The Green Party has announced a new suite of policies that would prevent people’s income from ever falling below $385 a week after tax and outlined the tax increases required to fund it.
Party co-leader Marama Davidson said a guaranteed income would give everyone “peace of mind that they can always afford the weekly shop, pay the rent, or cover unexpected costs – even when times are tough”.
The $385 would be a minimum amount that no individual would ever drop below, couples would be guaranteed at least $770 and single parents at least $735.
“It will work by cutting taxes for people on the lowest incomes, making sure anyone out of work or studying has enough to live on, topping-up the incomes for those raising tamariki, and making sure there is extra help for anyone who is sick or disabled”.
The income guarantee would be fully funded by tax increases on high income earners and those who hold more than $2 million of net assets. The Green Party said its overall Ending Poverty Plan would result in a tax cut of between $16 and $26 a week for 3.7 million Kiwis.
It would include a tax-free threshold of $10,000, which would mean a tax cut for anyone earning less than $125,000, and a payment of $385 to anyone out of work or studying,
Working for Families would be replaced with a single payment of $215 for the first child and $135 for every other child, with an extra $140 a week for every child under three years.
The Greens would also lift the threshold at which these payments were phased out to $60,000, up from $42,000, and drop the abatement rate to 18% from 27%.
Finally, ACC would be transformed into an ‘Agency of Comprehensive Care’ that would pay 80% of the minimum wage to anyone who has to stop working.
Funded through taxes
To pay for these income policies, the Greens would raise taxes on high income earners and people holding more than $2 million in assets.
The party would impose a wealth tax of 2.5% on all assets, such as properties and shares, worth more than $4 million for couples and $2 million for individuals.
These are net figures, meaning debt would be deducted from the total value of assets.
A person who owned $2.5 million in assets would be taxed 2.5% on the $500,000 over the threshold. But if they had a $1 million mortgage, they would not be taxed at all as their net wealth would be under the threshold at $1.5 million.
This is targeted at regular assets – such as property, shares, and bonds – but could also include things like artworks and expensive vehicles based on their insured value.
Assets held by charities, NGOs, and collectively-owned Māori land — which is subject to the 1993 Maori Land Act — would not be taxed.
To stop people from moving their wealth into a trust to avoid the new wealth tax, there would be a 1.5% tax on all assets held in trusts.
These taxes together are projected to raise at least $12 billion in the first year.
A new income tax bracket would charge a 45% rate on income over $180,00 and the corporate tax rate would be returned to 33%, up from 28%, as it was prior to John Key’s government in 2008.
The new top bracket would mean a person earning $240,000 would pay an average tax rate of just under 35%, while someone earning $70,000 would pay an average of about 18%.
These brackets would be indexed to wage inflation every three years, to prevent them from creeping closer to average wages as has been happening over the past few years.
Green Party co-leader James Shaw said there should not be thousands of people who struggle to afford the basics in a country as wealthy as New Zealand.
“I am sick of the politics of excuses. Everything we need to make life better for people in Aotearoa exists. What’s missing is the political willpower to use it. The time is now to lift every single family out of poverty and to pay for it with a fair tax system”.
258 Comments
From a broad community perspective, this “initiative” would do far more harm than good…….
Consider all the perverse incentives it would create: robbing the country of opportunity, dynamism and prosperity.
The Greens need to think much harder if they want to be seen as a progressive force in NZ. They do some very worthwhile things in the environmental arena - but their wealth tax proposal shows a dearth of political, social and economic acumen. A great pity.
TTP
Leaving aside the effectiveness or justification of a wealth tax there is a very serious issue with how the Greens propose to implement and conduct a wealth tax on assets. This would require a dossier on all the households of New Zealand, collating and monitoring the whereabouts and fate of all personal assets. That is the criteria of the doomsday book (1086) and the Magna Carta (1215) subsequently became a cornerstone of our law to overturn that, and prevent any ability of the crown to intervene in the ownership of legitimate assets by individual citizens. The Greens justify this by claiming the Crown can make such enquiries, for example in the case of benefit fraud. Such a comparison is as sinister as it is immoral.
Coincidence or not, nevertheless this Labour government (Parker) sneaked through legislation at the eleventh hour of the Xmas break, that authorises the government to demand disclosure of the value of assets held by individual tax payers. Supposedly an exercise only, but it remains in place and thus would provide the mechanism for a wealth tax, simply by a stroke of the pen lowering the threshold.
Do you mean the legislation that allows for a 'look through' on assets held in trusts?
I think the reasoning there, had to do with various 'means tested' benefits, such as qualification for student allowances (anecdotally I understood that a lot of farmers children were qualifying for those) and the means-testing of assets as is the case in terms of government-paid aged care.
I guess the point I'm making is that it was necessary in relation to existing means-tested benefits - not so sure it was directly intended in order to introduce a wealth tax in future. But, your point is valid, I guess that does make certain aspects of wealth easier to measure if the assets held in trust are also able to be 'seen' by IRD.
No Kate My point is the “survey” conducted by Parker (NZH 26 April 22) seeking the total finances of a number of targeted wealthy NZ citizens under the guise “we don’t know how much tax they pay.” Supposedly Parker wanted to “learn” how the wealthy “behaved” viz a viz NZ’s tax regime. An enquiry only he said at the time.The legislation itself though goes far beyond being a simple enquiry.
Regret have searched but not skilled enough. This though will interest you. Bernard Hickey writing April 28 2022 under the caption. “IRD Now Have The Power to Ask for More Detail on Wealth.” viz Parker’s words “Parliament conferred this much needed information gathering power on the Commission of Inland Revenue and Inland Revenue was allocated funds to conduct research relating to the tax paid by the wealthiest New Zealanders relative to their economic income.” Included in the information gathered is disclosure of total assets whether or not entrusted. The research has been completed but the legislation remains. The power of search and disclosure is wide open for future manipulation.
