The Greens wealth tax

[dken31]

Even "rich" people also don't necessarily have pots of money lying around with which to pay the proposed tax. Here is another genuine example from one of my clients:
Retired couple with a house worth c.$5M and a commercial investment property also worth about $5M. Their annual income is abut $200K from the investment property and a combined $40K superannuation. The husband was a sole-trader almost his whole career & and the wife was a stay at home mother, i.e. their accumulated "wealth" comes from his being paid by willing customers for work he's done himself (rather than having profited from the work of employees); they grew up very working class and kept that "scrimp & scrape" mentality right up until they'd paid off both the home and investment mortgages, which is why they've been able to accumulate what they have.

On their $240K annual income, they pay approx. $61K income tax; they also donate very generously to various charities (I see the donation receipts). Under the Greens' proposed policy, their income tax would reduce to about $57K, but they'd have an additional $150K "wealth tax" to pay, so total tax would be $207,000, leaving them $33K/year or about $635/week to live on.

Imagine if they'd instead chosen a more extravagant lifestyle, and so now only had a $1.8M house, and a $2M investment bringing in $80K per year. They'd have combined income of $120K (including super) on which they'd only pay income tax of $18K and would be under the wealth tax threshold. They'd therefore have net after-tax income of $102K/year or $1,960/week.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound remotely "fair" to me, and absolutely creates a disincentive for people to save and try to get ahead.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Okay. So how do we make a system where the poorest can afford to put a safe healthy roof over their heads and feed their children? Bearing in mind that for the vast majority of the population disaster in the form of a complete lifestyle switcheroo is only a massive flood (thanks climate change that we do nothing about), a personal tragedy, a job loss, or a dishonest action by someone else - away. I'm sure you have clients who experienced that change of fortune. There but for the grace of fortune go we, so it is in ALL our interests to review the system we operate under and make it more equitable.

If we are not to share the wealth more equitably, how do we do it?

[Lilith7]

Okay. So how do we make a system where the poorest can afford to put a safe healthy roof over their heads and feed their children? Bearing in mind that for the vast majority of the population disaster in the form of a complete lifestyle switcheroo is only a massive flood (thanks climate change that we do nothing about), a personal tragedy, a job loss, or a dishonest action by someone else - away. I'm sure you have clients who experienced that change of fortune. There but for the grace of fortune go we, so it is in ALL our interests to review the system we operate under and make it more equitable.

If we are not to share the wealth more equitably, how do we do it?

Its always interesting that when this subject is discussed, somehow there are suddenly NO 'rich people' at all, anywhere.  Just hardworking business owners who've slaved away for years to do well. At least according to them.


The reality is that we need to end poverty, or get as close to that as we possibly can. And as swiftly as we can, because if we continue going down this road we really won't enjoy the consequences of that.

A small dose of reality. 

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/up...en-key.jpg




"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed." Herman Melville (1819 - 1891)




https://www.psychologicalscience.org/new...ggest.html


"Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different,
The rich are different - & not in a good way

Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish.
“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”



In other words, rich people are more likely to think about themselves. “They think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic,” said Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Because the rich gloss over the ways family connections, money and education helped, they come to denigrate the role of government and vigorously oppose taxes to fund it."

[harm_less]

For the benefit of those who are basing their comments on only what they have heard or seen in the media this is the full release as supplied by the Greens: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachhe...1686379147

In reply to some of the previous posts it is worth considering that the Green's policy is attempting to address a long standing (and worsening) social inequity situation so any measures taken will need to include some significant changes to current taxation and investment strategies. It should come as no surprise then that in order to improve the lot for those at the bottom of the pile those of us who are more privileged will see our asset base compromised to some extent. The current worsening of economic circumstances for those of insufficient means will only result in costs for all of society in terms of crime, health care, lack of educated workforce and publicly funded elderly care. We either sort the problem out now or pay the price doubly in the coming years.

