Why would we want "the wealthy" being net beneficiaries of the tax system?
The top three deciles are the only ones contributing anything, with the top decile doing most of it.
Why are you advocating they pay as little as the poorest beneficiaries? You can't have a society where everyone is a net taker.
I don’t know if you know this but it’s really rather regulated. For example, try buying a lump of land and then just building a house on it without permission or in the wrong way.
You’ll soon find that you can’t just “create” that kind of asset, we artificially create scarcity there.
Similarly if you want to issue other assets like stocks or bonds, there’s more than a few regulatory hurdles plus they need to actually represent some useful value. That’s often the hard bit there.
Put another way, we created far more money than we created new assets or real asset value.
"Donations", is that this year's Atlas boogeyman?
ACT raised about $2.4m last year, almost exactly the same as Labour.
$2.4m! That gets you one or two decent multi-week print campaigns. That's it, then its gone.
I don't know what you are trying to suggest with your sinister handwaving at "donor mates", but the reality is extremely modest and very boring.
60% of NZers effectively don’t pay tax already. They pay negative net tax - they already receive more in benefits than they contribute.
Do you think there’s a tipping point somewhere where it’s ineffective to soak the productive 30% further? Where you actually get less juice the more you squeeze?
@AynRandy666 Do you think this makes it more likely, or less likely, that new useful drugs (like expensive weight-loss drugs) get made available to people?
Huh? Even the quickest of searches shows newsroom articles from 2023 with names like "National, tell us how your plans add up" and "National's fiscal plan doesn't answer tax cut questions".
https://t.co/YPw2sieWB7
https://t.co/oUiPZmBKAW
There's real things to criticise, you don't need to invent boogeymen.