That helped. It was a new power given to the Commissioner under the Income Tax Act/regulations - here's the explanation of how it was put through under urgency;
Whilst the new reporting requirements for domestic trusts is currently undergoing consultation, both new powers were passed under urgency and without any consultation, scrutiny or Select Committee review that is usually expected for tax legislation under the Generic Tax Policy Process (GTPP). There will be instances where legislation will need to be passed under urgency and minimal consultation can be justified (for example, the increase in personal tax rate to 39% which NZ Labour Party campaigned for at the 2020 election). However, these information gathering powers are not such instances, in particular given their intrusive nature. The recent increased willingness to pass tax legislation without due consultation is a cause for concern as it fundamentally undermines GTPP – an approach that has delivered a wide sense of confidence in the tax system for several decades. Inland Revenue’s research project into high-wealth individuals In 2019, the Tax Working Group recommended that the Government collect better data on its taxation system, including gaining a better understanding of the profile of capital income, wealth and its owners in New Zealand. In response to this, Inland Revenue (IR) have recently launched the High-Wealth Individuals Research Project to understand the effective tax rates relative to economic measures of income of high-wealth individuals (HWIs). IR has selected and notified around 400 HWIs, estimated to have a net worth of above $20m, to participate in the project. IR have specifically referred to using the power granted by last year’s insertion (under urgency) of section 17GB to the Tax Act.
Thanks. Any way you look at it, there are serious questions. Firstly a departure from recognised and understandable centuries old law (since the one and only King John in fact) that protects individuals from intervention by the crown and secondly it is open ended to the degree that it can easily be availed by the government for any financial enquiry of an individual it may consider as being necessary. Call me a Godwin disciple if you like, but one glaring example of such a government to legislate similarly was Nazi Germany. “The Decree for Reporting Jewish owned Property” 1938. That is an extreme comparison obviously but I doubt that you will find such a law in any other nation, that is at least recognised as part of the free world.
Just remind me of the economist,/ finance spokesperson for the greens?
Envy politics never works when you have no fiscal brains and a "green moral compass" that is punitive to kiwis while never challenging the major polluters on the real issues
The NZ greens are just white noise in the world of climate issues, have only " envy policies" that promote subsidies for the useless, and remove barriers to success for the majority.
Where are their health, education, crime, ... Policies
How anybody can vote for a bunch of idiots that cherry pick a few emotive topics but do not have policies that the majority want solutions for just shows me how dumb and easily manipulated 5 % of kiwi voters are!
A vote for the greens is a vote for higher inflation, non resolution of key issues, racism, and a larger low brow criminal underclass.
Most of the party are from foreign "backgrounds and radical influences" where they were ignored and came to NZ to be a big obnoxious voice in a small ocean.
Yes, an impossible situation would be created for all trusts with any assets held for small business protection or inheritance purposes. Tax of 1.5% from dollar #1 with no threshold protection. So a $900k house in a trust would attract a $13,500 annual tax bill with no means to pay it. Another example of ideological, financially illiterate people showing how they would run a country - into the ground.
Why you would want to tax income that high is beyond me? It doesn’t provide much of an incentive to improve oneself does it? I have no issue with taxing assets, especially non-productive ones, but index the current income rates to inflation and then leave them alone.
I pay a fair bit of 39%, so this will see a decent lift in my tax bill.
I won't be any less motivated, who are these mythical people who work hard and smart enough (and have enough luck) to make good money, then lose all motivation when they have to pay a bit more tax?
From someone who works in the sector. A lot of GPs took an extra day off work each week, as this pushed their income below 180K. Many toss up taking a day off mid-week, but working the extra day and pushing self into the top tax bracket is an added incentive to take this day off. As opposed to most high paid careers, working as a GP or a Specialist Private or Public it is easy to drop days worked per week. It is very fluid. I now note there are delays getting procedures privately, this week I saw a patient with a complication, he is on a 6 month waiting list in the private sector.
Also a lot of Specialists left for higher wages in Australia, as the 39% tax was a lot closer to Australia's 45% top tax rate (differential 6%, rather than 12%). And is now more than made up for by compulsory employer paid Super. Problem is I know of Specialists who were married to GPs, so we also lost GPs. Try and book a GP appointment, and see what happens.
We are losing so many Medical professionals, the system will deteriorate at a rate of knots. As those left in NZ are facing worse working conditions and are incentivized to leave. The health system is basically stuffed for at least the next 10 years even with a change of government.
That explains why my GP takes off a day a week. His wife also a GP stands in for him one or two days a week. He also moonlights as an expert (not a qualified specialist) in another field of medicine. I've used him for the other field and am quite happy with his expertise.
A lot of the MRTs (essentially radiographers and ultrasonographers), were not happy with the pay equity deal that meant they were paid the same as the ward booking clerks. Even though the MRTs have a degree, and have to work weekends, evenings with overnight on call, and do the booking clerk work over the weekend and after hours. Many MRTs have gone to Australia, others now work in the private sector. The DHB I work for does not have enough MRTs to conduct on site CT and MRI for many shifts, these are being outsourced to the private sector.
I am a kiwi GP, now in Aus. Some thoughts.
1. I do not think the 39% rate is the main reason for not working more. It is a very difficult/stressful job and it has become even harder in NZ as the hospital system is collapsing. I started to work less because the marginal stress of seeing more patients wasn’t worth it. It means more results, more follow ups, more stress. It’s not as simple as see a patient = charge a fee = job done. The taxes certainly had some marginal effect though.
2. Fee for service funding in Australia is much better in my experience. It incentivises work to be done and your pay is proportional to your performance. Spending extra time with patients is reimbursed.
3. Agree that Hospital, laboratory and radiology services are vastly more accessible and results are back very quickly. This has huge benefit to patients and GPs. I used to spend far too much time worrying about my patients waiting for scans etc and having to follow up ALL THE TIME. It’s tiring.
4. So basically I get paid more in Aus, I’m less stressed, my effective tax is similar even with 45% rate, my family has better access to services inc healthcare which has been absolutely brilliant so far. Until NZ can realise that they need to compete on this level then the haemorrhage of staff will continue.
Of the 10 doctors at my clinic, none of them work a full 5 day, full time week. Veterinarians are the other specialty where its impossible to see the same practitioner every time as none of them work full time any more. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why we have a shortage of doctors and vets.
Is the GP clinic the only job for many of the doctors at your local clinic? I work in a similar sized clinic. Two of us have dual weekday roles, working as a GP for us for 2-3 days and at another clinic for 2-3 days a week. Two of us have part-time teaching roles with one of the universities. Another has regular and long shifts with the local hospice. All of us work after hours shifts, some of these shifts at our clinic, some at the local after hours clinic. One does a further after hours job with a telehealth provider. All of us spend hours on administrative work as well, my rule of thumb is an 30 minutes of administration for every hour seeing patients. Perhaps it is different at the clinic you attend?
Are you looking through the lens of what you perceive as when NZ Doc's are just at the coal face? I would suggest to you that Doc's and nurses are like teachers ..and many other professionals..who are swamped with unnecessary administrative compliance in this country which do not lead to better outcomes for their patients.
