Hacker News Reader

Comment by parkingrift | Hacker News Reader

>Immigration New Zealand (INZ) recently granted 32 visas to people who pledged to invest at least $10m locally over three years and another 76 visas to individuals pledging to invest at least $3m, according to the news website Stuff.

> 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.

View on HN

>The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.

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.

> ...and their investments are going into companies which haven't done anything innovative in decades.

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.

How will it help New Zealanders if they just invest in real estate? Seems like a good speculative bet for them, but mostly it just makes it more difficult for young people to get afoot in the property market....

Higher asset prices makes building property more profitable. It incentivizes more construction.

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.

Real estate is far from free market. Tons of regulation effectively makes it regulatory capture.

>...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.

While NZ’s lack of capital gains tax should make it enticing, the terrible overseas investment policies/taxes make it less appealing to multi-national companies and investors.

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...

In NZ the normal way is Comparative Value which taxes the increase in market value when you sell.

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

Could it be because New Zealand is an agricultural economy that just also happens to be a very good place to live in?

There is a market to offering rich people passports. New Zealand is just Vanuatu but with extra-steps.

An agricultural economy where a third of exports go to China. Selling passports won't offset that when geopolitics intervenes. But using those investments to help build out a vibrant tech sector would go further. It may also bring back some of the tech workers the country's been losing.

I don't really see the path from "selling passports" to "vibrant tech sector". That's something politicians have been selling to you to explain their policies. New Zealand is hostile to anyone not having six figures in their bank account. A vibrant tech sector requires all kind of people, laws, infrastructure, etc... Running a business is messy and running a country which run businesses is also messy and require all kind of work/hustles.

Who needs that when you can sell passports/real estate/ocean views for lots of money and little work involved.

In New Zealand we try to have something called the Rule of Law. The same laws and regulations apply to everyone regardless of wealth or political connection.

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.

But this is the rule of law? These folks with their new visas line up just like everyone else for an MIQ slot?

The same rule for everyone regardless of wealth or political connection.

Something makes me doubt you could point out any society in history where the rich and well-connected are treated like everyone else. Not to say I think this is necessarily a good thing (or necessarily a bad thing, either) but them's the rules of the world.

Does NZ not benefit from this system? I mean, it seems like a good deal to me - attracting large amounts of local investment in return for something fairly small.

Yes it is a good deal. This is manufactured outrage.

Kiwi’s don’t like rich people, tho most are obscenely rich themselves via capital gains… go figure.

It’s is the same rule? Once you have a visa, you apply for MIQ. These visa applicants getting into line like everyone else.

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.

Which part of the rule of law is being violated here?

In regards to corruption and political connections I can recommend taking a look at senate stock watcher [1] which sometimes make it obvious what senator was responsible for which bill, specifically.

[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)

That is a US site and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I might be missing something but I'm not sure what that has to do with New Zealand. From a quick glance, there didn't seem to be any information related to the country mentioned.

The visa programs should be halted until all citizens can equally compete. There is no fair competition here. The quarantined are being pissed on while wealthy players continue to live freely. Do you not understand that? Rules for thee but nit for me applies here.

I don't fully know everything about the MIQ program but it seems like citizens can compete for spaces on an equal basis and this adds the visa applicants to the pool. So while it reduces their chances of being picked from 1 out of x to 1 out of (x + y) it seems like it's still fair?

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.

I think your are misunderstanding. The visa programme does not allow you to skip the queue for MIQ. It just gives you a higher chance at a visa if you are rich. It's not going to affect NZ citizens trying to return home, because they find need visas.

You are not describing Rule of Law. The rule of law is what you use to say that people are treated according to the law, not given special exceptions or punishments because of how much they are liked or hated. The opposite of the rule of law is generally the “rule of men” and is typified by the powerful having the discretion to punish enemies on a whim. Consider, for instance, someone who brings forth a charge of sexual assault against a minister, and is disappeared. The law, however, seems to be followed here.

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.

> It seems like the outrage is about these brand-new residents getting equal treatment with current residents, instead of the current residents getting priority.

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.

I'm very much for radically open borders — in economic terms, it's one of those twenty-trillion dollar bills lying around on the sidewalk that no one has picked up yet.

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 kind of brings the question should this kind of visa scheme exist in the first place during Covid. From my very limited knowledge, these are just pledges, not actual investments. Given a) NZ tiny market, b) high corporate tax rate, and c) isolation as an Oceania island (shipping), would it make sense to invest in NZ right now? My bet is that they expect Covid to end in the next 1-2 years and all these rich people will leave. These new residents are simply taking advantage of this visa scheme and not actually long term residents. That’s just my 2 cents and I may be wrong.

