Obviously, I want to move toward minarchy and no tax, and I still hold the CGT is a backward step we will all end up ruing the day it came in, but overall, the mix they are looking at is far preferable to our current contradictory, and largely nonsense, because hotch potch, tax system and rates. The flatter rates across all entities, the lower, and equal same top rates and marginal rates to take out game playing, the better.

And yes, way overdue to get rid of WFF in total: English should have had the guts to do that on his first budget.

But what's the bet this socialist government introduces the CGT, increases the GST, but does nothing else!

I'd prefer our tax system to incorporate all welfare payments -- this could mean a negative income tax for the lowest earners. This way you eliminate high marginal tax rates as low income families earn more money and lose benefits. I suspect these high marginal tax rates are far bigger barriers to productivity improvement and employment than many politicians and economists believe.

I twittered about this :-) I think the key to making a high GST fair is the compensation for low-income earners. My solution is a high (ideally around 20K, but I haven't done the sums, and they'd obviously have to be done) tax-free threshhold, and I think that should kick in before lowering of top rates does. Goes to everyone, but proportionately much more important to low-income earners. Also makes working, even at a low income level, much more attractive - you get to keep all your earn. And stops the silliness of taxing people, only to give some of it back to them in various assorted "allowances", while losing the rest of it into the bureaucratic ether.

What seems to have been forgotten are the all important cuts to government spending.

Surely it is imperative to reduce the power of the state.

No matter what changes are made to the taxation system the result will be the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

In my opinion that is socialism and that is not good for the health of our nation.

I think WFF is showing the strain of the inequities that it encourages. eg hi-earning landlords rorting the system by reducing their taxable income so they can get a $10,000 annual taxpayer subsidy from WFF - along with the grunty tax return itself from the losses of the rental. "Well off families rort the system"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2761239/Well-off-families-rort-...

Also, a young woman I know won't go back into the workforce, because of the abatement to her WFF payments. Instead she does informal cash jobs. So instead of her getting an earning job, adding to national productivity, & paying taxes, she gets a $10,000 taxpayer subsidy to sit at home. BTW her children are all at school, so no reason not to work. How stupid is that.

Yes to CGT or land tax if we are really to level the taxation playing field. At present, gains thru effort are taxed, & passive gains are freebies. Don Brash want to increase our productivity, but we are taxing productive activities but not nonproductive ones. D'oh!

I don't go for too big a GST increase, regardless of what the working party thinks I feel it is a particularly regressive tax.

Well said Sally . Yet the country voted for socialism , the huge nanny state , three times , 1999 / 2002 / and 2005 ! Sadly , we are now weakened by Labour's largesse , at a time when we most need a strong and vibrant economy . Even sadder still , the distortions to the tax system that Labour produced , to buy itself votes in perpetuity , are continuing to cripple us , 'cos the Nats are too jelly-backed to deal to them . ( see above , Phillys comments on WFF , so true ! )

Mario : Had the Nats scrapped the stupid WFF , then they could have given all of us the tax readjustments , that they promised . So they reneged on their election promise , yet stayed loyal to Labour's bribes ! And right about now , many of us could use that extra money . But , thanks to Cullen , a chosen few are getting it all .

Not too sure if I like the GST hike idea Bernie. Not so much because of its real or perceived regressiveness, but simply because it will increase the incentive to sell and spend informally, without paying any tax or offering the consumer any guranatees whatsoever. Also, I feel that the lower (but still fully employed) half of the middle class will bear the brunt of this hike, and it's those people that simply have to buy this and that for them and their kids to survive, but won't benefit from a tax flattening at all. If you think about this, these battlers are in many ways fundamentally the core of the economy, you don't really want any type of change making them worse off as it would be weakening to the society at large.

What I am all for is increased targetted taxes on arguably destructive products to the society when consumed, such as those on alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis (after legalising it, obviously, and heavily taxing some of the formerly criminal business), gambling and maybe even petrol/diesel. Lots of additional money can be raised this way. But definitely not pro any broad GST hikes.

I am also against the CGT idea. Way too complicated to administer, and it could actually unfairly give the rich massive (albeit temporary) tax breaks once the market truly crumbles as well as create another essentially parasitic and tax-avoidance consulting industry costing real money and providing a negative contribution to the overall productivity of the country.

