September 7, 2024 • 13 mins
The Labour Party has started a discussion around a potential capital gains tax.
Leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins had campaigned against the tax in the 2023 election, but has since changed his mind.
Hipkins told Tim Beveridge on The Weekend Collective that there are several ways of implementing a capital gains tax, including potentially taxing increased value on a home without it being sold.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks dB,
Politics Central, Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And Yes on Politics. So the Labor Party, well, there's
a bit of a conversation building, perhaps a head of
steam around tax and perhaps capital gains taxes and what's
you know, what the Labor Party is going to do
as it heads towards the twenty twenty six campaign and
lead the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, was clear
and saying that if Labor had won the twenty twenty
(00:33):
three in election, they would not impose a wealth or
capital gains tax. But being they didn't win, there's the
opportunity to turn that round possibly, and Leader of the
Opposition Chris Hipkins joins me, Now, good.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Afternoon, good way, how are you going.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
I'm pretty good now, As I do when I'm getting
ready for an interview often I just typed the name
of my interview subject in so I typed in Chris Hipkins,
and everything I got pointed towards you and loving a
tax capital gains tax. If I could be a little
bit mischievous, so.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Were there everything you read on the internet.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Actually, I'll tell you something funny. When I typed your
name and it corrected it to christ Tipkins, which I'm
not sure where that came from, but you know, maybe
you are the savior for us. So where are you
at with and why with having a look at wealth
and capital gains taxes?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Well, we said that we we think we need to
broaden New Zealand's tax base. So at the moment, if
you look at where government gets most of it's money from,
it gets most of its money from two forms of tax.
One is GST that's the smaller of the two, and
the second and the largest is pay tax, so pay
as you earn text. It's the tax that gets deducted
from your salary and your wages of your salary and
(01:48):
wage urner and that's where the government gets a vast
bulk of its money from. And we use that to
pay for health, education, housing, welfare, superannuation, you name it, defense, police,
you know, everything the government does we buy and large
fund it through those two main taxes that we get.
You can in New Zealand to other countries around the world,
including the countries that we compare ourselves with a lot,
(02:09):
we're pretty unusual in that regard. Most will have other
forms of tax and other forms of revenue in addition
to those ones, and we don't, And that means that
salary and wag urneys tend to pay a higher rate
of tax as a result of that. And it also
means that successive governments, including our government, the previous national government,
have not adjusted income tax brackets when inflation and wages
(02:32):
have pushed up prices and pushed up wages, but because
it's a way of increasing the amount of tax that
the government's been collecting. So what we've said is we
should have a conversation about that. We should actually talk
about boardening our tax base so that we can, among
other things, are just tax brackets more frequently, but also
so that we can pay for the things that New
Zealanders want us to pay.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
It seems that the capital gains tax sort of politically
has been one of those sort of what's a bit
of a rotten egg in a way, and it's been avoided.
When do you think that the electric will be able
to handle a discussion on this in a mature reasoned way.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I think we need have a mature reasons discussion about
tax now, frankly, because ultimately we're not going to be
able to afford all of the things that New Zealanders
want the government to deliver if we don't. If you
look at the situation around the health system, for example,
it's clear that the health system is going to require
more funding. That funding ultimately has to come from somewhere,
and similar arguments. I mean, infrastructure, you can borrow all
(03:29):
the money you like, and you can finance it using
public private partnerships or whatever. But at the end of
the day, someone's still going to pay that back, and
that money's still got to come from somewhere. So, you know,
there's huge pressure on government finances to improve public services,
to improve our infrastructure. Somehow we have to pay for
those things. So I think we've got to have a
mature discussion about how we're going to pay for those things.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
There seems to be a real blurring in the conversation
pro the last election around wealth versus capital gains taxes,
which are actually, in my view, completely different. Where are
you going? Where is the conversation going within labor, within
your core, your caucus colleagues, and your own thinking.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Well, I think the thing is, you know, wealth text,
capital gains text, whatever you call it, that they sit
on a continuum. You know, you are. Fundamentally you're talking
about texting something other than somebody's direct income. And the
question then becomes, well, at what point do you text that?
