroded after 40 years of neo-liberal madness.

                  • RedLogix

                    But not if it’s going to be taxed away as Red is advocating for.

                    Dishonest. That scenario can only happen if you already have substantial capital assets. And that debate has far less to do with a UBI than the equally pressing need to treat income from capital the same as income from work.

                    Exactly how we deal with a CGT, or Morgans CCT, is a fascinating topic in it’s own right. But conflating it with the UBI is stupid.

                    • Incognito

                      I’ve got some ‘dangerous’ thoughts on CGT/CCT, which I might be able to put into intelligible words tomorrow, hopefully. I am already struggling to understand the link with a UBI; is it real or perceived?

                    • The Chairman

                      That scenario can happen if you merely own a home. Therefore there is nothing dishonest about it.

                      As Morgan himself highlighted, it would take about 25 years for a home to be eaten away by taxes.

                      Treating income from capital the same as income from work is flawed

                      A lot of capital doesn’t generate income unless its sold Therefore, in an attempt to tax that capital (on paper gains) the tax will generally end up coming from incomes.

                      Such a tax captures too much of the low lying fruit, creating financial hardship in the process. The goal here is to improve lifestyles. By redistributing the wealth from the top down.

                      Therefore, tax settings are a part of a UBI, someone is going to have to pay for it. Hence the two are totally intertwined.

                      Fortunately, a capital tax (whether a CGT or a CCT) are not the only tax avenue to explore when it comes to a UBI.

                    • Incognito

                      @ RedLogix 27 March 2016 at 11:53 pm:

                      Although I am in favour of a UBI my comment was not meant as a “justification for a UBI” but rather a counter-argument against one of the oft-raised criticisms against a UBI, i.e. it would encourage laziness. The sub-text is clear: “just like (unemployment) benefits do”.

                      However, I think you have missed out a whole ‘galaxy’ of reasons why people work. People are conditioned and indoctrinated from a young age to find suitable (!) paid employment (“get a haircut and get a real job”) and make a career. This adds to status and increases the chances of finding the ‘right’ mate, and to raise a family, etc. You know that stuff, right? Although you don’t have children IIRC.

                      In addition, people work for money! How could you forget this one?

                      People work for the social interactions although not many would see it this way – it is a huge factor and how many haven’t found their spouse/partner via work? Paid work is one of the cornerstones of our society – it is crumbling though.

                      I agree 100% with the other statements in your comment.

                    • RedLogix

                      @incognito

                      Look forward to your thoughts.

                      @Chairman

                      And the scenario you are so worried about only occurs if, in the interests of avoiding tax, you’ve been silly enough to put ALL your capital into your own home and leave yourself with only the UBI as cash flow to live on. That’s nuts.

                      Well the purists answer is to downsize and put the surplus into cash flow positive investment.

                      Morgan’s answer is to let you opt to defer his CCT and pay interest until either you or your estate can pay.

                      Or you could stick it in trust and let the beneficiaries pay the CCT.

                      Or you could reverse mortgage the CCT. Maybe even KiwiBank could offer a really low interest rates on these.

                      Or we could devise an elegant scheme with an entry date that introduced the CCT at some fraction of a percent per annum over say twenty years.

                      Or … hell I could dream these up all night. Plus I might add the Australian’s would be scratching their heads wondering why none of this discussion mentions income from a Superannuation scheme. Most middle class Aussies retire with anything from $300k upwards in their retirement funds.

                      The point is there are plenty of avenues to explore as you say. But treating income from capital is essential to the idea of horizontal equity. The idea that the tax system should treat all forms of income the same.

                      And because we have failed to do this for so damned long NZ has become a weird, under-performing economy where everything is farmed for capital gain rather than cash flow.

                    • The Chairman

                      The scenario can happen to anyone that has worked hard, paid their taxes, managed to buy a home and are on low incomes.

                      The wealthy can sustain the tax burden through their high incomes. Therefore, it’s the poor that will be forced to sell their homes and their kids that will miss out on their inheritance. Putting those families at risk of becoming further impoverished

                      Thinking Labour will gain support wanting to force poor people to sell their home to then invest in far more risky productive investment is nuts. A number of them will lose their money as investments go bad.

                      Deferring the burden adds to it (as interest is also incurred). And again, it’s the poor that will have this extra burden forced upon them. And their children that will miss out on their inheritance

                      What is been overlooked here is that not all home owners are well off, but such a tax treats them as such.

                      The goal here isn’t to destroy the wealth of low and minimum income earners that have manged to buy a home. Putting them at further risk of becoming impoverished .

                      The goal is to improve inequality by redistributing the wealth from those at the top – down.

                      You seem to want to force homeowners (whether rich or not) to pay for this, hence the flaw and my concern.

                      We require tax settings that will identify and target the truly well off, distributing the wealth down accordingly. Not tax settings that capture the poor.

                    • RedLogix

                      Thing is TC, if you own a million dollar house you aren’t poor. You are actually quite well-off but in order to avoid paying tax you’ve put all your dosh into a poor investment which generates no cash flow.

                      Even here in Australia everyone instantly recognises that as wrong. Only us stupid kiwis have been lulled into a false sense that this is somehow ok. It’s how we can have a median adult income around $30k and a median Auckland house price closing in on $900k. Nuts.

                      It’s totally disingenuous to talk about ‘forcing poor people to sell their homes’. Not when first of all they are not actually poor, they’ve made heaps of capital gain in their property, and secondly when at no point has anyone actually suggested that.

                      I’ve made at least four different suggestions to mitigate your concerns; here’s another one. Exempt the first say $500k of capital from the CCT for a period of 20 years to allow the current generation of retirees who cannot rearrange their affairs to remain unaffected. Then slowly ramp the exemption down over time.

                      At present the very wealthy escape the system because we’ve never grasped the need to tax wealth generated by capital. Arguing against a CGT or CCT merely continues to privilege the wealthy over the poor, which is the exact opposite of what you claim.

                    • The Chairman

                      “Thing is TC, if you own a million dollar house you aren’t poor. “

                      More rubbish. If you paid cash for a million dollar home out of your several million dollar salary you aren’t poor.

                      Not many homeowners have.

                      Our distorted housing market has left many poor owning homes now excessively overvalued.

                      It’s not disingenuous to talk about forcing poor people to sell their homes when that is what you are advocating through a tax burden that requires they do.

                      People haven’t made anything out of their homes until they are sold. In which case, they generally will be required to buy another overvalued home, due to the distorted housing market.

                      Forcing people to sell or defer doesn’t mitigate my concerns.

                      I have stated exemptions and tax free thresholds would be required. But they would have to be ongoing. I’ve also pointed to other tax options.

                      By insisting you want people to transition implies you still want paper gains on personal homes, further robbing those on low incomes of the ability to own a home.

                      Not only do they have to cover the cost of the home, but also the tax burden you want to introduce.

                      This defeats the purpose, driving home ownership numbers further down. Further impoverishing while providing the wealthy with a larger pool of renters.

                    • RedLogix

                      Nope what you are talking about is asset-rich and cash-poor. That’s not the same thing as ‘poor’.

                      And all the way along you neglect the fact that the vast majority of assets are owned by a small minority of very wealthy people. By letting asset wealth off the hook, you simply perpetuate their privilege.

                      In the end the free ride that the current generation of homeowners is enjoying … largely at the expense of the next generation who are locked out of the market … is completely indefensible by any measure of social well-being or justice.

                      A modest CCT would be entirely affordable by ordinary people in an economy where asset prices were sensibly in line with ordinary incomes. It’s only where you have the absurdity of pensioners living in million dollar homes, with only $20k of Super as their sole cash income does this become a problem.

                      Allow a nice generous period of transition and people will happily rearrange their affairs to suit.

                • Craig H

                  The book (which I got out of the library, so have available for a few weeks) is a lot less blithe about what happens to beneficiaries etc. That aside, there’s no requirement to follow that part of the scheme – increase one of the tax rates and pay supplementary income as required.

      • The Chairman 3.1.3

        Exactly, weka.

        +1

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.4

        True. However one of Morgan’s aims for such a tax is that a capital tax will oppose asset bubbles, because the actual earning capacity of an asset will become more important, because real earnings will be needed to cover the tax.

        So the tax may force property to be priced according to its actual return (and its actual utility, e.g. shelter etc), rather than priced according to speculation on future capital increases. Thus property will lose value relative to more productive assets – and thus attract less capital tax.

        At least that’s my understanding of what Morgan is saying.

        • Andre 3.1.4.1

          I’ve got the same understanding of Morgan’s thinking. It looks like purist economist thinking, try to force investment into money-making areas and screw the social consequences. Unfortunately, our fucked-up property situation has a number of causes, not least of which is too many of our managerial and financial elites seem to view small investors as cash cows to be drained. Meaning there really aren’t many other investment options for small investors that look more attractive and secure than property. And tackling that problem needs to be one of a bunch of changes.

  4. Steve Withers 4

    We’re going to have to do something about a UBI at some point. When more jobs are automated and the rest are mainly low-paid (while a few pile up the cash and assets) the ability to blame the lazy workers for their lot will be more or less exhausted because so many people will be “lazy workers” who can’t get jobs at all or jobs that pay more than a legislated pittance…..with no security or prospects of anything better.

    At that point, the National Party would deserve to be the natural party of opposition…assuming they were able to remain at least the second largest party. No guarantees there.

  5. Aaron 5

    The way we discuss the economy in this country is so profoundly stupid I struggle to find the words to describe it.

    No one should ever talk about what the government “can’t afford” because the government isn’t a little thing like a household with a fixed income. The government is in fact the dominant element in our economy and the more it spends the more it earns. This is because money is always on the move and every time it moves the transaction is taxed.

    A great example is the $26 million that we all love to say was “wasted” on the flag referendum. Now while the whole flag thing was ineptly handled and was probably a waste of time, it was not a waste of money – because the 26 million was spent into the NZ economy. Well, I’m assuming it was, if some of it was paid to foreign companies then we won’t be seeing it again, but I’m guessing most of it was spent on kiwi companies who have paid their staff and suppliers, who in turn have been out shopping and so it goes.

    So while it’s true a UBI would cost the government money, it would also act as a stimulus to the economy – and instead of high income earners getting the money and spending it on overseas trips and flash cars, poor people will spend it locally on getting their beat-up car fixed, or if they don’t own a car they’ll spend it at shops that are within walking distance.