That doesn't make any sense. The income over $70,000 is already taxed at 33%. You're telling us that doctors were making an x amount of money and when the top bracket came in, they suddenly decided to forfeit 1/5 of their income because it'd be taxed 6% more?
Example for $250,000 taxable a year: with 33% tax over $180,000 (the old way) they were making ~176.5k after tax (paying 73.5k tax). Now, with the new tax bracket of 39% over 180k, they're making only 172.5k, with 77.5k tax. That's 4k less
But they've decided to give up one workday, so they're now making 141.5k (58.5k tax). That's giving up 31k because you don't want to pay 4k more tax, or ~2.5% of your income
I'm sorry, but I call this propaganda, and not even a good one
I'm a general practitioner and since the 39% tax rate was introduced I decline extra shifts and take more holiday. I haven't dropped any hours from my routine weekly workload, but work at least six fewer after hours shifts a year, haven't volunteered once to work an extra day when a colleague takes leave (I used to regularly do this) and have taken an extra 8-15 days leave annually for the last few years. I resent paying 39% of my income during these extra shifts, doubly so as despite the extra tax paid, the service my patients get from the public health system deteriorates month by month. I'm far from alone amongst my colleagues in feeling and acting like this.
The question becomes one of how much your free time and spending time with your kids is worth. If your basic needs are met and the extra you earn is for luxuries but then that gets cut back hard you have to really question if that new boat is worth more than having an extra day off every week to be a part of your rapidly growing kids lives or even if just keeping the old boat and actually being able to fish on it one day a week makes sense.
Well said. I’m in IT and I choose to limit my hours nowadays also, lockdown proved we could live with less. More time with family, more fishing in the older boat and bigger vege garden. My one customer is in the USA so if the kids decide to live offshore fulltime in the future we’re done and off too (1 doing 6 month euro trial n loving it) Italy will welcome us.
It's the fact that many doctors, particularly GPs seriously consider taking a day off mid-week. So you can work 5 days per week and earn 225K, or take a day off and earn 180K. So you now give away 39% of the earnings for the 5th day. The 5th day per week makes your work life balance a lot worse than a 4 day week.
The medical sector particularly at present (with the shortages), requires staff to do extra shifts. I was texted today as the DHB where I work was one short today. I was offered overtime. My wife and I were binge watching a series on Apple TV, I said "I should help them out", she said "you already do enough, only go in if you want the money". I was 50:50, I thought it is X-amount after tax, and this weighed into my decision. In the end I thought stuff it, and stayed at home. The fact is that any extra shifts if you earn over 180K are fully taxed at the top tax rate. There is a marginal top tax rate where I would have gone in, I'm not sure where it is but it is below 39%, and if the top rate goes up I would have had to have been feeling a lot more charitable to go in.
Many don't have the luxury to say they can't be bothered to go in for a full 5 day week, their 5 day week only just makes ends meet with a small food budget to ensure their kids get fed. These would baulk at those on 180k+ taking a day off a week, as at the end of the day, it is still more money in hand. Perspective is everything
Flying High,
I spent my working life in the UK and paid tax at 40% for the last 18 years, retiring at 57. I was self-employed throughout and never thought of the tax rate as a disincentive. Indeed, i was delighted to have reached that bracket, as it meant that business was good.
I think this country needs to grow up, get over its obsession with property. I have lived here now for 20 years and sadly, I see the country going backwards. I am not surprised to see so many choosing to leave.
I can't say the current higher tax rates have been a disincentive for me to better myself. "Sorry boss, I don't want that $15K pay rise because it's subject to 45% tax"
Are you sure what you're saying is not along the same grain as the old wives tale that means tested superannuation would disincentivize people from working hard and saving for their retirement? We're so defeatist in this country.
I've done well enough in life to have that type of money, at least enough to maintain my current lifestyle for a couple of decades. It's a great feeling to know I don't need to work, but my work brings satisfaction and improves the lives of others so I continue. How much work I'm prepared to do per week and per year is definitely effected by tax rates. Once the top tax rate hit 39%, I stopped volunteering for most of the extra bits and pieces beyond my standard 5 day week. No desire to bust my gut late in the evening or on night shift to keep 61% of income for that extra shift. I used to happily do that for 67% of my income and could see the 33% as a fair contribution to the rest of society. Losing 39% while missing out on sleep and leaving myself drained for the next few days is something I can happily do without.
If that $15k payrise comes with a lot more stress and responsibility, yes taxing 45% of it instead of 39% or 33% can be the difference between taking the promotion or not. You're right for pay rises that don't come with promotions, but the largest payrises (the ones likely to be at the top marginal tax rate) don't come for free.
I’m with NZdan on this one. I’m a self-employed IT contractor clearing about $260k a year. I work around 40 hours a week. I’m able to set my own hours, so could easily choose to work less. I pay around 80k of tax a year as a sole trader, and I’m fine with that. I grew up in a single parent household on the breadline. The state fed me, clothed me, educated me. I think a lot of people fail to recognise how much help they’ve had throughout their lives, preferring a narrative emphasising their own exceptionalism, which justifies paying as little tax as possible.
While I’m happy to pay my fair share of tax, what pisses me off is how many people don’t. I don’t support increasing the top tax rate either, it is an easy money grab that will impact skilled workers who don’t structure their affairs to minimise how much tax they pay (suckers like me). I’m probably in the top 1 percent of income earners in NZ, but that is an entire universe away from the top 1 percent of wealth earners. My single biggest asset is 1/3rd of a 750k house. Wealth is the real problem, and that’s where we really need to focus our tax reform efforts.
There's obvious reasons to think high income tax on high earners would stifle productivity growth, but the empirical evidence of the last century suggests otherwise - post war there were ~70% top tax rates in most Western countries and yet they saw historically remarkable growth in productivity. My theory is that there is a little recognised substitution effect at play when it comes to the surpluses of successful firms - these can either be reinvested in the business to drive further success, or they can be withdrawn and paid as a windfall to owners / executives. When top tax rates were high, the windfall option was discouraged, and the best way to secure your future was to reinvest with the aim of creating sustainable long term growth in your business. These days, your best option is to pay yourself as much as possible as soon as possible and stick what you don't spend in speculative assets.
So I think there is a direct causative link between the lowering of top tax rates in the late twentieth century and the stalling productivity growth and disastrous asset bubbles that have followed. Of course the removal of land tax has compounded the problem and that also needs to be reversed.
