So does Oxfam think wealth should be confiscated?

Stuff reports:

Two New Zealanders are worth the same as the poorest 30 per cent of the adult Kiwi population, Oxfam research says.

Research also says the richest one per cent of New Zealanders own one fifth of the nation’s wealth, while 90 per cent of the population owns less than half of the country’s wealth.

The findings are included in a study of inequality in a global Oxfam report to be released on Monday and it cites the two wealthiest Kiwis, Richard Chandler and Graeme Hart.

So what?

Does Oxfam think it is terrible Chandler and Hart are wealthy?

Oxfam would have you think wealth is finite and if Chandler and Hart have all this wealth, then they have stolen it from the poorest 30% who don’t have much. Oxfam is basically a socialist campaigning organisation.

Chandler has made almost all of his money overseas. So how does a NZer being successful overseas harm people in New Zealand?

Maybe Oxfam thinks we should do what has failed in every country that has tried it and confiscate wealth (not income) and redistribute it. So take the $13 billion Chandler and Hart have and give it to the poorest 1.5 million New Zealanders. They would then each have $10,000 wealth – hardly life changing.

Plus of course it would never happen. Hart and Chandler can choose where to be domiciled and sure won’t be any place that listens to Oxfam.