    Again I’m simplifying things but we also need to remember that it’s every nation’s sovereign right to make it’s own money. So – and this is the mind numbingly stupid part – we don’t need to borrow money from overseas banks (like the 9 billion borrowed the from a private company in the US called the Federal Reserve) we can control actually control the money supply ourselves.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1

      No one should ever talk about what the government “can’t afford” because the government isn’t a little thing like a household with a fixed income. The government is in fact the dominant element in our economy and the more it spends the more it earns.

      The government is, as a matter of fact, the source of all wealth in the country. If we can’t afford a UBI then we can’t actually afford all the people who live here.

      And I’m talking actual wealth there, not money. Our wealth is our resources – metals, nutrients, life and land. It’s the government that controls the availability of these things.

      That said, the UBI should be looked at as the source of money in the system along with other government spending. Taxes then take the money out of the system to maintain balance.

      Again I’m simplifying things but we also need to remember that it’s every nation’s sovereign right to make it’s own money. So – and this is the mind numbingly stupid part – we don’t need to borrow money from overseas banks (like the 9 billion borrowed the from a private company in the US called the Federal Reserve) we can control actually control the money supply ourselves.

      QFT

      • Murray Simmonds 5.1.1

        Draco T

        The point is this: The 26 million COULD have been spent in the economy on providing the economic (fiscal) stimulus that you are talking about while AT THE SAME TIME providing something more useful than the flag debate. In THAT sense it was a wasted opportunity.

        Anything that provides fiscal stimulus at the moment while inflation is so low, is a move in the correct direction.

        The UBI is in a sense another form of fiscal stimulus. the USA has provided to date, with quantitative easing, a “helicopter drop” equivalent to the size of the German economy. The only difference between QE and a UBI is that America used it all to prop up Wall Street. UBI is a helicopter drop that benefits everyone, rather than a helicopter drop just over Wall Street but nowhere else.

        And to forestall the argument that injecting printed money into the economy causes massive inflation – well the evidence so far from the economies where it has been tried seems to indicate that it is not particularly inflationary.

        And hey, isn’t a rise in inflation exactly what the RBNZ has been trying to achieve for months – so fat without success.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

          And to forestall the argument that injecting printed money into the economy causes massive inflation…

          You won’t see me arguing that the state creating money creates inflation. Sure, it needs to be done properly but it shouldn’t produce inflation. No, what the rich are really scared of is that they’ll lose all their power once people realise that we don’t need rich people, that they are, as a matter of fact, the problem.

          Once the government becomes the sole creator of money and makes it available without interest then having large amounts of money sitting in the bank is useless.

          • Craig H 5.1.1.1.1

            Well said – there’s a limit to how much money can be created without massive inflation, but $5B – $10B annually is unlikely to be over the limit, so done intelligently, it would be of great benefit.

            • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.1.1.1

              The debate should really be in terms of the real govt spending constraint. The attempts to discuss this in terms of govt finances leave no clues about what that constraint is of course. The real financial constraint being the govt can afford to buy up anything available for sale in NZ $, including work. That makes the real financial constraint full employment once everybody is fully employed then the govt can’t buy more resources without raising the price. If the govt wishes to spend more in that case without raising the price it will need to also raise taxes to confiscate spending and bring resource usage below full employment (creating space for its spending). On the otherhand if there is not full employment then the govt has failed to take advantage of its budget constraint. Either its over taxing or under spending presently.

              This is the figure which must be estimated to determine if 5 billion is not enough or too much of a shift. It also explains why technology is destroying jobs rather than making work less onerous over time. The UBI will of course fail on these grounds to resolve any of this if its coupled with fiscal responsibility.

        • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.2

          It’s probably a good idea to understand the differences between QE and fiscal policy. The basis is actually why QE (a monetary policy operation) has been implemented while fiscal policy has been off the table in most places.

          QE is actually an exchange of financial assets. Various interest bearing assets (for example govt bonds) are exchanged by the central bank for a more liquid but not interest bearing asset (money). This doesnt then provide the private sector income, in fact it marginally reduces its income when considering the yield the private sector would have received from the interest yielding financial assets.

          On the other hand fiscal policy (probably what Friedman had in mind with his helecopter drop analogy, and a related one involving throwing money into a furnace) involves an increase in the private sectors income.

          Its pretty obvious to most people of course that increasing bank reserves does not increase their propensity to borrow or spend. So it should be clear why QE fails to cause increases in spending or inflation.

    • BM 5.2


      A great example is the $26 million that we all love to say was “wasted” on the flag referendum. Now while the whole flag thing was ineptly handled and was probably a waste of time, it was not a waste of money – because the 26 million was spent into the NZ economy. Well, I’m assuming it was, if some of it was paid to foreign companies then we won’t be seeing it again, but I’m guessing most of it was spent on kiwi companies who have paid their staff and suppliers, who in turn have been out shopping and so it goes.

      Labour knew that, but preferred to spread lies and nonsense because trying to get a hit on John Key was so much more important.

      They then wonder why the voter has no trust in Labour.

      • Stuart Munro 5.2.1

        Rubbish – the mass of voters were so disgusted by Key they deserted him.

        • Chuck 5.2.1.1

          43% did not desert Key. I think we can all agree as well that a reasonable number of Nat voters would have voted “keep the flag” to boot. This vote (flag) will not define who most vote for, come 2017.

          Now if the vote for change was say 25%…then you have every right to say what you did.

          • Stuart Munro 5.2.1.1.1

            So we need a supermajority now, to get rid of this vile non-performer and his shoddy henchman? Sez you! 50.1 percent or one very disgruntled punter and the dark reign of Key is over. The mass of voters were so disgusted by Key that they deserted him – as well they might be.

      • Gangnam Style 5.2.2

        & National are saying a UBI is not affordable.

      • Craig H 5.2.3

        Wait, the party that has very little positive coverage in the MSM, and polled not much more than half National’s total at the last election, is now so influential and powerful it managed to rain on John Key’s parade?

        No wonder the MSM are so worried – Labour is clearly going to thrash National in next year’s election…

    • weka 5.3

      Aaron, the waste isn’t the money being spent, it’s what it was spent on. Presumably the same amount of money spent addressing child poverty would also have benefits to the economy at the same time as helping vulnerable kids. See the difference?

      • Nic the NZer 5.3.1

        Or both? This is the essence of what aaron is saying and he is correct.

        • weka 5.3.1.1

          Or both what?

          • Nic the NZer 5.3.1.1.1

            Both child poverty and a flag referendum for example. There is a great passage written by Keynes on this theme,

            “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.”

            • pat 5.3.1.1.1.1

              all perfectly true in an isolated system…..we are not an isolated system, we are a small part of a very large interconnected system…..and the large part of that system is opposed to that method.

              • Nic the NZer

                The problem you face here pat is that what you are claiming is supported by scant evidence that it happens in the real world. Your other problem here is this line of thinking is getting in the way of people assembling a convincing position around a UBI or other social spending programmes the left would like to support.

                • pat

                  no, the problem is what you are proposing though likely functional is unacceptable to those that have the ability to destroy it….think Venezuela, Greece, Cuba, Chile et al.

                  The one percent will not sit back and allow their privilege to be removed without a fight

                  When enough of the world agree that what we have is not working and are willing to adopt something other THEN it may be an option…. we arn’t there yet.

                  P.S. besides its looking increasingly likely it will collapse from within

                  • Nic the NZer

                    The evidence which I cited previously, showing a diverse range of countries (including NZ), come from many countries and shows what happens every day. It also shows that govt spending does not lead to inflation (through foreign exchange channels which we discussed).

                    On the other hand if you maintain a belief in this mechanism then its very easy to talk yourself out of spending initiative which might create a deficit (as is being demonstrated in several discussions).

  6. Andre 6

    Guaranteed Minimum Incomes seem to get mentioned quite a bit, but don’t seem to get explained much.

    If I understand them correctly, the idea is if someone earns an amount below the guaranteed minimum, the government tops them up to the minimum line. Have I got that right?

    If that’s the proposal, it seems to me there’s no point in going out to work at all for an amount below the guaranteed minimum, since you’ll just get topped up just to the minimum anyway. Which really discourages workforce flexibility, and adds the administrative hassle of calculating and paying top-ups.

    Whereas with a UBI, anything you earn makes you better off. And if it’s coupled with a flat tax, it really simplifies administration.

    • RedLogix 6.1

      Your last paragraph is the correct interpretation.

      One way a UBI is sometimes described is ‘negative taxation’. Essentially IRD gives everyone a ‘negative tax’ of $11k pa (using the BK example) as a UBI.

      If you do nothing more then you keep this 100% untaxed.

      Then in the ideal UBI system every dollar earned is ‘positively taxed’ at a flat rate of some number usually between 30 – 40%. This means whether you are a kid earning their first dollars on a junk mail round, or the CEO of Spark, every dollar you earn is taxed exactly the same.

      This is called vertical equity, in other words whether you are big or small, the tax system treats you exactly the same.

      Then Morgan adds in other forms of taxation capturing wealth gained by capital, financial transactions and the like. The idea here is that you pay the same rate of tax regardless of what form the income is earned in.

      This is called horizontal equity, in other words no matter how your wealth is earned, the tax system will treat you exactly the same.

      Now there is considerable room to modify this core idea, but for the purposes of this discussion I’ve promoted Morgan’s Big Kahuna mainly because he has written the ideas down clearly and coherently. And he’s shown how the books can be made to balance if that is what is important to you. But that doesn’t have to constrain the options either; what I want to hear are constructive ideas.

      • Andre 6.1.1

        Yeah, I think most of us are relatively clear on the Universal Basic Income broad concept.

        But it seems to me there’s a different Guaranteed Minimum Income concept also floating around. Some people seem to think UBI and GMI are interchangeable, Others (such as the lost sheep, or Roger Douglas) have a different GMI concept. I would like to clarify what that different GMI actually is.

        • Craig H 6.1.1.1

          You’re right on the money with the GMI, and have identified the obvious flaw with the concept.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1

            Yep. Never liked the GMI. Always seemed to complex and just another way for the rich to rort the tax system.

  7. joe90 7

    Jacobin cautions.

    While leftists share the hope that a broad political constellation can help win a basic income, caution is in order. The desire for such an outcome should not compel us to obscure our aims and risk ending up with a program that reinforces existing class hierarchies.

