Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, June 21st, 2026 - 63 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
This is of such an outlandish level of ineptness, there is little like it apart from Reform Party candidates in the UK, or the current US administration. Complete nonsense.
First – no small nation can make a meaningful contribution to collective security (and certainly not so far from where the conflicts are).
Second – there is no such thing as a potentially nuclear-powered vessel. It either is, or is not.
Third – we have no defence alliance guarantee from the USA, our active defence alliance is with Australia. Luxon will not be PM when Australia gets nuclear-powered subs. The person who will be is probably yet to be an MP. Such subs do not need to visit a foreign port, their role is length of time at sea capability.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360995067/we-exhale-nothing-hypocrisy-why-our-defence-plan-failing
According to the Herald this morning the Greens are now proposing a Super-rich Tax rather than a Wealth Tax. This will avoid the criticism of asset-rich but cash-poor pensioners having to pay a Wealth Tax. It considerably narrows the number of people affected, where only people with assets of $10 million or more (rater than $2 million previously) are affected.
"Under the old 2025 policy, a 2.5% tax would be applied on net assets, like property and shares, over an individual threshold of $2m. That policy would have generated more than $72b over four years, including via anti-tax avoidance measures.That has been dialled way back to an election policy of a 2.5% annual tax on net assets above $10m (as opposed to $2m). It’s now expected to make $15.8b over four years."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2026-greens-tax-plan-released-online-early-sees-party-dramatically-rein-in-ambitions/Q2KBEETURNB3TOC6MRS5K3GMXM/
Let's just call it the Green Party Envy tax and be done with it.
The main problem with their old policy, which their supporters have probably just realised, is they would have had to pay it.
The chance of the tax bringing in anything like they claim is negligible. People like the Mowbray brothers or Graeme Hart aren't likely to stay here. It will be just like the situation in California, where people who have built major companies are getting out of the state rather than risk the equivalent tax that Public Service unions are proposing.
It isn't a real attempt at improving the tax system. It is simply an expression of the fact that they hate successful people.
Why not come up with a simple means of raising a little bit of money. Simply agree that the place of abode of a list MP is Wellington and that no accommodation allowances or family travel costs will be provided for them. We can cover any real costs of moving to Wellington, such as house sale costs and moving expenses if they really do move here and sell their house where they actually currently live but they get nothing if they don't choose to move.
Why do you think the Greens hate you?
How much is that going to raise? To embellish your claim, you’re allowed to multiply by four.
How much? Not much, but wouldn't you love to see the New Zealand First MP Andy Foster lose the $36,000 / year that he is currently claiming for Wellington accommodation when he lives in the Wairarapa?
Or do you perhaps approve of him claiming it?
So, you’re successful at trolling? Greens don’t hate successful people, but Mods hate trolls.
Envy does motivate behaviour – more subliminally than consciously. In politics, inertial force of class division from the 19th century cannot be discounted.
Greens would argue that their navel-gazing around identity politics suppresses class consciousness. Hard to disagree, yet the lack of equity in western civilisation is more due to entrenched power imbalances than lack of effort by left-wingers, imo.
Ethos tends to cohere mass attitudes on the basis of mythos, norms, rules, customs etc, which is all good & natural until warped by us vs them into social darwinism.
Meanwhile, traditionalists still point to the morality angle:
If such antiquated theology still had import, we'd see left-wingers doing cancel culture. Oh wait…
Trolling again Alwyn. I'm not going to waste my time on your comments.
But for the record I like the new Super-tax idea and I think Labour should adopt it in coalition.
“Let's just call it the Green Party Envy tax”
If I wanted to give it a silly name, I'd probably call it The Green Party Anti-Market Perversity Tax. Because by setting it at $10M, they are making a reasonable claim that wealth above that level cannot in any meaningful sense, be called 'earned' or 'deserved'. Nobody with such levels of wealth has worked that much harder than the average person, or done things that are intrinsically that much more difficult, or created that much more social value. Personal wealth above that level is generally a sign of disproportionate market power in action, such as price-setting power where competition is lacking, or the bonus that accrues to the mere ownership of wealth-producing assets.
Put simply, wealth is created collectively, undoubtedly with unequal levels of contribution. But it is maldistributed individually in a way that defines 'contribution' in a completely inadequate way.
OK we need to deal with the capital flight from new tax question squarely.
While it is true that a few of our billionaires could shift, it's a small minority.
Most of our billionaires have assets that are stuck here and can't move: hydroelectricity assets, solar farms, real estate developments, resorts farms, film studios, ski fields, fishing companies with factories and fish tied to quota, milk conglomerates. None of those are mobile.
Even a big one like Infratil still has 90% of its wealth tied up in big sold fixed assets here and in Australia.