Definitely pro scrapping LAQCs and introducing strict ringfencing rules, be it business in general or property in specific. No sense reducing your salary income liability by temporary "losses" on property maintenance or in general business, all while your underlying property value or business goodwill is effectively skyrocketing. Having said that, it still makes perfect sense to allow people to claim loss on property after they've claimed a profit on property and up to the amount of property profit they've claimed.

The land tax, on the other hand, is a brilliant idea. You can raise billions, it would cost very little to administer, would be extremely hard to avoid (especially if the government can put a caveat on the title and force a sale to collect if the taxes are not paid), and it would improve the efficiency of usage immensely and penalise both long and short-term speculation. Yes, it would be equivalent to "very high rates". However the rates in NZ are currently funnily small compared to property values measured by any Western standard. The fundamental reason is that the property is grossly overvalued compared to the incomes, but until the incomes rise no reason why not to heavily penalise inefficient land users, such as urban or rural landbankers. I say 1.5% national annual tax on privately held land by NZ residents (possibly excluding owner-occupied land up to certain size), and 2.5% of land value annual tax for non-NZ resident held freehold NZ land.

And then, use all extra income gathered this way to cut the fundamental barrier to productivity increase, which is the marginal income tax rate. The flatter, the better.

Initially I baulked at some of the suggestions above, however I'm enlightened by the fact that all possibilities are being considered and analysed with great transparency. Don't forget the 'do nothing' alternative - then again, maybe do.

Come on CGT!

Wally, I do the legal parts of your list already! A home garden for veg, I homebrew, I make my own yogurt, cheese, sauerkraut and bread from flour I grind myself, and I fish. I've got a hankering to shoot those cute little ducks in the park but I think people wouldn't be too happy about that. All this thrift started within the last year due to the economic crisis. Oh, and I downsized my house.

I try to earn as little as possible (but I don't take the dole, I have morals to uphold, and pride), and I try to trade as little as possible, because both are punished by taxation. Guess what a higher GST will incite me to do?

I hadn't thought of theft of fencewood, but the marble in the graveyard kinda calls out to me ;-)... maybe that's a bad sign.

On another note....
I'd support a land tax. We buy and sell land as property, but land was not created by anybody... so in my book, nobody really had endemic rights to it in the first place, not even the Maori. It's perfectly understandable to have exclusive use of land, so you can develop it to your own ends ... but IMHO land should be rented from the public, not owned. Transitioning to anything like this should be done with extreme care.

Philly: "we are taxing productive activities but not nonproductive ones." <-- Right.

Two points:

1) Surprise surprise, suggestions that GST should be raised to 20%. Just when the same outrageous idea is being advanced in Britain. London cries jump - "how high sir" comes the response from the South Pacific. Plans to raise GST are a clear indicator that the New Zealand Government is going to attempt hyper-inflation. If prices explode as per Weimar Germany they want their 'cut'. They know, that in such circumstances the entire incomes of the poor, and the middle class, will have to be devoted to basic consumptive necessities and creaming 20% off the top will be a great 'earner'.

2) CGT and other land taxes? A clear indication that the 'property confiscation phase' is being readied. Again, connected to hyperinflation, whereby a charge can be levied on a persons earned monthly income against an alleged capital gain - which really just reflects ongoing monetary debasement.

"incentivise investment and discourage consumption. We might actually have a hope of sparking real growth and reducing debt if we did that" ooooops, higher GST on construction is a bummer isn't it? Means increased borrowing by families if they want to build. As a result, the price of all homes will rise. Then we have to accept the truth, govt will not reduce spending. The waste of other peoples money will continue. It is a disease of all NZ govts. The perception that will result from the lies and the spin that a 'rejigged' tax system is a solution. Complete crap. English and whomever we end up with post these fools, will have to raise the tax take to pay down the fiscal debt.
Then you need to consider the vast numbers employed by the govt to 'work' the WfF system! Must be in the thousands. Anyone for redundancy? Fat chance of that. Off we go to the "front office" Forgotten in this public debate, not by chance either, is the reality that this economy cannot return to the credit stoked splurging stupidity that characterised the period of Labour idiocy. So where do the unemployed go? Maybe Bolger could hire them all. A 'Piggy' solution.

