By Jenée Tibshraeny
New Zealand needs a comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT).
That message from Baucher Consulting tax expert, Terry Baucher, is clear.
We’ve inherited an incomplete tax system from the Rogernomics era that’s contributed to the value of our housing stock increasing 40-fold from 1980 to over $1 trillion.
That’s more than double the size of New Zealanders’ net financial wealth held in assets like KiwiSaver funds, equities, term deposits, bonds, insurance and superannuation schemes ($460 billion).
It’s also nine times the value of all New Zealand-listed stocks. While the values of stock markets in most modern economies are on par with gross domestic product (GDP), the value of New Zealand’s stock market isn’t even equivalent to 50% of GDP.
The IMF is the latest organisation to warn us about this imbalance; the findings of its just-released Financial Sector Assessment Program suggesting “further tax measures related to housing could be considered to reduce incentives for leveraged real estate investments by households.
“Such measures could help redirect savings to other, potentially more productive, investments and, thereby support deeper capital markets.”
KiwiSaver a game changer
Baucher recognises CGT is a political hot potato. Yet he says the proliferation of KiwiSaver means the inequity of our tax system can’t keep being ignored.
There are now more than 2.5 million people enrolled in KiwiSaver - nearly 10 times the number of property investors filing income tax returns. Members and their employers contributed $4.8 billion to funds in the year to June 2016.
Yet the pinch is KiwiSaver funds and savers are paying more than four times as much tax as residential property investors, relative to the sums invested.
“If a government moves to auto-enrol all employees in KiwiSaver, then the pressure to redress the tax distortion in favour of property will increase,” Baucher notes in ‘Tax and Fairness’, the new book he has co-authored with Massey University lecturer, Labour Party candidate and former Inland Revenue employee, Deborah Russell.
“Why should KiwiSaver members be taxed on their locked-in savings while property investors’ capital gains remain largely tax-free?”
Speaking to interest.co.nz in a Double Shot Interview, Baucher discusses how this distortion in our tax system has come about, what it looks like, and what needs to happen to change it.
The legacy of Rogernomics
Baucher says the tax reforms quickly pushed through during the Rogernomics period in the late 1980s were well-intended, but poorly executed.
The overriding policy was to remove tax incentives around certain asset classes (such as tax relief for contributions to a superannuation scheme), so people would judge investments on merit.
A comprehensive CGT was meant to be included in this suite of reforms, but this never happened.
Baucher maintains this fundamental omission weakened the foundations of the system, singling out property as the largest single asset class that isn’t taxed automatically when a transaction occurs or through an accrual basis.
Since then, Baucher says calls for a comprehensive CGT from heavy-weight economists, policy-makers, as well as the likes of the IMF and OECD have fallen on deaf ears.
In fact, a joint statement released by Treasury and the IRD in 2012, shows Treasury saw “merit” in a CGT or land tax, while the IRD believed “a land tax would impose an unacceptable loss on those who hold wealth in land...
“Working through the full details of how best to design a capital gains tax in practice and evaluating whether the pros of the best possible capital gains tax would outweigh the cons would be a very substantial exercise.”
Tax system distortions
So how does the tax system favour property over other asset classes?
Baucher explains the likes of bonds, foreign exchange accounts, foreign currency mortgages, and term deposits fall under the Financial Arrangements Regime.
“What it looks to do is tax the entire economic return over the life you hold that investment. So that means if you hold a bond for three years, you’ll be taxed on the interest and the capital gain. Usually what happens is the gain gets taxed at the final point of maturity or disposal.”
Then there’s the Foreign Investment Fund (FIF) regime, which taxes investments overseas, like shares held in Apple for example.
Under FIF, you have to pay tax on the lesser of 5% of the value of that stock or the actual gains during a year.
“That means there’s a cash flow effect. You’re being taxed on your deemed-to-receive income when you actually haven’t received the cash for it. That also means part - in some cases all - of the capital gain that might arise on that investment, gets taxed.”
