The Useful Rich

Written By: - Date published: 9:03 am, December 31st, 2023 - 64 comments
Categories: class, class war, Deep stuff, Economy, uncategorized - Tags:

We need more useful rich.

New Zealand’s rich are endlessly fascinating, but as wealth concentrates ever tighter we are poorer.

The wealthiest New Zealand are about 40,000 people out of about 5.5 million of us. 70% of all the shares in our sharemarket are owned by that 1%, and 99% of us don’t. That’s about the same wealth concentration as in the United Kingdom in case we had any egalitarian pretentions.

As wealth concentrates more and more, there are fewer people able to alter important markets.

Let’s start with cars. The rich afford to buy new cars. New Zealand has one of the oldest car fleets in the developed world, but the “clean car rebate” of the Labour-led government saw a huge upsurge in people moving away from petrol cars.

The people buying new cars are rich people and fleet operators who need big numbers. Sure, there is a good second hand market for the Prius and the Leaf. But it is the rich that lead the market away from the combustion engine. The hard issue comes when the rich have achieved their Tesla and Polestar, and the rest of us who can only afford a second hand car have to start questioning whether to go for a reliable petrol car that we think one of our cousin or our dad can fix, or make the leap with the help of a $20-$30k loan.

Food shopping is class-driven. The rich who shop at Nosh or Moore Wilson or Raeward Fresh are small in number but very high in value. Even when the certifying labels are getting simpler and more effective, it is the rich that are more likely to have the time and mental space to allow considerations like food production ethics, ingredient precision, and nutrition density to feature higher than price in individual item choice decisionmaking.  Even better if you have the time and resource to do it all online and they deliver it to your door and you avoid the shit of being in a supermarket altogether. As a percentage of food spend, the lowest decile of household is cutting back hard on fruit and vegetables.

The rich change the recessions’ impact. We can see where that recession has bitten hardest. It’s in the areas where people are employed to bring shoppers the stuff they’ve bought or to transport you around. The rich kept piling their spending into construction, and i.t. media and telecommunications.

The rich are altering our house ownership. To see how fast home ownership is affecting the future wealth prospects of younger New Zealanders as against older New Zealanders, check out the steep decline in the brackets 15-39 years of people living in their own house.

Deloittes did this graph out of the NZStats series.

And who are these people that own houses worth a million or more? Aucklanders. This is one of the most regionally unbalanced concentrations of wealth in the developed world. This snip comes from a graphic from thespinoff.

Bluntly, there’s a set of older Aucklanders people owning multiple houses worth more than $1m holding onto their real estate wealth and that’s pulling up the ladder for everyone particularly the young.

Our rich alter the careers needed across society. The professions you need to protect that wealth are those that support new cars and real estate are: electronics mechanics, painters, plumbers, carpenters, construction engineers, architects, building material suppliers, window makers, drainlayers, door makers, lighting systems people, furniture importers and suppliers, landscapers, tree and plan suppliers, appliance and kitchen designers and installers, and all the people who repair those things. You also need conveyancing lawyers, surveyors, local public servants to measure up title and evaluate land, civil engineers and Geotech engineers.

Then you need the people that keep the main houses running for those great landed 1%. You need cooks, groundskeepers, organic produce suppliers, people to look after the children, people to arrange your holidays and conduct those holidays, hairdressers to do your hair, pet groomer and walkers, designers to tailor your clothes, mechanics to service your cars, etc etc.

So that’s the careers and businesses we have. 97% of businesses in New Zealand employ 20 people or less – over half a million little enterprises. Hundreds of thousands of little tradies doing your hair and your pets’ hair and your lawns and changing your tyres.

If you think that is markedly different from the vast estates of Pride and Prejudice or Downton Abbey, in reality that list of professions above is pretty much identical to what we have right now here in New Zealand.

Conversely, if there was lower wealth concentration in New Zealand, there would be more people able to move each one of those markets: more people able to buy new electric cars or electric bikes even, more people demanding higher quality food at reasonable process, more people demanding that holidays are organised and pets are looked after, more people demanding higher quality clothing, more wealth to share and distribute around.