Do you text when someone realizes a game? So if
they buy a house for two hundred thousand and then
a rental house for two hundred thousand, by knows that's
(04:29):
a prediculous number. For five hundred thousand, and then they
sell up for six hundred thousand, they've made one hundred
thousand dollars profit on there. Do you text it at
that point or do you text it even when they
still own and say, well, we think that you've made
about this much money and capital gain so far, and
therefore we text you on that. And I think that's
one of the fundamental questions that we have to work
our way through. Are we texting what we think our
(04:51):
gains or are we going to tax actual gains? Because
that's a pretty fundamental question.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
I think, well, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, I've been sort of trying not to actually put
bot my pedy down, try not to think too much no,
no, I mean, we certainly be working for the option, but
I've also been trying not to narrow them down at
this point, because I think we need to have a
conversation about exactly the best way to structure it in
sort of different texts that we might put in place.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Okay, look at the conversations I have on talkback with
thousands of people over the years CGT. I think there's
still there's a potential not appetite for it. But I
think if you go down the wealth tax, does that
feel like something that's really going to be a bit
of a reach because I don't think I've spoken to
many people who like the idea of just taxing wealth
per se.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Well, I think just a name in itself will become
quite opportune off for a lot of people. But I mean,
if you look at what the international monetary some you know,
the I in the credit ratings agencies, the major bank economists,
who else have we got, you know, just name you
your agencies. They're all coming here and saying it sounds
a bit weird. Why don't you have some form of
capital pains taxation? You know, we're actually an international outlier
(05:59):
in their regard.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
So what's unfair about our kit text system right now?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Well, ultimately it does mean that salary wager and his
shoulder a disproportionate chair of the burden of paying for
public services compared to those New Zealanders who get their
income off, you know, of wealth accumulation, growth in their wealth.
So if you own say half a dozen rental properties,
and the value of those properties is going up, and
(06:25):
you know you potentially and you now you're potentially deducting
the interest of your mortgage as well, then ultimately you're
going to be paying less tax than someone who's earning
your similar amount of money burning it through cealery wag wages.
And I think the question is is that fair? Is
it fair that somebody who's you know, earning their income
through a passive income source, so through what you know,
(06:46):
through growth and the value of their assets, so they
pay less tax than someone who is going out and
earning every don't they earn through them through their labor.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I guess the tricky one is just differentiating if there
isn't any differentiation, because people who own their own business,
which is an asset, will resist strongly the idea that
they're just sitting on their backsides while they're a business
is gaining wealth. I think you're you're you're referring to property,
really aren't you.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Absolutely, And I think one of the things we have
to work through is we design any if we were
to do any form of capital gains taxation. So we
want to make sure that we're not disincentivising productive investment.
So if you're putting money into building up a new business,
say you're in manufacturing for example, actually want to encourage
you to be investing in new plant and you know,
and building and growing your business. And we don't want
(07:31):
the tax system to disincentivize that. We really should have
the tax system touring the opposite to that. So I
think that those are things that we have to work through.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, what about productivity, because obviously if we have we
increase GDP, we can increase productivity bingo, there's more tax
for the government.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Absolutely, we should certainly be increasing productivity and we have
to look at how we can do that. Given the
nature of New Zealand's economy, I think we need to
diversify the economy and the primary septor is enormous for
New Zealand. But if you think about the productivity debate,
it makes us a different shape, you know, our economy
and differentially to others that we might compare ourselves to
and that we don't have sort of say, the tech
(08:09):
industries and others to the same scale as other countries
that we're comparing ourselves to. So we need to grow
those parts of the economy. If we want to fix
our productivity problem in the agricultural charming sector, we've got
to figure out how we can get more value out
of what is for compared to their comparatives around the
world of very productive sector, but we still want to
get more value out of it, so it can we
(08:29):
be processing more stuff. In New Zealand, for example, one
of the.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Elephants in the room is I've heard you talk about
the increasing percentage of the population who are going to
be at the age of retirement and we have to
fund that. Aren't we avoiding that elephant in the room
being the retirement age, which has over the years moved up.
