This scheme was once touted as a way to jump start the NZ tech sector but it doesn't appear to be having any impact. Those getting the visa might only be in the country a few weeks in a year and their investments are going into companies which haven't done anything innovative in decades. The most scathing part of all is that New Zealand's still a terrible place to build a startup.
To those outside NZ: owning shares in non-NZ companies typically means a 5% yearly wealth tax if the shares don’t pay dividends (Ie most tech companies that are share price growth driven).
See https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses...
Fair Dividend Rate isn't a wealth tax. It's a frankly bullshit option rich people can use when their investments do really well to cap the tax owed to 5% of the starting market value.
Hatch explain it a bit here: https://www.hatchinvest.nz/learn-articles/tax-50000-fif
Not all investment sparks innovation - and innovation takes years. I would not expect people investing their life savings to get into NZ to invest in high-risk tech startups, but the investments they make will help the NZ economy all the same.
Investment flow where risk-adjusted returns are highest - that's the nice thing about free markets - you don't have to plan where to put the money - it'll go where it's most demanded.
This is how the free market works, in general. When prices go up, it incentivizes asset creators create more. This is one of the down-sides of zoning limitations - they do not let the market provide more for the additional demand.
...and a simple Google search confirms that NZ has been experiencing a construction boom.
The kind of houses which locals are priced out of due to low wage economy. Certainly good for wealthy immigrants and cashed up Kiwis returning from overseas though.
There is a market to offering rich people passports. New Zealand is just Vanuatu but with extra-steps.
Who needs that when you can sell passports/real estate/ocean views for lots of money and little work involved.
The rule of law is the key innovation that allowed the industrial revolution to take place bringing the West to its present rich and free lifestyle.
Adherence to the rule of law is a major reason why NZ is regularly in the top 5 countries globally for lack of corruption, transparency, and ease of doing business.
Abandoning the rule of law leads eventually to autocracy. From this distance the US appears to be well down that road.
What you are describing, in any event, is more about Equal Treatment Under the Law, in a moral sense (avoiding any excuse that could read like “anyone can invest $10 million so it’s technically open to everyone”).
But as others here say, the visa holders get in line for limited quarantine facilities like anyone else. It seems like the outrage is about these brand-new residents getting equal treatment with current residents, instead of the current residents getting priority. There is a reasonable case you should prioritize existing citizens over new residents, as they likely have greater reliance interests on their legal residence, but it’s not any rule-of-law or equal-treatment claim.
This seems flawed to me. Do poor people get to queue up for MIQ? No, because they can’t qualify for the visa scheme because they aren’t rich enough. So it’s not really equal treatment for these new residents because they are already given an advantage because of their money. They qualify simply because they are rich.
Equal treatment would be letting all foreigners apply for the same visa scheme based on non-monetary merits such as occupation.
And okay, that's a reasonable point to make — in isolation. But in context, do you honestly suggest that the New Zealand outrage described here would be remedied by opening more visas to more people, and getting them into the quarantine?
This will probably happen, maybe in our lifetimes but it’ll be at the expense of the nation state and blocs like the EU. Probably a good thing such that people can choose where they want to live but it’ll eventually revert back to borders again very quickly as the wealthy shore up resources in the best places and then leave everyone else to fend for themselves. We already saw this “wealth flight” during the pandemic when remote tech workers and executives fled cities and high taxes to create their own little versions of Galt’s Gulch all over the mountain west and no income tax states. When we get to open border policies under the auspices of fueling economic growth you’ll see this occur again. And when this occurs the shells of former nation states will no longer provide services like healthcare because there won’t be anybody to pay for it. The wealthy certainly won’t.
When you say it like that, creating a contrast between "east and west" and dishonest/criminal behaviour, it sounds a bit racist. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that point?
I also like to point out, I don't think the West is any better either. As for Russia, I don't know enough to judge them. That, I apologize.
> Aren’t most rich residents in NZ from the UK and US
I also want to clarify this point. NZ is not usually on the list for rich Chinese people. They go to Singapore. But it is for rich Americans like Larry Page, Peter Thiel, and a few Silicon Valley execs.
Your point about playing fair seems a bit specific. Do you think american and european startups play fair? So in that case american and european tech-millionaires should be allowed to invest in NZ and get a visa?
>> As for Russia, I don't know enough to judge them. That, I apologize.
> Do you think american and european startups play fair?
>> I also like to point out, I don't think the West is any better either.
> So in that case american and european tech-millionaires should be allowed to invest in NZ and get a visa?
