Hone Heke has Big Backers – Sarkozy and Merkel pinch Mana Policy
Posted on August 23, 2011 by admin in John Minto, Press ReleasesPress Release
John Minto | Key spokesperson for MANA
The Mana Movement’s proposals for a Hone Heke Tax on financial transactions has big backers in Europe.
Last week the French leader Nicholas Sarkozy and German leader Angela Merkel pledged their support for such a tax and said it was a priority for Europe. After the two met in Paris on 17 August Sarkozy said:
The French and German finance ministers will table a joint proposal at the EU level next September for a tax on financial transactions. This is a priority for us.”
This tax is also a priority for MANA and we are in company with others who have recognised the destructive effects of a volatile European currency, the Euro, and unbridled currency speculation.
“This tax would be of huge benefit to New Zealand”, says Mana tax spokesperson John Minto. “It would benefit exporters by decreasing speculation on the New Zealand dollar, reduce its volatility and also reduce its value compared to other currencies. Our export income would increase significantly.”
Most importantly however it would allow New Zealand to begin scrapping GST and put a lot more money in the pockets of wage and salary earners.
This tax is a win for everyone except currency speculators (such as Prime Minister John Key who was a currency speculator before he entered parliament) who won’t like it but low and middle income New Zealanders would feel immediate benefits.
It could be that Merkel and Sarkozy have begun pinching our policies. We will keep an eye on them.
- For more information please contact John Minto 021 447 067
Ruebs @ ahipara says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 2:24 pmthis is a good idea to relate the HH tax to our populace by having other coutries agree..can we have some more examples that will explain to the grass roots families how the HH tax system is achievable. Sometimes its “too good to be true” syndrome kicks in, which is what Nats will play on. we need simple figures promoted thru media, of examples how the HH tax system actually does give immediate benefits to the whanau
John says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 3:36 pmThis is an excellent point Ruebs. Many people feel so removed from the slippery machinations of tax legislation simple examples will open the eyes. Surely that is what we are hoping to do … give people the power to really think for themselves eh? We all know how good it feel to make an informed decision of our own.
Basic e.g.
You transfer $350.00 to pay your weekly mortgage you incur $3.50 tax.
Jonkey Transfers $50,000.00 to buy TranzRail shares he incurs $500.00 tax
Fair share of the flow of currency!
Aroha.
John
Kevin Powell says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 4:21 pmKia Ora – HH tax has been bandied about in many guises for years – its not new – but the time to bring it in is overdue!! In the UK alone it is projected that this tax could raise over $2billion pa. and that is at the rate of just 0.5%!!! At that same rate we can abolish ALL GST and a good portion of Income tax for low income earners. Kinda pisses you off when low – middle income earners keep getting squeezed whiile bankers and corporates treble their incomes. Time to bite back!!
Kia Kaha
Graham says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 5:15 pmA transaction tax [H/H ] is one of the most progressive policy platforms in the Mana manifesto. It has a greater equalising potential than any other form of taxation and is certainly more equitable than the regressive GST.
Of course this is why the Tories, Labour and all other parties dislike it. The money men loathe it because it means they too will have to pay a fair share. [ Read Gareth Morgans article in todays Herald on this fair share issue ]. Our difficulty in Mana in promoting this tax is that, despite its values to everyone, the largely white middle and upper classes are too conservative, self absorbed and overdeluded. As a nation too many of us are enthralled by Key and/or Labour, to the point we have become blinkered by viable alternative realities. So, we in Mana have an up hill battle. But, we should not be daunted. Each day, down here in South Auckland, I manage to get at least one person to see the potentials for all in the H/H tax.
While John has described the basis of the tax reasonably well, the fact is that we have not developed quite how the tax will be applied. There are, as you can imagine, many ways this can happen.
One of the easiest to implement is the [ say 1% ] tax on withdrawals. This means that all transactions, lets just use wages as a fundamental explanatory basis, paid into a workers bank account, will incur a 1% tax on any and all withdrawals. $400 wages taken out in one lump sum would return $396.00 to the worker and it would be the same if it were withdrawn in smaller amounts over time.
The tax applies on more than wages of course and can generate more revenue than either GST or current income tax models. More importantly companies like Addias, who have paid no NZ tax for the last 3 years, will become liable under such a regime.
But, it will be difficult to explain in detail, even simple detail, until the final blueprint is formulated.
It holds a lot of real potential. Yes, Key and the greedy Nats, will dislike it. So to will Labour, the Maori Party and most likely the Greens. Over time though, if we get the basics right, we could convince the wider electorate that this tax, in this most unequal of nations, is to the benefit of us all.
Well done Hone and Matt.
Ken says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 6:51 pmIt will be interesting to see the structure and targets of the HH tax.
@Graham
What you describe is a tax on every interaction. The overall result is encouraging people to hold cash rather than depositing it into the bank.
The HH tax should target capital movements( movements of financial assets). They generally do nothing productive for Society.