This is where the insights of Max Rashbrooke’s work Too Much Money (2021) really kicks in. Possessing wealth opens up opportunities to live in certain areas, get certain kinds of education, make certain kinds of social connections, gain partners and marry into wealth, and exert certain kinds of power including market power and political power. When access to these opportunities becomes remarkably uneven, the implications are profound.

In the absence of longitudinal wealth data for New Zealand, we have to use snapshots. Between 2001 and 2018 total wealth increased, with older people gaining a lot more than younger people. NZ Treasury analysis is that this is mostly driven by proportionally it’s older people who own houses and they get the capital gains. Also, they are working longer beyond 65.

That is a very big and fast change in median wealth. I’d like to see if that’s continuing in future series.

Across so many fields, as more and more of New Zealand is owned by fewer and fewer people, we all find it harder to change anything for good.

The rich have their uses, but they are far less useful when they control more and more of us.

64 comments on “The Useful Rich ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    31 December 2023 at 10:20 am

    To sum up: we, NZ and the world, can't afford the rich!

    [Some of the graphs used are hard to read because the X and Y are not labelled!]

    • Tricledrown 1.1
      31 December 2023 at 6:18 pm

      The usefull rich employ useful idiots to do their Dirty Work. Look at bigus dickus Winston Shane Jones Seymour who wants everyone to see less ' Nick all' the poors money' will'keep' us 'poor.

  2. Pat 2
    31 December 2023 at 10:33 am

    Remembering that the wealth (generally) resides in assets that are market valued and consequently always at risk of revaluation…in either direction.

  3. Bearded Git 3
    31 December 2023 at 10:50 am

    Looks like a wealth tax is the only way we can redistribute wealth more fairly while at the same time funding our public health service properly.

    I like the Greens WT but would be interested in other WT proposals from TS readers. (Excluding a CGT which is likely to be both impractical and ineffective)

    • James Thrace 3.1
      31 December 2023 at 12:05 pm

      Wealth tax is rather hard to quantify effectively given that stores of wealth in shares, property, etc can be variable in nature. Add to that, the difficulties in finding the sources of wealth due to the various ownership structures of trusts, companies, etc.

      The simplest structure, and one that is difficult to avoid, is the imposition of an inheritance tax at around 15% for asset values over $2m.

      When a person dies, and their estate is finalised, the value of all assets crystallise at the time of distribution. Any deceased person who owns shares via a company or suchlike, is then captured. Estates must transfer the ownership of those shares out of the deceased persons name.

      When it comes to surviving partners living in the marital home, there are two options. The first is to give 1 marshmallow to the government now by paying the inheritance tax imposed on the value of the property being transferred. Given that this would nominally be 50%, unless the house is worth $4m, this would be avoided. However if all other assets including shares etc getting transferred from the deceased to the surviving partner, put it over the $2m threshold then tax would be payable.

      The second option would be to give the government two marshmallows later, by the tax only being paid when the surviving partner dies, sells the marital home, or goes into a new de facto relationship (as is common in many wills). At that point the value of the assets as owned by the surviving partner would be taxable, and as the value would likely have increased, more tax is payable. However, that also means the surviving partner could spend all the money to get it below $2m. For simplicitys sake, it would be easier to have the estate simply pay the inheritance tax on distribution.

      This also means that in the next 10-20 years as the boomers die off, all their rental properties will be captured so little Johnny and Susan don’t automatically get the feudalistic benefit of property wealth being passed down with no reduction.

      People die every day, and asset crystallisation on estate distribution is the most effective means of applying the inheritance tax. Given that where property is involved, lawyers and conveyancers can be the ones responsible for deducting the payment, with IRD given the power to seek penalties from estate executors if they try to hide the value of the crystallised estate.

      After all, inheritance/death taxes are common elsewhere, and its not a difficult proposition to put in place. NZ did have such until the facile Peter Dunne removed inheritance tax a couple of decades ago. Before the glaringly obvious problem we face now was even considered. If NZ doesn’t want to go down the route of inherited feudalism, then inheritance tax is the best way to go.

    • KJT 3.2
      3 January 2024 at 7:10 am

      On the contrary, tax on realisation such as CGT and inheritance is the easiest to implement, the value is much easier to quaintify on realisation. More importantly, the easiest to understand and "sell" politically.