My understanding of these schemes is that they are generally designed for rich people who accumulated wealth in countries where they might like to have a backup option if their government gets in a particularly seize-y mood. (e.g. China or Russia)

Aren’t most rich residents in NZ from the UK and US? That was my impression. The middle class are usually Chinese. But regardless, rich people in China and Russia don’t accumulate wealth simply by playing fair. Is NZ okay with this kind of wealth transfer to their country knowing this? (Well we all know the answer honestly)

> rich people in China and Russia don’t accumulate wealth simply by playing fair

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?

True. I can only say as a Software Engineer, the tech industry in China is highly unfair from my personal experience. There are a lot of bullying tactics involve for startups that are not invested by Tencent and Alibaba. Startup founders themselves are not much better because they don't give equity to employees. Therefore, all the wealth accumulates to the founder and their investors, while the employees slave away under 996. I wouldn't say it is criminal behavior though. I specific choose the word unfair for this reason.

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.

You're saying that since, based on your personal experience, China doesn't play fair, NZ shouldn't be ok with this kind of wealth transfer? What about Russia, is that also your personal experience?

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?

> What about Russia, is that also your personal experience?

>> 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.

Absolutely no bone to pick! I'm from the camp that thinks that every millionaire didn't and doesn't play fair. Having said that, I don't have any issue with these investments visas, given the numbers that we usually see: a few hundred per year, at least in the countries I took a look at.

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 do think your original and follow-up comments were just outright racist

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.

That may very well be true for NZ.

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-...

And those cases where the origin of the money is illegal, so it has to be put somewhere else.

BTW, I know Honduras has an investor visa, too.

> I'm very much for radically open borders — in economic terms, it's one of those twenty-trillion dollar bills lying around on the sidewalk that no one has picked up yet.

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.

“Rule of law” in common usage definitely means that each person is subject to the same laws. This is the definition I have always heard people use, and it matches OED’s and the UN’s definition.

Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half.

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.

I don't think the NZ bill of rights is applied the same way as other countries.

> 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...

why would they include something like that?

whats the point of such bill of rights, if it has no supremacy?

New Zealand’s unicameral parliament, has supremacy over all other parts of government [1] and cannot be overruled or contradicted by any prior parliament’s legislation … the bill of right’s drafting reflects this. As a consequence of New Zealand’s somewhat atypical political history (as a former British colony without a federation treaty or other founding constitutional document), it’s not really possible to entrench any legislation so it can’t be overruled by a normal majority of a subsequent parliament.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

As AmericanChopper said, it's mostly irrelevant in the legal sense.

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.

The way the legislation that gives the govt powers to enforce MIQ is written, is with respect to of the NZ bill of rights. That is, the legislation doesn't override the bill of rights but tries to work with it.

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.

The Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand is mostly irrelevant. It is an ordinary piece of legislation, and it places no restrictions whatsoever on what future legislation may or may not contain.

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.

> Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half.

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.

Um, folks get a visa and wait in line for MIQ. That's both the law and just like everyone else with a visa.

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.

NZ isn't currently issuing visas outside of a few categories of "special worker in shortage". (In order to citizens and residents a better chance at getting a quarantine spot.) So this introduces a new special exception for the very wealthy.

In the biggest economic slump since the Great Depression maybe it makes sense to consider rich people who invest lots of money into the economy a "specialized worker" since they might play an important role helping recovery.

And that's fair enough but if there are limited spots they should go to existing NZ citizens/residents, and those with the greatest m=need should be prioritised.

Biggest economic slump where 75% of population just doubled their salary via capital gains..?

Your tone is getting backlash, not your point. It's fair to say that citizens should not be put ahead of noncitizens trying to get back into the country during a crisis.

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.

Why does every discussion about some random country have to involve the US? It is getting really boring seeing the same mid-brow flawed arguments rehashed everywhere from Reddit's worldnews to HN.

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.

auctioning visas to the highest bidder seems like the fairest system

No it doesn't.

> Adherence to the rule of law is a major reason why NZ is regularly in the top 5 countries globally for lack of corruption

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.

Unless I didn't understand the situation, these "wealthy" visas are the law.

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.

> In New Zealand we try to have something called the Rule of Law.

> From this distance the US appears to be well down that road.

And yet you're the ones who are locked.

> 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.

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.

> we try to have something called the Rule of Law

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?

> Seems the outrage should be directed at this MIQ system. The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.

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.

> NZ’s continued use of MIQ/draconian restrictions on freedom of movement is counter to what needs to happen (return to business as usual).

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 $$.

The visa scheme just leads to disenfranchisement of New Zealanders as they are slowly priced out of everything. Farm land is quickly being bought by foreigners in both Australia and NZ, which is having negative impacts on both of those countries. The countries are essentially being sold out from under their citizens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com