Labour more discreet than NZ First in gauging public opinion on the introduction of a capital gains tax through an online poll

Its coming. Debt speculators chasing tax free gain as the sole reason for investing better work -33% into their calcs.

Oh crap....did I pay to much?

Capital gains taxes don't work to reduce the cost of housing.

Man alive! Each party must have some pretty sophisticated analytical programs on board in order to seperate all the wheat from all the chaff, that they are going going to gather. Will we ever know what the outcomes are exactly? Unlikely, methinks!

It ain’t coming in because they are out and National will just repeal it anyway!
Such a waste of time and this COL should be concentrating on growing the country business wise rather than trying to screw the people who do work!
Such a bunch of jealous unbusinesslike nillers!

CGT on real estate sales: yes or no. Sounds simple enough for the plebs to decide at next election. Then the politicians can stop shouting if they like.

Awesome, I can tell Labour I don't support it, but I can't tell them why; nor can I show my disappointment they're talking about taxing inflation despite the RBNZ being required to make inflation happen.

Talk about stacking the deck.

The respective surveys sadly indicate that it seems that both Labour and NZ First are more concerned about the popularity - and consequently votes in 2020 - of a CGT.
Morally - both for equity and fairness reasons - both parties should be supporting a CGT. I have no axe to grind as I have and most likely will continue to do well out of capital gains.
Unfortunately it is going to be NZ First (read Winston) who are going to torpedo a CGT as it not in the interest of farmers - a constituency they are clearly targeting with their trumpeting of their Regional Development Fund spending.

Apologies - dp.
Fingers too fat for i-phone.

Awesome leadership, when in doubt and you have run out of funds to pay a working group, just hold an online poll ! priceless. WTF are we paying these politicians for ?

Sam Morgan $200m tax free capital gain on sale of Trade Me.
Gareth; $47 million tax free capital gain on Trade Me and similar amount on sale of GM Investments.
Makes one wonder why a factory worker earning $30,000 a year should pay more tax.

Britain had its poll on EU exit.

NZ is about have a poll on CGT.

Big decisions need to be made by experts weighing the pros and cons NOT by public opinions for the sake of so called democracy.

General public normally knows nothing about any details and ALL devils are in the details.

Frasturation at best... Fear of loosing tax free benefit in millions that are about to be taken away....

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/03/we-ll-back-the-cgt-if-i…

This coalition of losers is totally out of it's depth. They can't see the outcomes of these stupid actions.

Can someone explain to me...if a property increases in value at the same rate as inflation, will that still be subject to CGT? If yes, what is the logic driving this?

This petition is rubbish.
It only allows a yes /no answer when most thinking people would be prepared for a tidy up on some aspects of a capital gains tax in a modest and reasonable way especially if the sale of family homes were caught as well.
The obscene tax free profits Mums and Dads make on selling their homes for 100% guaranteed tax free gains is the root cause of the run away house prices we have seen over the last 10 years .
The proposed CGT will make this problem many times worse.

Really its just putting the feelers out to judge how CGT will affect their re-election chances. If it goes down like a lead balloon it will disappear overnight.

Obviously a CGT is very much at the forefront of debate today – sadly in my view much of it uninformed.

Without a doubt there is an issue of equity and fairness with our current system – well documented by many international commentators over long time frames.

Let me begin by stating what I regard as two non-negotiable premises namely:

• We need to provide the appropriate incentives to favor investment in productive enterprises upon which our future economic well-being will rest.

For a number of historical reasons, including past failures in our the equity markets, taxation issues favoring housing, land supply constraints and high levels of immigration – coupled with the increasingly eager lending capability of our banks driven by record low interest rates - housing has for many years past become a bit of a no-brainer among investment options.

Whilst individuals can prosper selling houses to each other, and many have - thus reinforcing the arguments above – a nation indisputably cannot.

It is therefore critical that we introduce initiatives that will incentivise new investment into productive enterprises in place of housing. Of course we need extra housing – just not at the exclusion of all other options.

• All income should be taxed equally

Rather than rejecting outright an admittedly totally flawed CGT proposal, I would suggest a window now exists to offer a carefully considered alternative that has the support of many well respected economists e.g. Arthur Grimes ex Treasury and Bernard Hickey ex the FT.

It is well to remember that the National party strongly opposed the introduction of GST despite the strong economic arguments for its introduction as a consumption tax.

Today our GST forms and absolutely critical and internationally envied consumption tax that delivers a very significant share off Crown revenues. It is both growth and inflation proof and delivers very predictable revenue streams to the Crown.

