By John Pagani*
"As someone who earns more than $150,000 a year," lawyer Casey Plunket warns he will leave the country if he has to pay the tax rate he paid three years ago.
Where is he going to go? Australia? That's where he "will still be paying tax in Australia at higher rates but they will be earning much higher incomes."
Yup. He would pay more tax in Australia. The problem is not the tax rates, it's our incomes. If you abolished income tax altogether in New Zealand, we would still have lower after tax incomes than Australia.
He said: "We need every advantage we can over Australia to keep our higher-earning and more-productive people in the country."
How many people have flocked to New Zealand from Australia for our lower top tax rate?
None. Therefore the competitive advantage that logic would say the impecunious Mr Plunket is calling for is a higher top rate.
Property investor David Whitburn has more than $1 million equity in his property portfolio. He asks why property investors would "invest in New Zealand when they can get better capital in Australia?"
I don't know what 'better capital" means, and I suspect it means nothing at all, but his investors will find a nasty shock when they get their capital to Australia: A somewhat higher capital gains tax than is proposed for New Zealand.
The trouble with his sort of thinking is that 'someone who earns more than $150,000 a year', or someone who has spun a $7000 stake into a million, is pretty much going to say everything is fine with the New Zealand economy and nothing needs to change.
But everything isn't fine.
The problem is not that our tax rates are too high, but that our earnings are too low.
Is it possible that if we want to have an economy that performs more like the Australian one, that we should make ours look more like the Australian economy? In which case we would have a broad-based tax system that encourages investment to where it achieves the highest rate of return, rather than an economy that encourages investment into property for tax gains.
==================
*John Pagani is an independent political consultant and writer who has worked as an adviser to Labour Leader Phil Goff. He writes his own blog at http://johnpagani.posterous.
62 Comments
By piecing together statements and documents it can be shown that "Rogernomics" was a plan imposed by a small group of ministers on a party which had confused ideas as to what it was letting itself in for.... Ultimately, the L....e, P....r, C.....l, P.....e, D.....s view of the economic policy had been endorsed before the snap election. Even the Prime Minister D.....d L.....e acknowledged that the agenda of Rogernomics had been withheld from the party which had campaigned for his election...." End quote.
Why did I not write down their full names? There is no reason to bore overseas readers with any names, as these men were obviously not the architects, merely the perpetrators.
This is why we are poor & always will be!
Why are our earnings low, because we have lost manufacturing over the past 30 years. And what do the left hate, manufacturing (mining & farming mainly).
Aust is a 1 trick pony, mining.
I would like to see more manufacturing in NZ and real dirty stuff too, like mining, heavy industry (servicing things like mining).
Tourism is not the answer to generate wealth, I know of no country that is rich based on tourism.
The question Id be asking is, 'will the new tax laws lead to an increase in opportunity in our economy'? The reason Im asking this is because I belive the lack of oportunity is whats driving kiwis off-shore. If the high tax rate leads to an increase in goverment spending when logicaly it should be decreasing, then Id say its going to be very bad for us all.
spot on andrew. people leave because of a lack of opportunity.
i think that any time a new tax proposed anywhere in the world the people most likely to be hit say "if this happens i'm gonna pack up my toys and leave the playground" but i suspect that by and large they are bluffing.
Just a thought but I think NZ is so isolated that the Kiwi nature is to go and explore the world and leave a mark.. I went overseas for 5 years but returned to raise a family here.. Its the nature of our country that we will continue to loose people to the adventurous spirit... sure we could do more to encourgage people to stay but that just brings resentment later in life.. let them travel when they have no money and stay when they have earned it.
But thats very different to setting up a new business and lets face it we need lots of them. Thats where we should be focusing, on encouraging and channeling investment into businesses that create interesting and well paid jobs. The governments going to fail to do it, it has to be done by the private sector but it does need incentive especially with gobalisation pressures. The incentive maybe lower taxes or better R&D deduction but I think its time we faced this problem. The consumer/ agriculture dependent society we have at present with the government representing over %50 of the economy is not going to make us a wealthy country. If the interest on our debt starts to climb we will be left with few options, one is going to be a fire sale of assets. The competition in Asis is not going to go away and I suspect their willingness to learn and study will be our down fall, as the gap widens past a simple remedy. Brains will always win over braun and in the future we may still have a great rugby team but its not going be supported by a wealthy first world country at this rate.