      Taxes on unrealised wealth are a nightmare to implement and an accountants dream. Quantifying most forms of wealth, and taxing when there is no income to pay it is both hard to justify and impossible to implement fairly. The right wing would have a field day. It was bad enough their bullshit about "taxing widows and orphans" with inheritance taxes, without " pity the poor pensioner in their two million dollar house, who is being taxed without income". Wealth taxes such as rates are effectively an inheritance tax already when they are defferred. Simpler to just have inheritance taxes.

  4. joe90 4
    31 December 2023 at 11:00 am

    but they are far less useful when they control more and more of us.

    It's no accident that the rich control us all.

    This was not just a whim of the 1880's and 1890's -it went back to the founding fathers, who had learned their law in the era of Blackstone's Commentaries, which said: "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the lest violation of it; no, not even for the common good of the whole community."

    Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churches, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that only way upward for a poor person was to climb into the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck

    […]

    The rich, giving part of their enormous earnings in this way, became known as philanthropists. These educational institutions did not encourage dissent; they trained the middlemen in America system-the teachers, doctors, lawyers, adminisstrators, engineers, technicians, politicans-those who would be paid to keep the system going, to be loyal buffers against trouble.

    In the meantime, the spread of public school education enabled the learning of the writing, reading and arithmetic for a whole generation of workers, skilled and semiskilled, who would be the literate labor force of the new industrial age. It was important that these people learn obedience to authority.

    Howard Zin – A People's History of The United States – Robber Barons and Rebels

  5. UncookedSelachimorpha 5
    31 December 2023 at 11:56 am

    We are moving towards one of the great weaknesses of the British class system – most of the skills and abilities of most of the population are rendered useless and irrelevant because only the upper class (rich) are allowed to participate.

    Damages and weakens all of society.

    • Anne 5.1
      31 December 2023 at 4:45 pm

      And we only have to look at the steady decline of the UK (formally referred to as Britain) to see the evidence.

      Despite utterances to the contrary, NZ is not an egalitarian society and never has been. The truth is: it is not what you know that counts but who you know. It is also advantageous to have attended the 'right' (pun intended) schools.

      I saw it in action among a few people of my acquaintance over the years including a couple of members of my extended family. They both became lawyers – one a high flyer – yet their actual abilities were pretty ordinary. Ahh… but they went to one of NZ's most expensive private schools and the opportunities flowed their way.

      Sad when you think of the amazing talent that is out there in every field of endeavour, but few of them get the chance to prove their worth.

  6. Gordon 6
    31 December 2023 at 1:08 pm

    A wealth tax might be useful – although the devil is in the details. Avoidance would soon become a growth industry.

    A Financial Transactions Tax, while a bitch to implement, is less easily dodged.

    • Bearded Git 6.1
      31 December 2023 at 7:15 pm

      That has merit Gordon. But wouldn't people be screaming for exemptions.

      • Johnr 6.1.1
        1 January 2024 at 10:36 am

        Exemptions are the killer. So, don't have any.

        How about a revenue tax, just like wage and salary earners pay now.

        Thereby every dollar deposited is taxed with absolutely no exemptions by any entity, business, person or charity for costs.

        As a rough calculation, with gst abolished, it would be about 9 cents in the dollar.

        Sure the cash society would still exist but it's fairly small.

        Gst admin costs won't exist. 90% of accountants and 50% of lawyers could be released and able to pursue productive work. Tax returns would be redundant. Tax would automatically be forwarded to govt electronically with each transaction.

        Each election parties vying for the treasury benches could produce a budget for their plans saying what tax they would levy for the next three years.

    • Tricledrown 7.1
      31 December 2023 at 5:59 pm

      Countries ,states and municipalities within countries have much higher productivity and wealth because is reduces speculation like land banking and unprofitable use of land.

    • Bearded Git 7.2
      31 December 2023 at 7:18 pm

      A LT may be the simplest and easiest to implement….which makes it attractive.

  8. Tricledrown 8
    31 December 2023 at 5:39 pm

    Monopolization is what has happened since Roger Douglas opened the so called free market .This has allowed for unmitigated speculation and retail in the hands of a very few cartels.Who are bleeding the poor dryMainly in land but the latest trend speculation as well most of those trends flop leaving nothing. NZ's economy is built mainly on speculation and monopolization which is capital driven.While the productive sector limps from crisis to crisis.Farming is mainly for capital gain now farming profitability is marginal accross most sector's those with capital will buy up more land . Rather than trying to make a profitable return.

