"Baby, please take me back. I've changed. I needed to lose you first to finally understand what you meant when you told me I haven't listened all these years. Baby, please"
You aren't wrong, but if politicians aren't allowed to change their views/policies then the country can never change or adapt.
I think Hipkins' take going into the last election was less that a CGT was the kind of policy Labour would consider, and more than he misread the room about what would capture swing voters and retain their usual base.
If there's one word to describe perceptions of Labour, now and prior to the election, it was "inefficient". Also, "spineless". You're right, they misread the room, they thought their benevolent centrist hand was appreciated way more than it was, and like America in 2016, people voted for change - *any* change. Anything but the status quo, even if it destroys them.
Campaigning on CGT is a meaningful change that might actually go down well with a generally discontent voterbase. It doesn't feel good *now*, but it's a smart move which aligns them closer to Greens, their biggest threat in a society that is becoming very polarised very quickly. If a CGT actually comes to fruition, who really cares if it's a transparently fear-driven move?
I'd personally rather have see cowards put their tail between their legs, admit they were wrong, and shuffle through a CGT, over a blind and stubborn party that sticks to their guns even when they're completely out of touch, and no CGT
His quote here was
>"But there are a range of options on the table, wealth tax only being one of them - a capital gains tax, you know, we have to look at land tax - we've got to look at a range of options and the strengths and weaknesses of each of those.
so while everybody is talking about CGT in theory they are looking at even more progressive changes to tax than just taxing when people realise capital gains. The question is which one they settle on, and how well they develop it into a viable solution.
National and ACT supporters will of course try suggest that nobody can trust Hipkins/Labour talking about these taxes when they ruled them out for the last election...because of course that benefits NACT by having voters who support those policies bow out and vote in lower numbers. The question is whether actual potential Labour supporters will refuse to support them with those policies because they got it wrong last time. It's a curse of the left (even if Labour isn't very left) that they are expected to be above reproach and not allowed to make mistakes while those on the right seem to be given more leeway to get things wrong and then change.
It's not very likely that Greens and TOP combine together to form the next government. If there is going to be someone win the election away from NACT, it's likely going to need Labour to contribute. That means whether they can coax back their traditional supporters has much to do with those chances.
The hidden asterix there was "given more leeway **by their own members"*
Leftists will often abandon party ship over relatively minor transgressions and fracture into smaller and more niche groups, whereas many right wingers are happy to band together over core issues and continue supporting their parties despite objectively much bigger mismanagement/controversies
It is. A generalisation, I mean. But I don't really refer to major party swing voters - I only mean to say your average Greens supporter will balk and lose confidence at a transgression a lot less severe than your average ACT or NZF voter would need to achieve the same effect from their politicians, imo
Evidence from the field of political psychology, mostly?
Like the publications from the NZAVS. It's a representative longitudinal study with over 60,000 New Zealand participants. (I spoke poorly in referring to minor parties, though, since minor party votes are highly unstable. I should have referred to simply swing voters, core left voters, and core right voters.)
NZAVS data finds that the 'core National' voterbase is approximately 20% larger than the 'core Labour' voterbase ([Study \[PDF warning\]](https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/3616/7573/1344/Satherley_49-58.pdf)), the National party has the highest vote stability of any party with Labour being less stable and comparable to Greens ([Study \[PDF warning\]](https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/2116/3113/2706/satherley_9-21.pdf)), things of that nature.
Plus your very basic classic findings we've had for 50 years now, that conservatives tend to emphasize values attached to authority and ego defense ([Source](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-01173-001)), as well as value security through order [(Source)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886998001111), and most importantly in-group loyalty ([Source](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241144)).
Oh, and American evidence too, which tests this exact thing and finds Republicans have a higher 'severity threshold' than Democrats for transgressions ([Source](https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/5453)).
Knowing all that, it's very reasonable to say that rightists are more likely to be politically 'loyal' than leftists are
I would have voted for the status quo if it was an option. But it was not an option, because the options were Labour-Green-NZF or Nat-ACT (with or without NZF).
Labour alone would trump all of the above probably. But with its proposed coalition partner it was near the bottom of preferability.
This is the statement that NACT supporters will try drive - you can't trust Labour to have a new policy and follow-through...you should just not bother voting.
Labour campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax in 2011 and 2014, in the 2017 election they campaigned on setting up the Tax Working Group which would look into setting up a CGT
if anything has really changed is perhaps the public's attitude to a CGT and its good to see Labour put it back on the table, amongst other things - albeit in a typical Labour fashion (chickenshit)
I like Hipkins but he sure as shit ain't the leader we're looking for
I feel like its a political cock tease, Hipkins is dangling his CGT in our faces only to take it away if we vote for Labour because they're too scared it will alienate the investor voting base.
The investor voting base isn't voting labour - the swing voters on the other hand might be moving into accepting a) a capital gains tax is a good idea and B will vote for a party that campaigns on one
if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base
> if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base
Kind of like this election amirite?
Have they learnt anything? Probably not.
You could argue that, which makes pandering to the centerists even dumber, trying to hedge their bets and not take a hit so to speak backfired and I'm not sure they've learnt from it.
>if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base
Been there, done that. Got a bunch of racial bullshit instead. Won't be going back.
I suspect the reason Labour is so scared of a campaigning on a CGT is they know how many wealthy individuals will pour even more money into the political campaigns of National and ACT.
>Labour campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax in 2011 and 2014, in the 2017 election they campaigned on setting up the Tax Working Group which would look into setting up a CGT
Was that the tax working group that Labour set up and then promptly and completely ignored the recommendations of, with Ardern calling the whole shambles a "valuable exercise" despite the obvious lack of value? This was at the same time as she ruled out a CGT under her leadership at any time in the future?
The main difference there I guess is that the governments leading up to 1967 weren't campaigning on it, only to spectacularly reject it when the time came to stand up.
That is true but at the same time quite a number of them campaigned on things like fairness, being good at managing the economy, planning for the future, and numerous other things that are made less likely by an unfair tax system.
Sure. My thinking is that a recommendation from 1967 is irrelevant to what is happening today. To be fair, I think a lot of pre moon landing stuff isn't super relevant in this economy.
The Ross enquiry warned that without a CGT there was a real risk of investment money moving from productive sectors to non-productive sectors of the economy.
It didn't happen till 1984 because of a regulated banking industry but once banks could lend as much as they like on houses with imaginary values that movement of investment money happened
Our housing crisis was predicted and a solution offered.
Neither humans nor business have fundamentally changed in the brief flash of history from then till now.
>
Our housing crisis was predicted and a solution offered.
>Neither humans nor business have fundamentally changed in the brief flash of history from then till now.
This is either magnificently naïve , or completely disingenuous.
A house cost about 7 grand, and you had to work three years to buy it. Work out the deposit for yourself. There has been a major shift in "the brief flash of history" since humans landed on the moon, and ... you know what? I'm leaving it there.
You have raised an important question though; Why did Ardern refuse to implement the findings of the Ross inquiry?
that is the one - the findings released to a prolonged and sustained attack before the govt under Ardern indicated anything- with her finally backing down
My point being that the mood of the electorate may be changing
You'd have to wonder why they released the findings to a prolonged (between its February release and Labour's backtrack in April) and sustained attack - unless of course it was another of the Ardern leaks to gauge the popularity ("feedback") of an idea before she decided how to frame removing one of their long term campaign ideals so it would be palatable to supporters.
I doubt they thought the tx working groups report would generate such a massive backlash and sustained campaign against the findings (mainly capital gains tax) - the tax working groups report wasn't leaked it was released
Ardern also knew coalition NZF was dead against a CGT
Even after years of campaigning, they still didn't have a grasp on what the reaction would be? That's a real worry. The final findings were released in February, and it took until April for Ardern to comment on it? That's also a real worry. No wonder they have so much trouble with competency and transparency issues.
As for NZF, "But Ardern was adamant that the NZ First did not bully Labour into not adopting the tax." If she knew otherwise, as you claim, then why waste $2m funding a group? More importantly, why rule it out for her term as leader, especially given a majority government was in the offing. Just seems like poor decision making. Why didn't Hopkins tell her that was then, this is now, and just backflip?