Baucher points out the NZ Super Fund paid $538 million of tax on profits of $559 million in the year to June 2016, largely due to the FIF regime. This is despite government contributions to the fund being on hold.
KiwiSaver funds are of course also affected by the FIF regime.
Baucher and Russell, who go into much more detail on this in their book, also note: “Those [property investors] with net tax losses for a year can offset any losses against their other income for the year. This practice – called negative gearing – is not available to investors subject to the FIF regime, who cannot even carry forward investment losses to future years.
“Thanks to negative gearing, highly leveraged property investors can offset tax losses against their other income and wind up with tax refunds.”
Bright line test vs capital gains tax
The government argues its 2015 bright-line test, which taxes gains on residential property if it is sold within two years of being bought and isn’t the family home, levels the playing field.
Baucher doesn’t buy this, saying the two-year line is arbitrary.
“We are over leveraged. The IMF report is quite fascinating because it’s looking at people’s forward debt as a percent of income and it’s sort of at 150% levels. It encourages debt, which weakens the economy basically, weakens savings. Too much is invested in one asset class.”
Baucher says we should have a CGT that includes the family home, but makes gains under a certain level exempt. The US has taken this approach, providing exemptions for gains below US$250,000.
He says it’s also important to remember that if a CGT is introduced, property owners who have held properties for decades, won’t necessarily be taxed on the gain earned from the time they acquired their properties. Rather the gain would be calculated from a more recent point in time.
“What’s been a hurdle with the capital gains system is trying to separate out these inflationary gains from the non-inflationary gains and just tax the non-inflationary gains…
“CGT shouldn’t be seen as the bogeyman that it’s painted as.”
With Australia introducing a CGT in 1985, Canada in 1972 and South Africa in 2001, Baucher says: “It’s not as if a CGT is a journey into the unknown. The FIF regime is. No one else in the world has the FIF regime.”
Inter-generational inequality
Yet the Green Party is the only major New Zealand political party to support a CGT.
Baucher puts this down to “the same problem affecting all democracies across the world”.
“There’s a lack of engagement by the younger generation. Because this really affects the younger generations coming through. The ones who don’t hold property, don’t vote. Naturally the older property holding generations do vote... The turkeys aren’t going to vote for Christmas.
“The numbers will change. The key thing that changes everything… is that now 2.5 million people are KiwiSavers... So at some point, a politician will be able to capture that demographic.”
Broader engagement in tax policy needed
Looking beyond politics, Baucher believes New Zealand would benefit from better tax policy if our system was reformed to give a broader range of players a voice at the policymaking table.
Currently: “There’s a strong emphasis on consulting with the taxpayers and professionals... The problem is, it requires active engagement… so then it falls to the larger organisations… the big law firms, the big accounting firms to get involved. And naturally, if they’re representing their clients, it then tends to colour slightly what’s happening.”
Furthermore, he and Russell write: “Inland Revenue has extensive powers of information gathering and enforcement unrivalled by any other government agency.
“Any agency with this kind of concentration of power should be subject to significant oversight but we are doubtful this is currently happening."
Baucher would therefore like to see a taxation board formed, which would include organisations that deal with people on a day-to-day level, like Consumer NZ, the Citizens Advice Bureau, smaller accounting organisations and the Poverty Action Group.
“Tax affects everybody, but it shouldn’t be left to the tax professionals. You want wider engagement.”
Interest.co.nz has two copies of 'Tax and Fairness' to give away. The first two people to email jenee.tibshraeny@interest.co.nz with their name and postal address will receive these.
70 Comments
Why doesn't Terry mention the Tax distortion that taxing nominal returns on savings creates..??
( The reality is that money depreciates in value )
Taxing nominal returns rather than real returns has created a long term disincentive to save...
Why is it always about taxing more..and more ...and more..