It was sixty, then sixty one, now sixty five. We're
living longer. When are we going to have a courageous
conversation about extending that.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Ultimately, we don't have a retirement age in New Zealand.
People whenever they want we have well you know what
it superannuation starts at sixty five and some people will
we retire in before that, and other people will retire
our The challenge was increasing the age of eligibility for
superinnuation is that for people who have done hard physical labor,
then actually they're not going to enjoy the superannuation to
(09:15):
the same extent as somebody who's going to live longer
because they haven't done that kind of hard physical laboring work.
So it's there's an equality argument against increasing the age
of eligibility for superannuation. But also let's bear in mind
that that's not it's one of the financial pressures, the
major one that actually help. As we get older, we're
(09:36):
more expensive in terms of our healthcare, we consume a
lot more healthy and connective there. This is the area
we're seeing the biggest kind of I wouldn't call it
a blowout and costs for the bigger increase, biggest increase
in cost pressure is a.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Health actually talk actually just your distinction there on. You know,
when you people aren't necessarily retiring at sixty five, would
you actually look at something that where people decide they
want to work longer, that you maybe extend their eligibility
for superannuation so long as they're working and but still
have it at sixty five if they want to stop, well,
people have you.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Know, looked at before. I think Peter dunnback of the
day looked at the idea of a fliding. So as
you you know, if you differ taking the generation at
sixty five, you get a higher rate of payment who
is on and ultimately the government decided not to go
with that. You know, there's the numbers just to stack
up on that.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Okay, Now, on electability and you want to win the
next election. Stats in history is against you. And not
wanting to be unkind, but it's really against you as
someone who was Prime minister who you lost the election
you were prime minister. Cynically speaking, I think you're really
up against it. As Chris Hipkins becoming the next prime minister,
(10:44):
are you really going to be in it for the
next couple of years.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
No, absolutely, I'm certainly going to be standing again at
the next section and I don't agree with you. So
if you look at the last person who assumed the
prime ministership not long before an election and then went
on to contest the following election, was also alowed to
the leader, Mike Moore, and between them, Labor and the
Alliance and that electtion one fifty three percent of the vote.
They didn't get to become the government because you know,
(11:09):
we had our first part of the post and the
vagaries the first place the post meant that they didn't.
You know, the actual result, the number of sept one
by party didn't reflect how pitoal the actually voted. If
you go back again, Bill Rolling contested the election of
nineteen seventy eight, having become prime minister when Normal Kirk
died and one more votes than Muldoon's National Party didn't
(11:30):
get to be prime minister again because it was first
past the post. So under MMP, anything possible.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Do you have to change? Not you, but do you
think that the Labor Party has a job to do
in sort of shifting the public's perceptions about what they are.
I think you've talked about getting back to a more
traditional base.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yeah, I think the Labor Party does. I mean, when
I became Prime minister and I'm just nder I see,
I thought, you know, Labor didn't need to get back
to more of its bread and butter. And one of
the things that drives me in politics is I think
that people who go out and work hard every day
should actually be able to get a head through their
own hard work. And there's a lot of people iron
cams are on a daily basis who do go out
(12:08):
and work hard but can't get ahead, you know, not
that they can't afford to buy a house, struggling to
give their kids the sort of quality of life that
they want to be able to give their kids. And
that's something that sort of drives me in politics. I
want to actually make sure that hard work does pay off.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Okay, just lucky. Last question a bit mischievous. If you're
hit by a bus tomorrow, who would you be backing
to be the next labor leader.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
I'll just be avoiding standing here.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I'd say, Okay, hey, Chris, thanks very much for your time,
really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Goodness, go cheers mate.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
There we go, there's opposition leader Chris Sipkins. We're going
to do talk back on this a little bit. Two
sites of that question about what Labour have to change
in terms of the public's perception of them. Of course,
you remember there are thirty odd percent who will still
vote labor right now, but they need to up that.