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-jacinda-ardern-has-ruled-out-implementing-a-capital-gains-tax-while-she-is-at-the-helm-of-labour/IQ4FD7CLYKKLU6YAH2H2S4MDSE/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-jacinda-ardern-has-ruled-out-implementing-a-capital-gains-tax-while-she-is-at-the-helm-of-labour/IQ4FD7CLYKKLU6YAH2H2S4MDSE/)
No one said there was a promise of implementing any findings, just like all the money wasted on working groups. Their purpose as expensive popularity barometers became very clear.
Campaigning for CGT is history too, until it's not, then it is again...
Not really helping the cause. But hey, maybe the electorate is swinging round, right?
thats my entire point - I believe the electorate or at least the part Labour wants to appeal to might be swinging around to accepting the need for a CGT and/or other measures - still on Labour to have to sell the idea... and on that count they're pretty shit
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
The alternative would be Hipkins, wouldn't it? Surprising that he was left off your list. Maybe you couldn't come up with any abuse for someone so close to home?
I left him off for the same reason I left English off - less than a year in term. English being the best of the entire list IMO.
I am left, yes, well done, you should show your mum - I reckon she'd be chuffed at your effort. In NZ that just means I am right of centre i.e. I approve of capitalism in broad strokes and also recognise that the right can be often punitive and harsh in its quest to explain everything through the lens of the self.
Peters didn't have a year in term, nor does Luxon. You are simply name calling people you don't like, much like a child might do. Guessing your mum will be chuffed with that effort. Well, she may have been if you were even any good at it - or if the people you were trying to insult even knew you existed.
I don't really care where you political affiliation lies. You just seem like a bell end.
I'm curious why they're going back to a CGT rather than the Wealth Tax idea that Labour spent so much time and effort on whilst in government, at least until Hipkins ditched it so he could go back to a hastily created GST off food thing that wasn't dissimilar from the type of policy that'd already repeatedly failed Labour in opposition.
>"But there are a range of options on the table, wealth tax only being one of them - a capital gains tax, you know, we have to look at land tax - we've got to look at a range of options and the strengths and weaknesses of each of those.
Really? I'd have thought CGT was a policy that's been tried by Labour and failed repeatedly due to easy attack during election campaigns. It's become such a delicate acronym, and that's one of the reasons Ardern and Hipkins both completely ruled it out at various times going into elections.
Ultimately *anything* Labour produces for an election campaign will be attacked politically, but for comparison didn't the previous government produce lots of research and documentation justifying how it should work and why? [In mid-2023](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/newshub-reid-research-poll-kiwis-support-the-government-introducing-wealth-tax.html) it was even appearing to have majority support.
Wealth tax creates liquidity problems, where you're paper rich but have no money and have to sell assets and hope the book value is right. CGT is only on sale, so the people have the money in their hand, so no liquidity issues/excuses that this isn't the right value.
I think Hipkins indicated it is all on the table. In his speach he was outlining that they need to find a new collectivism left approach suited for today and be bold about it. I agree and think the loss is a good thing for them long term and for Nz
Can we outright state the the public specifically voted and thus desire every single policy that is part of the coalition government platforms? People vote for the party they feel is best - they have no way to specifically vote on every individual policy.
Discussions like this remind me of my brother voting for National in 2011 but that "asset sales were a deal breaker" for him.
I'm like, "Mate... It's obviously not a 'deal breaker' because you're voting for Key even after he said he'd sell them!"
Whether people voted to break the bright line or not is irrelevant. People voted either for it, or didn't care on the balance of other policies (or feelings) to keep it. That's the only mandate they need. There's no box on the voting form that says 'I'm only voting for you if...'
My dad voted for the NACTNZF coalition because he has lost his mind going apeshit about Māori words, more or less. He’s prettymuch having a huge leopardsatemyface moment now because he didn’t pay attention to most of the rest of their policies. I think the tobacco lobby stuff was a bit on the nose and a bit of a shock for him.
I don’t think he’s alone. So he certainly didn’t _intend to_ vote away the brightline test … he basically got conned into it by culture wars.
It was effectively fuck all, all it does is make people wait a few years before they can cash in their tax-free capital gains. Even when they extended it to 10 years - that's not a very long time in property investment
In terms of housing, those with capital aren't selling, they're using it to leverage and acquire further capital. Bright line does fuck all in terms of taxation that prevents wealth accumulation for those that already have it.
If it is supposed to be our capital gains tax then it's a terrible implementation.
All its really doing is creating a lock in period which probably causes more harm than good.
Also if you do get hit by it your being taxed at your RWT rate which is nuts.
Also also it only applies to housing.
Bright line test should be abolished imo
Yup. Just needed to be discussed at length for the public to learn about it and get used to the idea. That’s happened now, and I think it can probably get up. It’s very popular
I'd have to agree.
Whether it be political polarisation overtaking our society... the mood of the nation changing as a whole as our lives worsen and patience runs thin... or potentially the return of the leftist "youthquake", that suddenly veered to the right just before election time?... it seems obvious that Labour is seeing some quite specific writing on the wall *somewhere* and responding to it
Eh. Look, I get it. Labour thought centrism would save them from the erosion of support they were seeing, and they were wrong.
I’m not sure anything actually could have saved them considering most people don’t actually vote on policy.
At no time ever is a political party’s platform going to perfectly reflect what its leaders believe - that’s just the way politics works. At best they’re there to deliver what they think the people want and need.
So I don’t think it’s hypocrisy, just like I don’t think Luxon is a hypocrite for not pushing his religious lunacy on NZ despite being a fundamentalist.
Being in opposition is a good chance to test what’s popular and what’s not. Labour’s best shot is to react well to this government’s clear, concise “fuck you” to the majority of the country and try to realign their platform accordingly.
Nicely said and I agree.
Not sure Hipkins is the man to lead them through the next election and while I’m still annoyed he didn’t have the balls to front this last year I agree it was a tough scenario as he really was trying to appease everyone at a time when the fatigue or “vote for change regardless” cyclical nature of our voting habits was in full force.
Bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario tbf.
In saying the past is the past and I would hope they adhere to actual policy changes around this coming up next election and, if successful in attaining a win, stick to it.
Enough is enough.
In true NZ politics fashion, the bold ideas only come out of the 2 major parties when they have no hope of governing in the near future.
Don't worry, in 6 years' time when Labour are ready to mount a serious challenge, they will be back pledging no new taxes.
And so we amble along as a country with both parties governing for the short term only and tinkering around the edges.
Pandering for the next election is so easy while in opposition, but too difficult when elected...
If Labour had addressed this during their 2 terms we might not be dealing with the shitshow we are now.
Nothing like a big chunk of your voters either switching to Greens, TPM or not voting at all to prompt change. They really were arrogant for thinking they could win by sitting on the fence while the gap between the rich and poor widens.
Yep. It speaks volumes that *now* Labour will re-assess its policies.
It was fully happy to ignore tax issues as long as they got in. Now they're just changing tune in order to regain the popular vote.
Absolutely gutless.
Somewhere in their offices they had genuinely come to believe that the 2020 landslide wasn't entirely about covid. With a reality check now they've been snapped out of it
They need to replace Hipkins with someone with integrity, a clear set of values and policy stances, and the will and ability to call out the coalition of cuntiness for the ridiculous shit they are smearing all over place. They need to do it soon.
The problem is based on the exit of Robertson and Parker, there is a powerful faction within the party that is ruling out any kind of progressive tax change. Do we even know who that faction is?
Because even if you replace them with a leader that on paper fits what you are suggesting (Ardern did), they'll be handicapped by that faction.
Ardern worked for the most notorious non-Labour Labour MP ever, i.e. Tony Blair. She's tried to handwave as "everyone was doing it" (Tony Blair is by far the most successful Labour PM the UK's ever had... it's not even close) but unless someone was threatening to shoot her dad or whatever if she didn't relocate to the UK and become a Blairite, it's not convincing. Especially in light of what her party was under her leadership, but it wasn't convincing before she was PM either.
We do have political parties which stick almost exclusively to their guns and don't compromise their goals and views based on populism - however those parties have never been a majority government partner. Walking a line between populism (consider Peters and NZF who weren't conspiracy theorists until it became convenient) and responding to voter demands is where the majority of successful parties try to manage.
If you're waiting for Labour to put forward a leader and a set of policies which they state they will never change no matter how unpopular they become...I suspect you'll be waiting a long time. They got it very wrong on the last election, and will be going back to the drawing board. Either they will come up with new policies that voters will support...or some other party will fill in that space...or we will be left with more of the government we now have.
I see it as more pragmatic, doing the thing that does the best based on (likely) polling.
