Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 28th, 2026 - 55 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 …
FGS, Labour, read the room!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/health/1155858/two-thirds-of-new-zealanders-willing-to-pay-more-tax-for-better-healthcare
A policy, like the Greens, of more tax, especially targeted at the ultra rich who have disproportionally benefitted from the last 40 years of neoliberalism, would be a sure-fire winner – except for a chicken-heart like Hipkins, who seems afraid of disturbing the pond!
(Excuse the mixed metaphors!)
FFS Tony go read Labour policy.
The Capital Gains Tax Labour will put in is dedicated to healthcare entirely.
Forget any other tax policy. If you want a different government to this one, Labour's tax policy is the one you are going to get.
And it is precisely dedicated to healthcare – unlike any other scheme going.
And is healthcare the only deficit area after 40+ years of Neoliberalism?
as far as I can tell the CGT would pay for three GP/nurse visits per year. Some background changes as well. Not sure how $14m per year after set up can be justified for the medicard for that, but I guess it's opening the door for medical digital ID. I didn't see anything about privacy in Labour's material.
https://www.labour.org.nz/medicard
It's not nothing, but it's also small and odd. For someone with a CSC it's a saving of $60/year. For those without a CSC, it's considerably more. That will help lower income people without a CSC, but the problem is why someone with a decent income should be getting three free visits, rather than someone on the bones of their arse who has regular medical need should only get three.
I like the idea of universal services, and if this is an opening to that being extended out, ok. I'm not sure if it is though.
In an country with health and wealth inequalities as great as this, we need to start challenging the necessity of public service universality. That's why essentially hypothecating a Capital Gains Tax to healthcare is a real logic change: take from the rich and distribute with targeted services to those who need it.
The CCS Card is going to be as powerful as the Gold Card.
it's not going to those that need it though, it's going to everyone.
How will the CSC become more powerful? Did you mean the medicard?
Look you either want universality or you don't.
Obviously if it's going to everyone it's going to the people that need it.
as I said, if this is a step towards universality, that's a good thing. But I'm not sure if it is.
Equally obviously, there are a lot of people in greater need who won't get much relief, because it is universal rather than targeted.
A country as resource rich as we are shouldn't have the inequalities we have.
It's the system that is failing us.
This hatred of taxes (which is simply greed) needs to be tackled.
Paul Henry wants Aotearoa to return to how it was when he came through.
A return to 60% top tax rate.
I also have questions about just how much is going to be generated by a CGT.
Because, right now, the market is stable, if not dropping (certainly some areas are well-down) – and there is likely to be little, if any capital gain to be harvested.
The CGT will only kick in for gains accruing after July 2027 (they propose that all property be re-valued on that date – I can see a rort here – where there will be an incentive to value as highly as possible for this purpose)
https://www.labour.org.nz/election-policy-pages/capital-gains-tax/
Unless Labour are assuming that the property market is going to continue to rise – which is counter-intuitive – since they want property prices to fall to increase affordability) – I really don't see that there is going to be a great deal of income coming in. Certainly not in the early stages (since there will be a great deal of incentive *not* to sell).
I suspect that the cost of the 3 free visits to GP policy is going to have to be supplemented by other means.
If I purchase a house for say $500,000 and its value then falls to $400,000 prior to 1/4/2027 (V day), presumably $400,000 will be it's value on V day. If I sell subsequently for $500,000 my actual gain will be zero, and on that gain I will have to pay $28,000 tax. I would not be a happy chappy if that happened.
what was the GV when you bought it? You seem to be conflating GV with sale price.
The GV at the time you bought it doesn't matter for CGT purposes – only the value in June 2027 (when the CGT clock gets reset).
So, entirely possible to lose money on the sale (make less than you bought it for), AND have a CGT tax bill.
Of course, you wouldn't want to sell under those circumstances – but external reasons arise (deceased estate, divorce, job loss, health crisis, etc).
Just tracked down the actual detailed policy document – and if you sell at a loss, then you don't pay tax (or at least I don't think so)
But, it looks as though you have to rebuy property in order to fully benefit.
https://www.labour.org.nz/capitalgainstax
[Scroll down to the bottom to download the detailed policy document]
It also appears that all inheritance (including investment properties) is exempt from CGT. Giving people a very strong incentive not to sell – if they want their children to inherit.
https://www.labour.org.nz/capitalgainstax
Given it only applies on a realised gain via sale.