Title should read How Ponzinomics not Rogernomics
Roger always reckoned he would've brought in a 20% Flat tax rate
What David Lange knew too well was that would never bring in enough tax revenue
It would have transformed NZs egalitarian society into a them & us society
Looks like Roger got his wish anyway with NZs them & us society created via ponzi housing via cheap loans & foreign speculators
While I'm at it Leaky Homes thanks to deregulation & dismantling of NZs trades apprenticeship system also thanks to a Douglas which ended up delivering NZ $Billions of leaking buildings & a shortage of skilled trades people
These clowns then accept knighthoods & write books !
Saying that deregulation is the cause of leaky homes might not be quite right..???
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated…
The guy who wrote the article has been as well....
Myth creation...??? Really..?? Did u read the article... ??
Why piss on it by labeling it "myth creation"..?
Are you open minded ..?? Read the article..
I'm not in the industry, but have mates in it who agree with view that the BIA was a huge problem..??
The BIA was about bureaucracy and regulation' and , as often happens.... influenced by big business..??
I do agree with u about the apprenticeship system..
Ive read the article and its all true but similar problems happened around Seattle and they definitely were'nt influenced by our bureaucracy.
Situation was complex but some said it was due to progressive reduction in the quality of the Damp Proof Course material.
Personally I believe we should blame wall insulation for wrecking the drying of the wall.
Thats enough for today.
Thanks for that link - very good article! Few people rarely make the link between those who should be called the Cowboy Bureuacrats causing all the issues........Bureaucrats always point their finger at someone else and the media always follow the finger instead of looking back down the arm of the pointer!
Presently Roelof I am seated in a new private room of a Nth American hospital
As I look across the room my wife is asleep recovering from neurosurgery
So believe me I am merely enjoying myself typing with one finger on my tablet !
It was you who was the aggressor !
Go read your rants !
Or better still get some help with your emotions !
The trouble is savings are viewed as undproductive money sitting around......they have to be put to use at some point........
You have hit the nail on the head"Why is it always about taxing more...and more....and more".........taxes are not meant to be used to control or manipulate areas of any market......the whole purpose of taxing is to pay for Wellington and the basics they are meant to address under the constitional arrangement........but the Socialists stole the show........along with people's money too.........
A CGT is not the answer and never will be. It will do nothing more than give accountants another income stream at the expense of productive people.......
Taxation is necessary to pay for the lollies the state throws out to its voters
We want hospitals libraries schools roads bridges trains airports etc
The state in NZ needs to adjust its tax base
Why capital gains should be tax free doesn't make sense
Capital gains tax and a land/property transfer tax of 1.5% plus yearly property tax of at minimum 1% of a properties value should've been instituted decades ago
Of course Roelof will know better
Myths are free
NL - so you'd prefer the socialists keep throwing lollies regardless of the consequnces to productive working people?!?!.....What you are saying is that you prefer the Government to organise and run the hospitals, libraries (although these are generally Council run) schools, roads, bridges etc......and no alternatives to the status quo should be allowed......you do know that anti-competitive behaviour keeps the costs of these services rising???
Funny - I guess Galileo failed to show the flat earthers an example.......The best example I have is my own pocket......I pay privately for all my healthcare. I also have medical insurance. It is cheaper for me to be proactive in my healthcare choices than rely on paying taxes using a hope and pray strategy that the system can deliver if and when I need.
If we aren't looking for alternatives or improvements because there is no existing example then we are not being creative, not looking for improvements nor solutions, we are not using technology advances, or inventing new technologies.
How much of the affordability of your private care and health insurance have you considered comes from the fact the lion's share of medical costs in NZ are spread across as wide a base as possible?
BTW, I saw an attempted deflection but I didn't see an example.
And equating those who actually look to the evaluation of evidence with flat earthers vs. yourself sitting firmly on ideology as Galileo is ironic in the extreme.
Not sure what you are trying to say in your first sentence. Are you suggesting that it is cheaper for me due to the public system?
I would have thought the current health system encourages people to abnegate taking care of their health?
