Land developer threatens to sue Auckland Council to force it to start zoning rural land for homes again; Pre-fab home developer for Kāinga Ora goes bust; Christchurch's biggest food bank set to close
Superb, if depressing, summary thanks, Bernard. As far as I can see, it's only Green Party politicians who are willing to talk about any of this (although their wealth tax includes shares, so I guess doesn't redress the massive imbalance in favour of land). I also think this would be a good one to make public
TOP, The Opportunities Party, seems to have the most sensible answer to taxing landed wealth: an annual 0.75% tax on the 'unimproved' value of residential land, which could be simply added to existing rates bills without much bureaucracy, and used to reduce income tax at the lower end.
Anyone registered in the Ilam electorate who does not want to see Winston Peters and NZ First disrupting government should vote for Raf Manji and TOP, regardless of whether they are a National, Labour, Greens, or Te Paati Māori supporter.
The One News Verian poll shows National-Act getting only 59 seats. They will need two more votes to govern. That looks like NZ First.
But if Raf Manji wins the Ilam electorate, TOP will bring two or even three MPs to Parliament, and would support a government on confidence and supply from the 'cross-benches', yet be able to vote against legislation that would undo some of the departing government's more worthwhile accomplishments.
Hehe, I think TOP are closer than the Greens, but of course with even less leverage. My question was more focused beyond the politics - eg. perhaps the way economic 'success' is reported in NZ. Like every time GDP is mentioned to include another narrative alongside that shows the full picture ie. the GDP result's impact on social cohesion, impact on natural world, impact on equity (non-financial) ...
I didn’t mean to be glib, I really believe that the Greens have the people and policies and commitment to potentially be the leading leftwing party, and take us into a prosperous, but fairer more equitable future for all.
Oct 5, 2023·edited Oct 5, 2023Liked by Bernard Hickey
The vast majority of voters, not just in NZ, haven't got a foggy clue how it works, which means that, although TOP is full of smart young people, they simply can't publicly platform the sort of 'big-picture' ideas that they are certainly capable of devising. Thus they have to fall back on fairly simple (in fiscal terms) policy that ordinary folk can understand. probably same for most parties to be honest.
But what people do understand is the big picture of emerging crime. Bernard mentions inequality in the end "squeezing out and being noticed". I was just in Mt Roskill today, taking my grandson to the orthodontist. I asked the kids to stay in the car with me and not go to the dairy as the receptionist reported that there had been stabbing in that poor beleagured establishment that morning. An unequal society becomes a very non-utopian place, very quickly.
I know a young girl who has moved to Rotorua for work and she said many people live in Tauranga and travel 1.5 hours each way to Rotorua to work because the life style is so bad in Rotorua. That there are many homeless people there.
I have just voted for Raf in Ilam and the Greens for the party vote. I wonder if all the smaller parties could be a bulwark to stop the big parties destroying the country.
It is going to be so interesting to see how much of an impact the 'neither red nor blues' have on the outcome of this election. If only the likely non-voters realised their power to sway the result - ironic when feeling powerless to make a difference is a reason not to vote. May come down to which party has worked that sector the best - which we won't know in advance given they're unlikely to show up in any std polling.
How about we withdraw our energy from national Politics and put it into local politics. Then we have to support our local councils in pushing for more resources being devolved to local government> I heard an interview done with the mayors of Greater Manchester and Birmingham and even though one was Labour and one tory, they were agreed that all the work that matters is happening at the local level.
I seem to be getting the picture that it indeed cities / local regions that are pushing beyond moribund national governments like we have.
I like your angle - local government is also the current home of citizen assemblies and most likely to encourage sociocracy (positive thinking here) https://www.sociocracyforall.org/case-studies/
This is such important information that I think that if the general public knew and understood all this then political parties would look very different. Our current situation seems to be on the road to increasing inequality, poverty and desperation for too many people. I agree that you should make this public.
What do you call it when an aspiring PM who owns seven houses proposes a policy to enrich landlords? How about an abuse of power for pecuniary reward, aka corruption?
Key pursued policies that were massively advantageous to the banks- enlarging the size and number of loans by loose immigration and overseas buyer policy. Now he is Chairman of the biggest of them all. Not a coincidence.
criminal in the sense: exceedingly bad and exceedingly wrong, and therefore not to be tolerated and to be prohibited and to be legislated to be a criminal offence.
Hello everyone. Is anyone please able to clarify this comment from Bernard today. I have re-read it a few times but I cannot make sense of it. Thanks in advance.
"the need for increased demand for rental properties and the desire to reduce competition for that rental property creates extra demand in the political economy for population growth from temporary migrants without the necessary infrastructure investment to enable more house building."
We do need to put this stuff into everyday language if we expect the general population to A) understand it, B) use it to fight back against the corrupt oligarchy. Is this a space where volunteers might collaborate to produce a simple pack of ‘elevator pitches/ 30 second summaries of the key points?