Back when you could imprison people in the country then you could tax them how you like and they just had to put up with it. However, over the period you describe, people gained the ability to live and work in other countries, and so people left for places that didnt rip them off. Just like we are currently seeing happen in the USA as people leave high taxing States (California, New York) for low taxing ones (Texas, Florida). So the only way to get high taxes back is to lock people in the country again, which one probably shouldnt assume won't happen seeing as that is exactly what happened during Covid. Next up... "climate lockdowns".
Current Australian tax rates;
$0 – $18,2000%Nil
$18,201 – $45,00019%19c for each $1 over $18,200
$45,001 – $120,00032.5%$5,092 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $45,000
$120,001 – $180,00037%$29,467 plus 37c for each $1 over $120,000
$180,001 and over45%$51,667 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
+Capital gains tax
+ https://business.gov.au/finance/taxation/taxes-on-your-property#:~:text….
Taxes that could affect your business property
- Stamp duty – charged by state or territory governments on transactions like buying property.
- Rates – charged by local governments (councils) on property you own.
- Land tax – charged by most state or territory governments on land you own.
+https://www.australiansuper.com/retirement/retirement-articles/2019/06/…
The below table shows the maximum asset value you can have to keep receiving a part pension.
IF YOU'REA HOMEOWNERNOT A HOMEOWNER
Single$634,750 $859,250
A couple (combined)$954,000$1,178,500
A couple, separated due to illness (combined)$1,128,500$1,353,000
A couple, with one partner eligible (combined) $954,000$1,178,500
A summary which doesn't reflect the upcoming income tax changes in Australia.
From 1 July 2024, there will only be 3 personal income tax rates - 19%, 30% and 45%. From 1 July 2024, taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 30%. With these changes, around 94% of Australian taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 30% or less.
Also you forgot to mention that the family home is exempt from the asset means test.
Also you forgot to mention that the family home is exempt from the asset means test.
Is it?
If you own the home you live in (providing it’s on less than 2 hectares of land), it won’t count as an asset in the assets test. However, owning your home could still affect the rate of your fortnightly pension payment. That’s because the asset limits set by the government are different for homeowners and non-homeowners – as shown in the tables above.
Most people don't understand the Australian tax system, in particular the benefit of salary sacrificing and the use of self managed super funds. Australians are able to structure their salary packages and investments to ensure they don't hit those top brackets, something NZers are unable to do.
Take a nurse for example. They get the first $18k tax free. Then they get another $9k that they can use to pay the mortgage or rent or childcare (or anything they like really) out of pre-tax income. They also get another pre-tax $2,600 for spending on food or restaurants. So they are automatically getting $30k tax free. Then on top of that they can also salary sacrifice a new car lease payment and petrol (that's another $10k-$20k a year) which is fairly standard. Now they're up to $50k tax free. Now depending on the good nature of their employer (because FBT on additional benefits is payable) they can salary sacrifice even more money, and use it to pay for childcare, or paid days off, or share purchases (or whatever their employer agrees to).
In 2025 the Super contribution goes up to 12%. In Australia you can have a self managed super fund, which you can use to buy investment properties or shares with that contribution. Within a super account rental/dividend income is taxed at 15%. Capital gains are taxed at 10%.
Anyone with skills in demand can obtain really good salary packages from Australian employers that lets them halve their taxable income. They can use superannuation to invest and grow their assets while paying minimal tax on them. Why would anyone with ambition and a desire to build a better future for themselves want to stay in NZ?
after doing a quick calculation those on minimum wage in NZ will be on close to the same as those in australia
i do like the tax free threshold as that to me is not only way more efficient a system and good for small business not having to put money aside for part timers for IRD whom then give it all back to the person at the end of the year.
as for the rest of it i will need to spend some time digesting how it would work, ie if i have a good year on my trust and pay tax on the amount over 2.5 million then the next year the share market has a massive drop and comes in under 2.5 do i can get a rebate?
what are the loopholes can i start multiple trust and put different assets in them to keep them all below 2.5
Your analysis of Oz ignores:
- Many deductions that earners can claim before deriving their (lower) taxable income figure to which the tax rate applies
- Favorable superannuation savings system including a tax deduction for private contributions, lower taxation on the super fund itself for 40 years resulting in a larger sum available on retirement, and 12% employer contributions
- Cheaper housing (outside main cities), groceries, fuel, cars and everything else
- Higher incomes
- stronger $ for international travel
800,000 NZers living in Oz voted with their feet!
Say Jo was worth $32 million. Green's policy becomes the law of the land. $30 million now taxed at 2.5%. $750,000 tax to be paid on her wealth per year. Still some income tax to pay as well, probably more income tax than before the new tax laws. She'd be off overseas on a one way ticket faster than you could say "but the Green's responsibly costed this policy".
There are billions of dollars in those trusts and they are charitable so not taxable. Yet those trusts like Tainui/Ngai Tahu have businesses compete against regular businesses that have to pay tax. That's a 1/3 unfair advantage, not to mention (again) those trusts pay no tax so do not contribute to health, education, welfare etc.
There are billions of dollars in those trusts and they are charitable so not taxable. Yet those trusts like Tainui/Ngai Tahu have businesses compete against regular businesses that have to pay tax. That's a 1/3 unfair advantage, not to mention (again) those trusts pay no tax so do not contribute to health, education, welfare etc.
Sarcastic. Tainui have assets of approx $2B and profit in the $10s millions. Largely tax exempt. And the Maori tax authority rate is 17.5%. Imagine the hue and cry if these entities were treated as normal corporates.
TK- it’s not just Pakeha who have trusts. Surprisingly Filipinos and Tongans have them. And if they trade IRD has their details. Surprisingly (again) it is very difficult to hide anything in a trust.
Disclaimer/ I am a racist POS (Te Kootis descriptor of me) who has been involved with family trusts for 30 yrs.
id also tax churches, especially Sanitarium who are a front for a cult disguised as a religion.
I'm sure you meant to say, fix the issue where those who cash out untaxed capital gains steal from the rest of the taxpayers.
(an no, I'm not in favour of a Green's style wealth tax, but an LVT such as TOP is proposing makes far more sense - land is beneficial for all, use it or lose it).
For the TOP system, your LVT will reduce. An LVT is effectively a small leasehold (and you may recall I favour all land as leasehold rather than freehold).