And doesn't the current system also encourage those running the system to look after the system for their benefit which pushes the lion's share up across the board?
Where is the evidence that the current system is performing? The current system does not allow competition as it is protecting its existence......by endorsing the status quo you are ensuring there are winners and losers.........it is the percentage of people who believe in something rather than the outcomes and the system doesn't measure the outcomes of those who choose a different model.
Last paragraph a) NZers live longer indeed any developed nation with a public health care system has a longer life expectancy than the USA which has a private healthcare system.
b) The impact on GDP of a private healthcare system is twice that of a public healthcare system, this is well documented.
Cool, while you're finding me that example of a country where privately run healthcare is delivering better and more cost-effective healthcare and roading for the populace, may want to add to that example the one where private healthcare is delivering care at a lower cost then.
And where do you get your information from Steven....can you please put up the links?
I'm afraid some of you might have a very narrow view on private healthcare as well.......I see private healthcare encompassing a large range of modalities from intergrated medicine, naturopaths, homeopaths, accupunturists, osteopaths etc........and then there are people who make better choices with foods that keep they may take supplements.
I believe in freedom of choice for healthcare not some state mandated dictatorial system.
I indeed have a fairly narrow view of healthcare, I go with what works. For instance, "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition, large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness"
Now you if you want to believe in such things by my guest, I am not wasting my time on such rubbish with out some significant proof.
Hahaha - well tell that to the cows when I put colchicum in the troughs for bloat......placebo......moooooo.........oh yes and last time I got pneumonia and couldn't take antibiotics (that's right couldn't take them some of us can't.........I was on prescribed homeopathics.......pseudoscience....really.....maybe that's what some in the Ministry of Health want you to believe........like herd immunity from vaccinations.......that's right you all have to have the vaccination before it can work.......strange thing herd immunity......better to be immune from the herd.......
You obviously do not apply the same exacting standards of proof to your mainstream healthcare.......mooo
Not just the Ministry of Health, anyone who cares about evidence based medicine (i.e. using treatments proven to work) would agree. There's absolutely no evidence that homeopathy offers more than a placebo effect (not to be underestimated in itself, there's some fascinating research into the placebo effect out there).
Giving your cows medicine and them getting better is no more than an anecdote, there are very good reasons that medicines are tested with double blind, randomised controlled trials.
Homeopathy - the industry which claims that the greater the dilution, the greater the efficacy. Oh yes. Regardless of the fact that the target ingredient is generally not proven to work, it is then diluted, typically with water, between a million and a hundred million times. and then bottled and sold to the gullible.
If you own a home in New Zealand you do so in good part because of historic land taxes and government builds. Without those historic efforts, it's much less likely you'd be a landed person now.
Sometimes taxes are effectively used to achieve land reform or a good balance between unduly burdening incomes vs. land/capital.
I mean, I've voted National every election bar one but I'm not quite as idealistic as you.
The simplest and very easy way to implement a disincentive to buy property vs a productive job creating investment is to tax it and the way to do this is a land tax with just another line on council's rate demands.
Not perfect but very easy to implement and very difficult to avoid.
Comments please on the trade-off's vs CGT ?
You need both. CGT but with exemption of a single family home for the first 750K
Combined with a 1.5% land transfer tax
Combined with at least a 1% assessed annual property tax
Where I live now it's 1.25% assessed annual property tax with slightly lower outside suburbs.
The Auckland Super City cannot keep borrowing and will soon be unable to even meet interest payments on its massive loans without slashing core services
That horror story will eventuate because in NZ there lots of meetings little activity
Go back to an EET (exempt, exempt, tax) system to re-incentivise savings, and make savings an attractive alternative to owning multiple houses. Refer to http://www.interest.co.nz/property/87077/land-price-house-size-jumps-ho…’s-1989-tax-experiment-ignored-potential-impacts one of the most interesting articles ever on interest.co.nz
So there we have it people, the problems go back to 1988/89 and started life as politics.