It is truly bananas - both, how we treat housing and land banking in this country (which I have massively managed to profit from, without ever planning to do so), and hearing a climate scientist say these words. If we were at all a serious or intelligent species or country, we'd take these facts and start doing WHATEVER THE F*CK WE CAN to stop this very clear, obvious, and fatal calamity that is besetting us all. Instead, we kick down on the renters and beneficiaries, lick up to the millionaires and billionaires, and keep slipping on the banana skin that is Winston Fricken Peters! Unbelievably stupid and depressing timeline.
Our attitude to land is so stupid. We sit in horrible traffic congestion, pay high rents and rates for crap accommodation and services, give billions to Australian bank shareholders, over-work our healthcare system, collectively suffer from poverty and crime, dilute community connections needed for emergency situations etc... All to protect the value of a square of dirt that we would typically receive the same benefit from simply 'occupying' as 'owning': A square of dirt that is only valuable because of what we collectively build around it.
I guess we've made our bed, as far as carving *our* country into private investment assets is concerned. But if we're going to insist on landowning being a profitable enterprise, presumably it should be taxed like one? Only, several parties hoping to form our next government are not only laughing that idea off, but planning policies to super-charge it deeper into a socially-divisive hellscape. Those politicians have their own selfish reasons for that, but what I can't understand is why so many "normal" people - suffering a paragraph's worth of problems and more, so obviously linked to a shit housing market - would want this for themselves and their children?
The big banks parent companies are domiciled in Australia, but the shareholders are very international- mostly the 'usual suspect' wealth-management funds. ANZ's third biggest shareholder is the Central Bank of Norway!
Excellent piece, but this issue has been there in plain sight for decades during which time the main political parties have sought to treat it as a virtue.
The depressing thing is that post the election even more fuel will likely be added to the bonfire
Aaargh. I'd like to see windfall taxes on banks and supermarkets. Customers do all the work for the banks on-line, just as those who check out their purchase themselves do all the work for the supermarkets. No wonder we have a cost-of-living crisis when supermarkets and banks make obscene profits that promptly go offshore.
This is a stupendous edition Bernard. Please open it up to the public!
Yes, stupendous is the best word to describe this!
Jono and Hamersley. Thanks. Will do.
Superb, if depressing, summary thanks, Bernard. As far as I can see, it's only Green Party politicians who are willing to talk about any of this (although their wealth tax includes shares, so I guess doesn't redress the massive imbalance in favour of land). I also think this would be a good one to make public
So, a land value tax? And which party is promoting that?
You n me know ... TOP ANSWER Beverly .. 🤭👍🤣
TOP, The Opportunities Party, seems to have the most sensible answer to taxing landed wealth: an annual 0.75% tax on the 'unimproved' value of residential land, which could be simply added to existing rates bills without much bureaucracy, and used to reduce income tax at the lower end.
Anyone registered in the Ilam electorate who does not want to see Winston Peters and NZ First disrupting government should vote for Raf Manji and TOP, regardless of whether they are a National, Labour, Greens, or Te Paati Māori supporter.
The One News Verian poll shows National-Act getting only 59 seats. They will need two more votes to govern. That looks like NZ First.
But if Raf Manji wins the Ilam electorate, TOP will bring two or even three MPs to Parliament, and would support a government on confidence and supply from the 'cross-benches', yet be able to vote against legislation that would undo some of the departing government's more worthwhile accomplishments.
https://youtu.be/uh64ARgRG7w?si=18A0ymGyez4Q872O
Can't believe how true the NZ economy part of this article is. Nailed it Bernard
Certainly make it public.
send a copy of this to each political party and maybe to the major new media outlets asap before the election.
How do we get out of this cycle? ie. what will it take to change 'the system' in NZ?
Vote Green
Hehe, I think TOP are closer than the Greens, but of course with even less leverage. My question was more focused beyond the politics - eg. perhaps the way economic 'success' is reported in NZ. Like every time GDP is mentioned to include another narrative alongside that shows the full picture ie. the GDP result's impact on social cohesion, impact on natural world, impact on equity (non-financial) ...
I didn’t mean to be glib, I really believe that the Greens have the people and policies and commitment to potentially be the leading leftwing party, and take us into a prosperous, but fairer more equitable future for all.
I do not know enough about TOP to comment.
The vast majority of voters, not just in NZ, haven't got a foggy clue how it works, which means that, although TOP is full of smart young people, they simply can't publicly platform the sort of 'big-picture' ideas that they are certainly capable of devising. Thus they have to fall back on fairly simple (in fiscal terms) policy that ordinary folk can understand. probably same for most parties to be honest.
But what people do understand is the big picture of emerging crime. Bernard mentions inequality in the end "squeezing out and being noticed". I was just in Mt Roskill today, taking my grandson to the orthodontist. I asked the kids to stay in the car with me and not go to the dairy as the receptionist reported that there had been stabbing in that poor beleagured establishment that morning. An unequal society becomes a very non-utopian place, very quickly.
I know a young girl who has moved to Rotorua for work and she said many people live in Tauranga and travel 1.5 hours each way to Rotorua to work because the life style is so bad in Rotorua. That there are many homeless people there.
I have just voted for Raf in Ilam and the Greens for the party vote. I wonder if all the smaller parties could be a bulwark to stop the big parties destroying the country.