So that 1% that the Greens are targeting should well be afraid: they have in general no protection from it.
Where the assets are doesn't matter. It is whether a person is a resident for tax purposes. Nobody who lives permanently overseas and owns shares in FPH for example has to pay tax, or put in a tax return, in New Zealand,
They don't have to to do anything except become non-resident for tax purposes as far as I can see. That just means not owning a permanent place of abode here and being away for 325 days in a year.
Then you are a non-resident for tax purposes and will remain so as long as you don't spend more than 183 days here in any subsequent year.
At least that is how I, and remember I'm not a lawyer, read it.
Hey I'm no tax expert wither and am making my way through these claims. But if you are a non-resident, the Inland Revenue (IRD) most certainly taxes you on New Zealand-sourced income, completely shielding your offshore assets and global net worth from New Zealand taxation.
I don't find this objectionable: I want the rich to stay here and go hoover the rest of the world of the money and spend it here.
That is true. My comment about not paying tax is not quite right. However it is the same rate for everybody for the relevant income, which would be dividends and interest NRWT and it is only on payments actually received and not on how rich you are in total. It isn't a progressive tax. It is this wealth tax which the Green's are proposing that won't apply to an expatriate.
Presuming she has accurate advice from pro economists to back that up, I reckon it will boost GP political influence. Unless there's a hidden flaw, well done!
Agree Dennis…it is very clever.
National will argue the rich pricks will flee the country. Good riddance is what I say.
And what about the thousands of jobs they take with them when they move their businesses offshore, is that good riddance too?
France, Germany and Sweden are all examples of countries that introduced wealth taxes and then largely abandoned them when they caused significant capital flight and failed to generate the tax that was expected.
That's one area where the has-been nACTf CoC has been particularly productive.
We don't need a wealth tax to see what individual and corporate greed looks like.
Re corporate greed, there's plenty on display – just ask the CoC experts: CEO Luxon, former Fonterra lobbyist and lucky but fair Lotto lady Nicola Willis, Shane 'Mine, Baby, Mine' Jones, and Atlas Dave and his deputy van Velden.
The jobs don't go, or at least they don't have to go.
Only the owner has to up sticks. We'll lose all the tax they currently pay of course but so what? People like BG will be quite happy if someone living here and paying a million a year in tax departs, taking that tax payment with them.
Yes that sucks out much of the Wanaka bourgeoisie anxiety.
BG you'll be fine now.
Despite the wintery, overcast morning here in the 'Tu, it's jolly sunny.
A rugby masterclass from the Hurricanes at the Caketin last night. A 60-5 shelacking of the Chiefs in the Super Rugby Final, farewelling around 12 players in fine style.
In the first half there was a touch of luck, bounce of the ball, 50/50 calls all going the home team's way. There was a thought that the wind was perhaps a 20 point wind as the Chiefs struggled to exit their half, not to be. 29-0 at half time. 60-5 at the final whistle.
Rueben Love won a tightly contested MOTM, over the likes of Josh Moorby and Xavier Numia (both should be recognised for higher honours on Monday lunchtime), Jordy Barrett and Asafo Aumua. Love’s all round performance showed he is ready to steer the team in black around. His place kicking outstanding including hitting the posts 4 times with one going in off.
The sign of a good team is the wingers scoring trys and all season both Canes edge men have topped the try scoring lists. Quite possibly the best Hurricanes team.
Thoughts go to the Chiefs, undone by atrocious conditions, D-Mac shut down, the shadow of being three times second best in finals footy in a row and a feeling of having played their final to subdue a peaking Canterbury team last week.
The full crowd played their part, massed choir version of Country Roads a highlight.
If the All Blacks can play this style of rugby this season, the long range forecast is for more sunny weather.
Ah, thanks for that review. I did mean to watch it but was too busy to remember. I agree the yeller fellers have been so onto it this season it's hard to avoid awesome. Be interesting to see how that affects All Black selection and tactics.
Awesome match agreed; very entertaining.
The insights of Ian Powell are always worth my time. He’s attempted doing an analysis of The Opportunity Party aka TOP.
https://politicalbytes.blog/2026/06/20/when-opportunity-knocks-for-the-opportunity-party/ [HT to Scoop: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2606/S00049/when-opportunity-knocks-for-the-opportunity-party.htm]
Re corporate greed, there's plenty on display – just ask the CoC experts: CEO Luxon, former Fonterra lobbyist and lucky but fair Lotto lady Nicola Willis, Shane 'Mine, Baby, Mine' Jones and, last but not least, Atlas Dave and his deputy van Velden.
In 2017 the USA had progressive tax for companies
In 2018 it introduced a flat rate of 21%.
Before then it had a top rate of 35% over $10M. And lower rates of 15% and 25%.