What about zero income and company tax (and thus no complicated depreciation schedules), zero tax on bank deposit interest, much higher GST, a decent land tax collected by the local government but passed to the central (perhaps with a low exemption), higher registration for gus guzzlers as well as a gas guzzler tax at purchase (even the US has one of these) higher fuel prices and electricity (but with a kw threshold for low income/energy efficient businesses and households) and to top it off a financial transaction tax of maybe 1%, collected by the banks on every single transaction conducted in kiwi dollars (might make the kiwi less popular with speculators)

We need to move tax from good things ie enterprise and hard work, to bad things ie excess consumption and pollution. Removing income & company tax would simplify compliance as well as removing the depreciation madness (if you need an accountant to work out your tax, its too complicated). IRD would have GST, vehicle, fuel and electricity taxes collected by businesses, land tax by local government and a financial transaction tax by the banks. Low cost, not able to be avoided easily and still progressive in the sense that high income earners will pay more GST, vehicle, fuel, electricity, land and financial transaction tax. In addition it encourages hard work, saving, lower consumption and pollution. Encourage foreign companies to domicile here only as long as they are green technology ie make New Zealand the world leader for environmentally sustainable technology. I'm afraid unless we really live up to the "clean and green" tag, we will have nothing to trade on in a couple of years.

No more tax, plse. Just increase GST to 20% and set a income tax rate at 20% for income above 50K - under 50K set income tax at 10%. Introduce 5% Stamp duty property purchases. That will fix our problems

And a full rebate for those on the pension Trev!

I read this in the NBR and makes the 300 families getting over $1000 a week seem trivial

"over 9700 families with rental losses offsetting other income, who receive Working for Families tax credits"

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tax-working-group-punctures-myths-around-gs...
This is outrageous!

So tax payer is sponsoring property investors. That is why you are not seeing a drop in house prices the tax payer is supporting it

I'm no economist but it seems to me that the high tax take in the past boom was funded out of overseas borrowings. So now we have to pay out of exports and tourism. Unfortunately we have more people to support because of immigration and less income because of the relevant industry down turn. So we need more tax from those who can afford to pay (no point in taxing those who can't). This means a progressive tax no mater how you dress it up.

Agree with you Malcolm on GST at 20%.Wether there`s a chance/will, to significantly decrease the central goverment,local goverment costs am equivicol, as thats a very large part of the population that goverments are far more wary of, than the small percentage of farmers that a previous correspondent was wary of.
Good on you Wally for your forthwright cynicism that fits well with my view of the world.

Alex, I'm sure you are right. One hopes that the great state machine can be rolled back but, realistically, how is this going to happen? In effect the 'trap' has been beautifully baited because so many people are now either directly, or indirectly, dependent on government largesse to survive - thus the system of tax, tax, and more tax takes on a life of its own. Like you, I am also cynical that the farmers actually have that much power. After all, if John Key and Bill English upset them then who are they going to vote for - Sue Bradford? Its a bit like the English working class. They have been treated quite terribly by the British Labour party but are the dwindling ranks of the 'cloth-cap' brigade going to vote Tory? Somehow I don't think so.

ps: I have this terrible feeling that Wally might be proved right about things!

Guys, that stamp duty thing is in theory a great idea to reduce flipping/short term property speculation, but in practice it doesn't really work (didn't Spain have it and it still didn't prevent them from induging in the second biggest property bubble in Europe?), and could hypothetically reduce the land supply as people are incentivised to artificially hold on to not incur a tax penalty. The same potential nasty side-effect applies to a CGT if only incurred when selling. Beware of any taxes possibly working against the residential land supply. Limit the latter even for a short while and you have another potential residential boom (and bust) trigger.

Phill Smith: Yes, more progressive taxes....is what I expect to happen....At the end of the day the money to tax is a person's disposable income, ie money not needed for essential living....

I cant myself see how we are going to continue as we are going ie Govn spending more than it earns. I dont think we will be out of debt as a Nation in 10 years, we will be lucky if its no worse in 10~15 than it gets in the next 2....and that assumes we dont see structural un-employment of 8~12% which I think we will. So to pay for that there has to be tax increases....or we borrow and eventually like California we go bankrupt....