It is going to be so interesting to see how much of an impact the 'neither red nor blues' have on the outcome of this election. If only the likely non-voters realised their power to sway the result - ironic when feeling powerless to make a difference is a reason not to vote. May come down to which party has worked that sector the best - which we won't know in advance given they're unlikely to show up in any std polling.
Leadership.
How about we withdraw our energy from national Politics and put it into local politics. Then we have to support our local councils in pushing for more resources being devolved to local government> I heard an interview done with the mayors of Greater Manchester and Birmingham and even though one was Labour and one tory, they were agreed that all the work that matters is happening at the local level.
I seem to be getting the picture that it indeed cities / local regions that are pushing beyond moribund national governments like we have.
I like your angle - local government is also the current home of citizen assemblies and most likely to encourage sociocracy (positive thinking here) https://www.sociocracyforall.org/case-studies/
I'm with you both @Wendtk @PerfectlyFrank. And I'm watching with interest the Ngati Toa/The People Speak initiative in Porirua, where I live. Here's Helmut Modlik, CE of Ngāti Toa speaking last year on this work: https://trustdemocracy.nz/2022/04/helmut-modlik-deliberative-community-governance/
Good link thank you Maisie
Thanks for link, PerfectlyFrank
Excellent piece of analysis there Bernard.
Now ask each political party for their comments and commitment to a capital gains tax.
This is such important information that I think that if the general public knew and understood all this then political parties would look very different. Our current situation seems to be on the road to increasing inequality, poverty and desperation for too many people. I agree that you should make this public.
"seems to be"
is definitely
What do you call it when an aspiring PM who owns seven houses proposes a policy to enrich landlords? How about an abuse of power for pecuniary reward, aka corruption?
Jocelyn Harris.
Key pursued policies that were massively advantageous to the banks- enlarging the size and number of loans by loose immigration and overseas buyer policy. Now he is Chairman of the biggest of them all. Not a coincidence.
I can only think "corruption" too and the word also applied to Key.
it is totally/utterly CRIMINAL!!!
A crime against humanity?
criminal in the sense: exceedingly bad and exceedingly wrong, and therefore not to be tolerated and to be prohibited and to be legislated to be a criminal offence.
I agree
Hello everyone. Is anyone please able to clarify this comment from Bernard today. I have re-read it a few times but I cannot make sense of it. Thanks in advance.
"the need for increased demand for rental properties and the desire to reduce competition for that rental property creates extra demand in the political economy for population growth from temporary migrants without the necessary infrastructure investment to enable more house building."
...increased demand from renters......to reduce renter choice for that rental property...
(my guess)
That's how I read it too
if Bernard would explain please.
We do need to put this stuff into everyday language if we expect the general population to A) understand it, B) use it to fight back against the corrupt oligarchy. Is this a space where volunteers might collaborate to produce a simple pack of ‘elevator pitches/ 30 second summaries of the key points?
Open to the public please. Masterful analysis of NZ inc.
patrick medlicott
Please make this public! It's so huge and we so need all of the country to get this!
It is truly bananas - both, how we treat housing and land banking in this country (which I have massively managed to profit from, without ever planning to do so), and hearing a climate scientist say these words. If we were at all a serious or intelligent species or country, we'd take these facts and start doing WHATEVER THE F*CK WE CAN to stop this very clear, obvious, and fatal calamity that is besetting us all. Instead, we kick down on the renters and beneficiaries, lick up to the millionaires and billionaires, and keep slipping on the banana skin that is Winston Fricken Peters! Unbelievably stupid and depressing timeline.
I share your frustration.
Our attitude to land is so stupid. We sit in horrible traffic congestion, pay high rents and rates for crap accommodation and services, give billions to Australian bank shareholders, over-work our healthcare system, collectively suffer from poverty and crime, dilute community connections needed for emergency situations etc... All to protect the value of a square of dirt that we would typically receive the same benefit from simply 'occupying' as 'owning': A square of dirt that is only valuable because of what we collectively build around it.
I guess we've made our bed, as far as carving *our* country into private investment assets is concerned. But if we're going to insist on landowning being a profitable enterprise, presumably it should be taxed like one? Only, several parties hoping to form our next government are not only laughing that idea off, but planning policies to super-charge it deeper into a socially-divisive hellscape. Those politicians have their own selfish reasons for that, but what I can't understand is why so many "normal" people - suffering a paragraph's worth of problems and more, so obviously linked to a shit housing market - would want this for themselves and their children?
As an aside, this is also a good watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc
The big banks parent companies are domiciled in Australia, but the shareholders are very international- mostly the 'usual suspect' wealth-management funds. ANZ's third biggest shareholder is the Central Bank of Norway!
Great video
Excellent piece, but this issue has been there in plain sight for decades during which time the main political parties have sought to treat it as a virtue.
The depressing thing is that post the election even more fuel will likely be added to the bonfire
WILL be added!!!
Aaargh. I'd like to see windfall taxes on banks and supermarkets. Customers do all the work for the banks on-line, just as those who check out their purchase themselves do all the work for the supermarkets. No wonder we have a cost-of-living crisis when supermarkets and banks make obscene profits that promptly go offshore.