So what do they need to do and do you
think we'll actually ever have a sort of honest discussion
around capital gains tax and how would that work? Would
you ever support it? He makes a point that as
(13:03):
long as we don't have that side of the tax,
that takes a while to get an effective capital gains text,
and it's a bit takes a while for it to
kick in that we you know, at the moment cellar
In Wager and us bear a disproportionate sort of share
of the burden there.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks dB,
Politics Central, Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And Yes on Politics. So the Labor Party, well, there's
a bit of a conversation building, perhaps a head of
steam around tax and perhaps capital gains taxes and what's
you know, what the Labor Party is going to do
as it heads towards the twenty twenty six campaign and
lead the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, was clear
and saying that if Labor had won the twenty twenty
(00:33):
three in election, they would not impose a wealth or
capital gains tax. But being they didn't win, there's the
opportunity to turn that round possibly, and Leader of the
Opposition Chris Hipkins joins me, Now, good.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Afternoon, good way, how are you going.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
I'm pretty good now, As I do when I'm getting
ready for an interview often I just typed the name
of my interview subject in so I typed in Chris Hipkins,
and everything I got pointed towards you and loving a
tax capital gains tax. If I could be a little
bit mischievous, so.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Were there everything you read on the internet.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Actually, I'll tell you something funny. When I typed your
name and it corrected it to christ Tipkins, which I'm
not sure where that came from, but you know, maybe
you are the savior for us. So where are you
at with and why with having a look at wealth
and capital gains taxes?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Well, we said that we we think we need to
broaden New Zealand's tax base. So at the moment, if
you look at where government gets most of it's money from,
it gets most of its money from two forms of tax.
One is GST that's the smaller of the two, and
the second and the largest is pay tax, so pay
as you earn text. It's the tax that gets deducted
from your salary and your wages of your salary and
(01:48):
wage urner and that's where the government gets a vast
bulk of its money from. And we use that to
pay for health, education, housing, welfare, superannuation, you name it, defense, police,
you know, everything the government does we buy and large
fund it through those two main taxes that we get.
You can in New Zealand to other countries around the world,
including the countries that we compare ourselves with a lot,
(02:09):
we're pretty unusual in that regard. Most will have other
forms of tax and other forms of revenue in addition
to those ones, and we don't, And that means that
salary and wag urneys tend to pay a higher rate
of tax as a result of that. And it also
means that successive governments, including our government, the previous national government,
have not adjusted income tax brackets when inflation and wages
(02:32):
have pushed up prices and pushed up wages, but because
it's a way of increasing the amount of tax that
the government's been collecting. So what we've said is we
should have a conversation about that. We should actually talk
about boardening our tax base so that we can, among
other things, are just tax brackets more frequently, but also
so that we can pay for the things that New
Zealanders want us to pay.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
It seems that the capital gains tax sort of politically
has been one of those sort of what's a bit
of a rotten egg in a way, and it's been avoided.
When do you think that the electric will be able
to handle a discussion on this in a mature reasoned way.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I think we need have a mature reasons discussion about
tax now, frankly, because ultimately we're not going to be
able to afford all of the things that New Zealanders
want the government to deliver if we don't. If you
look at the situation around the health system, for example,
it's clear that the health system is going to require
more funding. That funding ultimately has to come from somewhere,
and similar arguments. I mean, infrastructure, you can borrow all
(03:29):
the money you like, and you can finance it using
public private partnerships or whatever. But at the end of
the day, someone's still going to pay that back, and
that money's still got to come from somewhere. So, you know,
there's huge pressure on government finances to improve public services,
to improve our infrastructure. Somehow we have to pay for
those things. So I think we've got to have a
mature discussion about how we're going to pay for those things.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
There seems to be a real blurring in the conversation
pro the last election around wealth versus capital gains taxes,
which are actually, in my view, completely different. Where are
you going? Where is the conversation going within labor, within
your core, your caucus colleagues, and your own thinking.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Well, I think the thing is, you know, wealth text,
capital gains text, whatever you call it, that they sit
on a continuum. You know, you are. Fundamentally you're talking
about texting something other than somebody's direct income. And the
question then becomes, well, at what point do you text that?