The law of unintended consequences rides again.
But let us continue with the fantasy that it is all John Keys fault (still), failures in the free market and persons of Chinese ancestry (rolls eyes).
Er, how many years was John Key the PM? Cue video of John Key in 2007, saying that he was going to address the issue of unaffordable housing. What did he achieve during 8 years as PM? Lots of smiling and waving, golf with POTUS and tea with QEII. Couldn't get the flag changed, therefore unrealistic to expect him to have any influence over escalating house prices. So yes, it must be 1988/89's fault.
It's crazy that Mad Little took away Labour's policy of a (limited) CGT. Why would Labour favour a system that benefits (National voting) landlords over (Labour voting) tenants? I did vote for Labour in the last two elections because of their policy, but now I'm limited to the Greens (a bit too lefty for me) or TOP (seem a bit erratic at this stage). Grrr
"So how does the tax system favour property over other asset classes?
Baucher explains the likes of bonds, foreign exchange accounts, foreign currency mortgages, and term deposits fall under the Financial Arrangements Regime."
All of this applies only to FOREIGN assets held by NZ tax residents so does not really
"favour property over other asset classes" but rather favours domestic investment over foreign.
For sure FIF regime sucks - but it is not a logical argument for a CGT.
A CGT is a reasonable tool to add to the kit for reducing speculation in housing. What scares people is the difficulty of separating the inflation gains from the real gains. Then of course a property owner would be able to deduct any money spent on improvements, renovations and maintenance. The back dating would prove difficult, probably unworkable so the tax would probably be unable to be retrospective. Still it would send the right signals and in conjunction with a foreign buyers ban and other like measures would begin to turn the tide. It seems a better idea than TOP's land tax because you'd only pay CGT when you sold. Whereas the land tax is like another set of rates to be funded out of cash flow. Also the land tax disadvantages the people who have chosen a property with a proportionally higher land vs capital value. Not everyone wants to be a developer nor should they be forced to move by a new tax.
But whose ideas on CGT will never fly with voters and pollies.
He talks about the 'deeper capital markets' that capital not invested in housing would be diverted into but as investment managers tell us, there is a serious shortage of NZ companies in which to invest and a dearth of IPO's. Which is one reason the investment funds are holding so much in cash, added to by the $20m per week flowing into Kiwi saver accounts. And then there is the ingrained resistance of Kiwis to invest in equities.
If you read and listen to what fund managers are saying, fear of GFC mk2 is not driving their decision to stay in cash. It is about where NZX pe ratios are at and plain lack of opportunity. They are forced to go offshore by this country's comparatively low level of entrepreneurship which is creating few IPO opportunities.
Has a CGT made any difference in Australia? No. Will it make any difference to prices here? No. Anyone who sells quickly (within 2 years) is taxed anyway, the revenue the govt thinks it will make on a CGT is swallowed up by compliance and extra staff. The Australian government said a while back they wish they never implemented it. This tax makes no difference to long term investment property owners as they do not tend to sell at all. Therefore no change to the property market, only extra housing supply can sort the issue out.
Australian CGT is discounted by 50% for assets held for at least a year. It is the CGT discount and negative gearing double whammy that makes it ineffectual.
Both will be out the door when the Lib-National government get voted out (pretty likely) - let's see how the Australia market performs without these two crutches.
So prey tell what is the average Australian house price in this alternative universe where there is no aussie CGT? And if you dont know this, how do you know it has no effect?
Certainly it has generated some revenue for the government which has allowed them to keep taxes lower.
Let's try a theoretical example.
If a CGT of 100% were applied, do you think this would:
a) result in less investment in property
b) result in more investment in property
c) result in the same level of investment in property
Once you can concede a CGT could have an effect, you're basically - like Churchill and the Lady - on to negotiating on the rate.
Things are looking up in Australia.
The Shovel has the following to report.....
New legislation proposed in the 2017 Federal Budget will give young Australians looking to buy their first home the opportunity to be outbid by $120,000 instead of $150,000.