    At a time when support for a basic income is garnering increasingly more mainstream consideration, it is essential for the Left to make explicit the anticapitalist rationale for a UBI. Below are five important considerations.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/universal-basic-income-socialist-libertarian/

  8. BM 8

    Personally, I think discussing the UBI at this point in time is ridiculous and unless Labour distances itself from it, it will become a millstone around Labours neck and drag Labour down to it’s death.

    • maui 8.1

      Hah, its got you in a tizz so I think that definitely means they’re on the right track.

      • BM 8.1.1

        Not at all, I actually think Labour has completely fucked it up be mentioning it.

        The UBI will come back in election year and sink any chance of a left victory

        Maybe that’s why Grant Robertson brought it up?

    • millsy 8.2

      The smart move would be to kick the issue to a royal commission, with hand picked experts after the election and have them report back with recommendations after a lengthy consultation process.

  9. Macro 9

    To my mind there are more important things to fix before any introduction of a UBI.

    Firstly we need to address these matters (in no particular order):

    a. Ending the poverty trap so many in NZ are currently experiencing.

    b. Repairing the Health System.

    c. Restoring our Education system and free education to tertiary level, including the abolition of student loans.

    d. Ensuring all our people were adequately housed.

    e. Legislating a proper living wage for all, and returning our employment law to a more fair system of collective arbitration, not individual contracts which are divisive. The introduction of a 30 – 35 hour week, and any hours worked past that time to be at double rates of pay and an absolute maximum of 45 hours per work for any employee.

    f. Ensuring that all products which can be produced in NZ are produced in NZ and restricting the importation of cheap alternatives from overseas.

    The following principles should be at the forefront of all Policy:

    No child should grow up in a home in poverty.
    Every child should have its own bed and not be forced to sleep in a car because there is no where else.
    No child should go to school hungry, and every child should be well clothed.
    No person should be forced to sleep outside because they cannot afford shelter or there is no where for them to go.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1

      Ending the poverty trap so many in NZ are currently experiencing.

      Legislating a proper living wage for all…

      A UBI actually addresses those points by making it so that, no matter what, people have an adequate income to live on.

      b. Repairing the Health System.

      c. Restoring our Education system and free education to tertiary level, including the abolition of student loans.

      d. Ensuring all our people were adequately housed.

      Those are political. We could do it and it really wouldn’t cost that much but the government has, since the 1980s, been to terrified of taxing properly to do so.

      f. Ensuring that all products which can be produced in NZ are produced in NZ and restricting the importation of cheap alternatives from overseas.

      This too is political and it requires that the government get in and do the R&D (just like the US does) and build the factories and raw resource processing which our entrepreneurs then use to produce their product. Th UBI would help here as well as our entrepreneurs get disconnected from the corporations.
      The private sector will simply leave our economy undeveloped.

      It’s not that these things need to be done one after the other – it’s that they need to be done all at the same time.

      • Macro 9.1.1

        Actually draco Establishing a ubi at a living income for all would be so mind blowing for most that it would never be politically feasible. We are not talking the Big Kahuna here – $200 odd per week would make a solo mother with 2 kids on less than $35,000 per annum around $6000 worse off.
        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/03/26/must-read-jam-tomorrow-jam-yesterday-never-ever-jam-today/
        http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/calculator/personal.aspx

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

          The Big Kahuna is probably the worse way to implement a UBI as it’s all about keeping things the way they are rather than making the necessary changes. And we can do those changes – just look at the 1980s under the 4th Labour government and the 1930s also under a Labour government.

          Now, I doubt if Labour got the chutzpah to make the necessary changes because they themselves are still looking to be rich. To properly implement a UBI means getting rid of the rich.

          • Macro 9.1.1.1.1

            I’m not opposed to a UBI
            I just think that there are more urgent and do-able things to be tackled by the left first.
            Good to be thinking about it – but we need to keep our minds on the goal and not be distracted.
            The goals for the left must surely be a just and equitable society where everyone has a place and is supported.
            Yes a UBI maybe the way to achieve some of those outcomes – but first we must ensure that the poor are not worse off because of it – and at the moment I’m not sure we have the mechanisms in place for that to happen.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Good to be thinking about it – but we need to keep our minds on the goal and not be distracted.

              Think of the UBI and the necessary changes to the tax system and other parts of society as being the goal. Right, now what do we need to do to bring it about?

              Yes a UBI maybe the way to achieve some of those outcomes – but first we must ensure that the poor are not worse off because of it – and at the moment I’m not sure we have the mechanisms in place for that to happen.

              A well implemented UBI will leave the bottom ~90% better off, the next ~9% will be about the same while the top 1% will have considerably less. Part of it is curing the massive inequality that we have now that is a result of our present failed system.

              The mechanisms are in place if a political coalition gains enough voters. Parliament in NZ is supreme. They can pretty much do anything that they want so the mechanisms are there. The problem is getting enough people to show the political parties of the Left (because the RWNJs won’t do this) that we want this (although they didn’t bother asking when they imposed Roger Douglass and his failed system upon us).

    • KJT 9.2

      Macro. A UBI addresses so many of these things with one policy.

      Or we can continue to fight for crumbs.

      • Macro 9.2.1

        Not if it impoverishes those at the bottom of the income stream such as a solo mother with 2 children on a benefit, or earning less than $35,000, a la the big kahuna.

        • KJT 9.2.1.1

          I do not agree with the minimal amount in the big Kahuna. To be a game changer both for NZ small business, our society and our economy, it needs to be at a realistic figure.

          Enough to exist on.

          A recognition that everyone is entitled to the human right, to have enough to eat, house themselves and be healthy, Not just a token amount.

  10. saveNZ 10

    I’m supportive of an idea of a UBI.

    A UBI will be unworkable without the tax income to support it. Therefore it is important that the government looks at the tax system and why so many corporations and rich listers (often legally) do not have to pay the top tax rates.

    Many people are advocating a capital gains tax on property extra to rates. My issue with that is that it does not affect buyers and at present there are so many ways to avoid or minimise it, it will not work and also tie up resources at IRD (and the idea of UBI is to reduce bureaucracy).

    In the NZ situation for example you have farmers selling off their farms. A capital gains tax will tax the out coming farmer often holding land in multiple titles (who may already be bankrupted) not the incoming seller (foreign corporation) who may just asset bank the farms (therefore no taxes payable) or when selling just manipulate the asset to pay less or zero tax on it. For millions of dollars it is clearly in someones interest to hire consultants to minimise the taxes. Therefore it may tax middle NZ who can’t afford tax consultants more than the rich listers (the problem in our current system).

    In my view taxation has to be changed to be unavoidable so that the tax laws make everyone pay as much as everyone else. Stamp duty, transaction tax etc. Like GST taxes need to be made and collected at source so people and corporations don’t have a year to manipulate their affairs so that the profits ‘disappear’ and therefore nothing to tax while having multimillions if not billions in local turnover.

    On the other hand, I think Labour should be very cautious about advocating more taxes in particular on property. It backfired last election.

    The left also need to look at ways to create sustainable wealth in NZ. We should also be concentrating on food security which I think will become much more important. Having food and livestock largely free from diseases should be protected.

    The left coalition should also start staging a war on products like P, which are causing massive misery to those who get addicted, those victims of crime from those seeking to fund their addiction or those who have their houses contaminated and so forth. The national government has failed on P.

    Maybe instead of wasting money on spies and mass surveillance systems, the government could actually crack down on P drug importers and offer more assistance to victims? You have to wonder about priorities.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      A UBI will be unworkable without the tax income to support it.

      Wrong position. The UBI is actually needed to support the entire economy.

      Therefore it is important that the government looks at the tax system and why so many corporations and rich listers (often legally) do not have to pay the top tax rates.

      Because the tax system has been designed that way. This is the main reason why I say we need to throw the entire present system out and build a new one from first principles. First question: What is our tax system for considering that it’s not needed to fund the government?

      A capital gains tax will tax the out coming farmer often holding land in multiple titles (who may already be bankrupted) not the incoming seller (foreign corporation) who may just asset bank the farms (therefore no taxes payable) or when selling just manipulate the asset to pay less or zero tax on it.

      Which is why a capital tax is actually a better option than capital gains. You pay tax on simply owning the capital. This gets rid of land banking for instance.

  11. The lost sheep 11

    Why the assumption that a UBI/GBI must be linked to a significant redistribution of wealth?

    I’ve been looking at the Finnish, Dutch, French, and Swiss moves on UBI*.
    None of those Countries have included a significant redistribution of wealth as part of their discussions / experiments, or plans for implementation.

    In the country with the most advanced planning, Finland, KELA, the Social Security Agency responsible for the trial is saying that the scheme will be fiscally neutral, funded by the elimination of current Social Welfare payments and the logistics to support them, and the ‘modulation’ of taxes (clawing back the UBI from higher earners).

    Interestingly, the UBI is being trialled by a Finnish Centre Right Govt that has recently lengthened annual working hours, lowered holiday bonuses, frozen wages, raised pension contributions for workers and lowered them for employers.
    To be honest, the more I read about the Finnish Governments views on the scheme, the more I began thinking it was a case of being careful what you wish for. Depending on the details of the scheme, a UBI could easily be something that might be more attractive to the Right than it was to the Left.

    But. No one talking about a significant re-distribution of wealth. I’m picking that is because even in those Socialist leaning countries, such a suggestion is simply not going to be politically acceptable.
    As it won’t be in NZ.

    *Important to note, none of those Countries are anywhere near committing to a UBI.
    Finland is going to run an initial ‘pilot’ program involving about 2000 people to test the idea.
    The Netherlands are experimenting in conjunction with The University of Utrecht, involving a few hundred people currently on benefits – with an initial purpose of merely gathering some data on aspects of how the scheme ‘works’.
    France has merely recommended the Govt. investigate the idea.
    Switzerland has a referendum on coming up, but currently it does not look like having much chance of success.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      *Important to note: Labour is nowhere near committing to a UBI. At most they’re “considering a limited trial of a universal basic income-type system in a town or region.”

      Your only problem with the idea is its source.

      • The lost sheep 11.1.1

        I’ve been commenting on the idea itself OAB, and specifically, offering my opinion on how this could be a genuinely sale-able idea that could help Labour get back into power.
        Not sure how you interpret that as me having a problem with the source of the current debate?

