Family Home In Labour's Tax Crosshairs
Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this.
Labour's refusal to rule out taxing the family home is a frightening prospect for ordinary Kiwis, says National MP Chris Bishop.
'As Kiwis continue to deal with the cost-of-living consequences of Labour's high tax, high spend record, it defies belief that its leader can't rule out piling more costs on Kiwis with a tax on their family home.
'Earlier this month, a former Labour Party advisor publicly confirmed the party had agreed to progress a Capital Gains Tax so it's unclear why Chris Hipkins can't bring himself to explain even the most basic detail.
'Similar to last week when Hipkins had to be corrected by Megan Woods on the party's position on oil and gas, and last month when Kieran McAnulty corrected Hipkins' position on public-private partnerships, it could be that he just doesn't know. Or he might just have to wait for permission from Labour's Policy Council and the Greens.
'Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Covid-19 inquiry row reignites political battle over pandemic legacy
Four ex-ministers say they've already given full evidence in private, but their successors accuse them of dodging public accountability, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Former Labour ministers defend inquiry no-show To a greater or lesser extent, four former Labour ministers – Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall – spent much of yesterday defending their decision not to appear at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19. As summarised in a minute published by the commission this week, the four believed their attendance would have been 'performative' rather than 'informative' and expressed concerns that livestreamed or published evidence could be manipulated or misused, especially given reports of abuse towards earlier witnesses. All have already provided extensive private testimony – Ardern's spokesperson said her most recent interview lasted three hours – and offered to answer any further questions in private, The Post's Kelly Dennett reports (paywalled) Writing in the Herald (paywalled), Thomas Coughlan says Ardern and her colleagues had good reasons to stay away: 'What some of the royal commission hawks seem to want is not an inquiry, but a trial', in which the ex-ministers are punished with a 'brief, livestreamed public grilling for their perceived crimes'. Government seizes on 'gutless' decision Government ministers were swift to condemn the Labour group's decision. As RNZ's Russell Palmer reports, deputy prime minister David Seymour accused the group of 'running from accountability', contrasting their daily televised briefings during the pandemic with their reluctance to front now. Senior minister Chris Bishop said they were 'ashamed of their record', highlighting the 'debt disaster' the government had inherited as a result of Labour's pandemic-era spending. Justice minister Judith Collins called Ardern's decision 'gutless and hypocritical', while foreign minister Winston Peters said the 'Podium of Truth' – a reference to Ardern's 1pm Covid-era updates – had become the 'Podium of Evasion'. Meanwhile prime minister Christopher Luxon stated confidently, but wrongly, that the four had defied a summons. In fact, explains Stuff's Lloyd Burr, the commission confirmed it had decided against compelling attendance, judging that doing so would be adversarial and unlikely to yield new information. The chair, Grant Illingworth KC, said their non-appearance would not hinder the inquiry's work, though public confidence might have been enhanced had they attended. Phase two under fire Hipkins has previously criticised the second phase of the inquiry – established by the current government – as 'far more political' than the first, accusing it of providing a platform for 'conspiracy theorist views'. He argued the terms of reference had been 'deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome', in part by excluding from consideration the period when Labour governed with NZ First. Phase two covers the years 2021 and 2022 only, and examines whether lockdowns, vaccine mandates, MIQ and other measures struck the right balance between public health and social and economic costs. But the inquiry has also faced scrutiny from the right. Documents obtained by Newsroom's Marc Daalder show Act's Brooke van Velden, the minister responsible for royal commissions, was advised to press Illingworth to improve planning, risk assessment and reporting, warning that failure to deliver on time and within budget would 'further undermine' confidence. Van Velden says she now has confidence in the chair and still expects the final report to be delivered to her by February 2026. Debating the pandemic's toll While the inquiry probes the social consequences of the Covid-19 response, debate continues over its impact on mortality. Writing in The Spinoff last month, University of Canterbury epidemiologist Michael Plank examined claims that New Zealand dramatically under-reported excess deaths to the end of 2023. His team found total deaths between 2020 and 2023 were between 2% higher and 0.8% lower than expected – far below excess mortality rates in countries like the UK or US. The timing of excess deaths closely matched Covid-19 waves, suggesting the virus, not indirect effects, was the main driver. Plank concluded: 'New Zealand's response was far from perfect, and there were undoubtedly harms as a result of lockdowns and other measures that are not reflected in mortality statistics. But there can be no doubt that the response saved thousands of lives compared with the alternatives.'
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: If we want to limit words in te reo Māori, what about words in English?
