Raf Manji really screwed up by proposing to land tax empty sections - but only in the CBD. He would've got my vote if he included empty land in some suburbs like Riccarton. There's a partially demolished home on Ilam Road near the Adventist church and it's been that way for 3 years. All windows smashed and boarded up, rubbish and old tyres all over the section. Just down the road from uni and it looks nasty.

On reddit, Top voters panicked because they thought that nobody outside of reddit knew about the party. They were very open about this. Great advertising! Imagine meeting "FreshAnus" and his mate "SeyGecksFuttBucker" at a campaign rally and suddenly becoming a Top supporter.

If top was the party of reddit weirdos then I have no idea what it is now.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If anything in the past TOP was really the party of great policy and poor communication.

The reddit 'weirdos' you reference understood (or thought they did) the policy and complexity of what TOP were proposing.

Generally anyone saying they can solve complex issues with simple solutions, either doesn't understand the issue or is lying to you. TOP broadly has/had good policy and good solutions but doesn't know how to communicate that to the public at large, who generally are not that politically engaged.

Most people are one or two issue voters; trying to communicate the nuance and complexity of issues and solutions to these types of voters is difficult.

[–] passwordforgetter@lemmy.nz 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think TOP had great ideas, otherwise they'd have got more of the youth vote. I just want to get a decent quality rental that has privacy, and which doesn't get either too hot or too cold. Can't be that bloody hard, but everyone seems to tread carefully around landlords.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Then LVT should be the policy you are interested in.

[–] passwordforgetter@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago

Alrighty

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Interesting, so key things are:

Rebrand to Opportunity instead of The Opportunity Party.
Aim to be a blend of environment and business supporting party, picked teal as colour which mixes green and blue.
Targeting 5% of votes (rather than previous elections trying to get an electorate MP)
Policy of land tax based on rates valuation (exemption for ~~family home and~~ farms it seems)
citizen income - replaces benefits with a means tested regular payment where average income earners should expect to be no better or worse off (unclear what happens with permanent residents or those on working holiday, seasonal workers, etc.).
flat tax rate
citizens assemblies

No announcement of exact rates for anything or details. At the start it's mentioned they have been criticised in the past for focusing too much on policy and not enough on how if affects people, so they are going to be changing this with their new strategy.

[–] Splenetic@lemmy.nz 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Blue-Greens: When you love the environment just as much as you love the thing destroying the environment

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago

Or when you realize that there are many ways to have a functioning economy whilst being good stewards to the environment.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Family home is not exempt (from https://www.opportunity.org.nz/platform)

Bringing house prices down with a Land Value Tax. A land value tax (LVT) makes housing affordable again by shifting the tax load off working people and onto land. The tax applies to land only (not any buildings on that land). This encourages high-density housing and discourages urban sprawl, land-banking or large rental property portfolios, which helps force down house prices. An LVT will retool our economy for innovation and production, instead of rent-seeking and paper profits. This will help drive real economic growth, by redirecting investment away from housing and towards business. For ‘land rich, cash poor’ Kiwis like farmers and retirees, exceptions and deferrals will apply.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

they're flogging a dead horse with the LVT, in my view. It's been proposed many times, by many people, and the counter argument is the same, that it screws over retirees who are asset rich, but have a limited income, and for whom living in a paid off house was part of the retirement plan.

Yes, I know it's only land value, and there are mechanisms to delay paying, but it's going to be a massive loss of equity.

Labour were smart enough to leave the family home out of it in their CGT proposal.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So how do you propose to fix it?

Labour wasn't "smart" to leave out the family home. They just knew that it isn't politically tenable for a NZ party to go against the property market. Even though they know that is exactly what we need.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

They just knew that it isn't politically tenable

I don't see the difference myself. And one solution is to make your primary residence exempt, and perhaps a lower rate for farm land.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Ah, when Jack asked about exceptions for family home etc and she said yes I took this literally instead of interpreting it as him asking about nuace in applying the rules and her implying yes there will be some exceptions.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 4 points 6 days ago

That wasn't great communication from her; but the family home is definitely in. She later (kinda) clarifies when saying; with LVT and the flat tax middle income NZ should see almost no change' the margins will see bigger change.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Policy of land tax based on rates valuation (exemption for family home and farms it seems)

This isn't going to collect much then. Also farms are businesses. Just exempt the family home and that's good enough.

citizen income - replaces benefits with a means tested regular payment where average income earners should expect to be no better or worse off (unclear what happens with permanent residents or those on working holiday, seasonal workers, etc.).

Won't work. The rent seekers in the economy will instantly suck up any extra income anybody has. Better to actually provide essentials directly to citizens, start with utilities.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 6 days ago

LVT addresses this somewhat. Making investing in property less attractive vs other forms of investment.