Financial Transaction Tax explanation
John says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 7:59 pm“The overall result is encouraging people to hold cash rather than depositing it into the bank.”
it would be interesting to see this in action with the big players … there isn’t that much CASH in circulation. While not missing the point you are making Ken I think it is a bit of a Red Herring.
As for voters understanding … give a simple understanding so that (as this thread is established from a pro-MANA stance) voters are attracted to the policy. In-depth understanding is rare in most manifestos. Therefore seeing a simple example that shows a fair share deal will satisfy most to be able to vote on it. The two main parties have been doing it from the beginning of time .. vote us for lower taxes … no depth of understanding from the middle and lower income voters who put this crime syndicate into power was there.
Ken says:
Post Author August 23, 2011 at 9:11 pmit would be interesting to see this in action with the big players … there isn’t that much CASH in circulation. While not missing the point you are making Ken I think it is a bit of a Red Herring.
Sure, it is a Red Herring. I was simply highlighting the omission that HH tax will primarily target financial transactions, instead of all transactions.
I think the easiest way to sell this policy would be to highlight the fact that banks will end up paying the most amount of tax. (Which is already happening)
The bank induced financial crisis, that has caused the increased unemployment will be fresh in voters minds.
Until the public becomes more aware of how the financial system works, IMO simple examples like yours above will be easily manipulated by the ‘right’ to present their point of view. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Things like: “Jobs will be lost because banks will pay more tax, etc, crap, etc.” or “Sweden tried it, and it didn’t work” or “MANA want to tax bank deposits!!!”,etc. (Maybe I shouldn’t be saying that….)
Then what?
I would rather build an animation.(If I had the time :p)
How about we also remove government bonds?!
Graham says:
Post Author August 24, 2011 at 1:13 pmThere are issues around any transaction tax proposal and my examples above were set to make the explanation as simple as possible. But there are innumerable challenges and matters to sort through, hurdles to overcome and vitriolic rants to counter from the wealthy power elite ,the banks and, therefore New Zealands massive conservative white middle class.
Transaction taxes have been proposed many times in the past and have been met every time by the outrage of bankers, usurious and wealthy owners of captial who threaten dire consequences and capital flight. That sort of hysteria is deliberate and calculated to put the fear of god into the populace. The trouble is that so long as we hold these indivduals and groups in awe and as respectable, worthy and knowledgeable, then we will accept their position as being self fulfilling. In fact they are wrong and over deluded by their own sense of self importance and greed. The reason they do not like transaction taxes, and vilify them remorselessly is that such taxes mean that they will actually have to pay tax. In many instances, under current impositions, they do not. Proportionately, under the current GST regime, for example, the rich do not pay their fair share. As I said, GST is regressive. Peter Goodfellow, for example, as President of the National Party and John Key as its leader are both multi millionaires. John Boscowan ACTs parliamentary leader likewise. Paying 15% Gst on their fish and chips is negligible. The same impost on the low waged worker or beneficiary though is a big hit. An extra $1.50 on a $10 order is a massive burden for these people. But, a 1-2% transaction tax [ or however it is determined ] levels this. And, isn’t it interesting in this context, how the neo-liberals/ conservative anti-worker, beneficiary who bleat incessantly about “level playing fields” suddenly find that this sort of level field supposedly unfair?? Ummmm!
My introduction to the transaction tax debate, its efficacy and its values, stemmed from a reading some years ago of the Tobin Tax proposed by John Tobin an economics Nobel Prize winner. While his proposal eventually floundered its fundamental premise was that it was unfair and unjust that the money men and the money institutions [ John Keys old job] traded over a trillion dollars a day on the international money markets. None of this was, or is, taxed. That is appalling. So, Tobin proposed a 1-4% transaction tax on all such exchanges the income from which would wipe out the then third world debt, reduce dramatically global poverty and stimulate growth world wide. It never succeeded as Tobins idea demanded that all nations participate and none were prepared to. Sadly.
A national transaction tax, however applied, is a different kettle of fish. And soundly formulated can succeed in my view. But, no doubt about it, the red necks, the conservatives and the innately greedy, will all be agin’ it.
Finally, in response to Ken. I know what you mean mate and can see where you are coming from. However a transaction must happen at some point in the life cycle. For example [ again simplistic ] man gets wages paid for out of bosses account=1% tax. Man withdraws wages from bank account [ 1% tax again ]. Man spends half wages on food at supermarket [ supermarket banks into account and withdraws to pay its own staff–!% tax again]. Man spends remaining wages on, say, power and rent, these amounts are also put into the system eventually as the companies involved also deposit and eventually withdraw them to pay their own commitments [ 1% tax again ]. And so on etc etc. You can’t hold on to your cash at every point and not ever spend it.
Lots of good debate though and we need this to progress but lets not lose sight of the fact that the wealthy, rich pricks do not like it. Ergo, it has to have merit.