We should move to a low rate (20% new and or qualifying*), a standard rate of 25%, medium rate for established businesses and non qualifying (28%) and higher rate (33% for the 4 large banks)
*employment etc
https://vote.nz/
Under the "old" 2025 Green Party wealth tax policy, a 2.5% tax would be applied on net assets, such as property and shares, over an individual threshold of $2 million.
That policy would have generated more than $72b over four years, including via anti-tax avoidance measures.
That has been dialled way back to an election policy of a 2.5% annual tax on net assets above $10m (as opposed to $2m). It’s now expected to make $15.8b over four years.
That means Greens are targeting the top 1% of asset owners in NZ (Over $8.5m) rather than the top 5% (over $4m).
Plenty of New Zealanders can dream of getting to $4m, but outside of a Division 1 Lotto no one is getting to $10.
Makes the whole concept less scary.
Hopefully they are prepared for the inevitable capital flight questioning.
We need Oz to have estate taxation. The USA and UK have estate taxation.
We really don't. Neither the US nor UK are useful examples of tax for us to follow.
Thanks for saying what Parker and Robertson now know, the biggest obstacle to just tax policy is the New Zeland Labour Party.
To the right of the Tory Party of the UK and the GOP of the USA.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/13/a-wonk-waves-goodbye/
Do you need the Labour Party 2026 Capital Gains Tax spelled out for you again?
* Capital Gains Tax | New Zealand
I'm guessing you don't know the number of elections we have fought and lost directly due to any hint that we are raising taxes. Go right ahead and let your idealism fly to Cuba or whatever remaining tax paradise you see fit.
We are 6 months from an election. Even the Greens Party had to figure out tax politics today.
FYI
*the Green Party moderated its wealth tax and added an estate tax to bring in extra money
*DP and GR were looking at at wealth tax that would bring in more money than a comprehensive CGT, let alone one limited to property.
Did you guys miss the bit in the Budget where banks were specifically targetted and billed by the government?
Financial industry to bear the cost for regulation | Beehive.govt.nz
National has formed the policy wedge for all parties to widen later. Not that we need to praise them, but it is a very big tax policy opening.
Yeah
It raises $209 million over the next four years – that is $50m pa.
Do you know the difference between that and an extra 5% tax on the profit made by the 4 banks?
Oh sure. Did you notice the lack of complaint from the banks in total? The important point is establishing the principle of taxing banks specifically.
The rest is just politics, one term at a time of increases. No need to rush, or all those banks will just find was to load all those new corporate expenses onto us customers.
Ayatollah using moderates on a leash: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/20/where-do-irans-political-factions-stand-on-the-us-peace-deal
This is sensible: an enemy is likely to shift position anytime. Trump has made a feature of his natural tendency to contradict his stances. There's an analogy to quantum physics evident here: position of enemy is an envelope of possibilities. Quantum reality is detectable by experiment, so you take a pot-shot at the enemy to see if it explodes. Geopolitics then degenerates into random pot-shots from both sides simultaneously, guided by intelligence that may or may not be reliable. Chances are.
This is called matching the Australian rate of 12%. In Australia this is all paid by the employer.
Labour could propose an alternative
It remains voluntary
The employer pays first 2% then 3% and later 4%^ for all employees.
Otherwise the employee contribution is matched by the employer.
If 1% then 1%.
Ultimately
If 4%, then 4% (plus 4^) – also 12%.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360995655/national-pledges-address-kiwisaver-motherhood-penalty
The closer we align with Australia in all things tax, the better: fewer reasons to emigrate.
Otherwise National is shamelessly copying what NZFirst launched last weekend.
It's very easy to see cross-Palriamentary agreement on Kiwisaver compulsion as the first step toward cross-Parliamentary agreement on many more Superannuation policies.
High time we all got Superannuation off the electoral table, and stopped pretending.
It is not Australian policy being proposed by National.
Compulsory rate at 6% for workers going to food banks now?
People would be more likely to go to Oz than they are now.
Pretending what?
National want a higher retirement age, as the only means to reduce the future super cost. Is there anything working class in that?
Super cost is only unaffordable because we have no estate tax to manage the boomer demographic.
When they agree on CGT for property, stamp tax (above $2M) and an estate tax – then look at harmonisation.
Just compulsory to start with. We are slightly better as a country at saving than we used to be, but it's still terrible.
I would be quite happy to see higher taxs on those earning over $180,000, and zero tax breaks for family trusts … then use that tax income to have zero tax on the first $12,000 of income like Australia.
That would be a massive boost for both Superannuants and beneficiaries alike.
We already have a functioning CGT; we just call it a Bright Line Test. National invented it, Labour Strengthened it, National weakened it, and Labour just need to strengthen it again as they are promising to.