>> I also want to clarify this point. NZ is not usually on the list for rich Chinese people. They go to Singapore. But it is for rich Americans like Larry Page, Peter Thiel, and a few Silicon Valley execs.
You clearly seemed triggered and have a bone to pick as you didn't read the entirety of my previous comment. It seems like you want to steer this thread into an argument between the East and West, which wasn't the point of my original argument and I have clarified that already. You might want to see a psychiatrist because there is definitely something more going on with you trying to project onto me. Today is Christmas, I wish you a Merry Xmas.
I do think your original and follow-up comments were just outright racist, though, which's a shame. Perhaps you could take a look at that perception you have, that "russian and chinese don't play fair", and justifying it with "they work too much" and "bullying tactics".
The wrapping of this last comment of yours is quite strange. Telling me to see a psychiatrist and then wishing me merry christmas haha I prefer direct rudeness and name-calling instead of whatever that is. Perhaps you could also take a look at that kind of behaviour and reconsider.
I simply pointed out that the system was unfair to regular Chinese people. Something that almost all of my Chinese friends also agree in the tech industry. Since you seem to know quite a lot about the system in China, how many years of experience do you have working in China? Clearly, you must know a lot more than me judging by your comment and brushing off 996 as simply "working too much".
If I had to guess, I think you are a New Zealander that has never worked a day in China before. You defend China maybe because your parents are from there, but you have no idea what it is actually like to work there as a regular citizen. You call anyone that talks badly about China's system as racist.
If you truly think I am racist, then I feel sorry for your delusion. I urge you to move back and work there for at least 5 years. Perhaps then, you will see how the rich take advantage of those below and you wouldn't brush off 996 as simply "working too much" and "bullying tactics" as nothing when your wage depends on it.
In fact, I have yet to meet one regular Chinese person that defends the rich like you do. Most of them are hated in China for creating a highly unfair society. Those that do are usually people like you: full of vigor, nationalistic pride, and 0 life experience. The irony for you is that even CCP agrees with me regarding the rich.
It's a shame to meet people like you online really. To outright call people you don't agree with as racist.. no manners whatsoever.
> Telling me to see a psychiatrist and then wishing me merry christmas haha I prefer direct rudeness and name-calling instead of whatever that is.
I think that just points to our upbringing right? Direct rudeness was never acceptable where I grew up. But I am certain being rude to people is nothing more than having breakfast for you. And to be proud of it...smh. For your own sake, you might want to learn some manners sooner rather than later. People won't take it kindly to being called racist in the real world.
One last note, I was being serious about seeing a psychiatrist. It was meant for your own good. Your comments show serious signs of projection and self righteousness.
I am more familiar with how these schemes work in the US, Canada and UK. At least in the US the scheme is particularly egregious since investing in real estate counts. https://www.mgac.com/blog/eb-5-real-estate-financing-trends-...
BTW, I know Honduras has an investor visa, too.
NZers should expect to be on the hook for at least a few class action lawsuits for damages. For example people who have watched loved ones die on a video call because they haven't been rightfully allowed back into their country.
It's going to cost in the long run but the dust hasn't settled yet. I'll be joining up for damages and a few months extra living costs placed on me before I could get a MIQ spot.
> Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act...
Their early lockdowns were unlawful, but they fixed that in a few days with new legislation. A court actually ruled they were initially unlawful, but said that was OK because the government had good intentions.
So given that it hasn't worked out as planned and they have directly violated freedom of movement etc, they have some pretty major issues.
This was how it was orignally written. I think they've tried to change it to install a CEO of MIQ which is the fall guy and absolves the govt now.
However, this will all be sorted out when the lawsuit goes ahead next year from the Grounded Kiwis (mentioned in the article) and hopefully a win for justice here. Given every legal challenge so far has been lost by the govt or backed out of at the last minute, there's a fairly good chance if someone or a group persues it to the final ruling, there will be a case set for a class action follow up.
whats the point of such bill of rights, if it has no supremacy?
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
The most important part of stromtium_90's reply is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the idea that no legislature can do something that a future legislature cannot undo. Every legislature, including the US Congress, follows this principle ... with the exception of the constitution/founding treaty/etc., which is the only thing that is superior to that legislature's power. New Zealand does not have such a document. Neither does the UK. So, theoretically, both countries' parliaments can do anything as long as the action complies with any treaties signed with other nations ... and, of course, the parliaments can always use whatever exit option the treaties provide, if necessary.
But, but the Cato Institute says it's the freest country in the world. And the Heritage foundation places it in the list of the most economically free. No way those ratings are bollocks.
