The whole country is a gigantic house of cards propped up by real estate, with horrible service quality, terrible healthcare, no jobs, ZERO innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship.
Having lived and travelled extensively, most Canadians want a house somewhere in the woods instead of doing something meaningful with their lives or try and innovate to build something.
All of this is propped up by rampant levels of immigration from China and India. Where US got the best talent from India, Canada got the worst, the ones who scam their way here and take the lowest level jobs.
Now all of this is coming home to roost. The next decade will be Canada's worst and if they do not learn that risk taking and entrepreneurship is the only way out of the mess they find themselves in, they will become a third world country in another decade.
New Zealanders definitely hate entrepreneurship - one political party wanted to introduce a wealth tax if you had more than $1 million equity. Median house price in Auckland is just over $1 million! Auckland has about 30% of the population, and house affordability (price compared to income) is similar as bad as Sydney or San Francisco.
I have done okay for myself founding a software business and I notice the tall poppy syndrome from friends. Plus the relentless attack on my hard earned savings by a grifter government. And shit support for businesses to start-up or function (government incentives are mostly negative, and the positive incentives are incredibly badly run).
Fortunately we are building more houses in New Zealand (low single digit percentage growth) but unfortunately immigration is exceeding supply. We need the immigrants because we aren't breeding enough New Zealanders.
My experience of our government healthcare system is mostly positive.
I don't understand it: we should want people to save for their retirement but all the incentives to save are negative. The main taxation incentive is to gear up and borrow money for property. Then that blows up of course.
Even our right leaning government seems to want to consider a capital-gains-tax. The existing taxes screw any reason to invest in the stock market.
I'm whinging: I think it is a good place to live but I feel a comfortable retirement is becoming an unacheivable dream.
> The wealth tax contemplated by New Zealand Labour would have required couples to pay an annual levy of 1.5% on any assets they held over a $10m threshold. The estimated $3.8bn in revenue would have funded income-tax cuts for the vast majority of Kiwis. Labour’s potential coalition partners, the Greens and the indigenous-led Te Pāti Māori, ran on similar platforms.
> Plus the relentless attack on my hard earned savings by a grifter government.
$150,000 a year if you own $20 million, $0 if they somehow attacked you all the way to a pitiful $10 million, and in return tax cuts for those doing worse than you, and they did not get elected.
I’m not seeing the problem.
You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? Major assets are usually tied up in long term investments with breaking costs due to illiquidity or taxation (e.g. sell a house before the bright-line period is up and you may pay a lot extra tax). You are showing your ignorance of the issues. Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders? Good luck to you.
Paying the tax bill can mean selling an investment at a loss or borrowing. Not much different from someone poorer pawning what they own or selling their car because they need the money. It costs me 8.8% at present to borrow on my mortgage - (due to bank conditions I can't borrow cheaper). The same thing can easily occur to wealthy people (managing investment risks sucks).
Many people have already paid tax - their savings are what they have left over after tax. A wealth tax can be a double taxation - another taxes on top of money that was already taxed. Plus the wealthy still often get to pay income tax on any dividends or other gains.
There's a lot of people out there that blow all their money on shit and then put their hand out to the government. I watch friends on low incomes absolutely waste money and don't give a shit about saving. Not all of them, but enough. I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing. Or inheritances and lose it all. Luckily they live in New Zealand where they can get money from family or get some living expenses from other NZers (the government). Certainly not flash living, but better than most places in the world. Some of those millions come from my tough job earning export income. I get fuck all of the money I bring into the country (after expenses, salaries risk and taxes).
I bet if we met you would have a lot of complaints about how hard done you have been with taxation. It's the same issue.
So why argue this passionately against a non-existent tax that failed at the ballot box on A. assets that doesn't kick in until above $10 million by citing B. an income of near enough $0?
> You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? [...] Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders?
I'm pretty sure that in either of those scenarios, there is no practical difference between having twenty million and twenty million minus $150,000 a year, reducing to zero by ten million, in assets.
> I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing.
Hmmm, sounds like they irresponsibly spent it somewhere in the economy. My guess is that they might have enriched people who have invested in medium to large businesses in the consumer discretionary sector, the sort of people who would have a net wealth north of $10 million. But since they were provided with, and I quote, "nothing" goods, the owners of the businesses providing those goods should have relatively no problem dealing with high taxation.
If you feel this doesn't apply to you, you might want to revisit your investments before complaining about hypothetical tax policy.