    Not enough people are willing to vote for wealth redistribution and controlling the market to allow real competition. maybe 10% of the population at best . With 20% not voting and those people would benefit most.So no change . Until enough people face real hardship from the robber barrons then things may change. But not likely as wealthy people have the resources to divide and conquer just like Trump in the US. Culture wars and Fake news,in NZ Maori vs Pakeha Womens rights gender rights conspiracy theorists all play into maintaining the monopoly. So no chance of change.

    • Pat 8.1
      31 December 2023 at 6:23 pm

      No chance for change is what the elites have historically reassured themselves with…and it works well until suddenly it dosnt, as history demonstrates.

      There is always someone else hungry to be the rule maker.

    • Bearded Git 8.2
      31 December 2023 at 7:27 pm

      I seem to remember the same thing being said about MMP, yet a clever campaign won the day.

      The Greens got 11.6% with a WT prominent in their manifesto. I'm sure many more people are pissed off about the top 5% holding so much wealth much of which is unearned.

      I think a WT or LT is entirely feasible if backed by a clever campaign.

  9. SPC 9
    31 December 2023 at 5:59 pm

    The positive is that the majority of those under 18 appear to be in homes owned by their parents. For how much longer?

  10. Tricledrown 10
    31 December 2023 at 6:10 pm

    NZ has had the free market for 30years but most people haven't adapted and can't adapt because you need to save enough to invest then invest wisely the sur fire way is leveraged investment borrowing to pay for investing the safest longterm investment being property so we have tenants building and paying for the interest and low supply creating a longterm continuous capital gains .The productive sector or homeowners don't get those breaks.

  11. Blazer 11
    31 December 2023 at 6:39 pm

    Instead of tip toeing down the middle with the 'lesser of 2 evils' strategy,Labour need to ..'embrace' the..rich.

    The rich are not all venal,selfish..pricks.They care about NZ and its future.They have no problem with paying extra tax,be it CGT or wealth tax.

    You know it..makes..sense.

    • Pat 11.1
      31 December 2023 at 6:47 pm

      "The rich are not all venal,selfish..pricks.They care about NZ and its future.They have no problem with paying extra tax,be it CGT or wealth tax."

      Like all generalisations therein is an element of truth….it is often an advantage to be a venal selfish prick if that is your world….however many wealthy are smart enough to understand that their wealth is dependent upon a functioning system built upon the acceptance of the masses and that it isnt in their best interests to push things too far.

      The question is do enough of them recognise this fact?

  12. SPC 12
    31 December 2023 at 9:34 pm

    The useful rich invest in companies (with their own builders they pay wages to) that build new homes on site and also factory built small builds they can move onto sections and or small villages.

    They also seek to partner regional councils (infrastructure partners), local iwi (land supply) and government to supply housing to aged Maori on their retirement.

    This because they want their wealth to do good for the community/nation they live in rather than just themselves.

    Blessed is the nation when the rich actually do good stuff.

    Cursed is the nation when the rich do not want to pay the tax required for Kainga Ora to do the above.

  13. Michael Scott 13
    31 December 2023 at 9:52 pm

    I think we need to ask how much more tax we need and have a clear plan for where it will be used.

    I read that the 3% of the wealthiest NZ'ers already pay about 25% of all income tax and that the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid no net tax at all.

    If we were to implement a wealth tax they might shift their assets to another country without a wealth tax.

    • Pat 13.1
      31 December 2023 at 10:27 pm

      "I read that the 3% of the wealthiest NZ'ers already pay about 25% of all income tax and that the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid no net tax at all."

      Those numbers may (or may not) reflect the tax paid by the nominated cohorts but are unimportant to the purpose(s) of taxation.

      There is ample evidence that the settings of the past 4 decades (including taxation) have grown inequality in our society to breaking point….taxation is the least disruptive and most effective method available to Government (of any hue) to begin to rectify that inequality.

      Or we can carry on until one of the less desirable options appears.

    • SPC 13.2
      31 December 2023 at 10:29 pm

      Any wealth they transferred off shore would be subject to a CGT (35/36 OECD nations have them – all the others) there.