The cases cited where well moneyed individuals suffer a bit of inconvenience in regard to their long planned financial strategies would tend to pale into insignificance in comparison to those who struggle daily to house and feed themselves and their families. This tax policy is not about rich bashing, it is about building a system that better supports those in our community that the system is currently failing. The polar opposite of where Luxon & Co appear to be focussed it would seem.

[king1]

On their $240K annual income, they pay approx. $61K income tax; they also donate very generously to various charities (I see the donation receipts).  Under the Greens' proposed policy, their income tax would reduce to about $57K, but they'd have an additional $150K "wealth tax" to pay, so total tax would be $207,000, leaving them $33K/year or about $635/week to live on.

are they expected to come up with this 150K at the time do you think, or is this likely to be deferred until the asset is sold?

Will they really be living on $635/week?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Nick Mowbray thinks the wealth tax is a terrible idea. He's one of the family that bought DotCom's mansion...

[Lilith7]

For the benefit of those who are basing their comments on only what they have heard or seen in the media this is the full release as supplied by the Greens: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachhe...1686379147

In reply to some of the previous posts it is worth considering that the Green's policy is attempting to address a long standing (and worsening) social inequity situation so any measures taken will need to include some significant changes to current taxation and investment strategies. It should come as no surprise then that in order to improve the lot for those at the bottom of the pile those of us who are more privileged will see our asset base compromised to some extent. The current worsening of economic circumstances for those of insufficient means will only result in costs for all of society in terms of crime, health care, lack of educated workforce and publicly funded elderly care. We either sort the problem out now or pay the price doubly in the coming years.

The cases cited where well moneyed individuals suffer a bit of inconvenience in regard to their long planned financial strategies would tend to pale into insignificance in comparison to those who struggle daily to house and feed themselves and their families. This tax policy is not about rich bashing, it is about building a system that better supports those in our community that the system is currently failing. The polar opposite of where Luxon & Co appear to be focussed it would seem.

I think the important point is to remember too, that we didn't always have this yawning great gap between rich & poor; that was delivered courtesy of Neo Liberalism - imposed very swiftly & without warning, we're now suffering the consequences of it.

We know therefore that we can do far better & desperately need to do so as fast as possible.

[zqwerty]

Yes never forget, roger douglas and richard prebble (may their names be cursed forever) instigated the madness in NZ (trickle-down from the rich to the poor LOL) getting the idea from ronald reagan and his madmen (milton friedman).

[harm_less]

Yes never forget, roger douglas and richard prebble (may their names be cursed forever) instigated the madness in NZ (trickle-down from the rich to the poor LOL) getting the idea from ronald reagan and his madmen (milton friedman).

Together with Quigley and Brash therein lies the foundations of ACT. Enough said.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yes, when you think of who started ACT, its current incarnation is a bit surprising.

[Lilith7]

Yes, when you think of who started ACT, its current incarnation is a bit surprising.

I'm never sure whether Roger Douglas & his merry band of greedy bastards should be tried for crimes against humanity or given medals for a  somewhat brutal lesson in what happens when greed is allowed free rein.

[SueDonim]

I think the important point is to remember too, that we didn't always have this yawning great gap between rich & poor; that was delivered courtesy of Neo Liberalism - imposed very swiftly & without warning, we're now suffering the consequences of it.

We know therefore that we can do far better & desperately need to do so as fast as possible.

There isn't really a yawning gap between rich and poor. Like everything else, everyone is on a continuum between two extremes. A few people are in real poverty and need more help. Many think they are living badly but could do a lot better under their own steam. Most people are somewhere in the middle ground, and the problem with the Green tax proposal is that it captures too many of those as being "rich" when really they are not. And it would drag them backwards. And if they go backwards, so does everyone on the downwards side of that. Lower and middle income NZers need some tax breaks, but taking it from exactly that group doesn't make sense, yet that's what this proposal does. And most of the rest of the take under this proposal would come from those who are providing food and essential services, creating a flow down that again hits the poorest the hardest.