I disagree with taxing unrealised capital gains. But taxing a resource everyone could use because some few see it as an alternate path to wealth to the detriment of the rest of society - absolutely. There's probably a better way to tax it than by value, BUT by value is simpler to implement (and it can be argued value is proxy to what you might otherwise judge the land work, be that either area, locations, arability, etc.).
And under the current system, whilst unrealised capital gains may not be $$ - they will become that if ever liquidated, and our current laws allow those who have held long enough to simply not pay any tax on their speculative profit. But you know that, hence why you're holding property.
I have no idea why people are so obsessed with income. If you earn an income generally with very few exceptions you are working pretty hard for it.
And I mean working. Not worked, working. Actively contributing. Modern economies cannot sustain themselves entirely upon "worked" which is what this whole speculation mess seems to be built off. That people would like to put a bit of work in and then reap the rewards without having to contribute much in the way of effort themselves. This does not work on a wider societal level and the tax system shouldn't be rewarding it.
What should be criticized and taxed more equitably is the truly "wealthy". those who don't actively work and contribute but instead depend on rent-seeking behavior to fund their lifestyles. The tax system barely touches these people in comparison to income earners and if we want our current setup (Health, superannuation, etc) to be sustainable this will have to change, otherwise, the system will continue to degrade even further.
And I don't think a wealth tax is the way to do it, the only form of wealth that can be effectively taxed without introducing capital flight or deadweight losses is land.
Essentially if someone builds an AI powered call centre that enables 10 humans to handle 200 calls simultaneously by having AI deal with issues in the first instance and having humans only intervene when novel issues appear. Then the benefit they generate only exists whilst they are working on the system and completely disappears once the system is complete? I would argue that most of the benefit to society comes from when they “Worked” and is experienced the most after the work is done.
I would interpret that as “working”. It effectively amplifies the output of an individual to increase productivity, exactly the type of investment that should be encouraged. A similar example would be a business buying something like an injection moulding machine to improve output or power tools that speed up workers.
I specifically called out “rent-seeking”, eg. when someone buys land for a vast amount of capital and then does nothing with it but expects returns without actually contributing anything to the wider economy. This is the type of speculative investment that has been encouraged by our tax system which has caused a massive amount of issues over the last 30 years or so. We need capital to be directed toward productive investment over speculative, a land value tax would discourage speculation and encourage more productive uses of capital.
In regards to AI realistically we don’t know what impact that’s going to have in regards to jobs at this stage, or how it will integrate with the existing economic model. Relating to your above example in previous times of change (Industrial Revolution, introduction of computers, etc) those workers would be redirected into other jobs that ideally earn more, therefore paying more tax. Hopefully, that is the case with the upcoming AI revolution but it’s too early to tell.
Both are economic rent seeking you develop software, and you do nothing with don't develop it further but expect to be paid for ever. It is exactly the same as land, the land is providing a place for someone to live, or a place for food to grow.
There needs to be a balance there people should be encouraged to save and not immediately spend every cent. Also people need to be rewarded for work they are doing. The problem is that some for the vast majority of society people who actually work don't get paid anywhere near what rent seekers get, weather it be software that was developed, land that was owned, or a movie that was produced.
Take for example the AI answering service, do the engineers that developed it get paid in perpetuity for it or the people who simply put some money in and sit back and collect the profits.
You are right to an extent. The key difference being that we can create software, if someone is charging an extortionate amount it is relativity easy to compete as you can purchase a competing AI product or something along those lines. There is no limit to the amount of software that can be deployed. And software is typically constantly developed upon otherwise it stagnates and gets overtaken by competitors. Is an injection moulding machine rent-seeking, like software they require upkeep and maintenance.
But we cannot create more land in any practical way. It’s akin to air or water, there’s a fixed quantity and on its own it does nothing to improve productivity or economic output yet holding it has large tax advantages over other investments that actually improve productivity.
That would be kind of logical - except Greens will never do it of course. The last thing they would want is for a fellow / competing loony left party to establish itself in NZ politics and permanently dilute their own vote . I undertake to eat my old smelly hat if a deal like that happens.
Yip!.... Like companies, corporates, etc, the rich just change their business arrangements so their earnings go offshore and their assets are hidden away.
All this will do is see NZs tax take drop while the rich buy up citizenship in countries with lower taxes.
How about the Greens just taxing the big polluters like Airlines and trucks more!.. even the pet and cosmetics industries are bigger polluters than cows... But for some " female politicians dominance in the Greens" this is ignored .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-car…
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/beauty-personal-…
70% of cosmetics plastic (from oil ) packaging end up in land fill creating methane. It uses Chinese energy to make, oil to transport and oil to dump.
Trillions of plastic packages are produced annually
Solution, go after the ones that PRODUCE plastics instead of expecting them to have some kind of social licence. The only way to reduce plastic is to reduce or stop making plastics. If plastic had a higher price then people would think twice about it's consumption
I think taxing wealth is a whole lot more complicated than taxing land. But it's great to see them doing the hard yards to cost such a proposal. I'm also not necessarily in favour of upping the company tax rate (i.e., taxing profits more heavily). I think the distinction needs be drawn between SMEs and corporate tax collection. And if we can begin to collect the appropriate tax on profits earned here in NZ by overseas entities (e.g., Apple, Microsoft, etc.), then company tax receipts should rise without upping the rate from 28% to 33% on every business the nation over.
All that said, congrats to the Greens - at least they are prepared to put their head above the parapet.
I think the distinction needs be drawn between SMEs and corporate tax collection.
SMEs are indirectly relying on the nation's housing assets as collateral for capital. Banks don't really prioritize lending for productive purposes. The bubble is first and foremost. And the nation is largely comprised of SMEs.
Richard Werner goes as far as to say that SMEs are the backbone of the Germany economy and largely responsible for most wealth generation.
They havent costed it properly as they have assumed that everyone will simply stay put and pay it. Which won't happen. People will leave for Australia and Singapore, taking not only their wealth taxes with them but also all the personal income and corporate taxes that they currently pay. Its a fair bet that NZ will end up collecting LESS tax than before, as has been the experience of every other country that has tried it (except Switzerland, and thats because they allow people to hide wealth in Swiss banks rather than declare it and pay tax on it)
See Norway as a great example. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-nor…
In my case, when I die most of my assets are going to charity. The only question will be whether its to Australian charities or NZ ones. If I'm living in Australia it will be the charities I will be working with over there. NZ loses. People like the Greens forget that rich people tend to be philanthropic. How many charities will find their donations dry up because all their donors left New Zealand?