      And property buy in means payment of a stamp duty. And profits returned here on offshore investments is not immune from IRD interest.

      And I am not so sure asset wealth held offshore by local citizens would be immune to such a tax.

      I read that the 3% of the wealthiest NZ'ers already pay about 25% of all income tax and that the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid no net tax at all.

      Is that what you remember? The people you mention pay a lower rate of tax on their income per dollar, despite progressive tax (because of realised CG not taxed). Which just goes to show how more income they have.

      And that does not include unrealised CG/rising wealth.

      And others do pay petrol taxes, GST, rates etc (regressive taxes).

      • SPC 13.2.1
        31 December 2023 at 10:32 pm

        It’s one reason why Key is not a fan of the recent IRD report, which showed that while wealthier New Zealanders pay more tax overall, they pay lower tax rates than other earners.

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/sir-john-key-talks-to-paula-bennett-about-politics-ambition-and-raising-kids-ask-me-anything/OY4J5KLGLJFYRLOKRVY7WDZZEQ/

      • Michael Scott 13.2.2
        31 December 2023 at 11:11 pm

        Why would wealth sent offshore be subject to CGT or stamp duty?

        NZ has neither. And stamp duty is paid on the purchase of a house not the sale.

        Our goal should be to create as much wealth as possible for as many as possible.

        The lower tax rate cited by Parker on rich people included their unrealised capital gains but not the gains made by the rest of us. So hardly apples with apples.

        • SPC 13.2.2.1
          31 December 2023 at 11:37 pm

          Why would wealth sent offshore be subject to CGT or stamp duty?

          Because overseas, they apply a stamp duty on the purchase of property and any CG on the asset wealth there is subject to a CGT.

          The lower tax rate cited by Parker on rich people included their unrealised capital gains but not the gains made by the rest of us.

          If it only includes gains from investments it does not include residential homes.

          Can you link to something saying unrealised gains from investments were included

          https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-report-shows-wealthy-nzers-pay-much-lower-tax-rates-other-earners

          Our goal should be to create as much wealth as possible for as many as possible.

          A tax system that encourages speculation on existing property for untaxed CG is one reason for falling home ownership rates. This does not grow our collective wealth. Nor does it improve economic productivity or the standard of living (as more income goes to paying for ownership of existing property, or just rent without any ownership).

          • Michael Scott 13.2.2.1.1
            31 December 2023 at 11:52 pm

            The tax numbers that Parker was using were the effective tax rates paid by the wealthy if unrealised capital gains were added to their taxable incomes.

            He claimed that the average taxpayer payed around 20% while the wealthy paid half of that.

            The unrealised capital gains of the average taxpayer were not included in the 20 per cent figure so it made no sense.

            • SPC 13.2.2.1.1.1
              1 January 2024 at 12:05 am

              The link I provided said

              including capital gains on investments.

              It did not say unrealised gains. Can you confirm it includes unrealised gains.

              It also says

              Today’s IRD report release is accompanied by a new Treasury report setting out effective average tax rates across the population. It uses scenarios to show that effective tax rates paid by middle New Zealanders (including GST) are between 6.8 and 10.8 percentage points higher than for the wealthiest people.

              Confirmation of the result

              The unrealised capital gains of the average taxpayer were not included in the 20 per cent figure so it made no sense.

              Because it was based on a survey of a group of rich New Zealanders (not necessarily the richest either as Key mentioned) it did not include the CG made by the average taxpayer on their investments … barely half would own their own home and the others would only have a car and Kiwi Saver.

    • Bearded Git 13.3
      1 January 2024 at 8:11 pm

      You are conflating tax paid with wealth. This is a diversion and irrelevant to the issue. Whatever tax is being paid by whomever it is clear that there is a massive imbalance in wealth that can only be addressed by bringing in a serious WT.

      • SPC 13.3.1
        1 January 2024 at 8:24 pm

        I don't think he is, he is trying to contest the claim that the rich pay a lower tax rate on their income than others – he does this by questioning the methodology of one study.

        He is claiming that a WT would result in a transfer of wealth offshore (the cost of this in stamp duty and CGT liability on offshore investments – the other 35 OECD nations have CGT).