I have numerous friends with capital sitting in a bank, they don't want it there but find no better option, what a tragedy.
For sure Andrew.. but we need people to get this overseas experience come back with creativity and invest in them.. problem is what does the world really need...
Mostly energy and food...
The world will always want food... so doesn't it make sence to keep investing in that.. why don't we have huge fish farms...(or do we)?
Not sure how we could create energy in NZ for the world coal maybe
Couple of brilliant inventions in NZ recently... guy converting sawdust to coal (Not a good one if you are concerned about greenhouse gases)
Best one was the guy who captures the emissions from the factories and converts to fuel..
Problem with all these things is that they are utilised offshore so how does in help us..
Jomosaplan
its partly because we have allowed large corporations to have monopoly positions in our economy, they stifle opportunity and get out of paying taxes. I don't know what the world needs but someone does, and its sure as hell not a government. Fact is some of those friends of mine with money in the bank have spent time overseas have had their families have a wealth of knowledge but still cannot find opportunities in the present climate.
Antony Sutton in his book 'The Order', goes on to say: "What then is the function of a parliament or a congress for Hegelians? These institutions are merely to allow individuals to "feel" that their opinions have some value and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the "peasant" may accidentally demonstrate.
As Hegel puts it, by virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, individuals can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something...."
So you see then, the political, financial, and social agenda for our country is now in the hands of those who initially lent us the money.
Yes and it was one the first big privatized sales. The globalists are monopolists at their core, capitalism has simply been the vehicle used lately. Personally I would rather have a locally owned monopoly than what we have now and what we are getting more of. A least profits retain some chance of staying in Nz.
Rather have competition obviously, but Nz was never going to be allowed that. And in our little country once we lost control of the assets, it was up hill from there the rest is theatre.
To cleverly, unobtrusively, surreptitiously, using Fabian Socialism practices, relieve each country of
a) first of all its national assets
b) its governmental ability to govern
c) its sovereignty and independence
d) and link each country into an INTERDEPENDENT GLOBAL VILLAGE whilst the citizens are still asking the question "What's happening?"
The Plan
a) Do not on any account advise the citizens of the electorate what you are about to do or are doing.
b) Select key government departments and announce that these are about to be corporatised, privatised, then later on of course, these can be sold up to new overseas owners.
"investors will find a nasty shock when they get their capital to Australia: A somewhat higher capital gains tax than is proposed for New Zealand".
This is somewhat incorrect. In Australia, profit from selling a property, 50% will be tax free, the other 50% will be treated as personal income - so in most cases it will be the same or less than what NZ proposed for CGT. The only situation it will be higher is when someone earns above 180K a year and even that it will only be marginally higher!
Is this media sensationalisation or what!
Net gains treated as taxable income in the tax year an asset is sold or otherwise disposed of. If an asset is held for at least 1 year then any gain is first discounted by 50% for individual taxpayers, or by 331⁄3% for superannuation funds. Net capital losses in a tax year may be carried forward and offset against future capital gains. However, capital losses cannot be offset against income.
Walter,
You are making an assumption that people working in Australia are earning BIG bucks... noooooo, only very few in the mining sector do. As you know Australia is going thru' a 2 speed economy. The mining sector is going at 110km/hr while the rest is going at school zone speed of 40km/hr. Average wage in AUS is about 60K.. breaching 180 K mark is not the norm!
I am working in Aust and my salary is about the same as Auckland (I am in IT field)
Dollar for dollar the tax is higher in Australia, but of course you might earn more there.
They have state payroll tax.
They have tolls on every major artereal route around Sydney ($3.5-5.50 each way).
To park in the Sydney CBD for a minute over 3 hours costs $55.00.
To rent a car space in Sydney costs $400+ a month.
Rush hour lasts more than 3 hours each side of the day.
If you buy a house any place you can afford commuting can easily take 1.5 hrs each way.
To insure the same newish car is 2.5 times the cost.