        In fact I welcome Labours initiative, and the whole 10 big ideas platform and the Future of Work initiative.
        I have said many times on this blog that IMO the Left needed to stop making National / JK the central topic of a negative debate, and to shift the point of discussion to things that were positive and constructive.
        I think Andrew Little is leading things in a very encouraging direction at present.
        I just hope he doesn’t get undermined by the Looney Left hijacking every idea and dragging it off into territory the swinging voters simply will not buy.

  12. Incognito 12

    Last night I had a few wild thoughts regarding UBI and taxes that may not withstand the scrutiny of daylight (or darkness, for that matter) but I decided to post them here anyway. So, here goes.

    IMO taxes ought to be paid only by those who can afford it. If it leads to financial hardship something is very wrong. Similarly, taxes ought not to inhibit productivity, in a very broad sense, or the general functioning of society.

    Any tax system ought to be fair & equal.

    In discussions about CGT/CCT we always seem to run into the brick wall of asset-rich and cash-poor people, the so-called retired old lady living in a high-value property, the “55yr old bus driver that bought a home in Mt Albert 25 years ago”. These people should not be bled dry by any taxation (incl. council rates).

    However, there’s something not right about owning a high-value asset and not being taxed at all. In fact, clinging to a tax-free capital gain, because that’s what it generally amounts to, just to pass it on to your descendants, again completely tax free!

    There’s something intrinsically unfair about people inheriting an asset without having to lift a finger for it. But this is the way it is right now.

    So, to be able to afford any taxes/rates and collect these and at the same time paying a UBI and/or universal Super the State could take a slice (annuity) of the asset, like a reverse-mortgage. But the title/ownership would not revert to a bank (!) but to the State. Nobody will suffer financial hardship and nobody will be forced out of their home because they cannot afford to live in it. In return, the State provides everything it does now and a universal UBI/Super.

    When the owner/occupier decides to sell up or passes away the descendants/heirs have first option to ‘buy it back’. For example, this could happen through one single lump sum transaction or again through instalments (e.g. deferred UBI payments) depending on circumstances and/or preferences.

    A domestic home can only stay in the family as such and not on-sold. This would prevent inevitable value distortions between nominal and actual/market value.

    If the ‘estate’ is declined the State is free to do whatever, within the bounds of law, of course.

    The above may be highly controversial but it is partly prompted by the recent uproar about the affordability of potentially life-saving anticancer drugs. When people want to potentially gain a few (?) more years of life they will re-mortgage the house (with the bank). In contrast, when people are living a relatively healthy life and don’t endure a terminal disease/condition they cling on to their non-productive tax-free asset for dear life. [pardon the pun] This seems inconsistent to me.

    Any merit in this?

    • The lost sheep 12.1

      Your idea may well have merit, if NZ’ers accepted the principle of a property tax on private family homes.
      I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    • weka 12.2

      I have a couple of problems with this. One is that a home shouldn’t be defined as a high-value asset. It has far far more value than that. The only valid reason I can see for defining it as a financial asset is if you believe making money from property sales is a good thing. When we make the value of a home monetary rather than social we undermine families, communities and society as whole. True we are already far down that track, but I would be resistant to structurally entrenching that further rather than trying to roll it back.

      So in that sense I have no problems at all with someone who owns their home not paying taxes on it (concurrently or deferred) while they are alive and living in it. If people are making money out of property ownership, that’s a different thing (so, yep, some version of a CGT, tax on rental income etc), and if the property value has increased by the time they die then sure (estate tax on the increased value). But it’s still based on valuing the property market which is pretty immoral and unproductive (house prices go up by magical thinking, not because the house is actually worth more).

      I also don’t have a problem with family homes or savings being left to offspring or non-related family. If the problem here is the unfairness that some families have wealth and others don’t, then I’m completely on board with doing something about that. I’m not sure that taking a base position that all inheritance is somehow wrong or depriving others or the state is the best way to go about it.

      “There’s something intrinsically unfair about people inheriting an asset without having to lift a finger for it.”

      That is true if you believe in the nuclear family and the Protestant work ethic 😉

      I agree there is huge unfairness in how some people and families build wealth. But I think the principle should be how to increase wealth for those that need it rather than decreasing wealth from those that have it (except where people are rich/have far more than they need).

      I’m the only person in my family who has dropped out of the middle class over the course of my life time. I think the only way that my life will improve is when my parents die and if there is any of their estate left after they’ve paid for being elderly and dying. The values in my family, going back generations, are that the wealth accrued is not individual wealth but wealth that is shared down the generations. My forbears worked knowing that I could benefit from that. It’s still very much in a Western values context (they’re not helping me out much at the moment which is when I really need it), but still, there is value to society in them being able to leave some money to me when I’m approaching my own old age. So from my perspective, some taxes are legitimate (my parents pay tax on earnings from their trust, a CGT seems fair, as does an estate tax on investment wealth), but I think we have to be really careful of not disenfranchising people who stand to have their lives improved because of a principle that says wealth is individually owned and is wrong. I think there are cultural issues here too, in how families share wealth.

      btw, one of my siblings lives in the same town as my elderly parents and does most of the mahi when it comes to attending to them. I find your idea that they will inherit from my parents having done nothing to earn it pretty offensive (not that that is why they do what they do).

      I’m talking about accrued wealth in the sense of things we need to live an ok life eg a home, a car, enough money to have a holiday etc. Some of those things are going to change eg car ownership in an age of climate change should be relooked at if we ever sort out public transport.

      btw, good ideas to put out there even if I do disagree with them 🙂 I think what you are getting at is how can we make accrual of wealth equitable, and that is very worth talking about alongside the UBI debate.

      • Incognito 12.2.1

        Thank you weka for your thoughtful and critical response; it invites a reply but I’ve run out of time today. My apologies.

      • Incognito 12.2.2

        I’ll give it a try to respond to your excellent comments weka although I’m not wedded to my own ideas.

        Houses/domestic properties are high-value assets; the purchase of a house is likely to most expensive purchase people will make in their lives. On the other hand, a home has emotional and social value that cannot and should not be expressed in cold hard $$. That said, what is a home to one or to a family is a gold-mine to an ‘investor’ or developer. In reality, they are both homes and financial assets.

        I believe making money from property sales is neither good nor bad; it depends on many factors, but in NZ it is the Number One scheme to ‘get ahead’ financially. This has created societal distortions but is also threatening economic stability if/when the bubble bursts. The problem is that the housing bubble underpins and even stokes our domestic economy, which is one reason why past, current, and future (?) governments are between a rock & a hard place to tackle this problem – it comes with huge risks to the national economy.

        In this sense, I think it is overdue to apply a tax to all properties regardless of use or ownership, particularly if it helps to part-fund a UBI, simplifies the tax system (e.g. flat tax) and legal structures around property, and creates a more equal and fairer system for all New Zealanders.

        We already have a tax in the form of council rates on every property, which funds necessary infrastructure and services, etc. This is based on the much-loved & loathed valuation every 3 years. A CCT may have to be implemented along similar lines IMO. I don’t think morality comes into this!?

        We already hear anecdotally of people who cannot afford the council rates, e.g. in certain Auckland suburbs. To leave these people stressing about this is immoral and I made a suggestion how to avoid or at least minimise it. After all, some of those people have yet-unrealised wealth and I cannot think of a good reason why this should be ring-fenced and exempt from taxation. An added advantage is that it might get rid of a few tax loop-holes and management & administration costs of a complex system.

        Should a family home be allowed to be safe-guarded just for the sake of ‘keeping it in the family’? That’s a tricky one where emotions & sentiments easily creep in and start to dominate even. I doubt that banks gives this much (maybe some?) consideration when dealing with loan defaults and mortgagee sales. Therefore I suggested that when people have to ‘eat away’ their family home (or farm) because of taxes & rates they and/or their descendants have first option to keep it for future generations or allow the State to maintain ownership, if it got to that stage.

        I am specifically talking about the exceptional cases of asset-rich and cash-poor people. In all other cases the family home (usually mortgage-free) gets passed on to the next generation, which is then free to do whatever it likes with the home, i.e. live in it, rent it out, or sell it.

        I agree that families build wealth over generations and share this wealth amongst themselves. However, in my opinion the focus on material wealth is often too domineering compared, for example, to family values & traditions – in the end (!) nobody can take their money with them, which terminal cancer patients realise all too well when re-mortgaging to fund expensive treatments. A re-balancing of attitudes if not taxation laws would not go astray and this could be a part of the debate on UBI.

        I personally think material inheritance is intrinsically unfair – life is unfair! – but this doesn’t mean I would want to eradicate it. What I indeed object to is making exemptions because of some people’s perceived ‘rights’ or sense of entitlement to inherit wealth to which they themselves often made little or no material contribution.

        Your example of your sibling looking after and caring for your elderly parents is not inconsistent with anything I said, I believe, but I apologise if I caused any offence. Arguably, a UBI would regard this as decent work too. People get mentioned in wills for all sorts of reasons and equally somebody who did not lift a finger nor expressed any kind of love (!) is currently entitled to a fair share of an estate purely because of kinship.

        It is good to discuss these things and get much-needed clarity about meanings and possible consequences. That said, I doubt that a CCT/CGT on family homes will be introduced any time soon in NZ. I also doubt that Labour will make a UBI part of their election campaign. But this doesn’t mean we and Labour should shy away from a proper discussion about it.

    • Andre 12.3

      I think the idea that taxes should be paid by those who can afford it is broadly accepted, if only vaguely and implicitly. Taxes are almost always levied when some kind of transaction is taking place, so the fact that cash is changing hands is used as a very crude (and inaccurate) proxy for “can afford it”. So taxes like income tax, GST, capital gains tax, financial transaction tax, greenhouse gas tax etc will never bleed someone dry on their own. They will just make some transactions less worthwhile.

      In contrast, Morgan’s Comprehensive Capital Tax would be levied independent of any cashflow. So it could easily bleed someone dry, or cause a business going through a rough spell to go under when it might otherwise survive.

      I think it’s really unhelpful to put Capital Gains Tax, which is levied at time of sale and therefore has cashflow to support it, into the same basket as a Comprehensive Capital Tax. They are very different in how they affect economic activity.

      Once upon a time, it was broadly accepted that it is inequitable that some people get income/stuff without lifting a finger and without contributing to society. So most jurisdictions have some kind of Capital Gains tax, New Zealand being a notable exception. Estate taxes and Gift taxes used to be widespread and used to have real teeth, but over the last 30 years or so, have been defanged, and sometimes outright abolished. I think there’s a lot of merit in bringing them back.

