Turn the music off at sports events

Cricket at The Basin over the weekend was near perfection – the weather, the cricket, the Black Caps all played their part. What detracted was the music NZ Cricket assaulted us with at 100 decibels.

Part of the pleasure of test cricket is leaving the real world behind as you enter the gate.

NZ Cricket has shown how out of touch it is with test fans by playing music. It also assailed with equally obnoxious loud advertisements.

This move is obviously the work or NZC’s marketing ‘‘gurus’’, who probably have never paid to watch cricket in their lives.

Playing music at sport is actually saying at 100 decibels that that sport is not good enough in itself to entertain. Tellingly, playing music at such high volume at the Westpac Stadium has turned fans away. Few of my friends who were keen rugby fans now go, principally because of the loud music.

Look at the crowd fall-off for Super Rugby throughout New Zealand and compare that to soccer in Britain, Europe and Australia, where the fans who create their own entertainment fill stadiums.

Going to watch sport live is all about creating and enjoying the atmosphere. Loud, live music kills that.

Simon Louisson, Seatoun

Argument flawed

Max Rashbrooke (Fairness is essential in tax regime, Dec 18) has got himself confused when equating capital gains tax to fairness.

He seems to have no understanding of what constitutes a capital gain and his fairness argument is thus flawed from the start.

Regardless, it would be preposterously unfair to tax a person selling one property only to buy a similar one (sometimes in a different town).

In parts of the United States where they do have a CGT, I understand the tax doesn’t even apply when repurchasing within a certain timeframe.

And if we had a CGT, it would likewise be fair that no CGT applied if repurchasing within, say, six months.

Rashbrooke’s other ideological wish, to tax wealth, is plainly illconsidered. This would disencourage saving (adding to future superannuation shortfalls) and disincentivise the creation of and investing in businesses (which pay tax and create lower risk employment pathways).

He also (perhaps enviously) talks of good luck, but conveniently ignores the bad luck that befalls a high proportion of those who start or invest in businesses.

Don Frampton, Waikanae

Start with wealth

Max Rashbrooke is obviously a socialist. Apparently he is unaware that socialism always fails in its stated objective, to have a ‘‘fair’’ society.

Their pursuit of such always ends in a depressed economy, and in a depressed economy it is always the poor who fair worst.

Distribution of wealth has its place, but not at the cost of wealth creation and that is where they always wash ashore, ruining wealth creation. Without wealth there can be no wealth distribution. Rashbrooke obviously is not an historian.

Garth Scown, Whanganui

Politicised nonsense

Max Rashbrooke’s suggestion that rest-home carers are unfairly disadvantaged because they pay tax on their incomes, whereas ‘‘rich’’ homeowners get their capital gains tax free, is politicised nonsense.

If the carers own homes, and many do, they too benefit from any capital gains on their properties. Likewise if the homeowners have jobs, and most do, they will pay tax on that income, as they have done all their working lives.

In many instances, probably the majority, the unfairness Rashbrooke agonises over simply balances out.

The Government, while boasting of financial surpluses, is setting the public up for a huge tax grab. Taxing the wealthy more will lead to ‘‘safe streets’’, and ‘‘a ‘‘cohesive social fabric’’, Rashbrooke says, and help tackle ‘‘our massive child poverty problem’’.

This is Left-wing idealism at its most disingenuous. The world and its problems aren’t that simple. Peter Maxwell, Wilton

Defending their patch

It is baffling that Michael Bolland (Letters, Dec 19) cannot comprehend the anxiety and sheer terror felt by locals when the sister ship of James Cook’s Resolution arrived in Wharehunga Bay in 1773.

When 10 men from the Adventure advanced towards them, without permission, it was not worth taking chances with life and property, and so Nga¯ ti Kuia and Rangitane defended their patch in the most effective way they knew.

Nowadays it is called trespassing, and even in our morereasoned times, fatal actions in selfdefence are often found justified. Marg Pearce, Whitby