Taxing the ideologue

This is a response to this blog post by property investment lawyer David Whitburn, which in turn was a response to a series of articles in the New Zealand Herald about the worth of a capital gains tax. (They start here, but it’s the second installment where you can read the argument in favour of a capital gains tax.)

I’ll say upfront that arguments such as those of Chye-Ching Huang and Craig Elliffe have put me in favour of the introduction of a capital gains tax. However, this post is not about the benefits of such a tax per se, but a criticism of Whitburn’s response.

Whitburn makes the early claim that Elliffe and Huang "were disappointingly emotive". Yet, Whitburn himself then goes on to make several statements that could be described as ‘emotive’ to say the least. For example:

- “Do we want to borrow several billions of dollars every year until 2016 and create a noose for the taxpayers now, our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ generations...”

- “The idea of a new tax really offends me. It smacks of arrogance and a neanderthal like ‘big Government is good’ mentality...”

And most laughably, he concludes with: “New Zealand needs a capital gains tax as much as we need the plague to strike us.” Yes, the original comment was in bold. But hey, let’s not get emotive.

Next, he moves on to claim that Elliffe and Huang have apparently “forgotten that New Zealand’s mountain of debt is mainly not government (or sovereign) debt. In fact New Zealand is an outstanding performer globally when compared to most other countries" ... “As a country we are in the safe dark grey zone with Government debt at (considerably) less than 30% of GDP.”

Okay, so we don’t need a capital gains tax, because the public debt is not a big problem. Yet strangely, as soon as Whitburn has finished reassuring us that we don’t need capital gains tax or any other increase in public revenue – because public debt is low, we’re safe – he then comes up with a number of suggestions to cut public spending - some of them quite drastic. For example: “Don’t let people leave NZ until they have paid off their student loan.”

What could justify this kind of action, along with the other 15 suggestions he makes to cut government spending? The problem with our public debt, that's what. You know: that low, safe level of public debt.

[Some minor edits have been made to the following points.]

So what other arguments does he make against a Elliffe and Huang? None. That one inconsistent, misdirected point about public debt was it. He addresses none of the benefits they discussed; he addresses nothing else in their case at all.

There are many other suggestions he raised in regard to spending cuts that I diagree with (cuts to education spending, disposing of MMP), but will limit myself to a few more quick points. Whitburn asks: “Do we want to run the risk of more good Kiwis going overseas?” Well apparently, David, you consider a ban on people leaving the country a viable option, so why worry?

He says he does not approve of increasing government income by raising taxes. Yet, one of his suggestions is to raise tax. “Raise the tax on cigarettes so they cost at least $25 per packet (that will stop a great number of smokers and therefore save a lot of money on our pressured healthcare system)”. He claims he doesn’t like a Big Government mentality, and is in favour of individual liberties and personal freedom. Raising the tax on cigarettes is a move often criticised as “Big Government” or “nanny state”.

I do agree with some of what Whitburn suggests. We need, at some point, to raise the age at which the universal pension becomes available, or otherwise address the cost of the system. And I think a 4-year electoral cycle is worth considering.

Also, I’m not against increasing taxes on cigarettes. Then again, I’m not saying that the introduction of a tax is an arrogant compromise of my personal freedom.

I prefer the stance of libertarians over Whitburn’s stale conservatism. I still disagree with them, but at least they’re more consistent. Whitburn will have a lot of people largely agreeing with his position. The problem is that they don't even realise their own ideological myopia.

Brian Edwards vs the Sun

...day Star Times.

Okay, lame joke aside, I just want to have a quick word about the idiotic decision by the Sunday Star Times to threaten defamation action against Brian Edwards.

Here is the Edwards post that summaries the situation.

I am against our defamation law as it stands, but even if I were not, I think this case amounts to little more than intellectually feeble reasoning and, frankly, bullying, on the part of the Sunday Star Times' editor and the journalist cited as the other client, Jonathan Marshall. This will clearly end up being a counter-productive threat (in part due to the Steisand effect), if it isn't already. If the SST and Marshall were advised to take this step, they received some very bad advice. Maybe they should sue.

Anyway, I just wanted to vent that, and show some support for Edwards' stance on this issue.

2011 Review

Two days in: So far, so good.

What have I done in the first two days? I've enjoyed Wellington's fairly decent weather and got a lot of washing done. And some drinking.

I've had fun checking out some of the 150-plus* Low Powered FM radio stations available in Wellington. (Yes, that's the sort of thing I do for fun.) That's over one hundred & fifty in Wellington alone (including Kapiti etc). That doesn't even count the standard power stations like National Radio or Active, or any AM frequency stations like Access Radio. I was quite surprised.
[*Edit: Okay, not all of those are currently active, but there are a lot of smaller stations around, some of which are quite interesting.]

I finished Vladimir Nabokov's Despair. Good book. (I wonder if the original Russian title, Otchayanie, has slightly different connotations than the English equivalent?)