That could be avoided by inheriting collectively (share of property each or sole beneficiary).
I'm assuming the market price would have been $500,000 when I bought it. However it not have made any difference: I would still be paying tax on a non existent gain after V day. I think that’s how IRD would see things, but of course they may have wanted to tax me anyway.
Not many investors would be happy with a loss on their investment. But not all investments gain all the time, you know.
Most investors, faced with a loss, would take it on the chin. But paying tax on a phantom loss might be another matter. However it’s just a theoretical situation unlikely to arise.
Your rather unrealistic example showed an actual gain of zero, which is not a loss, neither phantom nor real. Of course, you left out other costs associated with a property sale, so any CGT would simply be added to overall cost/loss. Such is and would be the nature of investing, in this case, in property. Arguably, your ‘theoretical situation’, as unlikely and unrealistic as it is, is a sure sign of a poor investment decision/choice and/or poor investor.
Arguably, your ‘theoretical situation’, as unlikely and unrealistic as it is, is a sure sign of a poor investment decision/choice and/or poor investor.
Not so. It would actually be a transitional cost of moving to a system of land tax.
A “fiscal hole”
Or a ‘hidden bill’ ?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360992641/willis-claims-labour-has-182b-hidden-bill-election-funding-row-escalates
No need to be suspicious, as the (soft) numbers (estimates) are specified in B&W in Labour’s policy documents, if you can be bothered to read them.
Except it's a dumb healthcare spend. I would support CGT for cancer drugs but not 3 x free GP visits. Hipkins can stick his three free visits… my issues (and countless others) is GP supply not GP price!! I pay $15 bucks for a GP visit but I CAN'T get an appointment. 3 free GPs (when I can afford $45) is as wasteful as poor people paying for rich kids free uni fees.
Basic healthcare is far more beneficial for more unhealthy people.
And no, one start at a CGT isn't going to solve all health problems.
CGT proceeds would be paid into the considered fund, and health needs met from there. The statement that the two would be related is just political puffery. Even if the CGT yielded nothing they would still meet whatever health needs were necessary.
What’s a “considered fund”?
"considered" is a typo. I meant to say "consolidated" but mistyped the word and the stupid AI interpreted what I had written as "considered".
Over time, the CGT revenue will grow much larger than the total cost of funding three free doctor’s visits for all New Zealanders. What’s your evidence that IRD will collect the CGT revenue in a consolidated fund?
That’s just silly nonsense and another absurd ‘theoretical situation’ you cooked up. Over time, revenue from the CGT will increase. This is based on the model developed by the 2019 Tax Working Group, as explained in Labour’s policy document.
You distorted a specific policy goal with a clearly defined target, i.e., to fund three free doctor’s visits for all New Zealanders, into a generic meeting “health needs”. I think you’re a little disingenuous.
My point is that associating the tax with free doctors visits is just "a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down". (To borrow from the Mary Poppins song.) I think the two things would in practice be unrelated.
More silly nonsense from you. Obviously, this is the funding mechanism tailored for a targeted policy.
You may need your umbrella today.
Nevertheless some commenters are questioning the targeting: some saying that it should be used for cancer treatments, while others, that the free doctor's visits should be restricted to those who otherwise may find those visits unaffordable. But these, while they may valid questions when it comes to the uses of taxpayer monies, are separate from the issue of what form of taxes we use to fund those uses.
Given that property prices seem to falling, does that mean that there will be no free visits until property values start to rise again.
Revenue from the CGT increasing over time relies on asset appreciation. Which may not be the case and modest growth at best over the next 10 years. IMO.
Do you know what percentage of growth Labour have calculated upon?
Yes, but that’s only one factor. Asset prices are volatile and this is a known intrinsic issue with CGT.
The data, theories, and models have been rigorously discussed in extensive consultation & feedback by the 2019 Tax Working Group. Modest growth still is growth, so your comment sounds confused & self-inconsistent. What, in your opinion, is ‘modest growth’ and what’s your basis for that opinion?
You don’t seem to be informed about this topic yet this stop you from taking stabs at it!? AFAIK, Labour hasn’t provided details of their updated assumptions in their policy document other than stating that they used the model developed by the 2019 TWG. The TWG assumed a modest growth rate made up of inflation and real growth. Their model includes many assumptions of which annual growth rate of asset values is just one.
