Doug Hannan, Mount Maunganui.
No sensible objections
I have yet to hear a sensible objection to Labour’s plan to treat the profits on the sale of residential and commercial property as taxable income. David Seymour claimed, either naively or disingenuously, that it would amount to double taxation. Nicola Willis said something unintelligible about families moving house, and New Zealand First fears it will contribute to a “destructive Marxist wealth distribution pathway”, as if it will be somehow different in nature to deducting tax from employees’ earnings.
If someone makes a profit from buying and selling building materials such as timber, iron and glass, they must pay income tax. Why should it be different just because those materials are already assembled into a building? The technical distinction between “capital” and “revenue” income does not make sense when applied to the popular New Zealand activity of buying and selling residential property.
Rowan Hill, Mt Eden.
Business approach
How is it fair that ordinary New Zealanders who have worked hard to buy a rental property with which to supplement their pension could see that avenue of income potentially stung with a 28% tax on any gains made if Labour has its way.
Far better, for example, to get business up and running properly, control immigration, and introduce a visitors’ tax. In short, run the country as you would a business.
Paul Beck, West Harbour.
Every bit counts
Assertions that New Zealand’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are pointless due to our size show a fundamental misunderstanding of our role.
Climate change is a collective problem. No nation’s contribution is truly “unmeasurable” when every fraction of a degree matters.
New Zealand has a moral and international obligation under agreements like the Paris Agreement to act.
Finally, our efforts drive technological innovation and set a positive example for other small nations. Saying our small contribution is meaningless is like arguing we shouldn’t vote because one vote won’t change the outcome — it ignores the power of collective action.
John Caldwell, Howick.
Time to act
It is absolutely correct that New Zealand’s level of greenhouse gas emissions has very little measurable effect on the global total. Does this give us the right to do nothing? Or is it our moral duty to make every effort to reduce our emissions even if this makes our lives less comfortable?
As we have grumbled about the wild weather spoiling our Labour Weekend break, let’s consider how our grandchildren will feel when their lives are subject to far worse conditions.
I think we Kiwis care enough to do the right thing; we need a government to listen.
Linda McGrogan, Taupō.
Tread more lightly
Regarding greenhouse gases, it may be that New Zealand is ultimately seeking carbon neutrality as a nation. But that will do nothing to stop the weather bombs from brewing up in the equatorial Pacific and dumping on us. We do not make our own weather; we are bit players in a global weather system.
We do, however, make our own pollution, and that is where I believe we should collectively be focusing our attention as a nation. If we manage to tread more lightly on this part of the Earth, we will improve our own quality of life as well as improve the health of the planet.
Mark Vincent, Maungatūroto.
On-air debates
I fully endorse Simon Wilson’s proposal for televised debates on controversial issues (Oct 29).
The dumbing down of television offerings in New Zealand today beggars belief. The reality shows and game shows we are bombarded with are enough to make one lose faith in human nature. And the news programmes simply do not have the time to delve into important subjects sufficiently.
So I, for one, would welcome an intelligent forum where New Zealanders can hear and assess factual arguments on both sides from those actually qualified to voice them. Only then can rational opinions be formed, logical conclusions reached and, in an ideal world, acted upon in a united fashion by our politicians.
Carolyn Campbell, Auckland.