I do think WFF is utter cr*p....for me the best way to solve that is like the UK, the first few $K is tax free....kids or no kids, ppl choose or not to have them, should take responsibility for that.

Housing / land tax, yes essential, its un-productive investment and is causing crazy borrowing thats crippling us in debt.

Loopholes/rorts, close them, tax dodging, punish those with even bigger financial penalties...

regards

Malcolm, I dont think the gold standard is practical...for better or worse we have moved past that. Remove bankers? no....bankers generally are useful....the problem is excess....we just have to regulate more and police it....unfortunate but morals are obviously lacking in some...

Inflation, bad for the poor, yes, but I think deflation is even worse...with deflation wages drop....capital effectively multiplies in value.

To me the biggest dangers now are because of lack of leadership by our leaders but also because lack of vision and care by the voter....So in effect good or necessary decisions that need to be made now while still small are not made as it costs votes.........instead these are put off for someone else or until drastic of draconian measures are needed...this is madness IMHO. There isnt even much sign that Pollies are interested in displaying leadership and taking the voter with them. Instead it seems to be ask if the voter likes or dislikes it and pick the path giving the most votes lost, or the most won. The voter is fickle, shallow and short sighted, the voter will pay for that....

Raising GST? - Trademe will do even better!!!! And bartering could return!!!
In terms of the question in the heading, I would answer "yes" to all those proposals with the exception that I'm not really a fan of CGT

I say yes to raising gst and lowering income tax. It gives incentive to earn more and spend less!
No to CGT, Ozzy has it and it hasn't made their houses more affordable.
WFF helps a lot of people with the costs of children & I sit on the fence with that one, though I don't really like any system that taxes someone's earnings to give it to someone else - seems more like communism than democracy....

Murray - if income tax is lowered then those currently on wFF will get much of that benefit "back" by paying less tax, without all the bureaucracy

Matt in Auck - true, but if GST is raised won't it disappear there?

at the end of the day we eventually have to wake up to the fact that we live on a finite sized planet with a finite amount of natural resources. Finite means that there is an end point.
We've lived up the last hundred or so years on consumption based on cheap energy and extraction of other limited resources. Sooner or later we need to find an equilibrium point. This will only come through heavily taxing consumption, extraction and pollution.

So yes, lower taxes on labour and intellectual effort, 10 to 15% max, then increase taxes on consumerism and waste. Drop the proposed ETS and have a carbon tax as well. Balance it all out with the first $30k or so tax free, with a top up for the kids and pensioners.
Watch the multinationals go fully tax paid in NZ and the clean tech industries and research houses start up new businesses here. And our accountants would move from avoidance and evasion to growth and development.
Our year in Singapore was great- paying only 10% tax at year end, while alcohol, cigarettes, cars, petrol, et al was taxed through the roof. Worked hard, didn't spend much and came home with over 1/3rd deposit for a villa in Sandringham.

Malcolm says: "The answer has to lay in the size of government shrinking"

Not necessarily. In fact, the opposite can attain a far superior result.

Ponder this:

The government currently receives its revenue from borrowing, taxes, SOE returns, and fines.

To sustainably reduce the dependence of those revenue streams, the government's source of revenue needs to be broadened.

Simply put, the government needs new revenue streams so they don't have to tax us so hard.

There is not only a need for government to act but also a prime opportunity to correct some of the economic imbalances we face.

Government market participation is what is need and comes with many benefits.

Although export markets are weak, in some areas demand has increased. Therefore, there is scope for government to increase productive investment opportunities and the ease to which invest by actually participating in the market.

Booming sectors and new markets could be identified with the public given the opportunity to get onboard.

Government involvement in new export ventures will improve investor confidence, which will increase accessibility to local capital, giving not only the government but also mum and dad investors the opportunity to generate an offshore return.

This offshore return will broaden and increase the government's revenue streams while sustainably offsetting tax cuts here at home.

Furthermore, it improves our balance of payments.