      When it comes to family homes, there’s a lot of social value in people owning their homes and forming ties to their neighbourhood, and there’s a lot of value in people having the security of knowing no-one else has a claim on their home, not even the state. Most jurisdictions recognise this, which is why many have some kind of exemption/reduction in capital gains taxes for the family home. But it’s a point that seems to escape purist economists such as Morgan.

      All up, a capital gains tax tax addresses many of the inequities around the tax-free gains currently enjoyed by property owners, business owners and shareholders. Particularly if it’s implemented without the loopholes and exemptions that plague many other schemes.

      In the case of our hypothetical pensioner or bus driver, the capital gains tax falls due on sale of the home. If our bus driver wishes to cash in his gains in his Mt Albert house and move to a cheaper life out of town, the state gets its cut at sale. If our deceased pensioner’s family wants to keep the old family home, then they will have to stump up the capital gains tax when it is transferred into the new owner’s names (as well as estate tax if I had my way), similar to your proposed deferred CCT. If we had had a capital gains tax when Stefan Lepionka and Marc Ellis sold Charlie’s juice company, they would have paid CGT, instead of the $100million plus sale price being largely tax free (as far as I know). All of this is how it worked in the US in the 90s (I’ve simplified a bit).

      Unfortunately, Labour’s poor result last election with a CGT in their platform has allowed the meme to be created that CGT is electoral poison in New Zealand. Although polls seemed to show the CGT was in fact a popular policy and the poor result was not due to their policies, I have no idea how to combat the meme. Cunliffe’s stumbles on the topic really didn’t help, either.

      • Incognito 12.3.1

        Thank you Andre, unfortunately I cannot now reply.

      • Sacha 12.3.2

        “Unfortunately, Labour’s poor result last election with a CGT in their platform has allowed the meme to be created that CGT is electoral poison in New Zealand. Although polls seemed to show the CGT was in fact a popular policy and the poor result was not due to their policies, I have no idea how to combat the meme. ”

        Yes, harder to reframe than to frame in the first place. And it would be unhelpful for our common future if they similarly muffed this proposal due to poor handling.

        • The Chairman 12.3.2.1

          The problem with a CGT (apart from the inconstancy in revenue it generates) is it fails to distinguish between rich and poor. Not all home owners and their descendants are well off.

          A UBI is meant to improve poverty redistributing funds from the top down. Therefore, we require a tax structure that identifies and targets the rich.

          A CGT fails in that respect, thus shouldn’t be considered to support and accompany a UBI.

      • Incognito 12.3.3

        Hi Andre, I can find a lot of common ground in your comments.

        I’d also like to see a reinstatement/reinforcement of Estate and Gift Tax.

        One issue with CGT is that it is only paid at the time of transaction; council rates, for example, could never survive this way as it does not guarantee a steady (and predictable!) revenue.

        Taxing or touching the family home is a very hot potatoe. However, home-ownership is falling and there will be a tipping point in future at which it may become more controversial to not introduce something.

        BTW, I don’t regard Gareth Morgan as a “purist economist” but rather ‘brutally blunt & honest’.

        I am surprised that nobody has tried to shoot out of the water the idea of transferring private property to the State; I thought this might cause a real uproar.

        To be honest, I’d favour a progressive over a flat tax, but I think there is so much merit in making it as simple as possible (but no simpler); exemptions always lead to unintended consequences such as evasion, loop-holes, etc. Businesses also pay a flat tax possibly for the same reason? (NB except multi-national corporations)

        If a CGT (or CCT) were to be part of a total system overhaul to introduce a UBI and a flat tax system together with a completely revamped social welfare system that would disincentivise abuse and lifelong benefit dependency perhaps some of the objections to and resistance against it might dissipate?

        • Andre 12.3.3.1

          Rates; I don’t know of anywhere that doesn’t use some kind of rates/property tax to fund local government. So I think it would be way too hard to design and implement some alternative at the same time as a major change in central government funding.

          Family homes; I’m strongly in favour of CGT fully including family homes, with the only possible exemption being a rollover provision for when people change homes. The only problem with full CGT on family homes in the US was there were a few weird loopholes that people would do weird stuff to take advantage of.

          Morgan isn’t a purist economist, but his CCT proposal has the motivations and flaws of a purist proposal, with a “tough shit” attitude to the social problems it would create. Another flaw I haven’t mentioned yet, the “worth” of many modern businesses is in intangibles which would be quite difficult for a CCT to capture. App development, for instance, has very low capital requirements. I suspect Charlie’s value was mostly in the “brand” and distribution arrangements, and relatively little in the capital value of physical plant and other traditional “capital” items. An intellectual property tax would capture those, but how do you value intellectual property?

          There’s already a certain amount of property going to the state at present. Just ask Penny Bright. I don’t have a problem with the state getting equity in people’s homes in lieu of unpaid taxes, but I suspect I’m a very small minority on that one. I’d be very surprised if a proposal like that made it into Labour policy, let alone getting broad popular support.

          Progressive tax rates on personal income seem to be on the principle that people shouldn’t be taxed heavily on what they need to live, and that taxes should kick in more and more heavily as people get to enjoy more of the discretionary things. In the US for example, there’s “personal exemptions” which mean the first $8000 or so of personal income is not subject to federal income tax. Similar in Oz. GST runs directly counter to this principle, which is why it gets called a regressive tax. Businesses don’t have “basic living expenses” so there’s no justification for progressive business taxes.

          Personally, for the sake of getting a UBI implemented, I would be willing to forego a CGT (as much as I really think New Zealand needs one, but right now it would need too much political bravery), and raise the extra needed by a new Greenhouse Gas tax and a new Financial Transactions tax. I would be dead against a CCT, because of the social problems it would cause, and because nowhere else in the world uses one so we can’t learn from anyone else.

  13. Michael 13

    “We should do some proper work on it.”

    Completely agree. However, please no reduced benefit for young people, flat tax, and having sole parents live in communes like Mr. Morgan would like.

    I like the idea of a UBI of $11k (and a lower amount for children), funded by progressive taxation, with additional top-up benefits like accommodation payments, disability payments, pension top-up, family payments, etc.

    The UBI should never be intended to replace the welfare system entirely, but to complement it. If it is going to replace the system entirely, then I would be opposed.

  14. Craig H 14

    In BK, the 6% CCT rate was based on the 10 year rolling average of NZ 10 year bond rates, because government bonds (theoretically) are risk free, so any capital being used should be used more efficiently than that. If the tax is used, this rate should probably change annually to reflect the updated 10 year rolling average of 10 year bond rates. Currently, it’s closer to 4 % than 6 % as rates have dropped substantially since 2011 (they recently hit the lowest rates in NZ history – rates are currently just over 3%).

    All non-current assets would be liable for CCT – this includes property, IP, plant, equipment, to name some examples, but would not include cash or term deposits, for example (neither of these lists are exhaustive).

    When working out CCT, the calculation deducts interest, so, for example, a $1,000,000 property with a $900,000 mortgage and interest of 5% would pay (approx.) $45,000 in interest. Going with CCT rate of 4% as the current 10 year average of 10 year bonds. The CCT here would be:
    $1,000,000 x 4% = $40,000 – interest $45,000 = -$5,000, so this would carry forward in future years to be offset against CCT when it eventually becomes positive.

    As an aside, personal assets aren’t really covered that well in the BK – it makes sense, to me, to include big assets like land, buildings and vehicles, but including someone’s mobile phone, for example, seems a bit pointless, and a lot of effort for minimal gain. I’d personally be inclined to have a threshold for personal assets somewhere around $50,000 for adults and $5,000 for children, with any assets owned in trust being liable in full (they have to account for them in full anyway), but that would be something to work through.

    The best thing about the BK is that the taxes proposed hit wealth, not just income, so the wealthy can’t avoid them the same way, and that the universality and flat rate of everything means that there are no tax loopholes or anomalies to exploit.

    There are obviously other tax models and I look forward to discussion on them, but this one is coherent and has a lot of thought behind it, so it will get a lot of consideration.

    • The Chairman 14.1

      “When working out CCT, the calculation deducts interest…”

      That overlooks most pensioners and a number of other low income earners are freehold.

      It’s only a mater of time before it becomes positive and starts (after the negatives are used up) eating into incomes.

      This tax (a CCT) fails to genuinely distinguish between the rich and poor, largely treating all capital the same. Therefore, will put more into fiscal hardship. Not all property owners are rich.

      Moreover, it will put upward pressure on rents as the tax burden will largely have to come from incomes because the gains calculated have yet (if they ever) come to fruition. Creating more hardship.

      Additionally, it will add to the cost of owning a home. Not only will people have to buy and pay off their home, now (if this tax is introduced) they will also have to pay this new ongoing tax burden. Making it fiscally more difficult to own a home.

      The less disposable income people have (due to higher rents or higher home ownership costs) the less they have to spend. Negatively impacting consumer demand, thus business returns. Making the hardship more widespread.

      Therefore, this tax model isn’t that coherent. Clearly a lot of variables are not taken into account, thus the model shouldn’t be taken into consideration at all.

      Be good if Grant could tell us how much consideration is being put into other tax avenues?

  15. KJT 15

    Obviously a very scary policy for the right wing.

    All of them including Key, The Herald, NBR, Hooten have come out instantly, lying in unison about the costs.

    May stop the model of a few getting very rich, off the poor.

    • Incognito 15.1

      Either as very scary policy or just a welcome distraction for Key & Co from other disasters of their own making?

  16. Sacha 16

    Union activist Kate Davis praises Labour for daring to raise the topic: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/03/29/must-read-2017-a-labour-odyssey/

    • The Chairman 16.1

      A crucial point from your link.

      “The $211 that Labour have proposed is a joke. That amount is not a UBI. It is a UBB. A Universal Basic Benefit. Instead of achieving and changing society in a meaningful way this paltry amount will merely entrench the precariat class in servitude to insecure work demands. It will do the opposite to what a UBI can do. Instead of buying us freedom, it will serve as a welfare backstop that ensures we continue to compete on the race to the bottom of workers’ rights, as conditions continue to deteriorate.”

      Labour have the opportunity to do something great or they can fall short and merely cement the deterioration, hence how a UBI is structured is vital to its success or failure.

      • KJT 16.1.1

        Agree. A UBI needs to be at least equivalent to about $350 a week at current rates.

        • The Chairman 16.1.1.1

          It would have to be at least the equivalent of the rate of super if they are planning to replace it. With increases going forward tied to the national average wage as super currently is.