We don't want to be one of those countries where all the wealthy leave. We don't want to be one of those countries where only the super rich get to own property. We have a great economy now where the average "Mum and Dad" can own a home and get themselves into a reasonable investment to look after themselves in retirement. If we make that too hard/expensive then they end up being poor. It is hardly fair to take from those who have lived frugally to ensure a reasonable retirement just to give it to those who are wasteful and therefore have nothing.

There are postings above from people who know. And there are comments from people who just don't have a clue how anyone except themselves lives. People need to listen to those who actually know about the subject under discussion, like accountants and others who work for people across all walks of life and are in a position to see life's realities first hand.

I also saw CGT mentioned as usual. Why is it so difficult to understand that we don't need CGT, or silly "bright line" rules, because we have income tax? We have a law that claims income tax on anything that is bought with an intention to sell. Whether it is a $2 trinket on TM, or a house. If you bought it with an intention to onsell you need to pay income tax on the profit (whilst accounting for expenses). We don't need more legislation when it is already covered and just needs IRD to do its job. That would go a long way towards balancing the country's books.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

" In New Zealand the wealthiest tenth own one-quarter of the country's assets, while the poorest half of the country has just 2 per cent. (Rashbrooke, 2021, p. 52.) That leaves many people in poverty, lacking the resources they need to participate in society and follow their dreams."

I enjoy your posts suedonim, but in this case you are plain wrong. And having been on both ends of this particular life experience I can assure you that living frugally or being wasteful has very little to do with where one can end up. Good fortune - aka luck, has a hell of a lot more influence.

The other interesting discovery I have made is the realisation that neither poverty nor wealth has much do with happiness. Sure, you can have the privilege of buying comfort in your misery, but being well off does not automatically bestow contentment. In fact some of the unhappiest people I know are the wealthiest, poor buggers! So maybe, in proposing to lower, very slightly, the burden of their wealth, the Greens are actually doing the very rich a favour... (And only the very rich, I might add, if you check the policy details.)

(And yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek!)

"

[Olive]

... It is hardly fair to take from those who have lived frugally to ensure a reasonable retirement just to give it to those who are wasteful and therefore have nothing.

There are postings above from people who know. And there are comments from people who just don't have a clue how anyone except themselves lives. People need to listen to those who actually know about the subject under discussion, like accountants and others who work for people across all walks of life and are in a position to see life's realities first hand.

....

I often read your posts, and I always appreciate the effort that goes into upholding your particular world view. However, I have two comments today.

1. You are presenting "Those who have lived frugally" and "those who are wasteful" as if those are the only choices. Life is far more complicated than that. There are those who have limited ability to earn because of illness or disability. There are those who have limited ability to manage their lives, through mental illness, intergenerational trauma or bad luck. There are those who are wealthy through inheritance or good luck.

2. Do you honestly believe that accountants run across people from all walks of life? I would take more notice of a career social worker or a housing policy analyst.

By the way, I am not a "poor", I am comparatively well off, so please don't dismiss my socialist views as the politics of envy.

[Lilith7]

I think the important point is to remember too, that we didn't always have this yawning great gap between rich & poor; that was delivered courtesy of Neo Liberalism - imposed very swiftly & without warning, we're now suffering the consequences of it.

We know therefore that we can do far better & desperately need to do so as fast as possible.

There isn't really a yawning gap between rich and poor. Like everything else, everyone is on a continuum between two extremes. A few people are in real poverty and need more help. Many think they are living badly but could do a lot better under their own steam. Most people are somewhere in the middle ground, and the problem with the Green tax proposal is that it captures too many of those as being "rich" when really they are not. And it would drag them backwards. And if they go backwards, so does everyone on the downwards side of that. Lower and middle income NZers need some tax breaks, but taking it from exactly that group doesn't make sense, yet that's what this proposal does. And most of the rest of the take under this proposal would come from those who are providing food and essential services, creating a flow down that again hits the poorest the hardest.