I read Charles Reece's Best 11 Films of 2010. I always enjoy his efforts at getting many non-standard publicity posters for the films. Such as...

EDIT: sorry, image not working any longer. This was it.

I got into part 3 of Y: The Last Man - 'One Small Step'.

And I caught up on the latest Natalie Tran Vlogs.

That's not too bad for two days of the new year.

------------

For the next little while at least, I'll be posting all "pop culture" related stuff (such as film reviews and commentary) over at Poplitiko. Where I am inclined to comment on something other than pop culture, it'll be here. Plus I'll post links to Poplitiko just in case.

------------

Merry new year.

Sound & Rhythm

This week's 15 minute film review looks at the Wellington Film Society screening of Beyond Ipanema, which was shown Monday 13 September in conjunction with the Reel Brazil Film Festival, now in its second year. Unfortunately I missed last Monday's (20 Sept) screening of Belgian Bond parody OSS117: Cairo: Nest of Spies. So, start the clock...

Beyond Ipanema (2009)

It would be difficult not to make a reasonably entertaining and interesting documentary about the resurgent Brazilian music scene: the soundtrack's a given, Brazil has ample gorgeous vistas and gorgeous people, and there's 60 years of history and interest from world famous musicians (chiefly David Byrne). Filmmaker Guto Barra (along with co-producer and music director Béco Dranoff) manages to make a doco that's just that: interesting, entertaining, handsomely put together, and featuring great music.

It's a good documentary film, but it seemed lacking in enough detail, enough depth; there weren't many of those moments that make the audience feel like they are marvelling at an incite. The film was somewhat like a bus tour, with a better than average guide holding the mike. (A tour mostly around Rio and New York, which received much of Barra's focus.)

One of the best moments was when someone from the Bossa Nova scene explains the difference between his style and regular jazz. It was all conveyed in the way he gestured and mimicked the sound and rhythm of the two styles - that's what made the scene, what drew the laughs, what instilled the appreciation. It's really not something a written review can replicate, which surely is a sign of documentary film at its best - working with sound and vision to impart wisdom and effect not easy to summarise.

The fog of war

Over the next few months I'm trying an experiment of sorts. I am attending the Wellington Film Society screenings on Monday nights, and would like to comment on the movies I see. However, I don't have the time to post a lengthy critique every week, so I've set myself the humble task of reviewing each week's screening in 15 minutes. The 15 minutes is for the main content, and does not include a little time afterwards for adding in links, tags and images, and proofreading for typos. I will post the comment after work on the day after the screening, so it should be up by around 6.30pm Tuesdays.

This first attempt is an exception: No Man's Land actually screened last week (30 August, I didn't go to this week's showing), and this review took longer than 15 minutes. It's a trail run...

No Man's Land (2001)

I went into the screening of No Man's Land (written and directed by Danis Tanovic) not knowing much about it. I'd heard of it, mostly because of the coverage it got from its 2001 Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film, but had little idea of the story other than that it was set in the Bosnian war (1992 to 1995). It's one of those films where this lack of knowledge helps, as its story telling makes effective moments from the unexpected. For example, the opening scene is set in a night fog, with a Bosnian patrol lost and about to hunker down till dawn. We seem to be getting to know the gang - this film's dirty dozen, or inglorious bastards - as they talk and joke with each other. Then with daybreak the gang finds that they're much too close to the Serbian lines and suddenly virtually everyone in the Bosnian group is brutally killed.

Eventually, we settle on two or three main characters in a predicament together in a trench in no man's land. The relationship of the Serb and Bosnian characters in the trench is fairly realistically drawn, and appropriately frustrating. It is here, and in the character of the head of the French UN unit trying to intervene, that the humanity of the story is at the fore. The wider shenanigans involving the UN peacekeepers, the British command, the two sides' respective leadership in the area, and the media is more satirical, at times even perhaps a touch over the top, and gives the film a strong parable feel.



I'm wary of actors turned directors when it comes to the visual aspect, and this is a good example of why. No Man's Land has fairly bland cinematography (the shot above is one of the more interesting). Apart from the effective opening scenes, Tanovic relies largely on a few establishing shots and a lot of "Um, I know, let's point the camera at the actors".

Despite that, No Man's Land does a competent job blending different genres and styles: effective as war movie, situation comedy, tragedy, satire, farce, and even thriller.

Criticism of the film includes that it seems to have little to say other than 'war is hell'. That's true to a point, but I think that of most war films. I've never been a big fan of war satires. The likes of Dr Strangelove and the movie version of Catch 22, supposed classics of the genre, are okay, but not hugely impressive. Maybe it's a 'shooting fish in a barrel' thing - war seems easy to satirize. No Man's Land is one of the better attempts. Even so, the absurdities and violence on display still seem only an indication of the complexity and brutality of the real conflict.

War may provoke the occasional good movie, but on balance, I'm against it.