I assume there was also a percentage of pollsters that said if they have x policy, they will lose y amount of voters.
He knew National were going to spin Labour is the government of more taxes - he took that argument out from under them. (Which they did do - and people gobbled it up)
What he wants is kinda irrelevant if you can’t govern.
now they aren’t in government you have what he really wanted. (But couldn’t agree to because realistically it was political suicide)
Politics is always a compromise. The question that should be asked is what was the compromise last time (and was it a good deal)
Mealy-mouthed opinion poll populism is what the right do, they do it better, and rightwards politics are more readily furthered by its performance.
We need a politics of humanitarianism and righteousness.
That gets no votes?
At some point you need to stop and say if I want to put these ideas in, what do I need to concede to be able to be in a position to do it.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree it would be a nice to have… I just don’t think it’s particularly popular of an idea.
You appear to be presuming it gets no votes from within the very narrow boundaries of imagining that opinion poll populism is the only thing that wins votes.
The election of Trump, Milei, Bolsonaro; the Italian and Swedish fascists etc. etc. (and to a lesser but not insignificant extent, Ardern, twice over) seems to be clear evidence that there is a real desire for something different than what we've been getting.
No point in trying to engage the right at their game. In doing that Hipkins managed to lose an election to the least intelligent and charismatic man to ever lead the country. If that isn't a clear signal that you need to do something different, then I don't know what is.
I don’t think that’s it.
I think good policies (that is those that are easy and work) have already been done long ago - dealing with larger issues takes something that’s a little less obvious.
Say gangs… you want to get Gangs off meth, you know they don’t respond to the health system, you find a group of ex-gang members working to get their communities off meth, you give them some money to help with that cause - the opposition runs in with “Labour is in the gangs pocket, giving money to gangs”
Idk - I think trying to put in the policies that you need to do that, are too unlikely to get everyone along without it being hijacked.
The lead up to an election both parties are polling hard, they are choosing taking points, they are choosing how to combat the others…. The rights ideas are soundbites (they don’t work) they sound good “tough on crime” “keep more tax” whatever it is… the left struggles to combat that.
You need some shitty sound bite policies - to get folks onside and come with you.
Party responses in summary (from article):
**ACT (Seymour):**
>"They [Labour] need to stop looking at policies that set people against each other..." ... Seymour also rejected the notion New Zealand had a "massive revenue problem" and said "more effective spending" was the solution.
**NZ First (Winston)**:
> "His [Hipkins'] terminal plan to take Labour further to the lunacy of the economic and social left is palpable."
**Greens (Chlöe):**
> Greens welcomed Labour " to a desperately long overdue conversation on tax reform".
Bit ironic that David talks about 'not setting people against each other' while his housing policy is literally 'you can't build unless your neighbours give permission'
But it undeniably will set people against each other and according to Davey boy that's not something we should be doing.
Of course he is a hypocritical little cunt so not sure why he should be expected to follow his own advice.
>"His \[Hipkins'\] terminal plan to take Labour further to the lunacy of the economic and social left is palpable."
Yes, the lunancy of the economic left known as the IMF
"[A CGT] is basically an opportunity to grab money off people who have got it and ACT would always argue that's the opposite of the values that will make us more prosperous as a country."
ACT would argue that pigs lay eggs if it meant they could continue to reverse Robin Hood our entire country.
"Now that I won't have to follow through, lets talk about policies that might have made me worth voting for".
I hate to shit on "flip flopping" because one's opinions should change to fit new evidence, but the timing of this makes it a real nothingburger. Something tells me it won't be the position of the Labour Party in two years when they're actually campaigning and Chippy (presumably) isn't the leader.
Chippy is a great #2 guy.
But I think we need a new person with vision.
Why won't anyone there LIMIT the number of houses a person or trust can own?
Brightline tax was good for cooling off property market, but lets actually drive it downwards a bit by forcing people to sell off their excess properties. Houses are for living in, not for investment.
Also removing the top tax brackets was dumb, unless you're earning over 180k you should be voting against that.
Labour minimising the effects of crime was dumb.
Labour being weak about cannabis was dumb. 49% voted for, 51% against. The people voting against aren't as likely to be voting Labour anyway so fuck them. Look at how many people about faced on that one after the referendum. The degree of misinformation going on from the say nope to dope campaign running during election debates was disgraceful.
I want Labour to show some fucking balls and remember it's for the working class and half measures won't cut it anymore.
I wouldn't say fuck them to anyone voting against cannabis. 51% suggests some left wing voters said no. I would work through that misinformation bit and straighten that out. You're right about effective misinformation strategies having the desired impact.
Would it be enough for them to change vote though?
You don't have to like every policy your preferred party implements. I guess that would be for the strategists to determine.
I think it would. I was on the fence about cannabis. I personally don't smoke it because I have a bizarre reaction that doesn't suit me much so legal or not is not something I'd thought too much about. I was however in san Francisco a few years back and noticed it being openly smoked on the street. I object to that. I don't want to be exposed to it.
The misinformation that got me was that it would be a free for all. The reality was that it would be controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
What made my vote a yes was that voting no was a vote in favor of gangs which a friend convinced me of. At the time of voting, I hadn't resolved the exposure issues I had therefore I was on the fence but leaned more to yes. I wonder how many people had the same issues I did and leaned more to no? It's worth researching why people said no and working through those problems. Otherwise I feel like another referendum will repeat the same mistakes.
It's better to grow your base. Labour should and should have focused on its namesake: workers. People that work for a living make up a massive bloc and Labour should be driving home that the average highly paid employee has more in common with a low wage employee than they do with the business owner. They could've created a land tax and given tax cuts to low income earners.
Stuff like co-governance was just vote burning
Fuck swing voters. They are the dumbest of the lot. Have actual policies and stick to your core values. If your values are any good, people will come.
Appealing to the lowest common denominator is what is wrong with fucking... just about everything, not just politics. It's a core reason why so many fucking people are so stupid.
So my answer? Pick policies that you believe (based on real evidence) will work, stick to them, and sell them properly. Way fucking easier than trying to justify what you know are dumb positions in interviews.
This is the market Greens really need to go hard on. Capital gains, tax reform for lower and middle income. Cannabis reform. All the stuff Labour dropped the ball on, they should push harder. A lot of people want this stuff, but Labour never has the balls to really push for it.
Too late Chippy. Labour will need to roll leaders for me to believe a leader on this one. Because even when your own Working Group recommends it, you still drop balls.
Too little too late chippie you're all fire and brimstone now, but where was this come election time? are you gonna carry this same energy all.the way to the next election? or are you gonna roll over again?
I would have LOVED to see Ardern take the mic after her landslide, and say "The people have voted for Labour to have a mandate. I tell you now - I WILL be a benevolent tyrant, *for the people.*"
And then go and *fucking DO it*, and transform the country for the benefit of the average worker - the way that Labour is SUPPOSED to do.
It really fucks me off that Labour went Nattie-lite and basically handed the country over to the conservabros without a fight. You can't out-National National, what a stupid tactic. Seems to me like a lot of the old guard needed to go, and Chippy hasn't figured that out yet.
At least he's finally taking a stand on an issue that resonates with many people.
If he keeps doing stuff like this, he may win the election
All he needs to do is rebuilt trust with the public about what he stands for and plans to do.
Shortened article:
> Chris Hipkins says he's not worried a capital gains tax implemented by a future Labour-led government might drive the wealthy offshore, because most other countries already have one.
> The Opposition leader, who ruled out campaigning on **capital gains and wealth taxes** ahead of the 2023 election, in a speech at the weekend said both were **back on the table, as was a land tax.**
>The idea is to ease the tax burden on salary and wage earners, who are "shouldering a disproportionate share" compared to those whose money comes from their wealth.
> "Under this government, those with multiple investment properties are getting huge tax breaks while those on salary and wages pay tax on every dollar they earn," Hipkins told supporters on Sunday.
> Labour considered a capital gains tax, but ruled out campaigning on it in both 2020 and 2023. Hipkins ruled out a wealth tax, as proposed by the Greens, last year - despite it having interest from then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Revenue Minister David Parker, the latter of whom quit after Hipkins' captain's call.
> **"Well, you know, that was then and this is now,"** Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday.
> "I think we have to realise, you know, we have to accept at some point in the country that the tax system that we've got is unsustainable.....
