On the front page of the New Zealand Herald today there was a poll, and it shows that we're split as a nation on the issue of capital gains tax. So, the question for us here in this room and you in your room and all of us together is, should we have another discussion on the CGT?

And my answer to that is, of course not. And why? We have no real idea of what it looks like, so we don't know what we're talking about. People who have assets that are accruing capital do not want it because they've never had to pay tax on it before, and no one likes paying more tax. People who do want a capital gains tax might want it if it means there's more money for health and education or benefits, but then if they start getting assets, will they be happy paying more tax?

All the policies we've had so far on capital gains tax are so wishy-washy and indeterminate, we have no idea what it means. When will the valuations be calculated? Will we pay tax on mythical unrealized gains? How much money will it really raise? Have we had any answers to any of those questions? No, we have not. Could we have answers to those questions? Maybe. David Parker, before the last election, apparently came up with a comprehensive capital gains tax plan, but we never saw it. So how can we debate it?

Labour's policy is such a once over lightly, we can't answer any of this. We are split on the general concept of capital gains tax and always have been, so why discuss it? It is a ridiculous Russian doll situation, and we go round and round, and we've decided let's not talk about that today.

But we can talk about real taxes. And real taxes are increasing. And if you don't believe me, take a look at your rates bill, because rates are a tax. There are all sorts of different taxes in this world. And it's the sneaky ones that don't call themselves taxes that are the really sneaky ones.

We had a real tax come at us, a couple of them actually, over the weekend. On Saturday, the front page was all about the legislation that's been introduced, meaning that councils can charge congestion taxes in the future. Awesome. So we'll be paying taxes on roads we already paid taxes to build. And if not taxes, then rates, because the council builds a lot of our roads. And of course, as I've said already, rates are also taxes. Talk about double jeopardy. We're paying taxes on taxes. It's two bites of the pie. And then you have to wonder why the National-led coalition wants to increase our taxes when their mission has always been to reduce them. They hate taxes, they say. Some of them say we're overtaxed. They want them gone.
So the motivation for taxes has many faces. They're used to punish the rich because of the politics of envy, I get that. They're used to redistribute wealth because some people are poor and some people are not.

And of course, they're all used to fund health and education systems. And we also use taxes to punish or to change behaviour. So I guess if we're talking about congestion taxes in this instance, we're talking about changing our behaviour. Is that enough reason for National to want to do this?

The behaviour they're trying to change is to make more of us drive off-peak and less of us on-peak, making the roads flow better. I say good luck with that. Good luck with your tax, because in this age of cost of living increases and rate rises and water costs, I believe that no one at this moment wants to pay more tax. And no wonder Wayne Brown in the paper on Saturday said the council is not going to use this new power anytime soon, because he knows a vote killer when he sees one. I mean, who's going to vote for that? Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. And you have to ask, would it actually work?

It might make mums on the school run think twice about using a motorway at peak hour. But, you know, tradies and the people who carry all our goods and the transporters, they won't have the option. They'll have to pay, and that is a further cost on their bottom line. And whenever a business gets a further cost on the bottom line, you know what they do? They pass it on. Who to? You and I, increasing the costs of services.

The very fact, and I said this yesterday, the very fact that a young modern city like Auckland or Tauranga or Wellington, well, let's say Auckland, just over 1 and a half million people, it's a small city internationally, has got itself into a position where a centre-right government thinks the answer is a congestion tax is a complete and utter failure of our civil planning over the last generations.

Sure, I understand congestion taxes in London. I mean, that built and built and built, and there's no more room for roads, and they've got undergrounds, and they've got buses, and they've got trains, and they've got everything, and still they're congested. So sure, put a congestion tax on in London. But really, Auckland? Hello? Really? Tauranga? Tauranga is our most taxed roading system. Got a couple of them there. You had the K-Road ages ago. Did it work?  Or Wellington. And I'll talk more about Wellington later because today is a big day for Wellington transport.
The fact of the matter, if you don't like the congestion taxes, all we had to do was provide alternatives to the car that were affordable and efficient.

Every time we talked about public transport options or alternate modes or God forbid cycleways, they've always been shouted down by people who think we still live in a rural village and not a modern cities, and we should all have the human right to drive from doorstep to doorstep. Well, that's a lack of foresight, is it not? Because we kept on growing and growing. Unfortunately, transportation, like public transport, is the answer, because there's very little room for more roads.

But then again, we'll have to figure out how to pay for that transport system, and again, that will fall on you and me and our wallets, just the same as it would with any tax. At the moment, unbelievably, under a National-led coalition, another tax is coming, and do you think our roads are going to suddenly clear out? I don't.

LISTEN ABOVE