Milk is three times as much.
If you file with council for approval to add an improvement to your house it takes 9-18 months to get sign off.
The cost of electricity is going through the roof in Sydney, talk to any taxi driver with a new smart meter.
If your kids find a cool looking caterpillar and make the mistake of touching it they could get a horrible rash.
If you don't pay for private health insurance they ping you 1.5% more tax.
if you ever move home you can't take the super with you.
To buy a doer-uper in Sydney's inner west (Croydon) cost $1.4 million three months ago.
Apart from the toll road costs - everything else is no more expensive than Auckland. last month i have to pay $26 for 2 ins over my 2hr parking in Auckland
Oh bytheway - don't buy those fancy branded milk stuffs - Coles and Woolworth home brand is $2 for 2 litre.. and thay came out from same factory! same as bread $1 for a loaf
Given the current hot-and-bothered debate about CGT around these parts it's interesting that you both "remained silent" on the fact that the $1.4 million doer-upper will actually cost $1.52 million to get into when you add on the stamp-duty of $80k which doesnt make the property worth any more than $1.4 million.
I'm not personally against higher personal income tax, or higher tax rate on top bracket.
The problem is how the tax money is spent.
Labour's track record, and their current attitude, is to tax the "rich pricks" and give hand out to the "poor".
In the process, Labour is encouraging low income families to stay low income and raise more kids, arguably irresponsibly, accompanied by child neglect and abuse quite often.
A family with combined income of 55k and 2 kids, would literally pay zero tax on all 55k. If they got 5 kids, they grab another 10k or so from everyone else - those with higher income or less/no kids.
Ironic that, we spend those time working and saving, when we finally feel safe financially to raise a kid, we are no longer entitled to WFF.
If we dare to buy some share or an investment property with our savings, we'd be punished with a CGT.
So what kind of message from Labour is that?
It's not just the tax rate sending ppl to OZ, it's the lower income, bad government spending, and in a whole a poor attitude of laziness sending ppl away. higher tax rate could be the last straw for some.
Yes it is income skudiv.. but have you thought that its income created by people who have already paid tax on the invested money?
They may have never taken the family to disneyland so they could buy an investment.. they will be less odf a burdon in retirement and yet the family that spends every dollar gets the handouts...
Its a confusing message coming from Labour..
but have you thought that its income created by people who have already paid tax on the invested money
Depends on which investment class you are looking at. In the case of shares, then most likely they were purchased with after tax income. But the gain in value (income) didn't have any tax paid on it.
In the case of an investment property, there was probably no tax paid on the invested money. Purchase price fully financed by loan from bank, tenant pays mortgage, and landlord actually receives a tax refund. Where is the tax paid on the invested money?
Why will they be less of a burden in retirement - they'll still receive pension no matter how much additional savings they have.
Yea on property you raise a valid point..
But lets be honest the pension does not support an acceptable lifestyle and some pensioners are also housed.. I think you know that people with additional investments are less of a burdon.. they spend more which stimulates the economy they pay GST.. and buy presents for the grandkids, often travel around NZ in campervans..
If I was government I would be preparing people by encouraging investment not threatening tax on investment...
What hysterical nonsense from the spoilt brat lawyer, Plunket. Someone on $180,000 (650% of the median wage) would pay an additional 6 cents on the dollar over $150K or $1800 per year. Less the $5,000 tax free threshold and any saving from their fresh fruit and veg. purchases.
Contrast that with someone in the median wage ($27,500) under National - no real income tax reduction and a 20% hike in the GST rate, power, food, fuel, stealth taxes all up. Good thing if he does go elsewhere, we've got more than enough lawyers as it is.
Australia: the land of higher taxes!!!
Current Income tax rates:
0 – $6,000 0%
$6,001 – $37,000 15%
$37,001 – $80,000 30%
$80,001 – $180,000 37%
$180,001 and over 45%
PLUS Payroll tax
State
New South Wales 5.55%
Queensland 4.75%
South Australia 4.95%
Australian Capital Territory 6.85%
Victoria 4.95%
Western Australia 5.50%
Tasmania 6.10%
PLUS
CGT -- net gains treated as taxable income in the tax year an asset is sold or otherwise disposed of. (less the 1 year discount)
Lets have income tax parity with Australia Mr Key :-)
Politicians - trustworthy or not?