        I am not sure, 24/36 OECD nations have an estate tax – something similar in impact to a WT albeit a one off at a higher rate than an annual tax. And people fleeing nations in their old age is not that common.

        Offshore where CGT are applied at low rates – such as a flat 15% (without adjustment for inflation), it is below income tax rates. Here, if the assessment was restricted to realised CG (shares, sold businesses/farms, sold investment property outside "brightline") I suspect it would indicate the same they were paying no higher a tax rate than those who only earnt money from employment and had much lower levels of annual income.

        • Bearded Git 13.3.1.1
          2 January 2024 at 8:19 pm

          The 10 year bright line test was effectively a narrow property based CGT that was simple and seemed to work well and so should be reinstated on top of a WT or LT.

          • lprent 13.3.1.1.1
            4 January 2024 at 4:41 am

            It was also quite simple to track in the LINZ databases by the IRD. The only thing that they could have done better would have to been to force a withholding in property transfers where the status of the property might be in doubt. Make that part of the conveyancing legislation.

            A declaration being required by the property owner and/or the conveyancer (ie simple property records) being required before the transaction could finalize. That would make the liability for any subsequent collection by the IRD quite clear for the courts. Especially since making a false declaration in itself would be a criminal offence.

            That would remove any disincentive of long litigation for the IRD. They could simply start a criminal process against whoever tried to deceive them using the crown prosecutor for fraud. Part of the fraud process would have been to collect the proceeds of crime. Much simpler than a civil case

            After all we don’t want to increase size of the IRD. We just want to make the consequences of avoiding the tax extremely risky and throw the onus of making a false declaration on the perpetrator.

    • KJT 13.4
      3 January 2024 at 7:23 am

      "Income tax" 60% of all! tax is paid by middle income earners. Note whenever someone says the wealthy pay a major proportion of tax they carefully exclude the many other taxes such as GST. And another form of taxation, user pays fees for State services.

      Also leaving out the fact that the wealthy have benefited hugely by living in a tax funded functional society. The tax they pay is likely a fraction of the real cost of the State, tax, funded largess that their wealth depends on. For example, parks, roads, sewerage, water supplies, transport and all the other supplies from the commons, that underpin spiralling real estate prices.

  14. Robin The Goodfellow 14
    1 January 2024 at 7:12 am

    Raeward Fresh is for rich people?

    • Drowsy M. Kram 14.1
      1 January 2024 at 8:55 am

      https://www.govt.nz/browse/family-and-whanau/financial-help-for-your-family/

      The CATS Who Wanted MORE [no, that's not a misprint]
      A political satire relevant for today, dealing with capitalism, poverty and greed, with greedy cats and hungry rats, that teaches children about the impact of what happens when people take a great deal more than they need.

      What the Raeward Fresh team is making for New Years Eve this year!

      • Mel from the Deli is making A Baked Camembert – topped with fresh pomegranate, a drizzle of honey, rosemary and nuts!
      • Rebecca is serving up a classic From Pepper & Me – On yaaa Onion & Herb Dip Mix – with fresh cucumber, carrot & pepper sticks
      • Akiko will be making Salmon Blini with smoked salmon and crème fraiche & horseradish sauce.
      • Jess will be popping the bubbles with a delicious French Champagne chilled from our wine chiller ready to go!

      I'm partial to Brie, but wouldn't touch Whitestone's Mt Domet with a barge pole.

      Welcome to 2024 everyone.

      • Robin The Goodfellow 14.1.1
        1 January 2024 at 10:16 am

        Your point, assuming you do have one?

        • Drowsy M. Kram 14.1.1.1
          1 January 2024 at 11:37 am

          And a prosperous New Year to you too, Robin smiley

          Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed. ― Albert Einstein

  15. Thinker 15
    1 January 2024 at 11:43 am

    Can't remember the name of the song my grandmother used to sing, but I remember the line "The Rich get rich and the Poor get children".

    How prophetic…

    • Descendant Of Smith 15.1
      1 January 2024 at 8:22 pm

      Line in The Great Gatsby.

      A literal interpretation of Mathew 13:12 for the prosperity christians is what we are headed for.

      "For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

    • Tricledrown 15.2
      2 January 2024 at 12:40 am

      Otara Millionaires Club land of Plenty. Or there is no drepression in New Zealand.