You are a bloody idiot. Why would X or Y want to stay in New Zealand under anything you'd like to see in this country when the majority of them wouldn't even get a tax cut from you but more importantly if they could actually come up with the money to buy their own they'd get strapped with a land tax on top of it.

In that video you basically stated all you want to see is a land tax and the top rate tax to go down. What you don't mention that X & Y will deplore is that you want interest rates re-added to student loans, working for families removed and significant cuts to Super Annuation and a raise in the age of retirement.

That doesn't look like a bright future for either the X or Y generation. Most of them won't get tax cuts, if they have children there will be no working for families, they will have to work for far longer, once they get a home they'll be swamped with a land tax. Interest on their student loans will return. Services will be cut everywhere since you want government GDP spending significantly cut. Then once they do retire they'll still be paying a land tax, they will get a very low pension, health costs will go through the roof and they won't have any money of their own. After all what are they going to retire on because its not housing you've taxed the hilt out of that.

You can't artificially push house prices down, you can perhaps slow the growth. But despite what you do in housing there are still those who will invest in property. Half the reason things like a land tax etc are awful is because while they get some people out of the property game. It still punishes those who have just the house they're occupying or the farmer with a certain amount of hectares. The big punters will keep investing and they'll continue to get richer and we'll still have the same problems where most people can't buy a new home. House prices remain going up with rentals increased meaning still hard to buy a house.

As for average wages. Key has said across-the-board tax cuts with an increase in GST. Means people actually get to make decisions about what they spend. And as Hickey likes to go on and on and on about our horrible consumerist ways surely a GST increase is exactly what is needed.

Agreed GBMan..... it's not the investors,, it's the playing field created for them, the rules that allow them to florish at the expense of a future generation, and the bully boy bankers who ensure the ground seed is available seasonal or not.

Bernard does not care about Gen Y and X. Do you really think everything Bernard stands for is going to appeal to those generations? I don't think so. And a land tax or any tax change whatsoever adds more bureaucrats. That is a stupid point.

Sorry Bernard, but I dont agree with a land tax. After pondering it for several weeks I decided against it. Just thinking about it now, it would probably influence me against buying a house/property, as it adds to the expense of owning a house (on top of rates etc). I am a Gen X/Y, and have no current plans to buy a over priced house, I'm happy to wait till they are back to a fair value (preferably undervalued).
After all, owning a house is a luxury, not a right.

I also think your mixing up genuine propetry investors (buy & hold very long term) with speculators & traders (oh I bought a house for $XXX, polished the floors & made $100k). I believe the IRD is chasing these punters up. I'd hate to be the guy who didn't declare his $8mill profits ;)

I'm waiting for the budget to make up my mind on Nationals plans. But one would have to assume if they align corporate/trust/top personal tax rates then they have removed a tax advantage gained by negatively gearing, so all those "investors" in the top income bracket may end up making changes to their portfolios to get back to positively geared.

Any ideas why John Key was so limpwristed? have a look at the MP sitting next to him during the speech. he owns Tremains real estate agency.

@gingercrush It wouldn't actually be artificially driving house prices down. It would be rebalancing the tax system, so property didn't have so many advantages over other investments. The fact is that house prices have more than doubled over about 8 years, which is an artificial and unsustainable rise, on the back of favourable tax benefits. House prices should only be rising by the rate of inflation in an ideal tax situation.

@Wally "Slamming the immigration gates closed"¦now that would reduce demand and push down prices."

It is also offshore investors who are buying up NZ property, and they don't end up paying any tax. Introducing a land tax, would have meant that they would then have to pay tax, which would broaden our tax base outside NZ. ALso stomping down on offshore people buying property would be a good step. NZ houses should be being bought by people who live and work in NZ. Instead profits these offshore investors get from rent, goes offshore, which doesn't help NZ.

Wally & P.D.K have to agree with you there, we need to get away from the idea of growth, and population growth through immigration, and make the 4.3 million that are already here more productive, educated, healthy, prosperous etc..