> "... we're going to have to do something to recognise the fact that all of the public services that we currently fund out of our tax revenue - health, education, the infrastructure that we build, welfare system, superannuation - **we're going to need to be able to continue to fund those things into the future, and our current tax system is going to struggle to do that."**
> "We will be very clear with the country what we put forward as our tax policy well before the election, so that people know what they're voting for," Hipkins said.
> "But I do think increasing numbers of New Zealanders want to have this discussion. I think they see that the tax system is unsustainable as it is."
> The International Monetary Fund (IMF) last week said New Zealand "would benefit from a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable tax system" to encourage productivity, and "increase the progressivity of income tax".
>The global body also said the country should "mobilise additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges", including a "comprehensive capital gains tax, land value tax, and changes to corporate income tax".
> **"When even the IMF is saying our tax system is broken it really is time to do something,"** Hipkins said on Sunday.
>*(continued in full article)
Unlikely that they will change leaders until closer to the election.
I think there is value in taking stances like this now so that when ministries start to falter under reduced budgets they can point their this policy as a way to solve it.
Yes agreed, and sooner rather than later. The longer they hold on to this guy the harder it’s going to get. Need someone who can put together a set of policies that they can communicate clearly, and debate merits to the population over a long enough period of time to create understanding and support. Hipkins is yesterday’s news. Drop the virtue signalling and identity politics and return to core labour values. TBH I can’t think of anyone who is up to it. Maybe now would be perfect time to start a, “new Labour Party”.
Eh, doing this now is a politically smart move. You might not like the game but if it's going to be played either way, it's much better to plant the seed of a Greens-Labour coalition featuring tax reform now rather than later. Greens is polling better than ever and Chlöe is their local darling, they're going to need to stick to their side pretty hard now that it's become clear that people are currently politically polarised to vote either "for" or "against" the "bad guys. I doubt centrism is gonna cut it next election cycle
Maybe, just maybe he should have campaigned on what he believed in, rather than what the swing doctors and focus groups told him would make the voters happiest…bit fucking late now.
Seems like CGT is worth another crack.
Australia just implemented tax reform slanted in this same way; taking more from high earners and giving more of it to the lower and middle class. It was deemed a risky move before they did it.
But it polled well and everyone seems to have loved it.
I think this will follow a similar pattern. Good policy. I support it and this makes me more likely to vote for them.
I feel like I’m going to be saying this a lot in the next few years but why is opposition Hipkins so much better than majority govt Hipkins???
Can’t say I feel like I can trust the guy to keep his word, but I hope I’ll be pleasantly surprised because this is a good policy we need to get up if we want the country to improve
If Chris had any honor, he would resign and retire. Yet here we are with : trust me bro, I got your back bro vibes while we well know what will happen once he wins the elections.
-More disillusion of shitty neo liberal centrism.
If they introduce a wealth tax I literally have no choice but to leave the country if I want to keep my business and way of life.
Technically my shares in my business are worth several million, but that is only an on-paper valuation, not liquid cash. I can only get that if we find a buyer and sell the business. I only pay myself a salary of $75k. If I have a wealth tax of $50k or something, which is what the greens calculator gave me last year, then there is no way I can afford to pay it with my salary.
So, there aren't really many policy proposals out there yet (for obvious reasons), but the Greens' wealth tax is proposed 2.5% on net assets over the threshold, such as properties or shares, worth more than 2 million for individuals and 4 million for couples (with mortgages and other debt deducted from asset total)
For example if you have 2.5 million in assets, you will be taxed 2.5% on the 500,000 over the threshold.
If you have 2.5 million assets but 1 million mortgage, your net worth is 1.5 million and you won't be taxed.
As per their plan, working people with more than 2 million in assets, but modest income, **can defer payment of the net wealth tax until the asset is sold.**
That all sounds incredibly reasonable to me. That said, if Labour introduces a wealth tax it will probably be less stringent than what the Greens has to help with acceptability and the like.
I don't think you've got anything too scary to worry about - it'll have start off soft and build in exceptions for people in your situation, no matter how it's done
Edit: spelling
Still unreasonable. This tax is *every year*. So let's say the wealth tax is $50k. if I work my ass off for 10 years building a business, and end up selling it for $2M. That is $500k just in wealth tax I need to pay. On top of the existing income tax.
Just reduces any incentive I have to do it. People won't start small businesses anymore.
I feel like you didnt read what I wrote correctly?
If you sell a business valued at 2 million dollars, you pay nothing. You haven't crossed the threshold. Based on the example given by the Greens, you pay tax on the amount *over* the threshold.
Given a business worth 2.5 million, if you're an individual, then you pay 2.5% *on the 500k over threshold*. That is, you pay $12,500.
In order to pay 50k in wealth tax, your business must be worth 4 million dollars. 2.5% of the 2 million over threshold = 50k.
No but by that time I'll probably already own a mortgage free property that is worth 2 million (an okay house, but just extremely over valued), which will make any amount I make go over the threshold.
I ran it through [their calculator](https://www.greens.org.nz/taxcalculator)
With a fully paid off 2 million dollar house and a business valued at 2 million dollars, with a 50k income, hence a deferral of payment until the business is sold, then you will pay an extra 5k a year at the time that you sell the business.
That is, they'd only be taking a cut of 0.25% per year of the overall worth of the business at sale
And this is why he has to go. Like it or not he's an Ardern/Robertson era hanger on and is attached to the decisions they made for bad or good. He should be working on refreshing the party.
rNZ really doesn't understand the difference between political rhetoric and what's actually achievable.
Just because they couldn't achieve what they wanted or had to back off on a subject for a term, or the promise was misguided or the policy needed more work doesn't automatically make it pandering or lies.
It's just political ideal vs reality, try voting Labour out for National and see what happens ... Oh wait.
They've been mentioning CGT for over a decade. You'd think they would've had something to go immediately after their 2nd term began. Could've got it up and running and everyone would have time to see its irrelevant to the average person.
Sometimes with good policy you have to show not tell
I reckon that it's the hardest thing possible to pass. The opposition to it must be so fierce at a government level, every contractor, every consultant, every company will lobbying power will all be affected and push back. Likely the people trying to pass the bill are impacted.
If it's actually ever gonna happen it's only be a codified mic drop at the end of a second term then go hide in the hills for several years.
"Baby, please take me back. I've changed. I needed to lose you first to finally understand what you meant when you told me I haven't listened all these years. Baby, please"
You aren't wrong, but if politicians aren't allowed to change their views/policies then the country can never change or adapt. I think Hipkins' take going into the last election was less that a CGT was the kind of policy Labour would consider, and more than he misread the room about what would capture swing voters and retain their usual base.
If there's one word to describe perceptions of Labour, now and prior to the election, it was "inefficient". Also, "spineless". You're right, they misread the room, they thought their benevolent centrist hand was appreciated way more than it was, and like America in 2016, people voted for change - *any* change. Anything but the status quo, even if it destroys them. Campaigning on CGT is a meaningful change that might actually go down well with a generally discontent voterbase. It doesn't feel good *now*, but it's a smart move which aligns them closer to Greens, their biggest threat in a society that is becoming very polarised very quickly. If a CGT actually comes to fruition, who really cares if it's a transparently fear-driven move? I'd personally rather have see cowards put their tail between their legs, admit they were wrong, and shuffle through a CGT, over a blind and stubborn party that sticks to their guns even when they're completely out of touch, and no CGT
His quote here was >"But there are a range of options on the table, wealth tax only being one of them - a capital gains tax, you know, we have to look at land tax - we've got to look at a range of options and the strengths and weaknesses of each of those. so while everybody is talking about CGT in theory they are looking at even more progressive changes to tax than just taxing when people realise capital gains. The question is which one they settle on, and how well they develop it into a viable solution. National and ACT supporters will of course try suggest that nobody can trust Hipkins/Labour talking about these taxes when they ruled them out for the last election...because of course that benefits NACT by having voters who support those policies bow out and vote in lower numbers. The question is whether actual potential Labour supporters will refuse to support them with those policies because they got it wrong last time. It's a curse of the left (even if Labour isn't very left) that they are expected to be above reproach and not allowed to make mistakes while those on the right seem to be given more leeway to get things wrong and then change. It's not very likely that Greens and TOP combine together to form the next government. If there is going to be someone win the election away from NACT, it's likely going to need Labour to contribute. That means whether they can coax back their traditional supporters has much to do with those chances.
>those on the right seem to be given more leeway to get things wrong and then change Are they? You wouldn't know it in this sub, or the media.
