Paora Goldsmith in fake news scandal

Written By: - Date published: 8:41 am, June 29th, 2020 - 33 comments
Categories: greens, making shit up, Media, national, paul goldsmith, same old national, spin, tax, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Weka has already written about the Green Party’s UBI equivalent but one point that she makes which should be re-emphasised is that Paora Goldsmith is either bereft of literary and/or mathematical skills, or he has been telling porkies.

Either is not a good look for a potential Minister of Finance and brings back memories of Steven Joyce’s $11 billion hole which he famously forecast was in Labour’s draft budget even though there was no such hole.

It is clear from the Green’s detailed policy document that the tax applies on the value of net assets for an individual above $1 million.  That means if you have assets of $1.1 million you pay 1% of $100,000 which is $1,000.  You don’t pay $11,000 and work out how you can get rid of $100,001 of your net worth.

Paoara claims however that once you become a millionaire the tax applies to all of your assets, not the proportion above $1 million.

In a press release he said this:

The wealth tax would be particularly severe. A successful small business person, owning a $1 million house and a business worth $1 million would have to pay $40,000 a year for the 2 per cent wealth tax.

He should apologise for misrepresenting the Green’s policy.  And he should get remedial literacy lessons presuming that this is the cause of his mistake.

Goldsmith has tried to blame the vagueness of the Green Party policy for his mistake.  With respect the policy is perfectly clear especially when the examples are considered.

Todd Muller should step in and take action.

33 comments on “Paora Goldsmith in fake news scandal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tricledrown 1
    29 June 2020 at 9:42 am

    Goldsmith can't do basic Maths.

    Doesn't understand the fact that 10 of thousands of New Zealanders spending power is being reduced and that increasing disposable income of beneficiaries will help the economy and businesses.

    Austerity leads to a downward spiral of economic activity.

    Having more families in poverty will lead to long term lowering of productivity.

    Goldsmith doesn't understand economics only the politics of division and miserly Austerity which leads to low or no growth.

    • Matthew Whitehead 1.1
      29 June 2020 at 12:28 pm

      alternatively:

      a) He can do maths, but is such a moron he can't recognize the language that indicates tax policy relies on marginal thresholds.

      b) He can both do the maths and is qualified to be finance minister because he recognizes the language regarding tax thresholds, but maliciously misunderstood the policy to come up with an example tax bill four times higher than it would actually be under the policy, and we're back in $11.7b hole territory again for this campaign.

      I'm assuming (b) until further evidence is presented, as there's been at least one incident of it in every single National Party campaign since MMP.

      Also relevant:
      https://twitter.com/MJWhitehead/status/1277344479624622080

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      1 July 2020 at 2:25 am

      Goldsmith doesn't understand economics only the politics of division and miserly Austerity which leads to low or no growth.

      That, pretty much, describes all of National, ACT and a large percentage of NZFirst.

  2. mauī 2
    29 June 2020 at 10:08 am

    There is a possibility that Paul Goldsmith is infact a potential fake Minister of Finance…

    If he's having this much trouble with 'over' / 'under' terminology I would hate to see his interpretation of tax brackets.

    • Tricledrown 2.1
      29 June 2020 at 11:48 am

      Considering his plan to grow the economy by reducing the amount of money circulating .

      Goldsmith looks like a goldfish out of water.

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    29 June 2020 at 10:23 am

    What it does is make a lie of their mantra.." a 100% better" Lol Lol

    Now that is a "Shambles"

    He read that about as well as he read the Border report, looking for areas to exaggerate.

  4. Byd0nz 4
    29 June 2020 at 10:24 am

    Goldsmith would love to be a Minister in power, no chance, but he would be a candidate for 'Minister of fake news' and it seems the news media give him free reign, as every day he seems to spout more and more crap.

  5. Dean Reynolds 5
    29 June 2020 at 10:35 am

    Goldsmith's only area of knowledge is in writing historical biographies

  6. francesca 6
    29 June 2020 at 10:39 am

    Totally sick of the opposition and media turning an extremely serious public health threat into a gladiatorial sport

  7. tc 7
    29 June 2020 at 10:50 am

    Methinks there's nats such as the member for placard removal who'll be enjoying this being happy to stick his neck out there ‘in the public interest’ as they say.

    The more experienced hands like JC, Gez, Nick n Mikey will thrive in this environment as has been shown by Michael 'I'm a politician' Woodhouse. They'll rotate the strike no doubt.

  8. Gabby 8
    29 June 2020 at 10:53 am

    Todmunter reckons percentages are A NATIONAL DISGRACE.

  9. Barfly 9
    29 June 2020 at 11:25 am

    Goldsmith I believe can do basic maths – he just chooses to lie for political advantage expect more of this – not less

    • Bearded Git 9.1
      29 June 2020 at 3:26 pm

      He got roasted on this issue on Morning Report today by Susie (who did a good job).

  10. Molly 10
    29 June 2020 at 11:52 am

    Agree, (sorry with Barfly @ 9.0 above)

    Goldsmith is following the PR approach of " A lie can run around the world, before the truth has got its boots on."

  11. That_guy 11
    29 June 2020 at 12:25 pm

    He knew what he was doing. (Also mickeysavage, do you check yr email?)

  12. roblogic 12
    29 June 2020 at 12:35 pm

    David Cormack: Lying liars or incompetent?

    I am by far and away no financial wizard at all, I'm quite economically dumb. But even I understand marginal tax rates. […]

    This sort of shit has to stop. We cannot allow our MPs to just lie. […]

    Anyway, this was just a short sharp piece because I was so enraged. Either Paul is lying, or incompetent. Neither bodes well.