If the incumbent govt is relying on the Greens to form a govt, this announcement may have buried their chances.
Middle-class Labour voters who have all their wealth tied up in housing assets are potentially feeling nervous at all this. Honestly, this feels like it could suppress house prices. Chardonnay socialist types quietly like the status quo and the promises of the 7-10 year theory.
That assumes the majority of middle class homeowners care about the spot price of their home.
Not what I said. But if you consider that the nation's wealth is tied up in the housing stock, then it might be a fair assumption. Remember, particularly for the boomers, the house has been a large driver in their ability to generate 'wealth.' Of course, this is just private banks expanding the money supply through credit creation.
Paying tax is ok but what about the inflationary pressure it will create with all the handouts...?
Top tax 39% plus 15% GST = 54% already plus all the local govt/Fuel Tax etc..
What they are proposing is nonssense... people who want to work hard and save for themselves for better retirement will be beggars under this system... Who needs Greens anyway..looks like they will not make 5% of vote this year
You're assuming people in the top bracket pay 15% of their gross income via GST, which is incorrect.
Even if they spent ALL of their after- tax income (which is doubtful of those in that tax bracket), they'd still only be paying at most 9% more via GST.
And everyone pays the consumption taxes (fuel, rates, GST) on what they use, so they cannot claim to be hard-done-by just because they pay more for using more.
Wow $385 a week, the lolly scramble has started early this election. Would prefer the Australian scheme to be honest, no tax on earnings under $18K but increase the tax on the top end instead, this must surely encourage people to work, even if it was part time and really help low paid workers cope with inflation. Easy fix at the stroke of a keyboard. Can our politicians not see this ? Are they that stupid or is it just them not wanting to pay more tax ? I can see why everyone just leaves and goes to Australia, they get things right over there and they don't f**k about.
Yes, Australia has much better tax settings. Also, it blew my mind to find out Australia had a thing called penalty rates (time and a half on the weekend). I did postgrad in Sydney, and it was a lot easier to live as a student/low income earner. Most students work weekends - so penalty rates, coupled with the 18k tax free threshold meant for the first time in my life, I actually wasn’t just desperately scraping by. It’s a policy that really benefits low income earners. Meanwhile in NZ, we have to wait for a public holiday to get time and a half…
Based on the general kiwi mentality in business, if you were to implement this here then supermarkets, retailers etc will simply increase their prices to pass on the increase in their costs. Result: yet another erosion of the purchasing power of middle income earners which most are already fed up with via inflation and price gouging.
I'd have the Greens costing checked by more than one source. Not sure who did it for them. Doubt if the Greens have anyone capable of doing it. I wonder if they've costed all the overstayers to whom Chloe Swarbrick wants to give residency. Now there's an extra source of tax. Never mind that there will be a surge of overstayers on other visas who'd want residency and subsequently free handouts.
I always get a kick out of whatever new policy the Greens announce. A single parent UBI of nearly $55k equivalent salary pre tax??? Where I have a holiday house the local greenies oppose any development whatsoever and then moan that there are no jobs for their kids who then have to relocate.
My theory about Greenies is many are just bitterly jealous rather than genuinely environmentally minded
Your theory is correct - they veiw minority groups as weak, incapable and beneath them. Needing to be saved by the virtuous green party.
They hate anything they see as powerful and strong as they know they could never compete and get there on their own merit.
Truely bitter and judgemental people. Looking down at everyone else as either weak or greedy.
Answer: It doesn;t matter as there will be a large culling of the public sector post election anyway. Labour has allowed the pay and staff numbers to bloat to an inefficient and financially irresponsible level and whoever forms the next government will need to do said culling in order to restore public faith in their ability to balance a budget.
My experience is a lot of Green voters these days (particularly the sort that lurk on Reddit NZ and Twitter) are very much "low aspirations" and simply can't accept that others might want to achieve more - not just financially or business-wise but in any other endeavour.
Not all of them, and it doesn't mean they are wrong about some of the inequality-related issues the country is facing, but at the same time they are incapable of understanding why somebody might be driven to build a successful career, or grow a business because at a fundamental level they cannot picture themselves ever doing the same.
I agree with all of your points. The Greens I referred to don’t want development (I’m talking Wharves, car parks, restaurants, residential construction) because they moved there to escape from successful people. They don’t want to see nice houses, cars or boats because it reminds them of their own failure. The wealthy do more positive for the environment than they do. They fund predator traps etc etc.
where does the money come from for their incredibly generous UBI? It comes from risk takers and entrepreneurs. From development.
The Green policies would be the end of our country, and I don’t say that lightly. Don’t work hard, just take our money, that’s all you need. Let us look after you, we know best. You only need rent and food, don’t worry about those holidays and nice clothes and cars, they are bad for the environment. Trust us…..
They had their Uni funded by the bank of mum and dad, never had to work hard for anythingyet expect to be given respect and a platform as if they were jesus himself. There's the reason people often politically shift from the greens as they age: a dose of reality, having to work hard to achieve and succeed often tempers the mind and wipes the ideological lenses clean so that pragmatism is the clearest way forward.
The Greens have cherry picked that survey on high net worth individuals. Apparently it included the titbit that on average they paid $2.5 million tax each.
I think they are paying well. If you have a minimum income why not a maximum tax. Pay $2.5 million every year, and don't even have to do a tax return.
Do you?
Most 'wealth creation' over the last century has been through growing market caps on the back of cheap credit creation - the vast majority of the 'capital' the wealthy invest doesn't exist a priori - but it's a vehicle that can then be used to scoop up as much as possible from the people who don't have the connections to do the same - whilst at the same time lumbering those serfs with the effects of this ever-increasing inflation. You see a microcosm of it here [compared to the size of the world market] in the behaviour of the nz housing market over the last 30 years.
Oddly, we're happy to tax worker's incomes (who increase their lot by labour), but not wealth 'creation' (those who increase their lot by speculation)? Except it's not odd when you consider the lobbying power wielded by these speculators influencing political decisions, due to the self-serving nature of our politicians.
https://www.greens.org.nz/economic_policy
James Shaw is their Economics spokesperson , Jan Logie is the economics and community spokesperson.
I'm actually for a change in the tax regime. I heard an interview with John Key this morning and it was liking reliving some weird political nightmare from the past. These proposed changes from the greens is just utterly dross. You definitely need to incentvise people to work and prosper. This is clearly not the answer. We need a balanced approach
What seems to have slipped under the radar is the proposal to tax all trust assets at 1.5%. New Zealand has hundreds of thousands of homes owned by family trusts. There is no threshold for this tax, so a small business owner who has a modest Auckland home worth a million dollars held by a family trust will have to find an extra 15,000 per year to pay the tax. Also, all the commentary seems to be about the value of peoples' houses. What about Kiwisaver?