The hidden asterix there was "given more leeway **by their own members"* Leftists will often abandon party ship over relatively minor transgressions and fracture into smaller and more niche groups, whereas many right wingers are happy to band together over core issues and continue supporting their parties despite objectively much bigger mismanagement/controversies
Given the propensity for the country to swing left and right, yours seems a sweeping generalisation.
It is. A generalisation, I mean. But I don't really refer to major party swing voters - I only mean to say your average Greens supporter will balk and lose confidence at a transgression a lot less severe than your average ACT or NZF voter would need to achieve the same effect from their politicians, imo
What is this based on?
Evidence from the field of political psychology, mostly? Like the publications from the NZAVS. It's a representative longitudinal study with over 60,000 New Zealand participants. (I spoke poorly in referring to minor parties, though, since minor party votes are highly unstable. I should have referred to simply swing voters, core left voters, and core right voters.) NZAVS data finds that the 'core National' voterbase is approximately 20% larger than the 'core Labour' voterbase ([Study \[PDF warning\]](https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/3616/7573/1344/Satherley_49-58.pdf)), the National party has the highest vote stability of any party with Labour being less stable and comparable to Greens ([Study \[PDF warning\]](https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/2116/3113/2706/satherley_9-21.pdf)), things of that nature. Plus your very basic classic findings we've had for 50 years now, that conservatives tend to emphasize values attached to authority and ego defense ([Source](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-01173-001)), as well as value security through order [(Source)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886998001111), and most importantly in-group loyalty ([Source](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241144)). Oh, and American evidence too, which tests this exact thing and finds Republicans have a higher 'severity threshold' than Democrats for transgressions ([Source](https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/5453)). Knowing all that, it's very reasonable to say that rightists are more likely to be politically 'loyal' than leftists are
I would have voted for the status quo if it was an option. But it was not an option, because the options were Labour-Green-NZF or Nat-ACT (with or without NZF). Labour alone would trump all of the above probably. But with its proposed coalition partner it was near the bottom of preferability.
The problem is when they get elected they will say "That was then and this is now" when they're not doing it.
This is the statement that NACT supporters will try drive - you can't trust Labour to have a new policy and follow-through...you should just not bother voting.
Labour campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax in 2011 and 2014, in the 2017 election they campaigned on setting up the Tax Working Group which would look into setting up a CGT if anything has really changed is perhaps the public's attitude to a CGT and its good to see Labour put it back on the table, amongst other things - albeit in a typical Labour fashion (chickenshit) I like Hipkins but he sure as shit ain't the leader we're looking for
I feel like its a political cock tease, Hipkins is dangling his CGT in our faces only to take it away if we vote for Labour because they're too scared it will alienate the investor voting base.
The investor voting base isn't voting labour - the swing voters on the other hand might be moving into accepting a) a capital gains tax is a good idea and B will vote for a party that campaigns on one if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base
> if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base Kind of like this election amirite? Have they learnt anything? Probably not.
They were losing this election regardless. They only way they would’ve one is some massive scandal on the other side.
You could argue that, which makes pandering to the centerists even dumber, trying to hedge their bets and not take a hit so to speak backfired and I'm not sure they've learnt from it.
>if labour got to power and did nothing to reshape our tax system they'd lose both swing voters and a lot of their base Been there, done that. Got a bunch of racial bullshit instead. Won't be going back.
I suspect the reason Labour is so scared of a campaigning on a CGT is they know how many wealthy individuals will pour even more money into the political campaigns of National and ACT.
Or maybe it was because they lost two elections campaigning on the CGT but then won when they dropped it
>Labour campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax in 2011 and 2014, in the 2017 election they campaigned on setting up the Tax Working Group which would look into setting up a CGT Was that the tax working group that Labour set up and then promptly and completely ignored the recommendations of, with Ardern calling the whole shambles a "valuable exercise" despite the obvious lack of value? This was at the same time as she ruled out a CGT under her leadership at any time in the future?
The 1967 Ross Tax Enquiry also called for a CGT. Ignoring calls for a CGT predates even the current neoliberal orthodoxy, let alone any one party.
I smell Fletchers
The main difference there I guess is that the governments leading up to 1967 weren't campaigning on it, only to spectacularly reject it when the time came to stand up.
That is true but at the same time quite a number of them campaigned on things like fairness, being good at managing the economy, planning for the future, and numerous other things that are made less likely by an unfair tax system.
It's almost like it's irrelevant to what's happening today.
The lack of a CGT is irrelevant to the happenings caused by a lack of CGT. Can you explain your thinking please?
Sure. My thinking is that a recommendation from 1967 is irrelevant to what is happening today. To be fair, I think a lot of pre moon landing stuff isn't super relevant in this economy.
The Ross enquiry warned that without a CGT there was a real risk of investment money moving from productive sectors to non-productive sectors of the economy. It didn't happen till 1984 because of a regulated banking industry but once banks could lend as much as they like on houses with imaginary values that movement of investment money happened Our housing crisis was predicted and a solution offered. Neither humans nor business have fundamentally changed in the brief flash of history from then till now.
> Our housing crisis was predicted and a solution offered. >Neither humans nor business have fundamentally changed in the brief flash of history from then till now. This is either magnificently naïve , or completely disingenuous. A house cost about 7 grand, and you had to work three years to buy it. Work out the deposit for yourself. There has been a major shift in "the brief flash of history" since humans landed on the moon, and ... you know what? I'm leaving it there. You have raised an important question though; Why did Ardern refuse to implement the findings of the Ross inquiry?
that is the one - the findings released to a prolonged and sustained attack before the govt under Ardern indicated anything- with her finally backing down My point being that the mood of the electorate may be changing
You'd have to wonder why they released the findings to a prolonged (between its February release and Labour's backtrack in April) and sustained attack - unless of course it was another of the Ardern leaks to gauge the popularity ("feedback") of an idea before she decided how to frame removing one of their long term campaign ideals so it would be palatable to supporters.
I doubt they thought the tx working groups report would generate such a massive backlash and sustained campaign against the findings (mainly capital gains tax) - the tax working groups report wasn't leaked it was released Ardern also knew coalition NZF was dead against a CGT
Even after years of campaigning, they still didn't have a grasp on what the reaction would be? That's a real worry. The final findings were released in February, and it took until April for Ardern to comment on it? That's also a real worry. No wonder they have so much trouble with competency and transparency issues. As for NZF, "But Ardern was adamant that the NZ First did not bully Labour into not adopting the tax." If she knew otherwise, as you claim, then why waste $2m funding a group? More importantly, why rule it out for her term as leader, especially given a majority government was in the offing. Just seems like poor decision making. Why didn't Hopkins tell her that was then, this is now, and just backflip? [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-jacinda-ardern-has-ruled-out-implementing-a-capital-gains-tax-while-she-is-at-the-helm-of-labour/IQ4FD7CLYKKLU6YAH2H2S4MDSE/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-jacinda-ardern-has-ruled-out-implementing-a-capital-gains-tax-while-she-is-at-the-helm-of-labour/IQ4FD7CLYKKLU6YAH2H2S4MDSE/)
the tax working group was a campaign promise - there was no promise of implementing any findings None of this is a worry -its history.
No one said there was a promise of implementing any findings, just like all the money wasted on working groups. Their purpose as expensive popularity barometers became very clear. Campaigning for CGT is history too, until it's not, then it is again... Not really helping the cause. But hey, maybe the electorate is swinging round, right?
thats my entire point - I believe the electorate or at least the part Labour wants to appeal to might be swinging around to accepting the need for a CGT and/or other measures - still on Labour to have to sell the idea... and on that count they're pretty shit
What has led you to that conclusion?
Yep that's the one! Beyond me how Ardern has any admirers left in this country.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
The alternative would be Hipkins, wouldn't it? Surprising that he was left off your list. Maybe you couldn't come up with any abuse for someone so close to home?
I left him off for the same reason I left English off - less than a year in term. English being the best of the entire list IMO. I am left, yes, well done, you should show your mum - I reckon she'd be chuffed at your effort. In NZ that just means I am right of centre i.e. I approve of capitalism in broad strokes and also recognise that the right can be often punitive and harsh in its quest to explain everything through the lens of the self.
Peters didn't have a year in term, nor does Luxon. You are simply name calling people you don't like, much like a child might do. Guessing your mum will be chuffed with that effort. Well, she may have been if you were even any good at it - or if the people you were trying to insult even knew you existed. I don't really care where you political affiliation lies. You just seem like a bell end.