Only a nitpicking Nat (aka a disingenuous twat) would quibble about the exact year-on-year revenue forecasts.
Do you like the recently announced Te Pāti Māori 'Kiwi tax plan', Tony?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1133037/te-pati-maori-unveils-kiwi-tax-plan-with-new-5-percent-stamp-duty
Yes, I do. Any tax policy that attempts to level the playing field will suit me.
That playing field sure needs levelling
March, Green, bails Upston.
"Opposition calls on minister to 'front up'
Menéndez March, the Green Party's social development spokesperson, said the error was unacceptable.
"I think Louise Upston should front up to the public explain exactly how many people were left without their benefits, and if she is unable to do so, then she should resign…"
Good call, Menéndez. Both Upston and Luxon denied the facts in the House and should be held to account for that as well.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/1156339/christopher-luxon-louise-upston-said-no-benefits-were-cut-after-law-change-they-were-wrong
The Forbidden Pharmacy campaign launches with a very heartfelt, powerful ad
Telling the story of the medicines New Zealand needs, told by the
patients who need them.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcUXIqkCrih/
I'm always wary of such campaigns. Big Pharma hates NZ's Pharmac, and I wouldn't be surprised if they support this group, or even if it's an astroturf organisation like Groundswell was. People in the IS use 75% more prescription medicine than any other country.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/24/behind-the-patient-campaigns-the-pharma-giants-profiting-from-public-pressure/
I prefer funding preventative measures: like disease monitoring and the flu vaccines scrapped by National, and nutritious school lunches.
Thanks tWig
Yes, I've heard of patient advocacy groups receiving funding, but as your link shows, that’s not the case here.
While helpful, preventative measures only go so far. There are still people who end up ill and need treating. They say, over 600,000 New Zealanders can’t get the medicines they need.
A more comfortable death than his victims got.
/
Ratko Mladic, the former Bosnian Serb general whose actions during the Balkan wars of the 1990s led to him being called the “Butcher of Bosnia” and who was held responsible for Europe’s deadliest massacre since World War II, the killing of some 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995, has died. He was 83.
His death was announced on Thursday by Serbian state media.
https://archive.li/A2r3K (nyt)
A really interesting analysis of Labour's election tactics on BHN last night. Paul Barlow used the Open Brief app launched recently to do deep analysis of trending content on NZ media + social platforms (reddit, fb, the Standard, etc).
He unpacks Labour's response to National's media ban statement, followed by Labour's apparent jump on the band wagon, which seemed a rollover response to me.
Instead Paul argues that by agreeing quickly with the Nats on this, to first committee stage 'to look at the evidence' (as Labour also did with the rates cap), it has defused any Nat huffing and puffing about "Labour doesn't care about our youf, or about cost of living."
The effectiveness of the strategy can be seen in Bishop’s openly empty reasons why the government' decided, after Labour’s ‘OK, let’s do it’, to not actually pursue the Bill this term. Bluff called, as you can see, BHN again.
I'm not sure, but I think Hipkins might be ticking off all of National's opportunities to fetter Labour's announced policies, then force Labour to capitulate.
The PREFU is coming up and I think that's the last chance for National to stuff up something that Labour has announced.
If that's so, and if it works, it's clever.
If it's not so, or if it doesn't work, it was probably a dumb idea.
It's a risky option, but announcing policies that the government can stick the skewer into is also risky. This particular iteration of Naational is certainly not above it, given their proclamations of "Labour's policies that aren''t Labour's policies" so far.
Of course, I might be giving credit where it isn't due and it could be just Hipkins being too quiet for his own good.
'Sticking the skewer in' made me think of the recipe for killing off monsters, by a stake in the heart. But knowing your monster is important. And a new, more skewed way of killing might be to immobilise the monster, drop a steak over where its heart is supposed, and leave it for the mad dogs roaming to finish off.
(Once imagination starts bubbling, all sorts of new ideas occur. Get reading fiction – it will happen. As one author commented on fiction and reality):
In journalism just one fact that is false prejudices the entire work. In contrast, in fiction one single fact that is true gives legitimacy to the entire work. That's the only difference, and it lies in the commitment of the writer. A novelist can do anything he wants so long as he makes people believe in it. Gabriel Garcia Marquez [What a novel idea!]
