THE CORNER WITH GARRY CHITTICK

I read with great interest how we here in little NZ have 90 uber wealthy people who want to pay more tax. Don’t they realise if they buy an expensive yearling off me they will pay with tax-paid money and I will pay tax on the proceeds? Then all of those who contributed to producing the horse – blacksmith, veterinarians, feed merchants, stud grooms, fencers, farm fertiliser – will in turn pay their fair share of tax to the point where it is difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of that horse’s contribution to society. But more, training fees will be met with tax-paid income, though the wagering used to be subject to a duty which was abolished to try to return more to those lucky enough to win a race. Remember, only 10% of those racing break even. However, there is still the considerable impost of GST on our turnover. Then, we have the pyramid that blights all businesses – you know where those at the peak are entitled to more because they believe they are deprived of 39% of their efforts. Still, it is said the galloping code employs, full and part-time, 16,000 people, who of course pay their share of tax.

So, where do the gatherers look next? Ah-ha, the dreaded value increase of those lucky enough to have their name on a title, share certificates, or, for that matter, anything that adds to one’s paper equity. As you appreciate, we need land to grow this animal that has contributed to the above so let’s tax that. Of course, it would be socially unacceptable to suggest our local body rates are any form of tax. Yeah right. With local bodies believing the more valuable the asset they rate proportionally. This is a wealth tax. Bearing in mind all local amenities are shared by all then why not a rate per head? I am, of course, for those of the ten of you being cynical but if you think about it I am right.

I was challenged by a former employee about the injustice of my land increasing in value. Well yes, my property has an increased paper value, I also agree not as a result of any personal contribution. Yes, I said to the person (see how politically correct I have become), all true but then unless I sell it doesn’t matter what the perceived value is whilst I farm and rear the above horse in fact it is just a tool that is part of the many required. My lecture ended with me pointing out that without the ability to turn the grass into money the property is a liability. I have to service the mortgage, pay the rates, fertilise, fence, power bills, machinery… Then, looking at the person eye-to-eye there was this person to pay. I looked duly concerned when explaining I wasn’t sure I was getting a fair return.

But, then why has the asset grown in value? Well, really it hasn’t. Successive governments balance their book debt by way of depreciation of the value of our currencies. Nowhere has this been more pronounced than the last five years where an explosion in the amount of money in circulation reflected in property values. Therefore let’s hammer this injustice, TAX THE RICH.

I think a fairer way is to encourage them to own more horses. This will result in a rapid redistribution of the wealthy ones’ equity, keep all of the above in a job or business, or let the civil servants reallocate. Mind you, they are the new secure rich; I need to get in amongst them.

Cheers

G