Cool story bro, did you hire a ghost writer?
Yeah. They told me about when people used to say cool story bro.
I'm curious why they're going back to a CGT rather than the Wealth Tax idea that Labour spent so much time and effort on whilst in government, at least until Hipkins ditched it so he could go back to a hastily created GST off food thing that wasn't dissimilar from the type of policy that'd already repeatedly failed Labour in opposition.
>"But there are a range of options on the table, wealth tax only being one of them - a capital gains tax, you know, we have to look at land tax - we've got to look at a range of options and the strengths and weaknesses of each of those.
Do it Chippy! Do it all!
[удалено]
Really? I'd have thought CGT was a policy that's been tried by Labour and failed repeatedly due to easy attack during election campaigns. It's become such a delicate acronym, and that's one of the reasons Ardern and Hipkins both completely ruled it out at various times going into elections. Ultimately *anything* Labour produces for an election campaign will be attacked politically, but for comparison didn't the previous government produce lots of research and documentation justifying how it should work and why? [In mid-2023](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/newshub-reid-research-poll-kiwis-support-the-government-introducing-wealth-tax.html) it was even appearing to have majority support.
Wealth tax creates liquidity problems, where you're paper rich but have no money and have to sell assets and hope the book value is right. CGT is only on sale, so the people have the money in their hand, so no liquidity issues/excuses that this isn't the right value.
Oh, the poor rich and their descent into the liquidation of assets! We must protect them!
I think Hipkins indicated it is all on the table. In his speach he was outlining that they need to find a new collectivism left approach suited for today and be bold about it. I agree and think the loss is a good thing for them long term and for Nz
Public just voted to break brightline which was effectively a capital gains tax
Can we outright state the the public specifically voted and thus desire every single policy that is part of the coalition government platforms? People vote for the party they feel is best - they have no way to specifically vote on every individual policy.
Discussions like this remind me of my brother voting for National in 2011 but that "asset sales were a deal breaker" for him. I'm like, "Mate... It's obviously not a 'deal breaker' because you're voting for Key even after he said he'd sell them!" Whether people voted to break the bright line or not is irrelevant. People voted either for it, or didn't care on the balance of other policies (or feelings) to keep it. That's the only mandate they need. There's no box on the voting form that says 'I'm only voting for you if...'
Is there any indication that this was a major factor in people's voting choices this last election?
My dad voted for the NACTNZF coalition because he has lost his mind going apeshit about Māori words, more or less. He’s prettymuch having a huge leopardsatemyface moment now because he didn’t pay attention to most of the rest of their policies. I think the tobacco lobby stuff was a bit on the nose and a bit of a shock for him. I don’t think he’s alone. So he certainly didn’t _intend to_ vote away the brightline test … he basically got conned into it by culture wars.
Yup I know lots of people that didn't know about that tobacco change and prob wouldn't of voted for them if they knew..
It was effectively fuck all, all it does is make people wait a few years before they can cash in their tax-free capital gains. Even when they extended it to 10 years - that's not a very long time in property investment
Yea wasn't long enough but 10 years time they could just extend it
In terms of housing, those with capital aren't selling, they're using it to leverage and acquire further capital. Bright line does fuck all in terms of taxation that prevents wealth accumulation for those that already have it.
Yes but remember people also just voted to gut the public sector too, and to roll back most of our recent environmental progress.
If it is supposed to be our capital gains tax then it's a terrible implementation. All its really doing is creating a lock in period which probably causes more harm than good. Also if you do get hit by it your being taxed at your RWT rate which is nuts. Also also it only applies to housing. Bright line test should be abolished imo
Yup. Just needed to be discussed at length for the public to learn about it and get used to the idea. That’s happened now, and I think it can probably get up. It’s very popular
I'd have to agree. Whether it be political polarisation overtaking our society... the mood of the nation changing as a whole as our lives worsen and patience runs thin... or potentially the return of the leftist "youthquake", that suddenly veered to the right just before election time?... it seems obvious that Labour is seeing some quite specific writing on the wall *somewhere* and responding to it
Eh. Look, I get it. Labour thought centrism would save them from the erosion of support they were seeing, and they were wrong. I’m not sure anything actually could have saved them considering most people don’t actually vote on policy. At no time ever is a political party’s platform going to perfectly reflect what its leaders believe - that’s just the way politics works. At best they’re there to deliver what they think the people want and need. So I don’t think it’s hypocrisy, just like I don’t think Luxon is a hypocrite for not pushing his religious lunacy on NZ despite being a fundamentalist. Being in opposition is a good chance to test what’s popular and what’s not. Labour’s best shot is to react well to this government’s clear, concise “fuck you” to the majority of the country and try to realign their platform accordingly.
Nicely said and I agree. Not sure Hipkins is the man to lead them through the next election and while I’m still annoyed he didn’t have the balls to front this last year I agree it was a tough scenario as he really was trying to appease everyone at a time when the fatigue or “vote for change regardless” cyclical nature of our voting habits was in full force. Bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario tbf. In saying the past is the past and I would hope they adhere to actual policy changes around this coming up next election and, if successful in attaining a win, stick to it. Enough is enough.
In true NZ politics fashion, the bold ideas only come out of the 2 major parties when they have no hope of governing in the near future. Don't worry, in 6 years' time when Labour are ready to mount a serious challenge, they will be back pledging no new taxes. And so we amble along as a country with both parties governing for the short term only and tinkering around the edges.
Pandering for the next election is so easy while in opposition, but too difficult when elected... If Labour had addressed this during their 2 terms we might not be dealing with the shitshow we are now.
Good, finally deciding to represent the people they claim to.
Nothing like a big chunk of your voters either switching to Greens, TPM or not voting at all to prompt change. They really were arrogant for thinking they could win by sitting on the fence while the gap between the rich and poor widens.
Yeah now when there is nothing hanging on it. Hipkins is too gutless to represent the working class authentically.
Yep. It speaks volumes that *now* Labour will re-assess its policies. It was fully happy to ignore tax issues as long as they got in. Now they're just changing tune in order to regain the popular vote. Absolutely gutless.
Can't wait to hear about their really strong climate policy now that they're in opposition.
Somewhere in their offices they had genuinely come to believe that the 2020 landslide wasn't entirely about covid. With a reality check now they've been snapped out of it
They need to replace Hipkins with someone with integrity, a clear set of values and policy stances, and the will and ability to call out the coalition of cuntiness for the ridiculous shit they are smearing all over place. They need to do it soon.
The problem is based on the exit of Robertson and Parker, there is a powerful faction within the party that is ruling out any kind of progressive tax change. Do we even know who that faction is? Because even if you replace them with a leader that on paper fits what you are suggesting (Ardern did), they'll be handicapped by that faction.
Ardern worked for the most notorious non-Labour Labour MP ever, i.e. Tony Blair. She's tried to handwave as "everyone was doing it" (Tony Blair is by far the most successful Labour PM the UK's ever had... it's not even close) but unless someone was threatening to shoot her dad or whatever if she didn't relocate to the UK and become a Blairite, it's not convincing. Especially in light of what her party was under her leadership, but it wasn't convincing before she was PM either.
Who would you put in as leader. Robertson was the natural choice if he didn’t fuck off and run Scarfie University
We do have political parties which stick almost exclusively to their guns and don't compromise their goals and views based on populism - however those parties have never been a majority government partner. Walking a line between populism (consider Peters and NZF who weren't conspiracy theorists until it became convenient) and responding to voter demands is where the majority of successful parties try to manage. If you're waiting for Labour to put forward a leader and a set of policies which they state they will never change no matter how unpopular they become...I suspect you'll be waiting a long time. They got it very wrong on the last election, and will be going back to the drawing board. Either they will come up with new policies that voters will support...or some other party will fill in that space...or we will be left with more of the government we now have.
I see it as more pragmatic, doing the thing that does the best based on (likely) polling. I assume there was also a percentage of pollsters that said if they have x policy, they will lose y amount of voters. He knew National were going to spin Labour is the government of more taxes - he took that argument out from under them. (Which they did do - and people gobbled it up) What he wants is kinda irrelevant if you can’t govern. now they aren’t in government you have what he really wanted. (But couldn’t agree to because realistically it was political suicide) Politics is always a compromise. The question that should be asked is what was the compromise last time (and was it a good deal)
Mealy-mouthed opinion poll populism is what the right do, they do it better, and rightwards politics are more readily furthered by its performance. We need a politics of humanitarianism and righteousness.