As a nation, we have to get off our addiction to investing all our money into land; all that really does is ship huge amounts of money in the form of interest payments off shore.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sorry it seems family homes aren't excluded.

Won't work. The rent seekers in the economy will instantly suck up any extra income anybody has. Better to actually provide essentials directly to citizens, start with utilities.

They will already be paying more tax from the land tax. The idea being to make people feel being a land lord is no longer an easy ride and get them to invest in something else, removing speculation and artificial supply limits (during market booms, houses often sit empty. Also, this makes holiday homes harder to justify).

If they actually get this in place then it's the first step towards the biggest wellbeing enhancement the country will ever see: the gutting of the inhumanity that is WINZ. If we just hand the money to people instead of making them dance for us, that will surely have positive lasting impacts.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Honestly everything I have read and researched shows that direct payment of money to citizens doesn't accomplish much if anything. That money gets sucked up instantly in higher prices and lower wages as the rent seekers vacuum it all up. If you simply provide the citizens the goods and services they would be buying with that money that actually provides a downward pressure on prices and acts to counter market forces. For example if you provide free housing for people that drives down rents, if you give people rent subsidies that drives rent prices up.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 days ago

Can you give some sources. A have been interested in UBI and other basic income schemes for quite some time; I haven't read much that is negative; there are a lot of positives and some neutrals. The mental health benefits are generally staggeringly good!

Basic infographic on crime and UBI
The Finnish Experiment key point: "The results also call into question the punitive workfare policies based on the deterrent effect of unemployment services."
Stockton, USA found that having sure income increased wellbeing and increased employment.
Give directly, Kenya this is really awesome; the life changing effects on the whole community is great.
Housing First whilst not UBI; housing first is similar. It tackles similar problems and and gives housing to homeless in an unconditional manner.

Whilst there hasn't been a country wide application of UBI or similar; the benefits are generally well recognized. What remains in question is how to fund it sustainably and to remove the idea (some in the community have) that people need to be punished into working.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I have for a long time been a fan of replacing benefits with a UBI. The idea is that everyone is about as well off as they were before (not a cash injection, you adjust tax rates to balance it out), but they don't have to do the stupid things WINZ make them do.

This way you save money by downsizing WINZ, you provide a smaller core team that can support the people who want to be there. This gives people the dignity that Qiulae is talking about, without the cash injection that would get hoovered up like you're talking about.

You could, over time, reduce the age of eligibility to age 0 or even earlier (paid to the parents) to make one system that supports families as well.

Obviously the devil is in the detail, but I think this TOP (or rather Opportunity) plan has some basis in reality so long as there is a multi-pronged approach.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You could raise the lowest tax rate, that would be a good thing but it would only effect the people who already pay taxes. Better thing would be to eliminate the GST which would benefit everybody who buys anything. You can pay for it by adding some tiers to the tax system on top.

UBI is a cash injection whether you call it that or not. As I said you could achieve similar outcomes by giving people the essentials for free at least up to some threshold. The government could set up a public utility to provide electricity, bandwidth, water, etc and could provide the first X units for free and charge for the rest at market rates or just provide them at cost plus basis. This would force private companies to compete and lower prices for everybody. Similar things can be done for food or rent.

I can even envision a scenario where the government builds facilities like dormitories where you get a room, a bed, a desk and a shared bathroom. You cram these into buildings and offer them as public housing. People living there don't pay for electricity or water or sewer or anything. Minimal and basic but free. As you build more you lower the eligibility requirements until one day every citizen can live in a tiny dorm room for free if they want.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Whilst removing GST seems like a good idea on the surface; it does serve some purposes which are not easily replaced.

It captures a bunch of revenue from tourists that otherwise would be harder to capture; tourists see the price and don't think about the tax that they are contributing to the NZ economy. So tourists in Queenstown are helping to pay for hospitals in Auckland.

It captures some of the proceeds of crime; I know we want to reduce crime as much as possible; it is a fact of life, the GST helps to get some of that money back. It is a bad bargain but is better than nothing.

Adding carve outs in the GST scheme for fresh fruit etc, is a bad idea. In NZ the effective GST rate (15% - admin costs of the system) is something like 14.8% I couldn't find the article that was from, I read it a few years ago. Compare that to the effective VAT in the UK, which is around 16% when they pay 20% in VAT on most stuff.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are better ways to capture tourist dollars than GST though. Same goes for proceeds of crime (which isn't that important because it's such a tiny portion of the economy).

You can't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What ways are effective for capturing tourist dollars?

I agree that GST is a regressive tax that overly targets the lower income earners. But it does serve a purpose

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 days ago

You can charge more for visas, you can have airport taxes, you can levy a fee on museums, huts, trails and such, you can place taxes on tour operators and guides etc.

There are lots of options.