Do you text when someone realizes a game? So if
they buy a house for two hundred thousand and then
a rental house for two hundred thousand, by knows that's
(04:29):
a prediculous number. For five hundred thousand, and then they
sell up for six hundred thousand, they've made one hundred
thousand dollars profit on there. Do you text it at
that point or do you text it even when they
still own and say, well, we think that you've made
about this much money and capital gain so far, and
therefore we text you on that. And I think that's
one of the fundamental questions that we have to work
our way through. Are we texting what we think our
(04:51):
gains or are we going to tax actual gains? Because
that's a pretty fundamental question.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
I think, well, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, I've been sort of trying not to actually put
bot my pedy down, try not to think too much no,
no, I mean, we certainly be working for the option, but
I've also been trying not to narrow them down at
this point, because I think we need to have a
conversation about exactly the best way to structure it in
sort of different texts that we might put in place.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Okay, look at the conversations I have on talkback with
thousands of people over the years CGT. I think there's
still there's a potential not appetite for it. But I
think if you go down the wealth tax, does that
feel like something that's really going to be a bit
of a reach because I don't think I've spoken to
many people who like the idea of just taxing wealth
per se.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Well, I think just a name in itself will become
quite opportune off for a lot of people. But I mean,
if you look at what the international monetary some you know,
the I in the credit ratings agencies, the major bank economists,
who else have we got, you know, just name you
your agencies. They're all coming here and saying it sounds
a bit weird. Why don't you have some form of
capital pains taxation? You know, we're actually an international outlier
(05:59):
in their regard.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
So what's unfair about our kit text system right now?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Well, ultimately it does mean that salary wager and his
shoulder a disproportionate chair of the burden of paying for
public services compared to those New Zealanders who get their
income off, you know, of wealth accumulation, growth in their wealth.
So if you own say half a dozen rental properties,
and the value of those properties is going up, and
(06:25):
you know you potentially and you now you're potentially deducting
the interest of your mortgage as well, then ultimately you're
going to be paying less tax than someone who's earning
your similar amount of money burning it through cealery wag wages.
And I think the question is is that fair? Is
it fair that somebody who's you know, earning their income
through a passive income source, so through what you know,
(06:46):
through growth and the value of their assets, so they
pay less tax than someone who is going out and
earning every don't they earn through them through their labor.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I guess the tricky one is just differentiating if there
isn't any differentiation, because people who own their own business,
which is an asset, will resist strongly the idea that
they're just sitting on their backsides while they're a business
is gaining wealth. I think you're you're you're referring to property,
really aren't you.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Absolutely, And I think one of the things we have
to work through is we design any if we were
to do any form of capital gains taxation. So we
want to make sure that we're not disincentivising productive investment.
So if you're putting money into building up a new business,
say you're in manufacturing for example, actually want to encourage
you to be investing in new plant and you know,
and building and growing your business. And we don't want
(07:31):
the tax system to disincentivize that. We really should have
the tax system touring the opposite to that. So I
think that those are things that we have to work through.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, what about productivity, because obviously if we have we
increase GDP, we can increase productivity bingo, there's more tax
for the government.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Absolutely, we should certainly be increasing productivity and we have
to look at how we can do that. Given the
nature of New Zealand's economy, I think we need to
diversify the economy and the primary septor is enormous for
New Zealand. But if you think about the productivity debate,
it makes us a different shape, you know, our economy
and differentially to others that we might compare ourselves to
and that we don't have sort of say, the tech
(08:09):
industries and others to the same scale as other countries
that we're comparing ourselves to. So we need to grow
those parts of the economy. If we want to fix
our productivity problem in the agricultural charming sector, we've got
to figure out how we can get more value out
of what is for compared to their comparatives around the
world of very productive sector, but we still want to
get more value out of it, so it can we
(08:29):
be processing more stuff. In New Zealand, for example, one
of the.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Elephants in the room is I've heard you talk about
the increasing percentage of the population who are going to
be at the age of retirement and we have to
fund that. Aren't we avoiding that elephant in the room
being the retirement age, which has over the years moved up.
It was sixty, then sixty one, now sixty five. We're
living longer. When are we going to have a courageous
conversation about extending that.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Ultimately, we don't have a retirement age in New Zealand.
