• RaoulDukeOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jacinda turned up her nose at every opportunity to use her popularity to do some good. To her, making real change wasn’t worth losing a few percentage points in the polls.

    Hipkins can’t follow in her footsteps if he wants to win. People want things to change.

    • BalpeenHammer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you are mistaken about how many people want the radical change people online are demanding.

      • RaoulDukeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not talking about radical change. Things like CGT are a no-brainer. I’ve never heard someone make a coherent argument as to why we should leave a tax hole that every other wealthy nation has closed. A hole that encourages people to invest in non-productive assets.

        That’s why everyone knew the Tax Working Group would recommend a CGT - because it’s the first thing any tax expert says about our system. And yet Jacinda couldn’t even bring herself to do that.

        • BalpeenHammer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          How has the CGT worked out in the other countries? Is there no inflation in those countries, do they have a fairer taxation system? Do they have better income inequality?

          • RaoulDukeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re expecting fixing a single loophole in tax law will solve all those problems at once, I’ve got some bad news for you.

            But obviously that’s no reason to leave a loophole there. As I said, any expert in tax law will tell you that it’s stupid not to have a CGT. And I’ve never heard a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets.

            • BalpeenHammer
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My point is that it hasn’t done what you are claiming it’s going to do. So what’s the use of it?

                • BalpeenHammer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Fix our economic woes? Raise the tax take? Provide better public services? Make the tax system fair?

                  Any of those?

                  If not then feel free to tell me what you think it’s going to accomplish.

                  • RaoulDukeOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.

                    Have a think about this - given that experts in the field all believe that we should have a CGT, what do you know that they don’t? Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?

                    On a side note: You’ll have a much easier time understanding the world if you realise not everything is black and white. Outlawing murder didn’t fix all our societal woes, but that’s doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.