  13. RedBaronCV 13
    29 June 2020 at 3:42 pm

    There is an issue here which Goldsmith hasn't quite latched onto yet but it will chase a lot of older voters I suspect (over 40) back towards national and not really stop wealth aggregation.

    A $1mill house describes an awful lot of houses in Auckland, Wellington and other centers. If there has been ownership pre about 2010 then mortgages will be right down and IIRC about 600,000 to 700,000 houses are owned outright or close to it. This is a very large group of people suddenly calculating how this affects them.

    Take two houses side by side both worth a $1mill.

    The couple in house A can have investments worth $1m and pay no extra tax. Even own a second house generating income that they can use to reinvest in another house. Eventually they will hit the threshold but they have a lot of head room so continue to accrue wealth.

    House B has a single owner ( possibly with other family living with them) Any extra investment or saving has the same tax rate as couple A but an extra surcharge of 1%. That slows down or completely negates any increase for a lot of passive investments (bank term deposits) so the tax plus any inflation wipe out even a modest increase in the investment principal and in fact may well erode any savings principal or at least the real value. They are also likely to be on a lower income than house A.That's pretty regressive.

    Yes they could sell up and get a cheaper house(!) but should being single require a person to move away from their neighbourhood. Forget about deferral- incurring an unknown debt ( interest is likely to be charged and at what rate) isn't somewhere that a lot of people will want to go emotionally and with employment declining for the 50 years + crowd then supporting themselves for 30 or so years until death looks pretty grim.

    • roblogic 13.1
      29 June 2020 at 5:20 pm

      Well if the policy chases fake "Green" voters back to National and their open borders foolishness, then half of their voter base will probably catch Covid and die, thus solving the housing crisis

      • RedBaronCV 13.1.1
        29 June 2020 at 5:54 pm

        I suspect a lot of potential green voters would only go back as far as labour not all the way to national. Given house values – don't forget this is going to catch a lot of people who own only one home and have a bit of savings to last them for the 25 to 30 year retirement. I just don't believe the 1 % figure is accurate – that's only 50,000 individuals but around 20 times that largely own their own homes outright.

        But hey I'm only pointing this out – but National will be onto this and will try to attach this policy to labour as well. I just happen to think this may well slaughter the left as it will catch too many people. Shades of Theresa Mays dementia tax and Thatchers poll tax.

    • Gabby 13.2
      29 June 2020 at 5:20 pm

      What happens if they defer payment until sale and either the property value drops, or they sell it for less than the valuation?

      • RedBaronCV 13.2.1
        29 June 2020 at 5:43 pm

        Imagine that the tax would be then have to be paid out of any other assets held until down to zero – which may be fine if the sale reason is death but not so fine if the sale reason is for something else.

    • SPC 13.3
      29 June 2020 at 5:22 pm

      It only applies on the mortgage free/debt free wealth above $1M.

      Wealth above that value locked into residence property, or extra in shares and rentals – it then just replaces a CGT (but with more regular and predictable tax to government).

      It might encourage some to move into a town house (less land) worth under a M and invest the rest – so the return would cover the cost of any wealth tax.

      In reducing inactive wealth for investment return wealth it won't do the economy any harm. And the growth in town houses resulting, and freeing up of larger section land for development will stimulate house building/growth in stock.

    • SPC 13.4
      29 June 2020 at 5:27 pm

      As to voters impacted personally by such a wealth tax, the numbers paying this are going to be the few, and near all already vote National.

      • RedBaronCV 13.4.1
        29 June 2020 at 6:07 pm

        1% is around 50,000 people. As I have said above it is likely to be of concern to closer to a million people many of whom live in a main center and only own one house that they have had for ages. I looked around my suburb and adjoining ones. It's potentially going to get the bulk of the houses whether owner occupied or rented and will almost certainly get the single owners. And if they want to sell where are all the "I have a million to buy a house" people going to come from – it won't be their kids so I assume wealthy offshore owners who have someone with residency. Or there will be a major house price drop which would be good news for pretty much everyone

        Townhouses have their own set of problems, often around ownership and inflated annual levies. Plus lots of stairs are not really viable for a lot of older people. I'm really saying that this might be a lot more unpopular than a lot imagine.

        • SPC 13.4.1.1
          29 June 2020 at 6:24 pm

          Most of that sort will find the wealth tax amount to be less than the extra cost in rates because of increases each year.

          The Greens can of course index the floor amount to allay fears, And if the market has a correction, then some might take comfort in evading the wealth tax entirely rather than feel poorer.

          And of course the ornery can simply renovate their home or put in a sleepout (allowed under easier rules) to acquire debt to avoid the wealth tax and make their home worth more on sale. After all mortgage finance is cheap atm.

          • RedBaronCV 13.4.1.1.1
            29 June 2020 at 9:16 pm

            You make a good point about the rates. but if there is one owned house in Wellington, Auckland or elsewhere at or around the threshold the combination of rates, wealth tax and house insurance is getting pretty harsh for those without much disposable income. This means all the income is used for day to day needs while the seriously rich with actual income earning assets are still accruing.

  14. Ken 14
    29 June 2020 at 7:30 pm

    Lies and deception will come thick and fast from here on in.

    The end justifies the means when you're born to rule.

  15. barry 15
    29 June 2020 at 9:03 pm

    It shows that after Bill English, they can't find a numerate person to be finance spokesperson.

    • In Vino 15.1
      29 June 2020 at 9:30 pm

      Numerate?? Where do you get that from? He majored in English, but proceeded to pass himself off as a clunky semi-literate. I don't remember any arithmetic skills…