[robocat]

> basically everywhere

Does one counter-example disprove the rule?

I'm likely just naive and my eyes are not sufficiently opened - but I don't see a lot of obviously corrupt activity here in New Zealand. Corruption seems fairly endemic in most other countries I have visited. It isn't just a size thing because the problem seems to be worse in smaller countries and larger countries. 5 million population might be necessary but it's clearly insufficient to prevent grossly obvious corruption (other ~5M pop country examples). I'm hoping not to discover that our new government is more corruption friendly: so far they are appearing a bit less moral than the previous one.

[FirmwareBurner]

Sure, there's good examples out there of democratic governments with high transparency and low corruption like Finland and Denmark, but too few of us have the privilege of living there.

Granted, there are worse places to be in the world right now than Canada (most of Africa, certain parts of SE Asia, Russia, Eastern Ukraine, etc), but why I think Canadians are so loud(not Canadian BTW) is that they witnessed a steep drop of their living standards and purchasing power withing a much shorter timespan than most developed countries (the same phenomenon is happening everywhere in the west) so you feel let down and hopeless when you know those from just a few decades ago had it so much better than you, and you're stuck in a cycle of relative poverty by comparison despite busting your ass off, while those in leadership positions are favoring those already financially well off instead of the struggling little guy.

I know the feeling because a lot of Europe is in a similar boat right now, albeit less severe than Canada.

[wepple]

> Does one counter-example disprove the rule?

No, NZ is an outlier. Regularly rated the least corrupt country on earth. “Basically everywhere” still holds.

Also, whilst NZ may not have explicit corruption such as bribing police directly, the grandparent post suggesting that special interests affect govt is still true. Jacinda was supposed to be the one shining hope that many believed would bring in CGT and she admitted it would never happen. The wealthy property owners (including most MPs) wouldn’t let that happen.

[robocat]

> CGT > wealthy property owners

CGT doesn't really help fix the problem of property prices appreciating. I like immigration, but I still recognize that 30% immigrants has a huge impact on property prices.

If you want to fix the problem of wealthy landowners then you need to look at a better solution than CGT.

Labour actually brought in some good policies that helped reduce inequality. And some crappy ones too (I saw the effects of their lending policies on friends trying to buy their first home).

My problems with CGT are:

1: it definitely screws up incentives for anyone to make NZ more wealthy as a nation. I know this personally: even with tax rates as they are, I've got fuck-all incentive to invest (in a business or otherwise). CGT actually screws the pooch because I would have more incentive to play the property Ponzi scheme because CGT dis-incentivises me to invest in business risks.

2: why bother starting a successful business if you just get penalized after you win the game. I'm in this position: I'm an average guy that helped found a company that brought millions into NZ and it seems you don't want me to keep the small percentage that is my fair reward (for the years of work I put in and the risks I personally took).

3: CGT seems like tall-poppy-syndrome. If you want to target intergenerational wealth then target that.

I have no love for National.

CGT is definitely no panacea to the problems caused by inequality.

Too many NZers want us to join the other failed states in the world where we can all be equally fucked.

I really don't think CGT has anything to do with corruption.

If you want to argue for CGT - argue why we should tax the billionaire Peter Jackson and why it is fair. An extrodinary success that has mostly benefited NZ (economic and non-economic wins) - obvious consumer surplus - low externalities - tax supported but NZ got paid back - clear export and local gains. He was born into a typical NZ family. "His property portfolio in 2018 was estimated at NZ$150 million" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Jackson