I reckon former Labour Party leader David Cunliffe might have just done the best sell job on a capital gains tax that any politician in New Zealand —or anyone for that matter— has ever managed to do. 

It might have something to do with the fact that taxes —of any sort— get people rather fired up, and a lot of people are anti-capital gains tax. In my experience, even people who say they’re on the left side politically hate the idea of paying more tax than they are already. 

But I’ll tell you what, I reckon they’ll be feeling differently after comments from David Cunliffe. 

He was talking on Newstalk ZB this morning ahead of the Labour Party's annual conference this weekend where one of the big things on the agenda is a vote on whether the party will go further with the development of a capital gains tax policy and potentially a wealth tax policy.  

And he painted a picture of a capital gains tax scenario that I think would be far more palatable to most people than how capital gains has been discussed before. Which is allowing to offset a capital gains tax against other income taxes.  

“I think it’s very possible to, over time, use it to offset income tax. So you know, your teachers, doctors, your farmers can take less growth of or a cut in income tax in exchange for realised capital gains —usually excluding the family home— being brought in at some sort of rate. Just broadens the tax base, and we can give offsets elsewhere.” 

Now that in my opinion would do far more favours for most wage and salary owners than some of the tax changes the current Government has introduced.  

Of course, whenever you start talking about tax, reality is more complex than the theory. And even I’m starting to wonder how this scenario David Cunliffe talked about this morning would practically work. 

But, theoretically, I think people would be less against a capital gains tax if they knew they could offset it against their wage or salary. 

The argument for a capital gains tax has always been that it is unfair that we treat different types of income differently. So it's a no-brainer that we do something about it. 

David Cunliffe reckons most voters feel the same. What about you? 

I reckon former Labour Party leader David Cunliffe might have just done the best sell job on a capital gains tax that any politician in New Zealand —or anyone for that matter— has ever managed to do.&nbsp;
It might have something to do with the fact that taxes —of any sort— get people rather fired up, and a lot of people are anti-capital gains tax. In my experience, even people who say they’re on the left side politically hate the idea of paying more tax than they are already.&nbsp;
But I’ll tell you what, I reckon they’ll be feeling differently after comments from David Cunliffe.&nbsp;
He was talking on Newstalk ZB this morning ahead of the Labour Party's annual conference this weekend where one of the big things on the agenda is a vote on whether the party will go further with the development of a capital gains tax policy and potentially a wealth tax policy. &nbsp;
And he painted a picture of a capital gains tax scenario that I think would be far more palatable to most people than how capital gains has been discussed before. Which is allowing to offset a capital gains tax against other income taxes. &nbsp;
“I think it’s very possible to, over time, use it to offset income tax. So you know, your teachers, doctors, your farmers can take less growth of or a cut in income tax in exchange for realised capital gains —usually excluding the family home— being brought in at some sort of rate. Just broadens the tax base, and we can give offsets elsewhere.”&nbsp;
Now that in my opinion would do far more favours for most wage and salary owners than some of the tax changes the current Government has introduced. &nbsp;
Of course, whenever you start talking about tax, reality is more complex than the theory. And even I’m starting to wonder how this scenario David Cunliffe talked about this morning would practically work.&nbsp;
But, theoretically, I think people would be less against a capital gains tax if they knew they could offset it against their wage or salary.&nbsp;
The argument for a capital gains tax has always been that it is unfair that we treat different types of income differently. So it's a no-brainer that we do something about it.&nbsp;
David Cunliffe reckons most voters feel the same. What about you?&nbsp;

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

John MacDonald: Will they, won't they? Labour's capital gains tax decision

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e56c20e6-c7d4-4185-8d55-b233018a21ce/transcript

Anyone who thinks we can still stick to that pipedream of sport and politics not mixing probably got a hernia or had kittens yesterday morning before and after the All Blacks match against Italy. 

The game itself wasn’t too flash. I think the general consensus is that it was lacklustre. Or the All Blacks were, anyway.

So people not too excited about the actual game. A different story, though, with the players taking the opportunity to show their backing for last week’s treaty principles hīkoi during the pre-match haka. 

And then, after the match, there were players waving the tino rangatiratanga Māori Sovereignty flag on the field.

I’ve got no problem at all with what happened during the haka. But I’m not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the flag stuff. Reason being, that the All Blacks are a national team and using a different flag - other than the official flag - just doesn’t sit right with me.

It’s not that I’m anti-tino rangatiratanga flag. I just don’t think it was appropriate for the All Blacks to use. But, as far as using the haka to make a political point, I’m all good with that.  

Translating what TJ Perenera said leading the haka, he said: “The sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains". 

TJ’s explanation is that it was about expressing unity. And that’s how coach Scott Robertson described it too when he was asked about it after the game.

Razor said it was discussed beforehand and the unity thing was what it was all about. But there are two ways you can define unity. One definition - in terms of what happened yesterday during the haka - is this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi actually unites us all.

The other definition of unity, is that this could be seen as the All Blacks standing in unity with the 42,000 people who were in the hikoi that turned-up at Parliament last week.

Either way, I think the days of trying to keep politics out of sport are over. 

I’m good with TJ and the All Blacks doing what they did. Just like I was good with the Hurricanes women's team earlier this year having a go at the Government during their haka.

And here’s why: 

For me, we’re dreaming if we think we can cherry pick from Māori culture. We seem to be perfectly happy for the haka to be part of the All Blacks machine but some of us want our inclusion of Māori culture to stop right there.