          In the next phase of the debate (hopefully soon) it would be good to see Labour put forward a range of possible of costing options. The weekly rate of a UBI and the different range of tax settings (or new taxes) required to pay for it.

          Perhaps get BERL to do the analysis.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • At a glance – Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?
    On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
    2 hours ago
  • Bernard’s six-stack of substacks at 6.06 pm on Tuesday, March 19
    TL;DR: In today’s ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.06pm on Tuesday, March 19:Kāinga Ora’s dry rot The Spinoff DailyBill McKibben on ‘Climate Superfunds’ making Big Oil pay for climate damage The Crucial YearsPreston Mui on returning to 1980s-style productivity growth NoahpinionAndy Boenau on NIMBYs needing unusual bedfellows Urbanism SpeakeasyNed Resnikoff's case ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 hours ago
  • Relentlessly negative
    Negative yesterday, negative today. Negative all year, according to one departing reader telling me I’ve grown strident and predictable. Fair enough. If it’s any help, every time I go to write about a certain topic that begins with C and ends with arrrrs, I do brace myself and ask: Again? Are ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    5 hours ago
  • Scoring 4.6 out of 10, the new Government is struggling in the polls
    Bryce Edwards writes –  It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    5 hours ago
  • Promiscuous Empathy: Chris Trotter Replies To His Critics.
    Inspirational: The Family of Man is a glorious hymn to human equality, but, more than that, it is a clarion call to human freedom. Because equality, unleavened by liberty, is a broken piano, an unstrung harp; upon which the songs of fraternity will never be played. “Somebody must have been telling lies about ...
    6 hours ago
  • Don’t run your business like a criminal enterprise
    The Detail this morning highlights the police's asset forfeiture case against convicted business criminal Ron Salter, who stands to have his business confiscated for systemic violations of health and safety law. Business are crying foul - but not for the reason you'd think. Instead of opposing the post-conviction punishment and ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 hours ago
  • Misremembering Justinian’s Taxes.
    Tax Lawyer Barbara Edmonds vs Emperor Justinian I - Nolo Contendere: False historical explanations of pivotal events are very far from being inconsequential.WHEN BARBARA EDMONDS made reference to the Roman Empire, my ears pricked up. It is, lamentably, very rare to hear a politician admit to any kind of familiarity ...
    6 hours ago
  • Bryce Edwards: Scoring 4.6 out of 10, the new Government is struggling in the polls
    It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support for the various parties in ...
    Democracy ProjectBy bryce.edwards
    7 hours ago
  • Bishop scores headlines with crackdown on unwelcome tenants – but Peters scores, too, as tub-thump...
    Buzz from the Beehive Housing Minister Chris Bishop delivered news – packed with the ingredients to enflame political passions – worthy of supplanting Winston Peters in headline writers’ priorities. He popped up at the post-Cabinet press conference to promise a crackdown on unruly and antisocial state housing tenants. His ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    8 hours ago
  • Will it make the boat go faster?
    Ele Ludemann writes – The Reserve Bank is advertising for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion advisor. The Bank has one mandate – to keep inflation between one and three percent. It has failed in that and is only slowly getting inflation back down to the upper limit. Will it ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    11 hours ago
  • Bryce Edwards: Is Simon Bridges’ NZTA appointment a conflict of interest?
    Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi The fact that a ...
    Democracy ProjectBy bryce.edwards
    11 hours ago
  • Is Simon Bridges’ NZTA appointment a conflict of interest?
    Bryce Edwards writes – Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    11 hours ago
  • Bernard's Top 10 @ 10 'pick 'n' mix' at 10:10am on Tuesday, March 19
    TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: Gavin Jacobson talks to Thomas Piketty 10 years on from Capital in the 21st Century The SalvoLocal scoop: Green MP’s business being investigated over migrant exploitation claims Stuff Steve KilgallonLocal deep-dive: The commercial contractors making money from School ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    12 hours ago
  • Bernard's six newsy things on Tuesday, March 19
    It’s a home - but Kāinga Ora tenants accused of “abusing the privilege” may lose it. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The Government announced a crackdown on Kāinga Ora tenants who were unruly and/or behind on their rent, with Housing Minister Chris Bishop saying a place in a state ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    13 hours ago
  • New Life for Light Rail
    This is a guest post by Connor Sharp of Surface Light Rail  Light rail in Auckland: A way forward sooner than you think With the coup de grâce of Auckland Light Rail (ALR) earlier this year, and the shift of the government’s priorities to roads, roads, and more roads, it ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    14 hours ago
  • Why Are Bosses Nearly All Buffoons?
    Note: As a paid-up Webworm member, I’ve recorded this Webworm as a mini-podcast for you as well. Some of you said you liked this option - so I aim to provide it when I get a chance to record! Read more ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    16 hours ago
  • Bernard’s six-stack of substacks at 6.06 pm on March 18
    TL;DR: In my ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.06pm on Monday, March 18:IKEA is accused of planting big forests in New Zealand to green-wash; REDD-MonitorA City for People takes a well-deserved victory lap over Wellington’s pro-YIMBY District Plan votes; A City for PeopleSteven Anastasiou takes a close look at the sticky ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Peters holds his ground on co-governance, but Willis wriggles on those tax cuts and SNA suspension l...
    Buzz from the Beehive Here’s hoping for a lively post-cabinet press conference when the PM and – perhaps – some of his ministers tell us what was discussed at their meeting today. Until then, Point of Order has precious little Beehive news to report after its latest monitoring of the ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    1 day ago
  • Labour’s final report card
    David Farrar writes –  We now have almost all 2023 data in, which has allowed me to update my annual table of how  went against its promises. This is basically their final report card. The promise The result Build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    1 day ago
  • “Drunk Uncle at a Wedding”
    I’m a bit worried that I’ve started a previous newsletter with the words “just when you think they couldn’t get any worse…” Seems lately that I could begin pretty much every issue with that opening. Such is the nature of our coalition government that they seem to be outdoing each ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 day ago
  • Wang Yi’s perfectly-timed, Aukus-themed visit to New Zealand
    Geoffrey Miller writes – Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    1 day ago
  • Gordon Campbell on Dune 2, and images of Islam
    Depictions of Islam in Western popular culture have rarely been positive, even before 9/11. Five years on from the mosque shootings, this is one of the cultural headwinds that the Muslim community has to battle against. Whatever messages of tolerance and inclusion are offered in daylight, much of our culture ...
    1 day ago
  • New Rail Operations Centre Promises Better Train Services
    Last week Transport Minster Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre. The new train control centre will see teams from KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and Auckland One Rail working more closely together to improve train services across the city. The Auckland Rail Operations Centre in ...
    2 days ago
  • Bernard's six newsy things at 6.36am on Monday, March 18
    Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in an exit interview with Q+A yesterday the Government can and should sustain more debt to invest in infrastructure for future generations. Elsewhere in the news in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 6:36am: Read more ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • Geoffrey Miller: Wang Yi’s perfectly-timed, Aukus-themed visit to New Zealand
    Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. It is more than just a happy ...
    Democracy ProjectBy Geoffrey Miller
    2 days ago
  • The Kaka’s diary for the week to March 25 and beyond
    TL;DR: The key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to March 18 include:China’s Foreign Minister visiting Wellington today;A post-cabinet news conference this afternoon; the resumption of Parliament on Tuesday for two weeks before Easter;retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson gives his valedictory speech in Parliament; ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • Bitter and angry; Winston First
    New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters’s state-of-the-nation speech on Sunday was really a state-of-Winston-First speech. He barely mentioned any of the Government’s key policies and could not even wholly endorse its signature income tax cuts. Instead, he rehearsed all of his complaints about the Ardern Government, including an extraordinary claim ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    2 days ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
    A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
    2 days ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
    A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
    2 days ago
  • Out of Touch.
    “I’ve been internalising a really complicated situation in my head.”When they kept telling us we should wait until we get to know him, were they taking the piss? Was it a case of, if you think this is bad, wait till you get to know the real Christopher, after the ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    2 days ago
  • Bring out your Dad
    Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    3 days ago
  • Bring out your Dad
    Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    3 days ago
  • Bring out your Dad
    Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    3 days ago
  • The bewildering world of Chris Luxon – Guns for all, not no lunch for kids
    .“$10 and a target that bleeds” - Bleeding Targets for Under $10!.Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.This government appears hell-bent on either scrapping life-saving legislation or reintroducing things that - frustrated critics insist - will be dangerous and likely ...
    Frankly SpeakingBy Frank Macskasy
    3 days ago
  • Expert Opinion: Ageing Boomers, Laurie & Les, Talk Politics.
    It hardly strikes me as fair to criticise a government for doing exactly what it said it was going to do. For actually keeping its promises.”THUNDER WAS PLAYING TAG with lightning flashes amongst the distant peaks. Its rolling cadences interrupted by the here-I-come-here-I-go Doppler effect of the occasional passing car. ...
    3 days ago
  • Manufacturing The Truth.
    Subversive & Disruptive Technologies: Just as happened with that other great regulator of the masses, the Medieval Church, the advent of a new and hard-to-control technology – the Internet –  is weakening the ties that bind. Then, and now, those who enjoy a monopoly on the dissemination of lies, cannot and will ...
    3 days ago
  • A Powerful Sensation of Déjà Vu.
    Been Here Before: To find the precedents for what this Coalition Government is proposing, it is necessary to return to the “glory days” of Muldoonism.THE COALITION GOVERNMENT has celebrated its first 100 days in office by checking-off the last of its listed commitments. It remains, however, an angry government. It ...
    3 days ago
  • Can you guess where world attention is focussed (according to Greenpeace)? It’s focussed on an EPA...
    Bob Edlin writes –  And what is the world watching today…? The email newsletter from Associated Press which landed in our mailbox early this morning advised: In the news today: The father of a school shooter has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter; prosecutors in Trump’s hush-money case ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    3 days ago
  • Further integrity problems for the Greens in suspending MP Darleen Tana
    Bryce Edwards writes – Is another Green MP on their way out? And are the Greens severely tarnished by another integrity scandal? For the second time in three months, the Green Party has secretly suspended an MP over integrity issues. Mystery is surrounding the party’s decision to ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    3 days ago
  • Jacqui Van Der Kaay: Greens’ transparency missing in action
    For the last few years, the Green Party has been the party that has managed to avoid the plague of multiple scandals that have beleaguered other political parties. It appears that their luck has run out with a second scandal which, unfortunately for them, coincided with Golraz Ghahraman, the focus ...
    Democracy ProjectBy bryce.edwards
    4 days ago
  • Bernard’s Dawn Chorus with six newsey things at 6:46am for Saturday, March 16