We don't want to be one of those countries where all the wealthy leave. We don't want to be one of those countries where only the super rich get to own property. We have a great economy now where the average "Mum and Dad" can own a home and get themselves into a reasonable investment to look after themselves in retirement. If we make that too hard/expensive then they end up being poor. It is hardly fair to take from those who have lived frugally to ensure a reasonable retirement just to give it to those who are wasteful and therefore have nothing.

There are postings above from people who know. And there are comments from people who just don't have a clue how anyone except themselves lives. People need to listen to those who actually know about the subject under discussion, like accountants and others who work for people across all walks of life and are in a position to see life's realities first hand.

I also saw CGT mentioned as usual. Why is it so difficult to understand that we don't need CGT, or silly "bright line" rules, because we have income tax? We have a law that claims income tax on anything that is bought with an intention to sell. Whether it is a $2 trinket on TM, or a house. If you bought it with an intention to onsell you need to pay income tax on the profit (whilst accounting for expenses). We don't need more legislation when it is already covered and just needs IRD to do its job. That would go a long way towards balancing the country's books.

That really is total bollocks & in these dire times its extremely sad that anyone can believe it.

Some postings from the people who know:


2023

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/3...nd-poorest

"Households did it tough in 2022, with renters clobbered hardest by high inflation and housing costs, data released by Stats NZ shows. But with June inflation running at over 7% for the first time since the 1990s, many households found themselves going backwards.

Researchers for Stats NZ calculated around 155,000 households did not feel they had enough income to meet their everyday basic needs.

Another 460,000 households were just making ends meet.

Stats NZ also calculated the shares of “equivalised” disposable income earned by households.

It found the bottom 20% of households earned just 7.9% of the total disposable income earned in the country.

The top-earning 20% of households, meanwhile, earned nearly 38% of the collective total income.

Poverty researcher Max Rashbrooke said: “If you survey New Zealanders, you find most think it’s a much closer, more even distribution of wealth.”

He said people underestimated how little the lowest-earners actually got, and how much of the highest income earners got.

While New Zealanders felt people’s work and skill should be rewarded, Rashbrooke said: “I don’t think people would say the richest people should only have 20% of the income, but I think they would say they are getting far above the share they should be getting.”

“Unaffordable housing can lead to financial stress and less money left over for other household needs,” said Stats NZ’s wealth and poverty statistics manager Andrew Neal.

“It means less money can go towards things like using a heater in winter or covering an unexpected cost like a washing machine breaking,” he said."

It seems I'm not the only one to actually perceive that yawning gap...

2023
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-04-...zealanders

[b]"Shocking new IRD data reveals the average wage earner taxed at twice the rate of the wealthiest New Zealanders[/b]

The results of a landmark IRD study of a group of very wealthy New Zealanders have just been released, revealing a yawning gap between the group’s towering effective incomes, which have a median of around $8m per year, and the corresponding tax rate, which comes in at 9.4%, after benefits are subtracted and GST paid is added in. The equivalent rate for a median wage earner is 20.2% – more than double that paid by this group, comprising of some of the wealthiest New Zealanders.

 Parker concludes by saying the reports provide “a fundamental baseline for debate on the fairness of our tax system, allowing future tax policy to be based on better data and more solid evidence.”



While that may - somehow - seem fair to some, most of us would disagree.

[dken31]

"Researchers for Stats NZ calculated around 155,000 households did not feel they had enough income to meet their everyday basic needs."
The problem is that what constitutes a basic need is constantly changing and so much of what is now considered a basic need would have been an absolute luxury 50 years ago. And that is why we can never "eradicate poverty" as all we'll actually succeed in doing is moving the goal posts of what is considered to be poverty.