The constraint subsequently added to the working group’s brief excluded a land tax option by excluding the family home. A foolish move that demonstrated the total lack of understanding of real-world business experience and cabinet experience by the new Prime Minister.

• Alternative Proposal: Re-Introduction of a Universal Land Tax

A universal land tax will meet the first objective of incentivising investment into productive enterprises versus land. Housing values today are dominated by the land component – not the house itself.

Because of the huge complexity both implementing and ongoing compliance for any CGT - we need to find an appropriate optimal proxy and it is my considered opinion that taxing land is by far the best proxy available that meets the targeted outcomes we seek to a high degree.

A huge risk with any CGT that seems to have escaped the working group, is the very high possibility property markets could remain stable for many years at a time, which coupled with a changed investor behavior response quickly generates a scenario where CGT revenues substantially evaporate.

Yet the revenue neutral proposed tax giveaways would be locked in and virtually impossible politically to remove leaving government with what could be large deficits year after year.

A land tax is virtually impossible to avoid, and is both growth and inflation proof, and will deliver a dependable revenue stream year after year with little fluctuation. It is thus a very good – not perfect - proxy for capital gains on housing.

Another huge benefit for a land tax versus a CGT is the implementation - it Is almost trivial and very low cost. It simply involves adding another line to existing Council rate bills. They already have land or unimproved values on the bills. Councils would thus become the collection agents for the Crown and pass on the Land Tax – just as they do with the GST component of their rates bills currently – and what they did prior to 1992.

One immediate criticism of a land tax will be that it requires a cash payment annually, exactly as your rates bill does today. For those in a cash poor situation, typically the elderly living in a highly valued house – Councils already offer a roll forward of rates with interest and a charge held against the property until sold. It also incentivises those to sell and move to a lower valued property – a desirable outcome.

In some respects – this is a back to the future scenario as Land taxes were only removed in 1992 with the wholesale structural reforms undertaken at that time.

Rather than exclude the family home, political acceptability to implementing a universal land tax has another route which would simply exclude say the first $ 500,000 or for example the median land value in a particular region, by applying a zero rate to the initial tranche of land value. Trivial in it’s implementation and I suggest more likely to be seen to be “ fair “.

After many years in business both internationally very large and very small, and again blessed with hindsight, simplicity both in implementation and ongoing low cost compliance are critical were we to make changes to our relatively mature and stable tax system that has evolved over longtime periods.

A major flaw in the tax working group proposal is that it incentivises new investment into one’s own home versus business or new residential housing – both subject to CGT whilst one’s domestic residence is excluded.

This proposal thus incentivise the exact opposite to what we should be targeting, namely productive enterprise.

This outcome has been well documented in Australia and is known as the “ Mansion effect “. They too of course have struggled with this issue with very debatable outcomes - again for the simple reason one’s own home is excluded. This is also the case with their superannuation asset testing thus exacerbating this effect.

The whole debate on CGT became a nonsense the moment domestic residences were excluded from even consideration.

Rational tax law as you well know requires as little exemptions as possible and applied universally at a low rate. That is why our GST system with a single flat rate and no exemptions is very much the envy of many countries.

The many structural changes we have made to our economy over the years are what has delivered the very strong economy that we have today – the envy of many.

Low debt, low unemployment, high growth, continuing surpluses to GAAP standards.

The reason we can currently borrow long term in New Zealand $’s at less than the US is no accident and the result of hard fought and won structural initiatives going back over many years from both National and Labour.

It is easy to forget the significant structural changes that have delivered the outcomes we now enjoy. Reserve Bank Act, Floating $, SOE’s, Fiscal Responsibility, GST, Dividend Imputation, ITQ‘s, Electricity Authority, Pharmac, Kiwisaver …..

The time has come to address the known structural excesses in our economy of property investment – a long held criticism from many well considered international observers.

Couple this with the need to bring equity to the taxing of all income, which is very much inter-related to excess non-productive housing investment and the time is now for a Universal Land Tax - with minimum cut ins !

Ardern goes on about being FAIR!
Is it fair that people that make capital gains on their investment houses pay no tax!
Well they pay tax on rental income just as any business does!
Is it FAIR that when she leaves parliament she receives a massive superannuation payment paid by the taxpayer for life?....
No it isn’t FAIR Jacinda Ardern, and what are you going to do about that being scrapped, as it is not FAIR that you should be able to retire on that large amount when others don’t get anything like that?
This COL is not fair in that they should not even be in power as putting 3 loser parties together to beat one more popular party , is just not FAIR!!!

I would say a fair bit less than fair!!

Given this new tax is never going to get railroaded thru before the next election , National should campaign offering a binding referendum on whether Kiwi's want this Capital Gains Tax or not .