    TL;DR: The six newsey things that stood out to me as of 6:46am on Saturday, March 16.Andy Foster has accidentally allowed a Labour/Green amendment to cut road user chargers for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which the Government might accept; NZ Herald Thomas Coughlan Simeon Brown has rejected a plea from Westport ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • How Did FTX Crash?
    What seemed a booming success a couple of years ago has collapsed into fraud convictions.I looked at the crash of FTX (short for ‘Futures Exchange’) in November 2022 to see whether it would impact on the financial system as a whole. Fortunately there was barely a ripple, probably because it ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    4 days ago
  • Elections in Russia and Ukraine
    Anybody following the situation in Ukraine and Russia would probably have been amused by a recent Tweet on X NATO seems to be putting in an awful lot of effort to influence what is, at least according to them, a sham election in an autocracy.When do the Ukrainians go to ...
    4 days ago
  • Bernard’s six stack of substacks at 6pm on March 15
    TL;DR: Shaun Baker on Wynyard Quarter's transformation. Magdalene Taylor on the problem with smart phones. How private equity are now all over reinsurance. Dylan Cleaver on rugby and CTE. Emily Atkin on ‘Big Meat’ looking like ‘Big Oil’.Bernard’s six-stack of substacks at 6pm on March 15Photo by Jeppe Hove Jensen ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • Buzz from the Beehive Finance Minister Nicola Willis had plenty to say when addressing the Auckland Business Chamber on the economic growth that (she tells us) is flagging more than we thought. But the government intends to put new life into it:  We want our country to be a ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    4 days ago
  • National’s clean car tax advances
    The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has reported back on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, basicly rubberstamping it. While there was widespread support among submitters for the principle that EV and PHEV drivers should pay their fair share for the roads, they also overwhelmingly disagreed with ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • Government funding bailouts
    Peter Dunne writes – This week’s government bailout – the fifth in the last eighteen months – of the financially troubled Ruapehu Alpine Lifts company would have pleased many in the central North Island ski industry. The government’s stated rationale for the $7 million funding was that it ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    4 days ago
  • Two offenders, different treatments.
    See if you can spot the difference. An Iranian born female MP from a progressive party is accused of serial shoplifting. Her name is leaked to the media, which goes into a pack frenzy even before the Police launch an … Continue reading ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    4 days ago
  • Treaty references omitted
    Ele Ludemann writes  – The government is omitting general Treaty references from legislation : The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last Government in a bid to get greater coherence in the public service on Treaty ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    4 days ago
  • The Ghahraman Conflict
    What was that judge thinking? Peter Williams writes –  That Golriz Ghahraman and District Court Judge Maria Pecotic were once lawyer colleagues is incontrovertible. There is published evidence that they took at least one case to the Court of Appeal together. There was a report on ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    4 days ago
  • Bernard's Top 10 @ 10 'pick 'n' mix' for March 15
    TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: Climate Scorpion – the sting is in the tail. Introducing planetary solvency. A paper via the University of Exeter’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.Local scoop: Kāinga Ora starts pulling out of its Auckland projects and selling land RNZ ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • The day Wellington up-zoned its future
    Wellington’s massively upzoned District Plan adds the opportunity for tens of thousands of new homes not just in the central city (such as these Webb St new builds) but also close to the CBD and public transport links. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Wellington gave itself the chance of ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • Weekly Roundup 15-March-2024
    It’s Friday and we’re halfway through March Madness. Here’s some of the things that caught our attention this week. This Week in Greater Auckland On Monday Matt asked how we can get better event trains and an option for grade separating Morningside Dr. On Tuesday Matt looked into ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    5 days ago
  • That Word.
    Something you might not know about me is that I’m quite a stubborn person. No, really. I don’t much care for criticism I think’s unfair or that I disagree with. Few of us do I suppose.Back when I was a drinker I’d sometimes respond defensively, even angrily. There are things ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    5 days ago
  • The Hoon around the week to March 15
    Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The five things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political economy that we wrote and spoke about via The Kākā and elsewhere for paying subscribers in the last week included:PM Christopher Luxon said the reversal of interest deductibility for landlords was done to help renters, who ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • Labour’s policy gap
    It was not so much the Labour Party but really the Chris Hipkins party yesterday at Labour’s caucus retreat in Martinborough. The former Prime Minister was more or less consistent on wealth tax, which he was at best equivocal about, and social insurance, which he was not willing to revisit. ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    5 days ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #11 2024
    Open access notables A Glimpse into the Future: The 2023 Ocean Temperature and Sea Ice Extremes in the Context of Longer-Term Climate Change, Kuhlbrodt et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: In the year 2023, we have seen extraordinary extrema in high sea surface temperature (SST) in the North Atlantic and in ...
    5 days ago
  • Melissa remains mute on media matters but has something to say (at a sporting event) about economic ...
     Buzz from the Beehive   The text reproduced above appears on a page which records all the media statements and speeches posted on the government’s official website by Melissa Lee as Minister of Media and Communications and/or by Jenny Marcroft, her Parliamentary Under-secretary.  It can be quickly analysed ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    5 days ago
  • The return of Muldoon
    For forty years, Robert Muldoon has been a dirty word in our politics. His style of government was so repulsive and authoritarian that the backlash to it helped set and entrench our constitutional norms. His pig-headedness over forcing through Think Big eventually gave us the RMA, with its participation and ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • Will the rental tax cut improve life for renters or landlords?
    Bryce Edwards writes –  Is the new government reducing tax on rental properties to benefit landlords or to cut the cost of rents? That’s the big question this week, after Associate Finance Minister David Seymour announced on Sunday that the Government would be reversing the Labour Government’s removal ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    5 days ago
  • Geoffrey Miller: What Saudi Arabia’s rapid changes mean for New Zealand
    Saudi Arabia is rarely far from the international spotlight. The war in Gaza has brought new scrutiny to Saudi plans to normalise relations with Israel, while the fifth anniversary of the controversial killing of Jamal Khashoggi was marked shortly before the war began on October 7. And as the home ...
    Democracy ProjectBy Geoffrey Miller
    5 days ago
  • Racism’s double standards
    Questions need to be asked on both sides of the world Peter Williams writes –   The NRL Judiciary hands down an eight week suspension to Sydney Roosters forward Spencer Leniu , an Auckland-born Samoan, after he calls Ezra Mam, Sydney-orn but of Aboriginal and Torres Strait ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    5 days ago
  • It’s not a tax break
    Ele Ludemann writes – Contrary to what many headlines and news stories are saying, residential landlords are not getting a tax break. The government is simply restoring to them the tax deductibility of interest they had until the previous government removed it. There is no logical reason ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    5 days ago
  • The Plastic Pig Collective and Chris' Imaginary Friends.
    I can't remember when it was goodMoments of happiness in bloomMaybe I just misunderstoodAll of the love we left behindWatching our flashbacks intertwineMemories I will never findIn spite of whatever you becomeForget that reckless thing turned onI think our lives have just begunI think our lives have just begunDoes anyone ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    5 days ago
  • Who is responsible for young offenders?
    Michael Bassett writes – At first reading, a front-page story in the New Zealand Herald on 13 March was bizarre. A group of severely intellectually limited teenagers, with little understanding of the law, have been pleading to the Justice Select Committee not to pass a bill dealing with ram ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    5 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on National’s fantasy trip to La La Landlord Land
    How much political capital is Christopher Luxon willing to burn through in order to deliver his $2.9 billion gift to landlords? Evidently, Luxon is: (a) unable to cost the policy accurately. As Anna Burns-Francis pointed out to him on Breakfast TV, the original ”rock solid” $2.1 billion cost he was ...
    5 days ago
  • Bernard's Top 10 @ 10 'pick 'n' mix' for March 14
    TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: Jonathon Porritt calling bullshit in his own blog post on mainstream climate science as ‘The New Denialism’.Local scoop: The Wellington City Council’s list of proposed changes to the IHP recommendations to be debated later today was leaked this ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • No, Prime Minister, rents don’t rise or fall with landlords’ costs
    TL;DR: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said yesterday tenants should be grateful for the reinstatement of interest deductibility because landlords would pass on their lower tax costs in the form of lower rents. That would be true if landlords were regulated monopolies such as Transpower or Auckland Airport1, but they’re not, ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    6 days ago
  • Cartoons: ‘At least I didn’t make things awkward’
    This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Tom Toro Tom Toro is a cartoonist and author. He has published over 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010. His cartoons appear in Playboy, the Paris Review, the New York Times, American Bystander, and elsewhere. Related: What 10 EV lovers ...
    6 days ago
  • Solving traffic congestion with Richard Prebble
    The business section of the NZ Herald is full of opinion. Among the more opinionated of all is the ex-Minister of Transport, ex-Minister of Railways, ex MP for Auckland Central (1975-93, Labour), Wellington Central (1996-99, ACT, then list-2005), ex-leader of the ACT Party, uncle to actor Antonia, the veritable granddaddy ...
    Greater AucklandBy Patrick Reynolds
    6 days ago
  • I Think I'm Done Flying Boeing
    Hi,Just quickly — I’m blown away by the stories you’ve shared with me over the last week since I put out the ‘Gary’ podcast, where I told you about the time my friend’s flatmate killed the neighbour.And you keep telling me stories — in the comments section, and in my ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    6 days ago
  • Invoking Aristotle: Of Rings of Power, Stones, and Ships
    The first season of Rings of Power was not awful. It was thoroughly underwhelming, yes, and left a lingering sense of disappointment, but it was more expensive mediocrity than catastrophe. I wrote at length about the series as it came out (see the Review section of the blog, and go ...
    6 days ago
  • Van Velden brings free-market approach to changing labour laws – but her colleagues stick to distr...
    Buzz from the Beehive Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden told Auckland Business Chamber members they were the first audience to hear her priorities as a minister in a government committed to cutting red tape and regulations. She brandished her liberalising credentials, saying Flexible labour markets are the ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    6 days ago
  • Why Newshub failed
    Chris Trotter writes – TO UNDERSTAND WHY NEWSHUB FAILED, it is necessary to understand how TVNZ changed. Up until 1989, the state broadcaster had been funded by a broadcasting licence fee, collected from every citizen in possession of a television set, supplemented by a relatively modest (compared ...
    Point of OrderBy poonzteam5443
    6 days ago
  • Māori Party on the warpath against landlords and seabed miners – let’s see if mystical creature...
    Bob Edlin writes  –  The Māori Party has been busy issuing a mix of warnings and threats as its expresses its opposition to interest deductibility for landlords and the plans of seabed miners. It remains to be seen whether they  follow the example of indigenous litigants in Australia, ...
    Point of OrderBy Bob Edlin
    6 days ago