I grew up in the 80s, pretty middle class I think, but our house wasn't properly insulated, heat pumps hadn't been invented, new clothes were a Christmas present, new shoes were a major event, we were allowed max one piece of fruit per day, we only had one family vehicle and eating out was super rare.

Wind back to my parents growing up in the 50s: I don't think Dad had shoes until he was 5, didn't eat out once once until he was a teenager, didn't have a car, didn't have a TV, house had no insulation, probably not even electric heaters when he was young. They were working class, but they definitely wouldn't have thought of themselves as impoverished.

Whereas now, a home has to be insulated with a heat-pump to qualify as "healthy", a TV is a necessity and most people have a pretty decent sized one (if that's what they're into). Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity". Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)

What has caught people out is that, apart from housing, the cost of living has been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper, allowing everyone to enjoy a far higher standard of living than in years gone by. Then, suddenly in the past year or two, cost of living has jumped up sharply making it difficult/impossible for many to continue enjoying the luxuries they'd grown accustomed to. And, for some, without the ability to adequately budget they're unable to re-calibrate their spending and so find themselves coming up short. But if we dialed the clock back to 20 year ago prices and 20 year ago incomes, those same people would have the same problems.

And on housing, the problem is that when more and more people are living in the same area (aka population growth), one variable out of price, proximity and property type (size/quality of house/section) has to change. It is logically impossible for that not to happen. And so, with population growing, people have to accept either increased price, decreased proximity or a less desirable property type (or, more likely, adjustments to all three). It isn't greed, evil investors pushing up prices etc., it is simply economic principle at play.

"It's not about wise choices, it's mostly about luck" is pure BS except, perhaps, for the luck involved in winning the genetic lottery that is high IQ/EQ. Accountants do see people from all (financial) levels of society (there are plenty of self-employed "poor" people), and those on struggle street are almost always those who repeatedly make bad financial/life decisions. The thing is, when you make a bad decision because you don't know any better, it feels like bad luck however that is rarely the case. Consumer debt is probably the most common bad decision. And the idea that rich people are lucky and mostly have it handed to them is just so not true. Almost all of my "rich clients (net worths >$10M) have started out working class and have worked exceptionally hard, taken calculated risks, and made wise choices to get where they are. Yes, some people get it handed to them, but those people are statistical anomalies. And, on the flip side, there are some people that have made all the right choices and just had repeated bad luck but they're again statistical anomalies. If you know how to make wise choices, bad luck knocks you back but you get back up again; if "bad luck" keeps you down, it is almost certainly poor decisions and not bad luck.

And to close, the fact that most of the people in society who are genuinely struggling are doing so due to their bad decisions isn't reason to ignore them and walk on by. But it most definitely is a reason not to forcibly take money off those who've made wise choices and hand it to those that will squander it.

[SueDonim]

"Researchers for Stats NZ calculated around 155,000 households did not feel they had enough income to meet their everyday basic needs."
The problem is that what constitutes a basic need is constantly changing and so much of what is now considered a basic need would have been an absolute luxury 50 years ago.  And that is why we can never "eradicate poverty" as all we'll actually succeed in doing is moving the goal posts of what is considered to be poverty. 

I grew up in the 80s, pretty middle class I think, but our house wasn't properly insulated, heat pumps hadn't been invented, new clothes were a Christmas present, new shoes were a major event, we were allowed max one piece of fruit per day, we only had one family vehicle and eating out was super rare. 

Wind back to my parents growing up in the 50s: I don't think Dad had shoes until he was 5, didn't eat out once once until he was a teenager, didn't have a car, didn't have a TV, house had no insulation, probably not even electric heaters when he was young.  They were working class, but they definitely wouldn't have thought of themselves as impoverished.