Surely every parent wants to hear their child's teacher say, 'He tohunga tō tamaiti ki te pānui' ('Your child is great at reading'), and for the parent to respond 'Ehara, ehara' ('Absolutely'). Sue Leman, Mt Albert. The children can cope It is astonishing to note so much alarm over the inclusion of Māori words in the reading programme for 5-year-olds. Surely teachers and children can both cope with the inclusion of vocabulary that many learners would already be familiar with. Songs in Māori, counting and skipping rhymes are known and often sung in kindergarten and pre-school situations. Most young children entering school would happily cope with 'pukeko' or 'pipi' as part of daily life and vocabulary. Growing up in New Zealand, they are also used to Aotearoa as the name of our motu. We have a hybrid language already; it's not easy or desirable to separate English and Māori usage. As a writer for Red Rocket Books, used as supplementary readers in junior classes, I am delighted to find some of my early titles being produced in Māori. Why would we want to backtrack on the language progress that has already been made? Would the education authorities please reconsider this restrictive attitude towards early school learning? Diana Burslem, Epsom. Blood-and-guts debate Gerry Brownlee has done it again! Add this latest fiasco in the debating chamber to his long list of 'Gerry Brownlee Gaffes' - and yes, there is a page with a list of at least 10 major gaffes on it. Brownlee defended his actions by saying Chlöe Swarbrick's words were directed personally at other coalition MPs. Oh no! That being the case then, why was Labour's Kieran McNulty not sent from the House in July last year when he said, 'They are spineless and gutless because they have given in to the whims of their coalition partners just to get into power', when referring to National. He went on to say, 'Utterly spineless and gutless.' There are many other examples of references to spines and guts being used, even by Sir John Key, which Brownlee enthusiastically applauded at the time. If anyone should be asked to apologise for their hasty actions, it's Brownlee. But I'm guessing he will be too gutless, or should that be spineless? Steve Jardine, Glendowie. Add to that list . . . Chlöe Swarbrick, the co-leader of the Green Party, was asked to leave the House yesterday for the second time after calling MPs spineless, or questioning whether enough of them had spines, and refusing to apologise. I support the cause Chlöe was espousing, in its essence, and also her right to make that comment in the House without being asked to leave. However, I wonder if she will now add to her list of spineless MPs two former Prime Ministers, (Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins) and two former ministers (Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall), who have all chosen not to appear in public hearings for the Covid Royal Commission of Inquiry, despite being asked to do so, as announced on Wednesday. Claire Chambers, Parnell. In support of Peters' approach It would seem that Hamas has now come out and thanked all of those nations that, in recent weeks, called for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamas claims that this was its ultimate aim and that it is grateful for the international support. That would underscore why Chlöe Swarbrick's call for support from 'six of 68 government MPs with a spine' was, in fact, way off course, and that Winston Peters' more cautious approach makes total sense. John Pendreigh, Westmere. Good on Chlöe! What Chlöe Swarbrick said in the House, and to reporters afterwards, was right on the money, and she should not have been told to withdraw her statement and apologise. Good on her for not doing so. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Andrew Little's Housing Policy Will Further Destroy Wellington
Wellington mayoral candidate Andrew Little has unveiled a Labour Party housing plan that will further destroy Wellington and make the city even more unaffordable for residents. The Labour Party's proposals for housing will not stimulate the local economy, and will see a continuation of high rates that hurt those on fixed incomes, students, pensioners and first home buyers most, and drive residents and businesses to leave. 'In his council housing policy, Andrew Little says Wellington 'simply isn't an affordable place to live' yet he is proposing policies that will only make the problem worse,' Wellington City Councillor and mayoral contender Ray Chung says. 'The most damning aspects of Labour's plan for Wellington are two fold: continuation of the charade that it's ratepayers' responsibility to subsidise new housing and that the city council needs to expand social housing. Both of these are the responsibility of central government and are already paid for by our taxes. Wellington ratepayers should not be paying twice for these.' 'The Labour Party candidates know their policies will cause hardship because they're busy promoting schemes like cheap loans and reverse mortgages to help homeowners pay their rates. That's how bad it's got. The ratepayer assistance scheme is another way to steal your wealth. The council should not be looking at extra ways for ratepayers pay their rates, the council should be lowering the rates take.' Social housing is set to cost Wellington ratepayers $1 billion over the next decade, which is an absolute travesty. People can barely afford to live in the city as it is. If elected mayor, I will get social housing off the council's balance sheet and back to central government, Ray says. Eastern ward candidate for council, Michelle McGuire says, 'the local economy will be stimulated by cutting the financial rates and compliance demands of council, lowering the commercial differential, and streamlining the regulatory process for building (which most councillors agree with but haven't done anything substantive about it since being elected). Wellington's population has stagnated. Until we make Wellington more affordable for residents and businesses, no one will be rushing to move here.' Michelle McGuire is one of the Independent Together candidates along with Paula Muollo (Southern ward), Ken Ah Kuoi (Eastern), Stuart Wong (Lambton) and Guy Nunns and Ray Chung (Western Onslow). These candidates have agreed on a set of pillar policies that include getting a zero rates increase for ratepayers, bringing the council back to core priorities and services, and ensuring that party politics is kept out of council decision making. 'The Independent Together candidates are the only team with policies that will ease the financial burden of ratepayers. Andrew Little's housing policies are more tax and spend. His policies will add to the cost-of-living crisis for Wellingtonians and lead to further population degrowth,' Michelle says. 'It's time to elect people who will put Wellingtonians first, not their political party. It's time to end party politics around the council table.'