Have you ever wondered why it is that when you elect a politician to power, he never seems to keep his pre-election promises? Why is this?
Many of them are decent people yet or are they ,when they arrive at the halls of power, they are quietly taken to one side and given a list of the conditionalities policies to read.
WALKING THE TIGHTROPE
Politicians today are trapped and therefore are merely allowed to decide on such menial subjects as:
1) Should shops be allowed to stay open on Sundays?
2) Should all baby prams and carriages be fitted with seat belts?
3) Should we increase the benefit to unwed mothers? etc. etc.
Yes of course it's been happenin & is right now, Trying to understand & rationalize issues without accepting this is futile. Ive been puttin links up for days , citing books commentators etc.
Only people can stop this now, we have all the power but until enough folk can accept the facts then we all get to suffer with the outcomes. I have so much stuff it will make your head spin.
Note it's old too. G7 & G10, now G8 & G20. Same old people still involved though in all the positions of power.
Until the year 1961 when New Zealand borrowed from the I.M.F., we had not only full employment, but were seeking workers from outside this country to assist us.
2. Who are the best known money lenders?
The Bank for International Settlements. Within this group we have the G10 and the G7. For information on these groups, please read our book 'Final Notice', pages 242-244. N.B. G7 is the main power group. They meet in the main in Basle, Switzerland.
The World Bank.
The International Monetary Fund.
Forget about the G10, they are relatively unimportant. The Group of Seven (G7) are the key players.
Should the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the World Bank wish to lend money, they must come to the G7, 'cap in hand' for the authorisation to do so.
3. This is the most important point of all. Do you remember ever borrowing money from a bank or a finance company? Did they require security? Yes, of course. It is called collateral.
When national governments borrow from the money lenders, do they require security? Yes, of course.
Take note now. Their security lies in 'Conditionalities Policies', all signed and sealed at the time the money was borrowed by previous, sometimes forgotten, or even deceased, politicians. In the case of New Zealand, 17th April 1961.
No need to be scared , just be armed with an understanding as to why the same issues & problems in various countries seem to be stuck on " failed to fix" or " made it worse"
The G8 or G20 are not even close to being the top. They are only one part of the
machine designed to fool people into thinking that they care about emotive issues like poverty , the GFC etc. All of which are totally contrived happenings. Apply his to most events you might hear about.
Don't worry! My mother land, China and along with her sister, India will take care of this evil G7 beast. Her step-sisters may come and help, Brazil and Turkey.
After all they are the only ones with some real money! In the mean time get use to eating with chop sticks...
CM it doesnt quite work like that. They are all to varying degrees controlled by the same factions. In the cas of China their banking system was designed & built by , let's call them big banking interests. The same good folk crushing nations such as Ireland & Greece etc.
Nz needs to look to Iceland as an example, kick the IMF out & take self control.
It would require strong leadership, which needs to be demanded by strong electorate , so i don't hold out much hope. India is owned by the UK so all part of the imperial systems anyway.
IMO if Nz does not follow Iceland , we are heading for IMF intervention.
Some key battles are being faught internally inherent USA , some of which will have a profound impact globally for better or worse. Nz can't afford to wait & see what comes out way, we need to take control now!
Marty I've given you more than enough links & material this past week or so to get you moving. Not only dis the big banks consult on design , security etc they of course helped give China the Olympics games. Get searching & you will find. You just may need to go off piste.
India speaks for itself surely. Uk is the king pin , see if you can discover why !
Correct. That is how it has been designed, and few could argue that here has been quite a progression of success in fallen sovereign nations. Wars are complimentary to this.
Also don't see the IMF funders as you refer them as they sovereign nations who perversely fund their own destruction , see them as independent from sovereignty , as that is how they see themselves.
Well I'm sold... it does make sense.. but i would suggest that NZ democracy needs no help to ensure lack of success as both sides of the political spectrum have to pander to the public for votes therefore never being able to implement policy that they know is really required.