I would argue that population growth is BAD for NZ. Granted we are not growing that fast, according to Stats NZ, we are growing at 1.4% which means our population is doubling every 50 years. But still by 2060 we will have 9 million people .. is that really what we want ??

That also means double the number of houses/ fresh water/ sewerage systems/, double the cars on the roads, double our energy use, we need to double our energy production (coal / more dams / nuclear anyone?), double everything (crime, pollution, .. schools, hospitals .. you get the picture).

At what point do we have 'enough' people?? 10 million, 20m like Australia now? Personally the reason I like NZ is because of the LACK of people. Why do people think that growth is good?

Remember growth, any growth whether it be 1% or 5% is all exponential. exponential growth is ALWAYS unsustainable ..

@gingercrush: "You can't artificially push house prices down" - no but you can remove th reasons it is inflated.

We cant afford super at its prsent rate, WFF is awful in terms of encouraging over-sized families

regards

i voted for this man and expected more, wont make the same mistake next time, spineless and a flip flopper, mind you now we know he can flip flop without shame, can he go back on his superanuation promise

@ Nat
"can he go back on his superanuation promise"
- He should go back on his Superannuation promise. I thought it was a foolish thing to say.

Hey Peter :)

Raising the retirement age will become a necessity pretty soon!

/"Raising the retirement age will become a necessity pretty soon!/

Yes, sure, Dave. Agreed... but NOT before the next election.

My view is that big hairy audacious policy changes (like those ruled OUT yesterday) need to be offered to the electorate ... and not foisted upon us/snuck in under what Margaret Thatcher called the TINA ploy ("There IS No Alternative").

For all the rage, disappointment and diarrhoea John Key sparked yesterday he showed an understanding of that democratic principle.

Muldoon said he would scrap Kirk's National Super during the 75 election ... and then won the vote and did it. ... Damn him to hell. What a different country we'd have if that had still be in place, even dumbed down/watered down through the 1970s & 80s. (sigh) Alas poor Cullen fund? - P

Bernard Hickey wanted a land tax - also capital gains tax - so that house pices would drop "a little bit" so that young NZers would think "gee, maybe one day I can own a house". Wouldn't these same young NZers have to pay the land tax, and the capital gains tax as they try to move on to better house? Isn't cutting personal tax and company tax creating both chances for personal saving & chances for economic growth, both of which will help young NZers save and be employed and presumably buy a house?
I fail to see what Bernard Hickey is hoping to achieve. It seems nothing but a declaration of war on property investors would have satisfied him. Now he's portraying himself as a champion of the young and the poor, and an enemy of the wealthy. This is real wolf-in-sheeps-clothing stuff.

Sorry Bernard, I think you are out of order there. I am suddenly starting to be very impressed by John Key. His grasp of political subtlety is much greater than I realised.

John Key has stated quite openly that his approach is of incremental change that sticks rather than radical change that provokes a backlash. He is clearly testing the waters here, having ruled out the more radical changes as unacceptable (ie, they might or might not work economically but that is irrelevant if they will not work politically).

John Key is a political realist of a different type than we are used to. He does not hector and harangue as dear Aunty Helen did, but he is far from spineless (as I too feared at one stage). His power sharing with the Maori Party was a bold move by any count. He is a much more subtle operator than we expect.

Roger Witherspoon said.......John Key is a political realist of a different type than we are used to. He does not hector and harangue as dear Aunty Helen did, but he is far from spineless (as I too feared at one stage). His power sharing with the Maori Party was a bold move by any count. He is a much more subtle operator than we expect.

Roger.... any picture ,person or thing is always open to interpretation.

This man I believe is a corporate operator through and through and will gut you like a pig as and when the shareholders necessity dictates..........who pray tell are the "shareholders"

As to his liason with the Maori party.. that is little more than confirmation of the creedo... "diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggy untill you can pick up a big stick.

In true corporate fashion , he will gain the confidence of the Maori party... then set the cat amongst the pigeons.. so to speak

I believe these boys are working to a plan that may now have to be hurried along as the likelyhood of them not being re-elected increases.

When you hurry you tend to make more mistakes or errors of judgement.