P.S.: Interestingly, the latter puts Kazakhstan (where the president and his people shamelessly extort 40-60% share of every major business and enterprise) in the "mostly free" section. Makes one wonder about how those ratings are composed.
And the description of Kyrgyzstan shows its authors don't understand what they are writing at all:
> Former Prime Minister and ruling Social-Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan member Sooronbai Jeenbekov defeated former President Almazbek Atambayev in 2017 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.
It's equivalent to:
> Former Vice President and ruling US Democratic Party member Joe Biden defeated former President Barack Obama in 2020 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.
Rule of law doesn't mean the law can't make a difference between the rich and the poor, in fact, it is very common in tax law (the rich pay more taxes), but not only.
Rule of law just means "no corruption", essentially. That the laws are the only criteria for judging people, it is not a discussion about the fairness of the law itself. It there is a "no parking" sign, then under the rule of law, no one will be allowed to park, including Bob, who will be fined/towed like everyone else. But if the sign says "no parking, except for Bob", then Bob will be allowed to park even if people find it unfair.
Usually, high rule of law countries are also democracies, so laws are made by elected officials, or even directly by people, and fairness is an important part of the lawmaking process. Indeed, people are usually reticent to apply laws they feel unfair, but technically, rule of law can apply even in the most unfair, despotic systems.
Are you supporting mob rule? If so, you might wish to move to another country where "outrage" can lead to people getting killed right on the street in front of you.
Seriously, if you see "outraged" in a headline, be careful.
Btw, NZ can afford to maintain a top spot on all these lists because it is a gated country with population less than that of NYC.
NZ's borders have always been closed for the world's poor. Now it is closed for non-elites and the just plain rich are revolting against it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/22/on-the-edge-ar...
> Critics say failing to allow family members to join skilled workers will undermine post-pandemic recovery
If the US did a fraction of that for H1B workers, there would have been virtue signaling speeches in the UN.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tough-rules-see-migrants-give-...
Be a bit more generous like the US for immigration, and then we will see how the US and NZ fare.
If you’re talking about the visa itself, these rich folks are getting approved through an immigration pathway approved by parliament. Nobody is taking any shortcuts here.
If the MIQ program is similar to some citizenship programs where you get points for things and this is giving them as many or more points than just having citizenship does, I would agree it's unfair.
[1] https://senatestockwatcher.com/
(edit: the parent comment was asking about violations of rule of law "over here" referring to the US being down that road in its parent comment)
This corruptions indices are pretty much always “corruption perception” indices, as in, New Zealanders consider their country to be less corrupt than other countries, not that it actually is less corrupt than other countries.
> From this distance the US appears to be well down that road.
And yet you're the ones who are locked.
The industrialisation of Tsarist Russia kind of disproves that.
> Abandoning the rule of law leads eventually to autocracy. From this distance the US appears to be well down that road.
I agree with that.
Not sure why you’re talking about the idea rule of law like it’s something New Zealand invented or is somehow novel or unique?
Let's say a time comes when every NZ'er who wants to get back to the country can do so immediately. Do you think it would be wrong for NZ to prioritize immigrants who can bring material wealth to the economy in general (not to politicians specifically)?
It's the monetary equivalent of importing intelligent students to top-tier graduate programs.
You are absolutely correct on both counts. If we didn’t have MIQ, this would be a non-issue to most kiwis.
The root of it is MIQ has prevented kiwis from traveling to/from NZ for the last 2 years. This has created massive strain on separated families and extended families. It has created stress on those in NZ who cannot leave because the govt won’t let them return without a MIQ slot.
Globally, the pandemic has moved on from elimination to coexistence. Vaccines, good hygiene, being sensible.
NZ’s continued use of MIQ/draconian restrictions on freedom of movement is counter to what needs to happen (return to business as usual).
At this current point in time, with over 90% of eligible people vaccinated, the trade off between lives saved by MIQ vs returning to normality does not, IMO and a lot of other kiwis, justify the continuation of MIQ.
The picture should be clearer now? The business of NZ is selling to foreign investors. They are closing to contain the coronavirus because what matters are these foreign $$.
> With their visas in hand, investors may apply to compete for spots in New Zealand’s congested MIQ system. A stay in MIQ is a prerequisite for entry to the country, which has been largely closed to non-quarantined international travel since March 2020 to protect against Covid-19.
So… these people have pledged to invest huge sums of money into NZ and the end result is that they have to apply for the same MIQ spots as everyone else?
Seems the outrage should be directed at this MIQ system. The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.