Treasurer Scott Morrison described the measure – which will mean prospective first home buyers can save up to $30,000 of their super – as a ‘leg-up to young Aussies’. “It’s just the boost Millennials need to continue to miss out at auctions”.
He said first home buyers could now approach the market with renewed confidence. “If your budget was $700,000, it can now be $730,000 – a little extra ammunition when you go to buy that one-bedder in outer Sydney that’ll eventually sell to an investor for $1.2 million”.
The $30,000 figure was based on the typical amount needed to put a 10% deposit on a small 1-bedroom cupboard in suburban Melbourne.
".......Yet the pinch is KiwiSaver funds and savers are paying more than four times as much tax as residential property investors, relative to the sums invested.........."
Mmmh yes. Why would we be taxing savers yet giving incentives to borrowers. Methinks it should be the other way round. The benefits of gaining a decent capital base in New Zealand suggests we should make Kiwisaver, and similar, taxfree.
... housing now dwarfs dairying and tourism as our biggest industry ... with a full 13 % of our nation's GDP ... $ 23 Billion per annum ....
It just a pity that we can't ramp it up to 100 % ... and share the wealth more widely ....
... snigger ... some real estate agents will think that was a valid and serious suggestion ... tee heeeee ....
For a investor to get a tax deduction, someone else must be paying tax. i.e. Scenario 1. if I have no borrowings and make $10,000 then I pay tax of $3,333. Scenario 2. If I borrow from my family trust and incur $20,000 of interest charges then I get a refund of $3,333. But I then pay tax through the family trust on the interest income of $20,000 being $6,666. The net effect is tax paid of $3,333. The same amount of tax paid as if I had no borrowings. Can't see the advantage of negative gearing overall. The real advantage is if I could act like a corporate and structure the interest paid as a deduction for me and have the trust record the interest payment as a loan repayment. Now that's tax shifting.
What a lot of baloney. Mrs T's famous "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" comes to mind.
The author rightly points out that much of Rogernomics was misguided intellectual claptrap and much of it continues to eat away at the nation's innards, like a maligant cancer that hasn't yet managed to suck all life out of its victim. So to correct this the author suggests we finish the job and kill off any last vestiges of entrepreneurial activity by the application of the dead hand of the thieving state.
Look, I get the argument, housing policy is a complete disaster zone. If other countries with capital gains taxes had wonderfully functioning housing markets there might be something in it. They do not, once you have capital gains tax then the thieving politicians and bureaucrats get to work to make the capital gains bigger and faster so they can get their greedy hands on them. Think Ireland, California, Spain and Greece.
If you really want 50% youth employment then all you have to do is follow this author's Soviet inspired advice.
Hey, Guess who...Subsidise Rentals to aid Speculators And Rental Motels for a top up...that now,must be in excess of 2 billion....and counting.
But...and it is a big But....Cancer sufferers need more Cancer treatment, than the Government will supply. They do not Count......Budget wise.!. it seems.
National Health.....not bloody likely.
Is something wrong with this scenario......Sick as it is...that "Taxpayers" subsidise speculators and rentiers, it radiates stupidity, when it should be stupendously radiating more Radiation for Cancer sufferers..
Is this a sick World...or what?.
Is it sick, we keep importing more "Cancerous Speculators" and so called...."Housing Investors", not more Doctors without Borders.....and Nurses...we should be actually .be "Subsidising Freely."...with our Taxpayer Dollars.
Go figure....Just where is your money well spent......
Vote the Speculators out...which of course is just about every MP too....so we need a new batch, with an eye to caring for others, not their own..., sick Housey Housey............welfare. system....for bludigng.........Politicians and their best mates...blowing things up...out of all ...proportion..
No wonder I rant...on and on about thieving cancerous Politicians...and how sick they are.??!!.
Get yer priorities right.......for Once.....
It ain't all about Houses, particularly................Yours.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.