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/gabriel_garcia_marquez_456209
and Francis Bacon briefly: Truth is so hard to tell, it sometimes needs fiction to make it plausible. Francis Bacon Philosopher January 22, 1561 – April 9, 1626 – English
This RNZ piece on the 'Politik Election Summit 2026: Navigating a Disrupted Electorate' conference is revealing. It had pollsters discussing current electorate trends. One showed 'how parties had been faring since the last election, with National on a downward trajectory after a post-election lift, the rise of New Zealand First and a "redemption arc" for Labour.'
McAnulty had a spot, and an opinion on OP, showing he's keeping an eye out.
One talk 'featured prominent political figures involved in previous coalition negotiations, offering insights into how they are planned and executed'. Most parties are already at work 6 months out doing their wooing. Perhaps Nats ruling put OP was real, then, a datenight gone horribly tits-up.
It seems to me issues and stories in this election will be very fast-moving.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1133564/it-s-extraordinary-how-things-change-nz-election-strategies-dissected-at-summit
Chlöe and Wayne, up in a tree..
Good call, good optics, Greens!
https://www.facebook.com/photo
They really don't want the female vote, do they.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1159887/former-fma-chair-craig-stobo-standing-for-nz-first-in-luxon-s-botany-electorate
"The review into Stobo's conduct as FMA chair cleared Stobo of allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a former staff member and of misuse of FMA travel, but found shortcomings in how he managed conflicts of interest."
The last 'former NZ1st candidate' defined women by their shopping propensity.
Can't say they are going hard out for them.
Stobo told the Herald, as a part of its Mood of the Boardroom survey, “The Coalition continues to deliver ‘The Great Unwind’ of atrocious policy settings of the last government.”
So he thinks Winston Peters made things "atrocious". Interesting take on his own leader.
Poor Gazans. Being the demonstration of what happens when the horde turn on you to take all you have because they want it.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2608/S00070/qusra-is-just-a-warning-israels-blueprint-for-the-west-bank.htm
If you want to understand the bleak future awaiting the occupied West Bank, do not look away. Just pay attention to the events unfolding in the small Palestinian town of Qusra, south of Nablus…
…While much of the media is treating reports emerging from the area as simply another episode of “settler violence,” it is not. Qusra represents something far more consequential: a glimpse into the new Plan Dalet that Israel has in store for Palestinians.
Plan Dalet was the military blueprint through which Zionist forces conquered much of historic Palestine, village by village, during the Nakba. The plan did not suddenly emerge in 1948. It built on military schemes dating back to 1945, developing into a strategy for conquering Palestinian towns and villages, destroying communities and expelling their inhabitants.
The significance of this history today is not merely symbolic. The Nakba was a process, implemented in stages. So, too, is the annexation of the West Bank.
Nor is this merely an intellectual argument. Israeli officials have openly invoked a new Nakba as an intended outcome. In November 2023, Avi Dichter declared: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba,” adding, “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”…
Dire Straits indeed – 'Money for Nothing' is the song for this. I Want, I Want…
A lively rousing unsettling exchange – Canada's Carney and USA from Rory and Alastair on The Rest is Politics.
Reply to GWS’s video clip with thoughts on Rory's framing. I think he's behind the times. Sure, this second tariff war is an opportunity for the UK, but why now, and not a year ago after the first tariffs?
Sadly what the UK brings to the table is a. severely constrained by the Big Ol' Trumpian boot on the UK's neck. Burnham's already been warned off setting West Bank sanctions, and may be also be constrained by the US market access deal it signed in 2025. Plus b. What exactly can the UK offer in terms of trade to Canada?
Canada has been busy building independent relationships with international markets and governments in the last year, of which Rory seems unaware. Eg, with Australia for minerals and defense, and with South Korea for EVs. It certainly doesn't need either the UK or King Charles as intermediary (shades of patronising Empire there!).
Rory also puts the boot into the Frogs, in typical English fashion. He suggests that Canada will have problems negotiating with European countries. Again, he seems unaware of the strong trade and defense procurement ties Canada has already built with the EU in last year. I am also sure that Canada and Denmark have had a few quiet words together over Greenland security.
Too late, Rory, the UK's missed the Canada bus. It's lost a great deal of its independent soft power since Brexit. Instead of straddling the EU, the Commonwealth and the US as it once did, it hangs off the US's apron strings, with an economy hollowed out by austerity.