Not just family homes. Company Directors usually have all their assets in trusts as they can be held personally liable for the sins of the company. Good luck trying to find Company Directors with a wealth tax on trusts. And without a Board of Directors, companies can't exist. They will be forced to decamp to Australia and the ASX and let Aussies run the companies.
I put this question to TOP. They squirmed a bit and basically said all non-financial assets. I asked them if I would be charged annual tax on a fancy boat and they said yes. Factory technology/machinery etc also included. Great way to disincentivise investment that would improve business productivity. Not sure what there current policy is - this was under Simmons.
The current tax policy is particularly punitive on single earners. TOP’s policy should be phased in over a reasonable period of time to allow prices to adjust and people to plan, but the current setup is extremely harsh on wage earners and diversifying our tax base is a needed step with the problems we are facing in the future.
Aside from the fact this is a really bad idea - if you want to know how bad i suggest reading the following from Auckland uni professor Craig Elliffe - which was published in 2020
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/08/10/should-aotearoa-have-a-we…
How are IRD even going to implement this - the same people who took 18 months to collect asset and income data on 391 people- how are they going to collect it for 100 000 people (minimum), secondly IRD is struggling to implement trust disclosure reporting that came into effect in 2021, and this is the same IRD who published information last week that was effectively tax avoidance.
NZ does not have the people or systems to implement anything as complex as a Wealth tax let alone a UBI. This is all pipe dreams.
The Greens are idiots. Nothing they have ever said has ever come to fruition, if you exclude the government of the day giving them small amounts of money to hand out. That’s all they are good at.
These people would suggest that they could pull rainbows out of the sky and give everyone a share of the pot of gold at the end if they thought people would vote for them.
They are best ignored. One good thing they have done here is probably been noticed by voters in the centre who would be effected by this, and will therefore not vote Labour or Green at the next election.
This announcement is a further nail in the coffin for Labour, and they didn’t really need any more of those…
New Zealand needs a proper environmental party focused on workable solutions to maintain the environment. Not a bunch of clueless virtue signalling amateurs with no ideas and no experience at anything (least of all working for a living).
Yes, a really useful link, thanks ikimpaul - that makes me even more curious as to why they didn't go for a land value tax. That summary really suggests the 'sound' of a 'wealth tax' was the only reason it was adopted. Making it an 'envy-tax' as opposed to a rational assessment and decision.
He's that friend from high school/uni days who you didn't mind inviting to your parties as he was a bit of fun, didn't steal your beers and so on, except for when he'd bring his munter mates with him who'd eat all of your food, drink all your piss and do unspeakable things to the fancy towels ... or was I the only one with that experience?
Nah, he already commented - and it was that all parties, including Labour would be releasing their own tax policies soon.
As opposed to Luxon's totally weird comment;
"I have no time for the Greens on economic policy. I won't be lectured by the Greens on economics," said National Christopher Luxon.
Were they lecturing him? And more to the point, does he think himself qualified to lecture the general public in economics?
Wow. Greens launch torpedoes at the working tax payer.
Pro crime tru lack of action on criminals, pro free money to sit at home while there is jobs everywhere, and pro punishing the working tax payer. If elected and some of this occurs, it will massively accelerate the productives departure to West Island. If the 15% paying most of the tax depart, who will pay for it all?
How much to buy into a Maori tribe or set up a church of tax avoidance...?
Except the majority of working taxpayers will be better off. And they don't have to watch someone making heaps of capital tax on a house or shares sale and paying zero tax on it , while they pay on every cent they earn at the moment.
I think the tide has turned , many are not happy with the status quo. I think 60% or so were in favour of a capital gains tax, a large majority in favour of a minimum wage.
At least there is a clear choice going into this election, albeit been provided by the minor parties at this stage .
Don't like it don't vote for it .
To all those who think that taxing 45% over 180k is going to make people be less motivated/productive and that this will be bad for the economy, etc. I think you are wrong. You simply have to look at Australia - the first 18k there is Tax free and anything over 180k is taxed at 45%. it's a prosperous country with a much better health system than in NZ (because Aus govt has the money to pay for it partly due to higher taxes at the top end).
Having the first 10k in NZ tax free and anything over 180k taxed at 45% is a good thing in my opinion.
Repeating my earlier comment from above for people who apparently don't know that Oz has acknowledged that their current income tax regime is a major disincentive to productivity & is now changing it. I'd add that average pay rates in Oz are around a third more than NZ which also results in more tax.
-----‐----------------------
A summary which doesn't reflect the upcoming income tax changes in Australia.
From 1 July 2024, there will only be 3 personal income tax rates - 19%, 30% and 45%. From 1 July 2024, taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 30%. With these changes, around 94% of Australian taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 30% or less.
The Greens want anyone unemployed through any "illness" to get 80% of the minimum wage and get a renamed ACC to pay.
The commonest reason to be on a sickness benefit is anxiety and depression, and we have a tidal wave of that in the younger age group.Huge unmet needs for largely unavailable counselling,which will only help a few;what they need is a job they like, not counselling..
The best cure for it is social engagement through mana enhancing work, not gang membership and ram-raiding xc
This policy will encourage reluctance to take those all important first career steps, as it is more lucrative to be on an eternal benefit with lots of kids.
And why complete your education?, what's the point of pushing yourself, going to school etc?
No evident policy to "get the nephs off the couch"
Except that it's not taking it out of unrealised capital unless those people are realising capital to pay for it. And that in itself is only inflationary if the source of capital realisation is credit creation.
It's now just a cost of business, paid for out of current cashflow. If you don't have the cashflow for it, sell the property, realise the capital gains, and offload the problem onto someone else (assuming future capital gains, of course). Maybe even pay your fair shair of tax on the speculative gamble, but property owners seem rather averse to that in this country.
Peoples personal assets including their homes include unrealised CGs. This has never been money in circulation & their family homes are not "speculative gambles" liable for any "fair share of tax".
Once again: its still the same asset with the same market value. This is not the same as price which simply reflects money as the medium of exchange, re/devalued by monetary and fiscal policies outside the control of the asset owners.
There is no real "profit" in such asset CGs.