Moreover, despite the recent worldwide boom, according to a recent piece by Bernard, New Zealand has not created a single net extra job in the export sector in the past decade. That being the case, surely the private export sector has let the nation down, which is all the more reason for the government to become an active market player. The government is far better placed (resources etc...) to attain a far superior result.

This is where our stimulus package should be focused and what we should be doing to sustainably reduce our tax rate.

Wally - Investor protection and confidence is a key issue that cannot be ignored if we wish to improve investor perception and divert investment.

They (the government) can't do any worse than the private sector, which has dealt a striking blow to investor confidence.

Besides, it doesn't mean the plan itself is ineffective, it merely shows the importance of having an astute government.

Doesn't the National party have a largely business based background that they can utilise?

I notice there was a mention on "the panel" afternoon' with Jim Moira RadioNZ
the tax expert ( Niells Cambell) says that a land tax has been tried in NZ and it was thrown out as it was seen as "extremely inequitable" NZ is an agricultural country and a land tax meant that a start-up farmer was having to pay the same tax as a farmer who was free-hold. The Grimes and Colemans, study however suggests the value of land would fall making it more affordable. I also wonder at the "extremely inequitable" given politics now and then in the footnote to the Grimes and Coleman it says: FitzRoy's proposal was to tax country land (wild or cultivated) at 2d per acre per annum, with a tax on houses at a rate of £1 p.a. per room excluding the first three rooms, garrets, outhouses and closets (Goldsmith, 2008).
In addition the tax would also be based on the capital value so a far off sheep station wouldn't be taxed as much as a peat-rich horticultural land?

Overall you were given the impression of townies sitting a around all day on deck chairs while a farmers pay them a rent.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/2009/08/18/the_panel_part_2

Compulsory reading below for the chorus line of government deifying, tax plundering, fiat currency worshipping socialists who believe that the 'state' can deliver Shangri La.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12831.html

Broaden and flatten the tax base, target consumption and immovable activities, eliminate tax havens and perverse exemptions.

All aimed at increasing the returns to activity that will stimulate productive investments and lift earnings.

Increase thresholds to support low wage earners and avoid complex and ineffective state welfare interventions.

Or dont change and watch more of the same happen.

You're a dangerous man, Chairman.

Mark - advocating for government to generate an offshore return (to actually earn some income for a change rather than being a cost to us) and giving investors an opportunity to get onboard has all of a sudden become dangerous?

Please explain?

Read some history Chairman. Any year in the twentieth century will give you a clue as to why I said you are so dangerous.

Anybody who undermines my individual rights, and my freedom from others, and my most vicious adversary, the State, is dangerous, and in line with that, you are thus the mouthpiece of my enemy; you're an Ork.

Ahhhh : That's an ORC , Mark . The guy from Ork hung around with a gal called Mindy , and no one would argue against that........hubba bubba !!!!!!!!!!

Crikey , Chairman : Heading out on a limb there , me old chum...........or should I say , comrade ! ............. " Kiwibank is government participation in the market and was the product of an improved democratic system (MMP) "............Bloody hell , man . Seriously , do you believe that , or are you just yanking our chains ?

Oh for God's sake

I don't see how advocating for government to work for us, generating an offshore return (to actually earn some income for a change rather than being a cost to us) while increasing market competition and giving investors an opportunity to get onboard is imposing on your right

A government distorts competition, completely. Every time, and by definition. A government cannot increase competition, it can only lead to monopolies and rent seeking. Read some history.

And State's are the biggest killers of humans that humanity has ever, ever seen. The State always operates by force, and always by extinguishing the rights, and often, lives, of individuals.

Are you only five years old or something? You must be to be this naive. Either that, or you're a troll.

History has shown the more you reduce government the more it's replaced by large multinationals.

Okay then, I'll toss you these names:

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
The idiot with the weird hairdo in N. Korea
Mao, your namesake (and oh so apt)
Mugabe
Chavez ....

And on and on and on. Just Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed 1.7 billion of their own citizens, quite apart from those that spent most of their lives in Gulags, and all the citizens of their poor sod countries that lived lives under terror, with no privacy or freedom.

Now you name me one multi-national that has killed on anything like this scale, indeed, killed at all, any of their customers?

Name me one multi-national that has caused one of its customers to live in a state of tyranny and terror, a slave to it.