  • Government moves to quickly ratify the NZ-EU FTA
    "The Government is moving quickly to realise an additional $46 million in tariff savings in the EU market this season for Kiwi exporters,” Minister for Trade and Agriculture, Todd McClay says. Parliament is set, this week, to complete the final legislative processes required to bring the New Zealand – European ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Positive progress for social worker workforce
    New Zealand’s social workers are qualified, experienced, and more representative of the communities they serve, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “I want to acknowledge and applaud New Zealand’s social workers for the hard work they do, providing invaluable support for our most vulnerable. “To coincide with World ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    10 hours ago
  • Minister confirms reduced RUC rate for PHEVs
    Cabinet has agreed to a reduced road user charge (RUC) rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. Owners of PHEVs will be eligible for a reduced rate of $38 per 1,000km once all light electric vehicles (EVs) move into the RUC system from 1 April.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Trade access to overseas markets creates jobs
    Minister of Agriculture and Trade, Todd McClay, says that today’s opening of Riverland Foods manufacturing plant in Christchurch is a great example of how trade access to overseas markets creates jobs in New Zealand.  Speaking at the official opening of this state-of-the-art pet food factory the Minister noted that exports ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • NZ and Chinese Foreign Ministers hold official talks
    Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Wellington today. “It was a pleasure to host Foreign Minister Wang Yi during his first official visit to New Zealand since 2017. Our discussions were wide-ranging and enabled engagement on many facets of New Zealand’s relationship with China, including trade, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Kāinga Ora instructed to end Sustaining Tenancies
    Kāinga Ora – Homes & Communities has been instructed to end the Sustaining Tenancies Framework and take stronger measures against persistent antisocial behaviour by tenants, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “Earlier today Finance Minister Nicola Willis and I sent an interim Letter of Expectations to the Board of Kāinga Ora. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Speech to Auckland Business Chamber: Growth is the answer
    Tēna koutou katoa. Greetings everyone. Thank you to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Honourable Simon Bridges for hosting this address today. I acknowledge the business leaders in this room, the leaders and governors, the employers, the entrepreneurs, the investors, and the wealth creators. The coalition Government shares your ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Singapore rounds out regional trip
    Minister Winston Peters completed the final leg of his visit to South and South East Asia in Singapore today, where he focused on enhancing one of New Zealand’s indispensable strategic partnerships.      “Singapore is our most important defence partner in South East Asia, our fourth-largest trading partner and a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Minister van Velden represents New Zealand at International Democracy Summit
    Minister of Internal Affairs and Workplace Relations and Safety, Hon. Brooke van Velden, will travel to the Republic of Korea to represent New Zealand at the Third Summit for Democracy on 18 March. The summit, hosted by the Republic of Korea, was first convened by the United States in 2021, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Insurance Council of NZ Speech, 7 March 2024, Auckland
    ICNZ Speech 7 March 2024, Auckland  Acknowledgements and opening  Mōrena, ngā mihi nui. Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho.  Good morning, it’s a privilege to be here to open the ICNZ annual conference, thank you to Mark for the Mihi Whakatau  My thanks to Tim Grafton for inviting me ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Five-year anniversary of Christchurch terror attacks
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Lead Coordination Minister Judith Collins have expressed their deepest sympathy on the five-year anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks. “March 15, 2019, was a day when families, communities and the country came together both in sorrow and solidarity,” Mr Luxon says.  “Today we pay our respects to the 51 shuhada ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Speech for Financial Advice NZ Conference 5 March 2024
    Speech for Financial Advice NZ Conference 5 March 2024  Acknowledgements and opening  Morena, Nga Mihi Nui.  Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho. Thanks Nate for your Mihi Whakatau  Good morning. It’s a pleasure to formally open your conference this morning. What a lovely day in Wellington, What a great ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Early visit to Indonesia strengthens ties
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters held discussions in Jakarta today about the future of relations between New Zealand and South East Asia’s most populous country.   “We are in Jakarta so early in our new government’s term to reflect the huge importance we place on our relationship with Indonesia and South ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • China Foreign Minister to visit
    Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters has announced that the Foreign Minister of China, Wang Yi, will visit New Zealand next week.  “We look forward to re-engaging with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and discussing the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, which is one of New Zealand’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Minister opens new Auckland Rail Operations Centre
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has today opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre, which will bring together KiwiRail, Auckland Transport, and Auckland One Rail to improve service reliability for Aucklanders. “The recent train disruptions in Auckland have highlighted how important it is KiwiRail and Auckland’s rail agencies work together to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Celebrating 10 years of Crankworx Rotorua
    The Government is proud to support the 10th edition of Crankworx Rotorua as the Crankworx World Tour returns to Rotorua from 16-24 March 2024, says Minister for Economic Development Melissa Lee.  “Over the past 10 years as Crankworx Rotorua has grown, so too have the economic and social benefits that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government delivering on tax commitments
    Legislation implementing coalition Government tax commitments and addressing long-standing tax anomalies will be progressed in Parliament next week, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The legislation is contained in an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill issued today.  “The Amendment Paper represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Significant Natural Areas requirement to be suspended
    Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard has today announced that the Government has agreed to suspend the requirement for councils to comply with the Significant Natural Areas (SNA) provisions of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for three years, while it replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA).“As it stands, SNAs ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government classifies drought conditions in Top of the South as medium-scale adverse event
    Agriculture Minister Todd McClay has classified the drought conditions in the Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts as a medium-scale adverse event, acknowledging the challenging conditions facing farmers and growers in the district. “Parts of Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are in the grip of an intense dry spell. I know ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government partnership to tackle $332m facial eczema problem
    The Government is helping farmers eradicate the significant impact of facial eczema (FE) in pastoral animals, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced.  “A $20 million partnership jointly funded by Beef + Lamb NZ, the Government, and the primary sector will save farmers an estimated NZD$332 million per year, and aims to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • NZ, India chart path to enhanced relationship
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has completed a successful visit to India, saying it was an important step in taking the relationship between the two countries to the next level.   “We have laid a strong foundation for the Coalition Government’s priority of enhancing New Zealand-India relations to generate significant future benefit for both countries,” says Mr Peters, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Ruapehu Alpine Lifts bailout the last, say Ministers
    Cabinet has agreed to provide $7 million to ensure the 2024 ski season can go ahead on the Whakapapa ski field in the central North Island but has told the operator Ruapehu Alpine Lifts it is the last financial support it will receive from taxpayers. Cabinet also agreed to provide ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Govt takes action to drive better cancer services
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Govt takes action to drive better cancer services
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Work begins on SH29 upgrades near Tauriko
    Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Work begins on SH29 upgrades near Tauriko
    Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Fresh produce price drop welcome
    Lower fruit and vegetable prices are welcome news for New Zealanders who have been doing it tough at the supermarket, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. Stats NZ reported today the price of fruit and vegetables has dropped 9.3 percent in the 12 months to February 2024.  “Lower fruit and vege ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Statement to the 68th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women
    Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all.  Chair, I am honoured to address the sixty-eighth session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to the 68th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW68)
    Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all.  Chair, I am honoured to address the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government backs rural led catchment projects
    The coalition Government is supporting farmers to enhance land management practices by investing $3.3 million in locally led catchment groups, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced. “Farmers and growers deliver significant prosperity for New Zealand and it’s vital their ongoing efforts to improve land management practices and water quality are supported,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to Auckland Business Chamber
    Good evening everyone and thank you for that lovely introduction.   Thank you also to the Honourable Simon Bridges for the invitation to address your members. Since being sworn in, this coalition Government has hit the ground running with our 100-day plan, delivering the changes that New Zealanders expect of us. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Commission’s advice on ETS settings tabled
    Recommendations from the Climate Change Commission for New Zealand on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auction and unit limit settings for the next five years have been tabled in Parliament, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “The Commission provides advice on the ETS annually. This is the third time the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government lowering building costs
    The coalition Government is beginning its fight to lower building costs and reduce red tape by exempting minor building work from paying the building levy, says Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk. “Currently, any building project worth $20,444 including GST or more is subject to the building levy which is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Trustee tax change welcomed
    Proposed changes to tax legislation to prevent the over-taxation of low-earning trusts are welcome, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The changes have been recommended by Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee following consideration of submissions on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. “One of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister’s Ramadan message
    Assalaamu alaikum. السَّلَام عليكم In light of the holy month of Ramadan, I want to extend my warmest wishes to our Muslim community in New Zealand. Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection, renewed devotion, perseverance, generosity, and forgiveness.  It’s a time to strengthen our bonds and appreciate the diversity ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister appoints new NZTA Chair
    Former Transport Minister and CEO of the Auckland Business Chamber Hon Simon Bridges has been appointed as the new Board Chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for a three-year term, Transport Minister Simeon Brown announced today. “Simon brings extensive experience and knowledge in transport policy and governance to the role. He will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Speech to Life Sciences Summit
    Good morning all, it is a pleasure to be here as Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology.  It is fantastic to see how connected and collaborative the life science and biotechnology industry is here in New Zealand. I would like to thank BioTechNZ and NZTech for the invitation to address ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Progress continues apace on water storage
    Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says he is looking forward to the day when three key water projects in Northland are up and running, unlocking the full potential of land in the region. Mr Jones attended a community event at the site of the Otawere reservoir near Kerikeri on Friday. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government agrees to restore interest deductions
    Associate Finance Minister David Seymour has today announced that the Government has agreed to restore deductibility for mortgage interest on residential investment properties. “Help is on the way for landlords and renters alike. The Government’s restoration of interest deductibility will ease pressure on rents and simplify the tax code,” says ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister to attend World Anti-Doping Agency Symposium
    Sport and Recreation Minister Chris Bishop will travel to Switzerland today to attend an Executive Committee meeting and Symposium of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Mr Bishop will then travel on to London where he will attend a series of meetings in his capacity as Infrastructure Minister. “New Zealanders believe ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-03-19T08:51:38+00:00