Whereas now, a home has to be insulated with a heat-pump to qualify as "healthy", a TV is a necessity and most people have a pretty decent sized one (if that's what they're into).  Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity".  Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)

What has caught people out is that, apart from housing, the cost of living has been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper, allowing everyone to enjoy a far higher standard of living than in years gone by.  Then, suddenly in the past year or two, cost of living has jumped up sharply making it difficult/impossible for many to continue enjoying the luxuries they'd grown accustomed to.  And, for some, without the ability to adequately budget they're unable to re-calibrate their spending and so find themselves coming up short.  But if we dialed the clock back to 20 year ago prices and 20 year ago incomes, those same people would have the same problems.

And on housing, the problem is that when more and more people are living in the same area (aka population growth), one variable out of price, proximity and property type (size/quality of house/section) has to change.  It is logically impossible for that not to happen.  And so, with population growing, people have to accept either increased price, decreased proximity or a less desirable property type (or, more likely, adjustments to all three).  It isn't greed, evil investors pushing up prices etc., it is simply economic principle at play.

"It's not about wise choices, it's mostly about luck" is pure BS except, perhaps, for the luck involved in winning the genetic lottery that is high IQ/EQ.  Accountants do see people from all (financial) levels of society (there are plenty of self-employed "poor" people), and those on struggle street are almost always those who repeatedly make bad financial/life decisions.  The thing is, when you make a bad decision because you don't know any better, it feels like bad luck however that is rarely the case. Consumer debt is probably the most common bad decision.  And the idea that rich people are lucky and mostly have it handed to them is just so not true.  Almost all of my "rich clients (net worths >$10M) have started out working class and have worked exceptionally hard, taken calculated risks, and made wise choices to get where they are.  Yes, some people get it handed to them, but those people are statistical anomalies.  And, on the flip side, there are some people that have made all the right choices and just had repeated bad luck but they're again statistical anomalies.  If you know how to make wise choices, bad luck knocks you back but you get back up again; if "bad luck" keeps you down, it is almost certainly poor decisions and not bad luck.

And to close, the fact that most of the people in society who are genuinely struggling are doing so due to their bad decisions isn't reason to ignore them and walk on by.  But it most definitely is a reason not to forcibly take money off those who've made wise choices and hand it to those that will squander it.

Thank you. You are so right and said it much better than I could come up with. I fit between you and your parents. In the sixties - our biggest aspect of poverty was lack of water. When the rain water tank ran dry we had none. Clothes and Christmas presents were handmade or hand-me-down.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

We cannot judge the present by our pasts. Rose coloured lenses or not.

According to the latest Green party post on Instagram 3.7 million kiwis who earn less than $125K would be better off under their income guarantee plan. .07% of the population would come under the proposed Wealth tax.

Boy, if that's true, .07% of the population are really really loud.

I would like to see the policy placed under a microscope, examined, costed, and fact checked by people who are independent and qualified. Not judged by those who are driven by other motivations.

---

Dken, one of the main reasons the wealthy pay less tax than the lowest of the low income earners is they can afford the best advice, the best means to avoid.

That is not fair, and has to stop.

[Lilith7]

"Researchers for Stats NZ calculated around 155,000 households did not feel they had enough income to meet their everyday basic needs."
The problem is that what constitutes a basic need is constantly changing and so much of what is now considered a basic need would have been an absolute luxury 50 years ago.  And that is why we can never "eradicate poverty" as all we'll actually succeed in doing is moving the goal posts of what is considered to be poverty. 

I grew up in the 80s, pretty middle class I think, but our house wasn't properly insulated, heat pumps hadn't been invented, new clothes were a Christmas present, new shoes were a major event, we were allowed max one piece of fruit per day, we only had one family vehicle and eating out was super rare. 

Wind back to my parents growing up in the 50s: I don't think Dad had shoes until he was 5, didn't eat out once once until he was a teenager, didn't have a car, didn't have a TV, house had no insulation, probably not even electric heaters when he was young.  They were working class, but they definitely wouldn't have thought of themselves as impoverished.