Yes it does make sense once a step back is taken to look at it all objectively.
Have a look at a book I cited yesterday I think " Tragedy & Hope by Carrol Quigley. It explains how the two party system is simply controlled , and used to control the charade of democracy as we know it to be.
The below is not from Tragedy & Hope. I'm hoping that maybe people will start looking for real answers instead of debating points of distraction that have no other purpose than to distract!
Those who read my posts today will notice that they are from 15 or more years ago. Now sew how much is actually happened or is currently happening or about to happen !
I. Government departments targeted for restructuring
2. Corporatisation
3. Privatisation
4. Shares 49% overseas initially (i.e. locals and foreigners joint control)
5. Overseas raiders come in and buy up local shares until over 51% goes foreign
6. State-owned Enterprises and assets called 'the family silver', have gone forever
7. Investors must be found to stop the country collapsing
8. National sovereignty is an illusion and a thing of the past
9. As the future governments have little or no assets to work with, the final stage is a change to M.M.P. which involves many little groups forming coalitions as they can no longer govern the country anyway. The coalition group voted to power gives the illusion of governing and thus keeps the ignorant masses happy. True control now comes from our New World Order masters, overseas.
In the year 1996, both Israel and Italy have coalition governments, and are proving to be ungovernable. You obviously can't satisfy everybody!
As we do our final check on this manuscript, the New Zealand elections are over and 'The Economist' newspaper from Great Britain, makes the following comment - "Politics crashes on head. The ambiguous result of the New Zealand election should provide Britons with enough evidence to reject proportional representation...
...the state of New Zealand politics was a disaster all democratic societies should fear...
Yeah Bernard, like Woll says, I mean, why y' letting these types on the site, eh? If y' gonna du this, yeah, 'ow about git some Righties like Cathy Odgers on as well, to balance 'fings up, like, no wot I mean, eh Woll! C'mon Bernard, ask Cactus to do say, at least two articles about this topic, why not?
Enjoy that vid of David Cunliffe Wolly?
As a Former senior Labour party strategist...Pagani must have been involved in masterminding the brilliant Labour strategy that brought bugger all real growth and ended 9 years of stupidity with recession and massive forward liabilities......I wouldn't employ him to make the tea.
Stage 1 - We awoke one morning in the early 1980's to find that 6 government departments had been targeted for "restructuring".
Stage 2 - The catch word was 'corporatisation'. The clever folk explained to the not so clever folk that this would increase efficiency. Any old fool knows of course that government departments worldwide are notoriously inefficient. All the Kiwis (New Zealanders) said "Oh good!"
A gardener, an architect and a public servant had a debate as to who was the most important.
Gardener: "The first man that was created became a gardener therefore, I am the most important."
Architect: "The great architect of the Universe designed this world of order out of chaos, therefore, I am the most important."
Public Servant: "And who do you think created the chaos?"
Stage 3 - We woke a few mornings later to see a new word in the paper. It was 'privatisation'. The learned ones told the non-learned ones that this would increase efficiency, and all the Kiwis said "Oh good!"
Stage 4 - We awake and upon reading the morning paper, see a new word appear- 'shares'. At this point, we smell a rat, and quickly write letters to our leaders asking whether they are selling these shares to overseas people.
"Oh no", is the hasty reply. "We are only selling 49% overseas and thus the remaining major shareholding stays in New Zealand, and all the unsuspecting Kiwis said, "Oh good."
Stage 5 - By a further act of Parliament, or by hostile share takeovers, the overseas investors buy up 51% of the ex-government departments with their assets and those valuable commodities, often called the 'family silver', bought with the tax money paid for through my grandfather's sweat, my father's sweat, and my sweat, go overseas, never to return again. And all the Kiwis said, "Oh dear".
In future therefore, when you read the word 'privatisation', please add the word 'goodbye' and another word 'forever'.
Overseas readers may be interested to read that the Christchurch 'Mail', 20th December 1993, reported "New Zealand 40% foreign owned." Also note a 'Press' headline 10 December 1994, "Most of major firms' shares, foreign owned."