If fiscal policies are outside the control of the asset owners, then tell me, why are covenants popular and nimbyism rife? Why are parties elected with policies that favour property owners and the rentier class? Why are interest rates kept low to save the asset holders, while inflation continues to roar?
The policies and thus the prices they effect are in fact, not ouside the control of the asset ownersc. And currently, property holders are the majority bloc in parliament.
Note, I am not arguing about wealth tax on properties - as I've stated outwhere I disagree with it. What I am disagreeing with is the statement that such a tax is inflationary - outside of credit creation or government cash splash.
No wonder they want 16 yr olds to vote. As they would be the only ones gullible enough to believe their policies. Well and the ones that need that 770 a week for the ciggies booze and lotto. I would have given their policies a bit more thought if they said that they were stamps that only paid essential things not the want things
Yes 16 year old me would have been all about this policy, when I wasn't too busy stealing my older sibling's vodka cruisers to take to high school parties, or driving my car like an idiot. Of course I was fully mentally developed with respect to making an informed and educated decision about the future direction of the nation.
What big eyes you have Grandmother. "The better to see you with, my dear," replied the wolf. "But Grandmother! What big teeth you have," said Little Red Riding Hood her voice quivering slightly. "The better to eat you with, my dear," roared the wolf and he leapt out of the bed and began to chase the little girl.
Dan, this is not a UBI. It currently says on the front page it is. I clicked on this article thinking they were proposing one. This policy still includes abatement rates, which means that at the level of income the abatement rate sets in, the effective marginal tax rate is very high.
This is one of the key problems a UBI seeks to address, by simply giving everyone income without ever taking it back or reducing it based on your income from other sources. Doing this avoids the perverse incentives created by targeted welfare policies, which ultimately this still is.
This is one of the key problems a UBI seeks to address, by simply giving everyone income without ever taking it back or reducing it based on your income from other sources.
We can already see that giving out money all round through COVID lockdowns did nothing but give people money to waste on meaningless materialism and stoke inflation. A UBI would do the exact same thing.
My god, lets take an already complex tax and welfare benefit system and ramp it up to 11.
This doesn't look like a UBI to me, it falls outside the principles of one. TOPs policy is far and away better, simpler to implement and harder to avoid, while removing all of the abatement malarky that this policy makes even worse. Plus it doesn't burn people more than they currently do by introducing new taxes on productive capital, which this policy will simply see disappear offshore. Are they mad? The Greens never seem to want to realise that wealth taxes like this will see capital dry up pretty quickly.
Personally I’m very conflicted about the introduction of a UBI.
On the one hand, I’ve been heavily involved in automation projects with an emphasis on moving towards AI-led ‘dark factories’. Seeing firsthand some of the things that we can already do has made me seriously think about the impacts that will arise as we move towards an economy where human labour becomes less central.
With this in mind, I find myself contemplating the need for a social safety net, like a UBI, as such a system could provide a buffer, reducing the economic and social upheaval associated with the transition to a less human capital-reliant economy.
However, I’m also concerned around how, and when, such a system is implemented. I’m currently of the opinion that the scales tip too far towards support systems than towards incentivizing productivity. In the present, it is important that social welfare targets an actual need, with the intention of it being a temporary support mechanism, buying people time to secure productive employment or increase their skill sets, rather than being something that they come to rely on long term at the expense of self improvement.
This perspective further amplifies my conflict around UBI. While I see it as potentially necessary in a future dominated by automation and AI, I also worry that it might compound the existing issues of complacency and lack of productivity. We need to find a delicate balance – a system that, while providing necessary support, encourages individuals towards self-betterment and productivity.
I think that a time will come where we need to have a serious discussion around the merits of a UBI, and how it could potentially be implemented. But I don’t think we’ve yet reached a point where such a system makes sense and is in the best interests of society.
This poorly thought out proposal has a deeper sting in the tail if the article is correct. The proposed blanket 1.5% tax on assets in a trust with apparently no protected threshold means that anyone with their house/farm/investments in a trust to protect the asset legitimately for small business purposes or protect it for inheritance purposes gets a bill each year without the protection of the $2m/person. For example, $2m net in a house and investments at 1.5% would see a tax bill of $30,000 per annum with no means to pay it. Dumb.
Sir Ian Taylor nails it:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/opinion-sir-ian-taylor-an-open-lett…
The devil is in the detail. I don't have a problem with a capital gains tax on property, apart from the family home, however, a general wealth tax on unrealized gain leads to all sorts of problems. As most of us with shares (including those in KiwiSaver), will understand that most of us have actually gone backwards this year on our shares. I'm pretty sure we won't be getting a reimbursement for share losses under this scheme, so as we hold, we will be taxed on the value even as the value goes backwards. This will be a major disincentive for Kiwis to think about entering the share market.
As usual The greens are displaying their lack of nous.
The problems that they are trying to address are desperate but they are not addressing the causes, just the symptoms. The causes are multiple
Availability of building land (corrupt)
Protected lack of free and fair competition across the economy (corrupt)
Suppression of a competitive labor market through caused by outrageous immigration (corrupt)
The reserve bank OCR/CPI model that prevents the population benefit from falling prices and underpins a lack of competition and un productive suppliers (corrupt)
A tax system that encourages tax evasion and farming of inflation. Personally I have no problem with somebody paying 100% for an asset like a property that goes up in price. That really just inflation at work and in terms of the purchasing power of their money they have not gained. Labors removal of the tax deductibility of interest paid on mortgages goes a long way to addressing this tax free farming of inflation. It should be extended beyond property investment and perhaps indexed to inflation. TOPs policy of 100%cash purchases for property investments is great.
The list is very long
Transferring the wealth that accrues is a very blunt and dumb method as it does not distinguish between those who have benefited unwholesomely and those who have worked very hard, made great contributions and arguably deserve the already tax paid rewards. The effect will be that a lot of great contributers will leave the country.
I'm a conservationist and I'd say they've made themselves unelectable. Why can't the Green Party stick to Green issues. That's why we have PR, so that you can give a bit of party vote to the causes you care about. The Greens under Labour have completely squandered their opportunity to make a positive difference to our natural indigenous environment in NZ by obsessing over money, how ironic.
"The time is now to lift every single family out of poverty and to pay for it with a fair tax system”
Fair to who ?
Does James Shaw and the Greens have any idea on how to grow the economy, how to create jobs, do they have any innovative ideas ?
Or all their policy is based on how to rearrange tax and alienate hard working New Zealanders ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_X0xiVVgQw
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.