Whereas now, a home has to be insulated with a heat-pump to qualify as "healthy", a TV is a necessity and most people have a pretty decent sized one (if that's what they're into).  Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity".  Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)

What has caught people out is that, apart from housing, the cost of living has been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper, allowing everyone to enjoy a far higher standard of living than in years gone by.  Then, suddenly in the past year or two, cost of living has jumped up sharply making it difficult/impossible for many to continue enjoying the luxuries they'd grown accustomed to.  And, for some, without the ability to adequately budget they're unable to re-calibrate their spending and so find themselves coming up short.  But if we dialed the clock back to 20 year ago prices and 20 year ago incomes, those same people would have the same problems.

And on housing, the problem is that when more and more people are living in the same area (aka population growth), one variable out of price, proximity and property type (size/quality of house/section) has to change.  It is logically impossible for that not to happen.  And so, with population growing, people have to accept either increased price, decreased proximity or a less desirable property type (or, more likely, adjustments to all three).  It isn't greed, evil investors pushing up prices etc., it is simply economic principle at play.

"It's not about wise choices, it's mostly about luck" is pure BS except, perhaps, for the luck involved in winning the genetic lottery that is high IQ/EQ.  Accountants do see people from all (financial) levels of society (there are plenty of self-employed "poor" people), and those on struggle street are almost always those who repeatedly make bad financial/life decisions.  The thing is, when you make a bad decision because you don't know any better, it feels like bad luck however that is rarely the case. Consumer debt is probably the most common bad decision.  And the idea that rich people are lucky and mostly have it handed to them is just so not true.  Almost all of my "rich clients (net worths >$10M) have started out working class and have worked exceptionally hard, taken calculated risks, and made wise choices to get where they are.  Yes, some people get it handed to them, but those people are statistical anomalies.  And, on the flip side, there are some people that have made all the right choices and just had repeated bad luck but they're again statistical anomalies.  If you know how to make wise choices, bad luck knocks you back but you get back up again; if "bad luck" keeps you down, it is almost certainly poor decisions and not bad luck.

And to close, the fact that most of the people in society who are genuinely struggling are doing so due to their bad decisions isn't reason to ignore them and walk on by.  But it most definitely is a reason not to forcibly take money off those who've made wise choices and hand it to those that will squander it.

"Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity". Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)

People are now having trouble feeding themselves & their families  putting food on the table - eating out isn't something they can afford.

I can recall just a few years ago, posters on the TM forum querying whether or not anyone on a low income should in fact have a television. Or computer. Or a cell phone. Or children.
There's quite a lot of blaming the poor for being poor which even now still goes on; it may be a hangover from Victorian times, when poor families were routinely  viewed with suspicion & denied food with which to feed their children if they failed to meet their conditions, such as attending church - & never mind if their clothes were too threadbare or they were too ill - their children went without.


Foolish choices can happen - to ALL humans, rich & poor alike.

---

We cannot judge the present by our pasts. Rose coloured lenses or not.

According to the latest Green party post on Instagram 3.7 million kiwis who earn less than $125K would be better off under their income guarantee plan. .07% of the population would come under the proposed Wealth tax.

Boy, if that's true, .07% of the population are really really loud.

I would like to see the policy placed under a microscope, examined, costed, and fact checked by people who are independent and qualified. Not judged by those who are driven by other motivations.

---

Dken, one of the main reasons the wealthy pay less tax than the lowest of the low income earners is they can afford the best advice, the best means to avoid.

That is not fair, and has to stop.

Absolutely; plainly unfairness & perhaps time to as far as possible, close the loopholes allowing some to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

[king1]

 But it most definitely is a reason not to forcibly take money off those who've made wise choices and hand it to those that will squander it.

Umm governments do that already, you're basically saying you don't like the status quo.  

I come back to my earlier point, you don't get to decide how the government spends the money, you just have to pony up with whatever amount they impose up on you for - unless that is, you have a good accountant