People whenever they want we have well you know what
it superannuation starts at sixty five and some people will
we retire in before that, and other people will retire
our The challenge was increasing the age of eligibility for
superinnuation is that for people who have done hard physical labor,
then actually they're not going to enjoy the superannuation to
(09:15):
the same extent as somebody who's going to live longer
because they haven't done that kind of hard physical laboring work.
So it's there's an equality argument against increasing the age
of eligibility for superannuation. But also let's bear in mind
that that's not it's one of the financial pressures, the
major one that actually help. As we get older, we're
(09:36):
more expensive in terms of our healthcare, we consume a
lot more healthy and connective there. This is the area
we're seeing the biggest kind of I wouldn't call it
a blowout and costs for the bigger increase, biggest increase
in cost pressure is a.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Health actually talk actually just your distinction there on. You know,
when you people aren't necessarily retiring at sixty five, would
you actually look at something that where people decide they
want to work longer, that you maybe extend their eligibility
for superannuation so long as they're working and but still
have it at sixty five if they want to stop, well,
people have you.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Know, looked at before. I think Peter dunnback of the
day looked at the idea of a fliding. So as
you you know, if you differ taking the generation at
sixty five, you get a higher rate of payment who
is on and ultimately the government decided not to go
with that. You know, there's the numbers just to stack
up on that.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Okay, Now, on electability and you want to win the
next election. Stats in history is against you. And not
wanting to be unkind, but it's really against you as
someone who was Prime minister who you lost the election
you were prime minister. Cynically speaking, I think you're really
up against it. As Chris Hipkins becoming the next prime minister,
(10:44):
are you really going to be in it for the
next couple of years.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
No, absolutely, I'm certainly going to be standing again at
the next section and I don't agree with you. So
if you look at the last person who assumed the
prime ministership not long before an election and then went
on to contest the following election, was also alowed to
the leader, Mike Moore, and between them, Labor and the
Alliance and that electtion one fifty three percent of the vote.
They didn't get to become the government because you know,
(11:09):
we had our first part of the post and the
vagaries the first place the post meant that they didn't.
You know, the actual result, the number of sept one
by party didn't reflect how pitoal the actually voted. If
you go back again, Bill Rolling contested the election of
nineteen seventy eight, having become prime minister when Normal Kirk
died and one more votes than Muldoon's National Party didn't
(11:30):
get to be prime minister again because it was first
past the post. So under MMP, anything possible.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Do you have to change? Not you, but do you
think that the Labor Party has a job to do
in sort of shifting the public's perceptions about what they are.
I think you've talked about getting back to a more
traditional base.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yeah, I think the Labor Party does. I mean, when
I became Prime minister and I'm just nder I see,
I thought, you know, Labor didn't need to get back
to more of its bread and butter. And one of
the things that drives me in politics is I think
that people who go out and work hard every day
should actually be able to get a head through their
own hard work. And there's a lot of people iron
cams are on a daily basis who do go out
(12:08):
and work hard but can't get ahead, you know, not
that they can't afford to buy a house, struggling to
give their kids the sort of quality of life that
they want to be able to give their kids. And
that's something that sort of drives me in politics. I
want to actually make sure that hard work does pay off.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Okay, just lucky. Last question a bit mischievous. If you're
hit by a bus tomorrow, who would you be backing
to be the next labor leader.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
I'll just be avoiding standing here.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I'd say, Okay, hey, Chris, thanks very much for your time,
really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Goodness, go cheers mate.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
There we go, there's opposition leader Chris Sipkins. We're going
to do talk back on this a little bit. Two
sites of that question about what Labour have to change
in terms of the public's perception of them. Of course,
you remember there are thirty odd percent who will still
vote labor right now, but they need to up that.
So what do they need to do and do you
think we'll actually ever have a sort of honest discussion
around capital gains tax and how would that work? Would
you ever support it? He makes a point that as
(13:03):
long as we don't have that side of the tax,
that takes a while to get an effective capital gains text,
and it's a bit takes a while for it to
kick in that we you know, at the moment cellar
In Wager and us bear a disproportionate sort of share
of the burden there.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.