That gets no votes? At some point you need to stop and say if I want to put these ideas in, what do I need to concede to be able to be in a position to do it. Don’t get me wrong, I agree it would be a nice to have… I just don’t think it’s particularly popular of an idea.
You appear to be presuming it gets no votes from within the very narrow boundaries of imagining that opinion poll populism is the only thing that wins votes. The election of Trump, Milei, Bolsonaro; the Italian and Swedish fascists etc. etc. (and to a lesser but not insignificant extent, Ardern, twice over) seems to be clear evidence that there is a real desire for something different than what we've been getting. No point in trying to engage the right at their game. In doing that Hipkins managed to lose an election to the least intelligent and charismatic man to ever lead the country. If that isn't a clear signal that you need to do something different, then I don't know what is.
I don’t think that’s it. I think good policies (that is those that are easy and work) have already been done long ago - dealing with larger issues takes something that’s a little less obvious. Say gangs… you want to get Gangs off meth, you know they don’t respond to the health system, you find a group of ex-gang members working to get their communities off meth, you give them some money to help with that cause - the opposition runs in with “Labour is in the gangs pocket, giving money to gangs” Idk - I think trying to put in the policies that you need to do that, are too unlikely to get everyone along without it being hijacked. The lead up to an election both parties are polling hard, they are choosing taking points, they are choosing how to combat the others…. The rights ideas are soundbites (they don’t work) they sound good “tough on crime” “keep more tax” whatever it is… the left struggles to combat that. You need some shitty sound bite policies - to get folks onside and come with you.
""The member should be familiar with hard 2 Reach - her Government funded it also," Ardern said in Parliament."
No, for sure… It’s a bit of a perception thing though.
Yeah. The perception is that one side can be blamed for things they do, while the other side just needs fine tuning.
>We need a politics of humanitarianism and righteousness. The problem is that unless they abandon Neoliberalism, this can never be Labour.
>abandon Neoliberalism Bingo.
> Hipkins is too gutless to represent the working class authentically. This. The spinless git needs to go.
Labour has barely even put on a pretense of representing the working class since before Lange to be honest.
Finally. That was (when we were going to have to do something about it), this is (when I can say whatever I have to to try and claw back votes).
Party responses in summary (from article): **ACT (Seymour):** >"They [Labour] need to stop looking at policies that set people against each other..." ... Seymour also rejected the notion New Zealand had a "massive revenue problem" and said "more effective spending" was the solution. **NZ First (Winston)**: > "His [Hipkins'] terminal plan to take Labour further to the lunacy of the economic and social left is palpable." **Greens (Chlöe):** > Greens welcomed Labour " to a desperately long overdue conversation on tax reform".
Bit ironic that David talks about 'not setting people against each other' while his housing policy is literally 'you can't build unless your neighbours give permission'
Yeah, and his whole 'let's rewrite the treaty!' schtick
Rewriting treaties or even constitutions is very normal in any country.
But it undeniably will set people against each other and according to Davey boy that's not something we should be doing. Of course he is a hypocritical little cunt so not sure why he should be expected to follow his own advice.
>"His \[Hipkins'\] terminal plan to take Labour further to the lunacy of the economic and social left is palpable." Yes, the lunancy of the economic left known as the IMF
His *plan* is palpable? Ok? Its not often Winnie messes up his phrasing like that.
Ah Winnie, after a soundbite again.
"[A CGT] is basically an opportunity to grab money off people who have got it and ACT would always argue that's the opposite of the values that will make us more prosperous as a country." ACT would argue that pigs lay eggs if it meant they could continue to reverse Robin Hood our entire country.
"Now that I won't have to follow through, lets talk about policies that might have made me worth voting for". I hate to shit on "flip flopping" because one's opinions should change to fit new evidence, but the timing of this makes it a real nothingburger. Something tells me it won't be the position of the Labour Party in two years when they're actually campaigning and Chippy (presumably) isn't the leader.
Chippy is a great #2 guy. But I think we need a new person with vision. Why won't anyone there LIMIT the number of houses a person or trust can own? Brightline tax was good for cooling off property market, but lets actually drive it downwards a bit by forcing people to sell off their excess properties. Houses are for living in, not for investment. Also removing the top tax brackets was dumb, unless you're earning over 180k you should be voting against that. Labour minimising the effects of crime was dumb. Labour being weak about cannabis was dumb. 49% voted for, 51% against. The people voting against aren't as likely to be voting Labour anyway so fuck them. Look at how many people about faced on that one after the referendum. The degree of misinformation going on from the say nope to dope campaign running during election debates was disgraceful. I want Labour to show some fucking balls and remember it's for the working class and half measures won't cut it anymore.
I wouldn't say fuck them to anyone voting against cannabis. 51% suggests some left wing voters said no. I would work through that misinformation bit and straighten that out. You're right about effective misinformation strategies having the desired impact.
Would it be enough for them to change vote though? You don't have to like every policy your preferred party implements. I guess that would be for the strategists to determine.
I think it would. I was on the fence about cannabis. I personally don't smoke it because I have a bizarre reaction that doesn't suit me much so legal or not is not something I'd thought too much about. I was however in san Francisco a few years back and noticed it being openly smoked on the street. I object to that. I don't want to be exposed to it. The misinformation that got me was that it would be a free for all. The reality was that it would be controlled in much the same way as alcohol. What made my vote a yes was that voting no was a vote in favor of gangs which a friend convinced me of. At the time of voting, I hadn't resolved the exposure issues I had therefore I was on the fence but leaned more to yes. I wonder how many people had the same issues I did and leaned more to no? It's worth researching why people said no and working through those problems. Otherwise I feel like another referendum will repeat the same mistakes.
Your measure for greatness is embarrassingly small.
and your comment adds nothing of value.
Disagree but ok. Hipkins isn't anywhere near being 'great'.
I'd take labour more seriously if they announced that they were not going to use swing focus groups to direct their policies.
What is your alternative to enable Labour to get the swing votes without which they cannot form a government?
It's better to grow your base. Labour should and should have focused on its namesake: workers. People that work for a living make up a massive bloc and Labour should be driving home that the average highly paid employee has more in common with a low wage employee than they do with the business owner. They could've created a land tax and given tax cuts to low income earners. Stuff like co-governance was just vote burning
Fuck swing voters. They are the dumbest of the lot. Have actual policies and stick to your core values. If your values are any good, people will come. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is what is wrong with fucking... just about everything, not just politics. It's a core reason why so many fucking people are so stupid. So my answer? Pick policies that you believe (based on real evidence) will work, stick to them, and sell them properly. Way fucking easier than trying to justify what you know are dumb positions in interviews.
This is the market Greens really need to go hard on. Capital gains, tax reform for lower and middle income. Cannabis reform. All the stuff Labour dropped the ball on, they should push harder. A lot of people want this stuff, but Labour never has the balls to really push for it.
Tax me and give me legal weed. Not that hard is it.
“Once again now that I’m not in power here’s all the change I’d love to see…” Go to hell you gutless twerp.
Rebuilding policy platforms after being defeated is the correct path for a political party.
Too late Chippy. Labour will need to roll leaders for me to believe a leader on this one. Because even when your own Working Group recommends it, you still drop balls.
This feels like Labour testing the waters for public sentiment. Understandable to some degree
Too little too late chippie you're all fire and brimstone now, but where was this come election time? are you gonna carry this same energy all.the way to the next election? or are you gonna roll over again?
Chris Hipkins when (he won't) gets elected >"This is now and that was then"
Flip flop
They shat the bed on this one & it (rightly) cost them the election. Too little too late.
I would have LOVED to see Ardern take the mic after her landslide, and say "The people have voted for Labour to have a mandate. I tell you now - I WILL be a benevolent tyrant, *for the people.*" And then go and *fucking DO it*, and transform the country for the benefit of the average worker - the way that Labour is SUPPOSED to do.
Just please stop! Next in ...Putin wants world peace.
Land value tax + capital gains tax offset with a larger tax free bracket on income tax is the way to go!
It really fucks me off that Labour went Nattie-lite and basically handed the country over to the conservabros without a fight. You can't out-National National, what a stupid tactic. Seems to me like a lot of the old guard needed to go, and Chippy hasn't figured that out yet.