The detail is here
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360891041/bright-line-test-vs-labours-capital-gains-tax-whats-difference
Agree the BLT should go back to 10 years as a de facto CGT.*
In fact maybe it should be 20 years. From memory it came out a while ago that Treasury had recommended 20 years when Labour set it at 10.
*there is already a Land Tax called rates.
I’d say that most of the exodus to Australia is because of better job opportunities over there.
In any case, the NZ economy is quite different from Australia’s, so this difference ought to be reflected in the respective tax systems.
There are very clear reasons why Australia's tax system has strong reaasons to move from New Zealand:
1. Bracket Creep and Thresholds: Many New Zealanders find Australia's personal income tax brackets more favourable. Australia's tax brackets traditionally offer better threshold adjustments against inflation compared to New Zealand, meaning Kiwis often experience greater take-home pay and less "bracket creep".
2. Higher Gross Wages: The overarching draw is significantly higher baseline salaries in Australia. Workers in equivalent professions can earn up to 30% to 50% more, which leaves a substantially larger net disposable income even when tax and living costs are accounted for.
3. Mandatory Superannuation: Australia has a higher mandated employer superannuation guarantee of 11.5% compared to New Zealand's 3% KiwiSaver contribution, drastically boosting long-term retirement savings.
4. Capital Gains Tax exemption. and exemption from the Medicare Levy.
And finally, if you are pretty poor already, your first AU $12,000 is tax free unlike here.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/02/nz-graduates-are-being-pushed-not-pulled-to-australia/
Correlation is not causation, so all the secondary extraneous factors you listed probably play some role with some emigrants.
Could you explain number 4? I lived in Australia for about 7 years in the 70's and had to pay both. Have things changed?
Helen Clark says we need to deal with the structural deficit over the medium to longer term.
She sees no need to include super in this.
Hootonesque stances are envisaged: https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/06/20/the-secret-diary-of-matthew-hooton/
Media consumers like to lap it up. Perhaps they all have dogs and are into mimicry. So making a pr specialist a media editor is likely to ensure that the newsfeed gets tastier.
Nice touch from the Green Party to announce their wealth tax policy on the tomb of Michael Joseph Savage in Auckland:
A Tax System for All of Us | Green Party of Aotearoa NZ
So Stuff is reporting that Luxon used his speech to make a pitch to voters that National was the “serious” party.
With Luxon reportedly saying “It's not serious to raise taxes on every New Zealander who works, to further subsidise the lifestyles of those who don't,” referring to the Green’s tax plan announced today.
Yet, that is not the Green Party policy. Note Stuff failed to clarify that. Nevertheless, hard to take Luxon seriously when he's talking crap
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360995655/national-pledges-address-kiwisaver-motherhood-penalty
Difference between reporting and commentating.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/about-stuff/300729142/news-or-opinion-how-we-manage-commentary-from-our-journalists
What's your point?
It’s buried in your comment to which I replied, obviously.
Jenna Lynch's piece is reporting not opinion.
Indeed, weka. And reporting like that is another example of why people no longer trust them
Trust in media is naive but also part of normalcy, huh? Consensus reality has always been a chimera composed by gossip. We're meant to use labels:
Stuff editorial schema delineated there is a hexad (6 categories): analysis, opinion, review, satire, advice, and reader report. These labels signal to readers how to take the import of the writing. We appreciate such guidance (often).
This hexad informs the media/culture interface for all participants. Media consumers import whatever seems interesting. Assimilation produces a sense of how important to you the message actually is. Our system rapidly flushes out anything lacking importance to us. The hexad is an organising schema for this.
What sorted CEO Luxon would say to you is it's easy to see what he's serious about.
For people concerned about the government's plans to raid the natural world by amending the Conservation Act, Forest & Bird Society has put out:
* a useful summary of the main changes, and
* a guide to making a submission to Parliament.
Submissions close Thursday 2 July.
See https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/sites/default/files/2026-06/CAB26%20submissions%20guidance%20quick.pdf
Note: make it a personal submission, not one on behalf of NZ Forest & Bird Society.
100% Thanks for the link.
So far no party has come up with concrete ways to regulate the power companies, or the supermarkets. That is where the real bills lie.
So I love nationals kiwisaver plan ,
Don't mind the greens tax plan but do it for tax cuts do it to fix the core stuff thar makes life better, like health and housing and feeding and educating kids ,
Will the ability to reply on android ever come back ??
I hope so, and on my iphone. The problem is it's not universal.
'Well', anyone can become 'distracted' by (political) ideology – the question is whether ideology-based decision making is more likely to be characteristic of our nACTf CoC, or of our Medical Council leadership. Given health Minister Brown's latest manoeuvre, I wonder what the nACTf CoC is ripening Kiwis up for on the private health front. Nice little earner that, the private health business – have a banana!