New Zealand Railways - U.S. owned
New Zealand Ferry Service - U.S. owned
Wellington Buses - Scottish owned
New Zealand Herald - Irish owned
Wellington Electricity - Canadian owned
Now should there be a neighbouring Australian laughing up his sleeve and saying "New Zealand, you only have 11% to go and you've lost your sovereignty and independence, let us turn to the Austrade figures reported from a magazine called "Fight", dated July 1994. These were the levels of foreign ownership in various areas at that time.
Processed food 95%
Motor vehicles 100%
Pharmaceuticals 100%
Confectionery and Beverages 84%
Manufacturing 57%
Building Materials 88%
Mining 97%
Electrical 98%
Banking 86%
Chemicals 98%
Insurance 82%
Hotels 75%
Oil and Gas 92%
And that is not all - read on.
Anyone wonder how or why so many of our former PMs , senior politicians end up like Mike Moore in charge of the WTO, Helen at the UN , & Geoff Palmer I recall getting a commissioners role at the UN. He was knighted before all that. So the order is David Lange , Rogernomics era , followed by Sir Geoff Palmer , followed by Mike Moore , followed by Helen Clarke, well I never.
I'll use the Nats as an interlude later.
On a diffrent note, I got this email today, has anyone try it? Be honest and don't look at the movie list below till you have done the
math!
Try this test and find out what movie is likely to become your favourite.
This amazing math quiz can likely predict which of 18 movies you would enjoy
the most.
It really works! .....for MOST of us anyway!
Movie Quiz:
1. Pick a number from 1-9.
2. Multiply by 3.
3. Add 3.
4. Multiply by 3 again.
5. Now add the two digits of your answer together
6. The number you are left with will predict your favorite movie
in the list of 18 movies below.
Movie List:
1. Gone With the Wind
2. E.T.
3. Blazing Saddles
4. Star Wars
5. Forrest Gump
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
7. Jaws
8. Grease
9. Phil Goff’s Speech on proposed Capital Gain Tax!
10. Casablanca
11. Jurassic Park
12. Shrek
13. Pirates of the Caribbean
14. Titanic
15. Raiders of the Lost Ark
16. Home Alone
17. Mrs. Doubtfire
I think talk that taxing those earning over 150K, 39 cents cents in the dollar, will drive away hordes of kiwis is an absolute load of bollocks
what will drive away kiwis is our crap / limited economy, low wages, and limited opportunities
And in my case, having accepted a job in Aus today, the knowledge that I am going to a place where things happen, there is a greater pro-activeness, and its a country that is not one significant disaster away from total basket-case territory
Matt, congrats on the job , which I imagine from your posts is somewhat bitter sweet , as you want to get Nz to halt it's slide as a start , and begin the hard road back to what it should be. I'll keep trying to see if people are paying attention by continually putting exerts into some logical sequence explaining what the real issues are , not the sideshows we see talked about here.
You're right 39% won't make hoards leave , that is BS. The reasons you state are what does damage, regardless of income bracket.
All the best
Ok here we go again.
Believe it or not, in the little country of New Zealand in the year 1994 some of the leaders in this diabolical plot, along with their cohorts, are trying to set up a political party to finish the job; some may even say "To finish us off!"
We suspect that they will still do well in the polls as apparently only elephants have good memories.
A good analogy in this case could be 'the battered wife syndrome' - 'Hit me again, I needed that'.
A further note from the role model country of New Zealand. We originally had two major political parties who took turns at the helm of our country's politics.
M.M.P.
Today, on 27th April 1995, the leadership of the country is further weakened by setting up a mass of little parties, none of them with any 'clout' (power). Remember the old phrase - "United we stand, divided we fall."
The new system is called M.M.P. (Mixed Member Proportional).
We need help, and we need it urgently.
"Such a tax rate would make it more attractive for people to work in Australia," said Mr Plunket, who works for Chapman Tripp. "Most of them will still be paying tax in Australia at higher rates but they will be earning much higher incomes.
"We need every advantage we can over Australia to keep our higher-earning and more-productive people in the country."
So how about we have exemptions for, "... more-productive people in the country."
I guess he means non-parasitic types that are the backbone of the real economy?
Do we have a YES from the other 268,999 "more-productive people"....
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.