As long as we can use that Māori culture to entertain the crowds, that’s fine. But, for some, it’s a different story if the people whose culture we are happy to milk are getting a bit toey about things.

What I’m getting at, is that we can’t just pick and choose which bits of Māori culture we want to put on show and which bits we don’t.

We can’t just have the show and no tell. And what TJ Perenara and the All Blacks delivered yesterday in Italy was the show and the tell. They showed our Māori culture to the world - as they always have - but they also told the world that it’s not just about the razzamatazz.

They told the world that there’s some stuff going on back home that people aren’t happy about. Particularly the people back home whose culture is on show every time the All Blacks take to the field.

And what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, as far as I’m concerned.

If we have a problem with what happened yesterday, then the All Blacks may as well ditch the haka altogether.

Because I think it is hugely disrespectful if we think Māori culture is only good for entertaining the crowds. Or selling a product. We might have got away with it in the past. But we’re fools if we think we can get away with it now.

LISTEN ABOVE

Anyone who thinks we can still stick to that pipedream of sport and politics not mixing probably got a hernia or had kittens yesterday morning before and after the All Blacks match against Italy.&nbsp;
The game itself wasn’t too flash. I think the general consensus is that it was lacklustre. Or the All Blacks were, anyway.
So people not too excited about the actual game. A different story, though, with the players taking the opportunity to show their backing for last week’s treaty principles hīkoi during the pre-match haka.&nbsp;
And then, after the match, there were players waving the tino rangatiratanga Māori Sovereignty flag on the field.
I’ve got no problem at all with what happened during the haka. But I’m not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the flag stuff. Reason being, that the All Blacks are a national team and using a different flag - other than the official flag - just doesn’t sit right with me.
It’s not that I’m anti-tino rangatiratanga flag. I just don’t think it was appropriate for the All Blacks to use. But, as far as using the haka to make a political point, I’m all good with that. &nbsp;
Translating what TJ Perenera said leading the haka, he said: “The sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains".&nbsp;
TJ’s explanation is that it was about expressing unity. And that’s how coach Scott Robertson described it too when he was asked about it after the game.
Razor said it was discussed beforehand and the unity thing was what it was all about. But there are two ways you can define unity. One definition - in terms of what happened yesterday during the haka - is this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi actually unites us all.
The other definition of unity, is that this could be seen as the All Blacks standing in unity with the 42,000 people who were in the hikoi that turned-up at Parliament last week.
Either way, I think the days of trying to keep politics out of sport are over.&nbsp;
I’m good with TJ and the All Blacks doing what they did. Just like I was good with the Hurricanes women's team earlier this year having a go at the Government during their haka.
And here’s why:&nbsp;
For me, we’re dreaming if we think we can cherry pick from Māori culture. We seem to be perfectly happy for the haka to be part of the All Blacks machine but some of us want our inclusion of Māori culture to stop right there.
As long as we can use that Māori culture to entertain the crowds, that’s fine. But, for some, it’s a different story if the people whose culture we are happy to milk are getting a bit toey about things.
What I’m getting at, is that we can’t just pick and choose which bits of Māori culture we want to put on show and which bits we don’t.
We can’t just have the show and no tell. And what TJ Perenara and the All Blacks delivered yesterday in Italy was the show and the tell. They showed our Māori culture to the world - as they always have - but they also told the world that it’s not just about the razzamatazz.
They told the world that there’s some stuff going on back home that people aren’t happy about. Particularly the people back home whose culture is on show every time the All Blacks take to the field.
And what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, as far as I’m concerned.
If we have a problem with what happened yesterday, then the All Blacks may as well ditch the haka altogether.
Because I think it is hugely disrespectful if we think Māori culture is only good for entertaining the crowds. Or selling a product. We might have got away with it in the past. But we’re fools if we think we can get away with it now.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: The haka is more than just pre-match entertainment

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8a098e65-de7a-4b08-b504-b233000f404e/transcript

I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.  

Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.   

I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.  

I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.   

If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.   

Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.   

They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.   

Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.  

So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.   

Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.  

They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.  

So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.  

For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.  

Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.   

His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.” 

Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.   

It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.  

There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.  

I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.  

They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.  

The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.  

Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes. 

But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.   

I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust. &nbsp;
Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming. &nbsp;&nbsp;
I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed. &nbsp;
I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something. &nbsp;&nbsp;
If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about. &nbsp;&nbsp;
They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years. &nbsp;
So the jetty is back. Everyone happy. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff. &nbsp;
They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest. &nbsp;
So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council. &nbsp;
For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent. &nbsp;
Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects. &nbsp;&nbsp;
His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.”&nbsp;
Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument. &nbsp;&nbsp;
It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go. &nbsp;
There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty. &nbsp;
I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were. &nbsp;
They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to. &nbsp;
The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people. &nbsp;
Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes.&nbsp;
But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest. &nbsp;&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Jetty restoration group's zero-interest pipedream

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c015124d-8598-4374-9a70-b230001c6975/transcript

John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing. 

They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping? 

Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time. 

Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her. 

Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up. 

Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.  

He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing.&nbsp;
They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping?&nbsp;
Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time.&nbsp;
Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her.&nbsp;
Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up.&nbsp;
Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender. &nbsp;
He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Politics Friday with National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Duncan Webb: Erica Stanford's insult in Parliament, gang patch ban, boot camps

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e19dea75-8a5d-4975-af79-b22f01876708/transcript

John MacDonald: Will they, won't they? Labour's capital gains tax decision

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips