Nat/act/nzf 2023

[Bjauck]

Chris Luxon suggesting some form of capital gains tax??? - Yeah Right. I will wait with bated breath for the announcement.

Not even “Taxcinda” could bring herself to introduce a CGT. Just imagine the stampede to ACT, NZF and even Labour if Luxon looked at an IMF report recommending a CGT. Nope, the runway lights are being polished in preparation for another Real estate market take-off.

[Panda-NZ-]

What did become of the kiwisaver raid policy for bonds?

Landlords and employers must have flexibility to cancel at will, but young students with unstable work (due to the policy) must be in bondage with their kiwisaver funds.

[Aaron]

Not even “Taxcinda” could bring herself to introduce a CGT. Just imagine the stampede to ACT, NZF and even Labour if Luxon looked at an IMF report recommending a CGT. Nope, the runway lights are being polished in preparation for another Real estate market take-off.

Am I being unfair blaming the boomers? I guess it is the 60% of homeowners who are directing policy. Any millennial who recently purchased will be even more pro the housing market than the average mortgage free boomer I would imagine.

[dobby41]

Well, you did not say with respect to knocking what type of success was the Kiwi way. The Kiwi way is to tax income from personal effort relatively hard, but to treat more leniently those who inherit wealth or have real estate wealth, compared with other countries. However sure, they do have to get off their butt to visit their solicitor.

High rates of GST on everything including food hit the poorer more than the richer. It is a regressive tax.

Maybe you guys have a different definition for “got off their butt”.

Australia tax the income from personal effort harder nearer the top. Someone suggested that the top tax rate kicks in at $140k, here it doesn't kick in till $180k.
And then they tax capital gains, throw in a bit of stamp duty.

[Panda-NZ-]

Maybe it is a fight between rich and poor although I am not sure where the line is drawn between rich and poor. I might even be in the rich camp but my heart isn't in the fight if we are shi*ting on the poor and blaming them for being lazy and stupid.

There are plenty of poor who vote conservative in NZ don't worry - and the opposite is true. Look at Auckland Central (left bastion these days).

[Bjauck]

Am I being unfair blaming the boomers? I guess it is the 60% of homeowners who are directing policy. Any millennial who recently purchased will be even more pro the housing market than the average mortgage free boomer I would imagine.

It is the economic situation coupled with the NZ tax system as opposed to a particular generation, that may be the issue. With the decades of past asset inflation, exceeding growth in incomes, it makes it more difficult for those without assets to accumulate their own assets. So it is mostly, but not only, the younger taxpayers.

While some may inherit (tax-free in NZ) a share in their parents’ assets, many will not. The disparity between rich and poor looks set to grow, along with associated social issues.

[moka]

............

To me they come across as two sensible ideas that both major political parties and the last 4 prime ministers have ruled out. Boomer greed is firmly entrenched as this would be the cohort most affected by these changes. They are lucky to have Chris Luxon as PM as he stands for everything they do.

...............

In my opinion talking about “boomer greed” is scapegoating.
Approximately 48.1% of Baby Boomers in New Zealand own their home outright.

While the concept of "boomer greed" encapsulates frustrations about economic disparities and policy impacts, it is essential to recognize the complexity of these issues and the various factors at play in shaping economic realities for different generations.

The narrative of "boomer greed" has fueled intergenerational tensions, with younger individuals expressing frustration over perceived inequities. Some commentators argue that this discourse distracts from broader systemic issues, such as corporate greed and economic policies that favor the wealthy elite, rather than focusing solely on generational differences.

Blaming boomers for these systemic issues oversimplifies complex economic dynamics. Professor Clive Hamilton from Charles Sturt University asserts that the notion of boomers as a greedy generation is misguided. He suggests that wealth accumulation is a natural outcome of longer workforce participation rather than an act of selfishness. Hamilton emphasizes that older generations have historically been scapegoated for societal problems, a trend that continues today.

[Aaron]

In my opinion talking about “boomer greed” is scapegoating.
Approximately 48.1% of Baby Boomers in New Zealand own their home outright.

While the concept of "boomer greed" encapsulates frustrations about economic disparities and policy impacts, it is essential to recognize the complexity of these issues and the various factors at play in shaping economic realities for different generations.

The narrative of "boomer greed" has fueled intergenerational tensions, with younger individuals expressing frustration over perceived inequities. Some commentators argue that this discourse distracts from broader systemic issues, such as corporate greed and economic policies that favor the wealthy elite, rather than focusing solely on generational differences.

Blaming boomers for these systemic issues oversimplifies complex economic dynamics. Professor Clive Hamilton from Charles Sturt University asserts that the notion of boomers as a greedy generation is misguided. He suggests that wealth accumulation is a natural outcome of longer workforce participation rather than an act of selfishness. Hamilton emphasizes that older generations have historically been scapegoated for societal problems, a trend that continues today.

Apologies to all boomers, although I wonder if what Stanley Druckenmiller discusses here also applies to NZ as well as the USA. Although the video is 10 years old he was surprised at how little has changed since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXAEw8psMuQ

[moka]

Gen X probably not much different from Boomers. They may not have got free tertiary education but they own houses and will probably be relying on national superannuation in retirement.

The introduction and expansion of student debt in the United States was largely encouraged by neoliberal ideology, which gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. Here are the key points about how neoliberal ideology influenced student debt:
Neoliberalism promoted the view that higher education was primarily a private good rather than a public one. This led to:

• Reduced government funding for public universities and colleges
• Increased reliance on tuition and fees to fund higher education
• The idea that students should bear more of the cost of their education as an "investment" in their future

Emphasis on Individual Responsibility
Neoliberal ideology emphasized personal responsibility and market-based solutions. This manifested as:

• A shift away from government grants toward student loans
• The belief that students should be responsible for financing their own education
• Framing education as a consumer product rather than a public good

Financialization of Education
The neoliberal approach encouraged the financialization of higher education:

• Expansion of federal student loan programs
• Growth of private student lending
• Treating student debt as a financial asset that could be packaged and traded

Political Shifts
Conservative political movements, influenced by neoliberal thinking, actively worked to reduce public funding for higher education:

• Reagan administration cuts to education funding in the 1980s
• Justification of cuts as part of a "philosophical shift" toward individual responsibility
• Portrayal of students as potential economic burdens rather than societal investments

In essence, neoliberal ideology reframed higher education from a public good worthy of government support to a private investment that individuals should finance themselves, often through debt. This ideological shift underpinned policy changes that led to the growth of the modern student loan system in the United States

[Panda-NZ-]

The introduction and expansion of student debt in the United States was largely encouraged by neoliberal ideology, which gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. Here are the key points about how neoliberal ideology influenced student debt:
Neoliberalism promoted the view that higher education was primarily a private good rather than a public one.

Then they shipped all the low skill jobs overseas, necessitating a higher education. So I guess it is (or should be) a public good again?