Raf Manji details TOP's residential land value tax plan to raise up to $7.5b a year, to pay for $6.35b of tax cuts for middle income earners & $900m of low income support; Plans to win Ilam
They all drive me up the wall continuing the totally against evidence that reproductive and unpaid labour isn’t “work” or contributing to the economy and country unless it’s outsourced. It’s just sexist.
CPAG totally supports the WFF policy TOP espouses—will really help reduce the worst poverty in a very cost-effective way as will debt reduction. NZ needs to put the needs of the child at the heart of WFF, not full-time paid work. The deserving children/undeserving children basis of WFF is appalling.
Agree we must shift to more tax on capital and that CGT is dead and buried.
But there is a debate to be had between land tax and a Fair Economic Return- or the net equity approach as set out by Terry Baucher and myself- and updated here. Land tax will hit a lot of people it should not be aimed at and let others off-- I can send a link to our paper
PIE Policy Paper 2022-2 Fair Economic Return revisited.pdf (auckland.ac.nz) and examples in the ppt presentation
Would love you to fill this out a bit Susan. Who would be 'let off' with TOP's land tax, for example? I do worry the 'holes' in our tax collection represent a significant challenge right now; so wonder if any additional complexity (for example, calculating net equity) might result in more holes?
I applaud the bold vision by the way but suggest that land tax has some fish hooks. This platform won’t allow me to post links. I can send PowerPoints and the paper Terry and I have just updated. Email me s.stjohn@auckland.ac.nz
What worries me most about the electability of TOP is their policies are all "if:then" - my sense is that most voters are prominently single issue, but TOP won't stand for that - there'll be no tax cuts without more taxes! Meanwhile (at least on the PR trail) National and Act just promise tax cuts. Full stop.
It's crappy, and I personally agree with evidence-based and honestly-costed policies, but I fear I might be among only the 1-2% of the voting public who do.
If there's a reason to vote TOP it's the clearing of MSD debt. It is such a punitive debt punishing the poor for being poor and making sure they stay there.
TOP policies might need some polishing but I like the fact they are pushing the conversation to other places apart from tinkering with the status quo.
If Raf will stand in ilam this ex Labour voter will vote for him. We need new people in parliament and we certainly need to counter ACT.
Very excited by TOP and Raf’s chances. A very winnable electorate in Ilam gets Raf into govt. thanks Bernard for asking the land tax question of Jacinda. I wish her government has used its incredible mandate for change to do something about our unfair tax system.
They all drive me up the wall continuing the totally against evidence that reproductive and unpaid labour isn’t “work” or contributing to the economy and country unless it’s outsourced. It’s just sexist.
It is outrageous that people are coerced by their own Government into debt for necessities.
CPAG totally supports the WFF policy TOP espouses—will really help reduce the worst poverty in a very cost-effective way as will debt reduction. NZ needs to put the needs of the child at the heart of WFF, not full-time paid work. The deserving children/undeserving children basis of WFF is appalling.
Agree we must shift to more tax on capital and that CGT is dead and buried.
But there is a debate to be had between land tax and a Fair Economic Return- or the net equity approach as set out by Terry Baucher and myself- and updated here. Land tax will hit a lot of people it should not be aimed at and let others off-- I can send a link to our paper
PIE Policy Paper 2022-2 Fair Economic Return revisited.pdf (auckland.ac.nz) and examples in the ppt presentation
Would love you to fill this out a bit Susan. Who would be 'let off' with TOP's land tax, for example? I do worry the 'holes' in our tax collection represent a significant challenge right now; so wonder if any additional complexity (for example, calculating net equity) might result in more holes?
Agree, would love to learn more from Susan too. All I can say is finally a party offering a real chance at structural tax change!
I applaud the bold vision by the way but suggest that land tax has some fish hooks. This platform won’t allow me to post links. I can send PowerPoints and the paper Terry and I have just updated. Email me s.stjohn@auckland.ac.nz
Thanks Susan - will do ;-)
What worries me most about the electability of TOP is their policies are all "if:then" - my sense is that most voters are prominently single issue, but TOP won't stand for that - there'll be no tax cuts without more taxes! Meanwhile (at least on the PR trail) National and Act just promise tax cuts. Full stop.
It's crappy, and I personally agree with evidence-based and honestly-costed policies, but I fear I might be among only the 1-2% of the voting public who do.
If there's a reason to vote TOP it's the clearing of MSD debt. It is such a punitive debt punishing the poor for being poor and making sure they stay there.
TOP policies might need some polishing but I like the fact they are pushing the conversation to other places apart from tinkering with the status quo.
If Raf will stand in ilam this ex Labour voter will vote for him. We need new people in parliament and we certainly need to counter ACT.
Raf is 100% standing in Ilam, spoke to him last night, and pretty confident about his chances there
Very excited by TOP and Raf’s chances. A very winnable electorate in Ilam gets Raf into govt. thanks Bernard for asking the land tax question of Jacinda. I wish her government has used its incredible mandate for change to do something about our unfair tax system.