Name one multi-national that has ruled by force?

I repeat, you, and those like you, are amongst the most dangerous people on earth. You are the apologists for State tyranny, and the perpetrators of it.

The best thing Flip Flop John Key can do for me, and the living standards of the individuals in this country, is get out of the way, and take his hordes of bureaucrats with him.

Hell's teeth, you'll be the end of me.

A little too esoteric for me I'm afraid Gibber.

"Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks."

Seems even Peter Garrett finds it just as hard to walk-the-walk in politics as sing the songs, Gibber?
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Garrett_gives_Four_Mile_the_go_ahe...

A little too esoteric for me I'm afraid Gibber.

Midnight Oil song...

The blue sky mining company. Mined asbestos. Kiddies in the mining town played in the tailings... Death sentences as they breathed in the asbestos dust.

Never mind all the asbestos products that doomed many tradesmen and others in their families to agonizing death sentences.

The company knew of this and continued to mine long after they knew the impact to their workers, families and customers

And yes, Garret has sold out.

Does that change the impact to the poor sods and their families who have been affected by asbestos?

I overlooked some other companies. But none of them had anywhere as good a song...

Rothmans
Benson & Hedges
Winfields

Nobody was forcing any smoker to smoke, now or in the past. Everytime a smoker purchases cigarettes, it is a transaction between consenting adults, without the initiation of force involved.

Whereas, the State always rules by force.

One is a transaction by free individuals, the other is a Goliath pummeling a defenseless individual.

For this reason, all drugs should be legalised.

(signed, ex-smoker).

Mark,
you made a statement about no companies having killed any of their customers

The glaring error in your post deserved a reply.

Mark - you have lost the plot totally big fella, you say:
"And State's are the biggest killers of humans that humanity has ever, ever seen. The State always operates by force, and always by extinguishing the rights, and often, lives, of individuals."
It is the indecent elements that capture the state and turn it into Fascism that use them to constrain the masses. And, in all of the sad incidents you name, what do you think those states had in common?
They were all massively in hock to foreign financiers that were dictating their social and economic policy to enforce the debt contract, without giving a frig about the social contract.

As for your claim no multinationals corporations not knowing that their actions were going to kill large numbers of people, but going ahead with their activities regardless, thats nearly as astonishing as your claim that we haven't yet had a hands off market economy, when most everyone knows full well we have had many of them and they have been as detrimental as any other system for the same reasons, they were bankers puppets via debt based strings.
Private central banks are the largest influencial multinational companies on the planet, I give you the below evidence of their repeated trick of financing all sides in war, then weigh that up against the previous examples you gave:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13668670/Wall-Street-and-the-Rise-of-Hitler-An...

Who would a land tax be paid to.
Considering we have district and regional land taxes ,maybe urban people should just live within there means and stop bludging off the farmers .The drought cost 3 billion can you imagine if Auckland
had a weather event of that magnitude .

Mark- sustainable as in the newly generated offshore revenue streams will sustainably offset our tax cuts rather than having to resort to robbing Peter to pay Paul or people borrowing more to cover the increase in GST.

While there is merit in reforming the tax system, we seem to be ignoring the obvious; it would far more effective if we also broaden the government's revenue streams as well.

We need to generate new returns (preferably from offshore) - not tax ourselves more.

Moreover, according to a recent piece by Brian Fallow, Deloitte's data on 200 of our largest companies (excluding banks) suggests deep cuts to corporate taxation would be a windfall to foreign investors, which is far from being the right solution for improving our balance of payments.

And then there is this:
Banks are expected to benefit from a possible increase in GST http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=103988&fm=psp,tsf

When it comes to reforming the tax system we need to be extremely cautious how we proceed.

Yes, I agree, a government can distort competition. However, it can also be used to increase competition.

Whether it's in the private sector, government or a combination of the two, organised greed always needs to be kept in check. It's like rust "“ it never dies and always tries to dominate. Governance is far too important for us to give over control (the private sector are not publicly accountable and their interest seldom align with ours)

I suggest you read up on the Military-Industrial Complex, and the Prison-Industrial Complex for starters.

