by Richard Prebble

“Is it morally acceptable for any one person to be a billionaire?”

Jack Tame asked both leaders.

It says something about New Zealand — or perhaps TVNZ — that the question was asked.

More remarkable was that neither Christopher could answer yes or no.

Hipkins’ difficulty was obvious.

If it is immoral to have a billion dollars, at what point between having nothing and a billion dollars does a New Zealander become immoral?

If Hipkins had said extreme wealth was immoral, he would have exposed what I believe is behind Labour’s capital gains tax: the politics of envy.

Luxon’s failure to answer is inexplicable.

He said: “I don’t believe at the end of our lives all of us should be the same.”

Tame pointed out that he had not answered the question.

Luxon then talked about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.

He could have reframed the whole election.

He could have said:

“Yes. There are ethical billionaires, and there are robber barons. Wealth does not determine morality.”

“But your question goes to the heart of this election.

“Should government take from people simply because they have more?

“National says no. The state should provide essential services, look after the truly vulnerable and give everyone the opportunity to succeed.

“Labour and its allies want to redistribute wealth.

“If you believe people should not be punished for being successful, vote National. If you disagree, vote for the other lot.”

Jack Tame asked the question at the heart of this election.

Hipkins knew what he believed but could not afford to say it. Luxon appeared not to know what he believed.

Originally published on I've Been Thinking.