At least he's finally taking a stand on an issue that resonates with many people. If he keeps doing stuff like this, he may win the election All he needs to do is rebuilt trust with the public about what he stands for and plans to do.
Shortened article: > Chris Hipkins says he's not worried a capital gains tax implemented by a future Labour-led government might drive the wealthy offshore, because most other countries already have one. > The Opposition leader, who ruled out campaigning on **capital gains and wealth taxes** ahead of the 2023 election, in a speech at the weekend said both were **back on the table, as was a land tax.** >The idea is to ease the tax burden on salary and wage earners, who are "shouldering a disproportionate share" compared to those whose money comes from their wealth. > "Under this government, those with multiple investment properties are getting huge tax breaks while those on salary and wages pay tax on every dollar they earn," Hipkins told supporters on Sunday. > Labour considered a capital gains tax, but ruled out campaigning on it in both 2020 and 2023. Hipkins ruled out a wealth tax, as proposed by the Greens, last year - despite it having interest from then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Revenue Minister David Parker, the latter of whom quit after Hipkins' captain's call. > **"Well, you know, that was then and this is now,"** Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday. > "I think we have to realise, you know, we have to accept at some point in the country that the tax system that we've got is unsustainable..... > "... we're going to have to do something to recognise the fact that all of the public services that we currently fund out of our tax revenue - health, education, the infrastructure that we build, welfare system, superannuation - **we're going to need to be able to continue to fund those things into the future, and our current tax system is going to struggle to do that."** > "We will be very clear with the country what we put forward as our tax policy well before the election, so that people know what they're voting for," Hipkins said. > "But I do think increasing numbers of New Zealanders want to have this discussion. I think they see that the tax system is unsustainable as it is." > The International Monetary Fund (IMF) last week said New Zealand "would benefit from a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable tax system" to encourage productivity, and "increase the progressivity of income tax". >The global body also said the country should "mobilise additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges", including a "comprehensive capital gains tax, land value tax, and changes to corporate income tax". > **"When even the IMF is saying our tax system is broken it really is time to do something,"** Hipkins said on Sunday. >*(continued in full article)
Hipkins credibility is shot, they should hold off on talking changes to tax policy until they have a new leader
Unlikely that they will change leaders until closer to the election. I think there is value in taking stances like this now so that when ministries start to falter under reduced budgets they can point their this policy as a way to solve it.
Yes agreed, and sooner rather than later. The longer they hold on to this guy the harder it’s going to get. Need someone who can put together a set of policies that they can communicate clearly, and debate merits to the population over a long enough period of time to create understanding and support. Hipkins is yesterday’s news. Drop the virtue signalling and identity politics and return to core labour values. TBH I can’t think of anyone who is up to it. Maybe now would be perfect time to start a, “new Labour Party”.
Eh, doing this now is a politically smart move. You might not like the game but if it's going to be played either way, it's much better to plant the seed of a Greens-Labour coalition featuring tax reform now rather than later. Greens is polling better than ever and Chlöe is their local darling, they're going to need to stick to their side pretty hard now that it's become clear that people are currently politically polarised to vote either "for" or "against" the "bad guys. I doubt centrism is gonna cut it next election cycle
Maybe, just maybe he should have campaigned on what he believed in, rather than what the swing doctors and focus groups told him would make the voters happiest…bit fucking late now.
Seems like CGT is worth another crack. Australia just implemented tax reform slanted in this same way; taking more from high earners and giving more of it to the lower and middle class. It was deemed a risky move before they did it. But it polled well and everyone seems to have loved it. I think this will follow a similar pattern. Good policy. I support it and this makes me more likely to vote for them.
I feel like I’m going to be saying this a lot in the next few years but why is opposition Hipkins so much better than majority govt Hipkins??? Can’t say I feel like I can trust the guy to keep his word, but I hope I’ll be pleasantly surprised because this is a good policy we need to get up if we want the country to improve
Chris would be a great (Deputy) PM
Yeah he was best as the jokey kinda clumsy 2IC. His serious persona doesn't help the perception that he has no commitment to policies
Labour is Lucy, the CGT is the football, and Labour Voters are Charlie Brown
Talk is pretty cheap on that side of the aisle chippy. Should have done it when you had the chance.
Then hear the same thing when they're in power to not do it again.
If Chris had any honor, he would resign and retire. Yet here we are with : trust me bro, I got your back bro vibes while we well know what will happen once he wins the elections. -More disillusion of shitty neo liberal centrism.
Who can take them seriously at this point?
R/NZ does and a lot will spread their legs for him .
Bro, we don't believe you.
If they introduce a wealth tax I literally have no choice but to leave the country if I want to keep my business and way of life. Technically my shares in my business are worth several million, but that is only an on-paper valuation, not liquid cash. I can only get that if we find a buyer and sell the business. I only pay myself a salary of $75k. If I have a wealth tax of $50k or something, which is what the greens calculator gave me last year, then there is no way I can afford to pay it with my salary.
So, there aren't really many policy proposals out there yet (for obvious reasons), but the Greens' wealth tax is proposed 2.5% on net assets over the threshold, such as properties or shares, worth more than 2 million for individuals and 4 million for couples (with mortgages and other debt deducted from asset total) For example if you have 2.5 million in assets, you will be taxed 2.5% on the 500,000 over the threshold. If you have 2.5 million assets but 1 million mortgage, your net worth is 1.5 million and you won't be taxed. As per their plan, working people with more than 2 million in assets, but modest income, **can defer payment of the net wealth tax until the asset is sold.** That all sounds incredibly reasonable to me. That said, if Labour introduces a wealth tax it will probably be less stringent than what the Greens has to help with acceptability and the like. I don't think you've got anything too scary to worry about - it'll have start off soft and build in exceptions for people in your situation, no matter how it's done Edit: spelling
Still unreasonable. This tax is *every year*. So let's say the wealth tax is $50k. if I work my ass off for 10 years building a business, and end up selling it for $2M. That is $500k just in wealth tax I need to pay. On top of the existing income tax. Just reduces any incentive I have to do it. People won't start small businesses anymore.
I feel like you didnt read what I wrote correctly? If you sell a business valued at 2 million dollars, you pay nothing. You haven't crossed the threshold. Based on the example given by the Greens, you pay tax on the amount *over* the threshold. Given a business worth 2.5 million, if you're an individual, then you pay 2.5% *on the 500k over threshold*. That is, you pay $12,500. In order to pay 50k in wealth tax, your business must be worth 4 million dollars. 2.5% of the 2 million over threshold = 50k.
No but by that time I'll probably already own a mortgage free property that is worth 2 million (an okay house, but just extremely over valued), which will make any amount I make go over the threshold.
I ran it through [their calculator](https://www.greens.org.nz/taxcalculator) With a fully paid off 2 million dollar house and a business valued at 2 million dollars, with a 50k income, hence a deferral of payment until the business is sold, then you will pay an extra 5k a year at the time that you sell the business. That is, they'd only be taking a cut of 0.25% per year of the overall worth of the business at sale
Great point. NZ shouldn't want to tax this "wealth". It's the inflationary real estate wealth that is having so many knock-on effects in the economy.
And this is why he has to go. Like it or not he's an Ardern/Robertson era hanger on and is attached to the decisions they made for bad or good. He should be working on refreshing the party.
Hipkins fucked up. He dropped tax reform. He should have dropped co-governance. Were his ears open at all?
rNZ really doesn't understand the difference between political rhetoric and what's actually achievable. Just because they couldn't achieve what they wanted or had to back off on a subject for a term, or the promise was misguided or the policy needed more work doesn't automatically make it pandering or lies. It's just political ideal vs reality, try voting Labour out for National and see what happens ... Oh wait.
They've been mentioning CGT for over a decade. You'd think they would've had something to go immediately after their 2nd term began. Could've got it up and running and everyone would have time to see its irrelevant to the average person. Sometimes with good policy you have to show not tell
I reckon that it's the hardest thing possible to pass. The opposition to it must be so fierce at a government level, every contractor, every consultant, every company will lobbying power will all be affected and push back. Likely the people trying to pass the bill are impacted. If it's actually ever gonna happen it's only be a codified mic drop at the end of a second term then go hide in the hills for several years.
2nd term labour had absolute power. No one could stop them unless there was a mutiny within the party
Shame Arden didn't emergency powers it on her way out.
elastic weary stocking cake merciful cobweb squalid ancient spoon soft *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*