The financial sector is not the only sector where regulation has become weak. Poison milk, babies dying, ring any bells? Why do you think so many people are becoming ill? Our food is full of chemicals. The bottom line comes before consumer safety, the environment and worker rights. In fact, multinationals seem to be attracted to countries with low human rights and you think allowing a free market for them to dominate will deliver your freedom?

History shows that government working for the people is the right solution, the key is keeping it free from organised greed.

Under Bush and Blair, you're talking about crony capitalism: rent seeking via the State. That is nothing like laissez faire capitalism.

Socially conscious capitalism is the way forward - but it takes MMP to do it.

My God, my God,
Why hast thou forsaken us.

Quaking in me boots at that odious little line , Mark . Where do folk get this stuff from ? My God , indeed , what is our future if this is their outlook........Cullenism is entrenched in the psyche of so many.........Keep them honest , dude , but it is an uphill battle ! ( "Socially conscious capitalism".........think I'm gonna hurl me pit-bull casserole........blurk ! )

Great to see that the current unsustainable and destructive tax system we have let evolve (especially over the last 10 years) is being discussed in an open robust manner. NZ has one simple problem - we earn and save too little and borrow and spend too much, particularly we borrow foreign funds to invest in non-productive housing. Our current tax system penalises those in the productive sector who earn and save and provides incentives to those borrow and spend on housing. In addition, it is too risky to have 9% of tax payers paying over 40% of income tax and those 9% are the very people we are most at risk of losing to Australia, along with their productive capabilities.

Look to Singapore - We need a flat income tax rates probably around 25% (both corporate and personal), tax free income threshold for everyone (say $15k) to help those on lower incomes, eliminate the inefficient and unfair tax credit system, particularly the WFF, compulsory super (Kiwisaver ) where both employers and employees must contribute, ring-fence tax losses from investment property along with a potential property tax, increase in GST to say 15%. Combine this with reform to our "Unemployable Benefit" and the "Destructive Poverty Breeding (DBP) Scheme" which do nothing to reduce poverty and help people to succeed.

And wasn't it the excesses of the self-regulating world financial markets that cause the whole global bloody mess anyway? Why would we want solutions from the same stable?

Re. ruru. Great to have your views and your debate is totally correct around funding of superannuation (especailly given the aging of baby boomers). Hence, my comment on compulsory super. In addition, the age will need to be lifted to at least 68 and the older generation must accept lower state funded super. Re. other benefits, I am not benefit bashing. In fact, I feel sorry for those on a benefit because our current system does nothing to help them but traps them in a cycle of poverty. Our system is based on the anglo-saxon self-regulated market concept, where rather than addressing the real issues to help these people in society we simply pay out benefits because that is the easiest, cheapest way and it appeases those do-gooders who do not want to spend the time or effort on the issues. The Maori party had it right when they said that the unemployment benefit is destroying their communities and they need to stop it and instead ensure that their youth have the proper parenting, support, education and skills development to succeed. I applaud them for their vision. I find it so sad that young woman (particularly those of Maori and Pacific Island decent) see their only option is to get pregnant and to continue to have children so they can get a benefit. What does that tell you about how much our society really cares about them? This is socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable.
As someone whose parents have taken in people on benefits into our family, given them jobs and provided them with the support needed to succeed and move off the benefits, I know that this type of approach works. I have also spent time doing voluntary working in developing countries (where the poverty is something most NZ's can't comprehend). Here the communities built schools and we trained the local woman to become teachers. This works. The key conept the organisation worked on was never to simply pay our "soft" money and instead ensure the communities provided "sweat equity" to develop. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever and all that.

Re. the un-regulated markets, you are correct this flawed assumption of modern economists, steming from the 1980's under Regan and Thatcher (i.e. the anglo-saxon model) have been proven wrong. We need well formulated regulation and rather than relying on the short-term markets alone, we need long-term strategies (read "the crash of 2008 - Goerge Soros). Hnece the need to review our tax system to ensure it has a long-term focus to better NZ.

its quite clear that bollard must be given more tools to combat our dollar strength
fiddling with the interest rate will only keep us on the same old treadmill
a capital gains tax on investment properties is also inevitable

Keep up the interesting posts. I love to see keen bloggers!