sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The Green Party would provide a guaranteed income of $385 a week, paid for with a wealth tax on assets over $2m and 45% tax on income over $180,000

Public Policy / news
The Green Party would provide a guaranteed income of $385 a week, paid for with a wealth tax on assets over $2m and 45% tax on income over $180,000
11th Jun 23, 11:13am by Dan Brunskill
Green MPs in a garden

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”.

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.

258 Comments

by  tothepoint  |  11th Jun 23, 11:55am 1686441310

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

Up
36
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 11:34am 1686440074

Caption photo outdated? The identity on the far left is now left out, or is that not actually so.

Up
5
by  IT GUY  |  11th Jun 23, 11:38am 1686440282

She is standing a long way from the cry baby on the RHS

Up
7
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 12:21pm 1686442885

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. 

Up
33
by  Harvey W  |  11th Jun 23, 2:19pm 1686449942

Greens? Or Watermelons?

Up
12
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 3:18pm 1686453506

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.

Up
15
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 4:00pm 1686456004

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.

Up
5
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 4:36pm 1686458219

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.

Up
13
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 6:58pm 1686466715

Do you know the name of the enabling Act of Parliament - I'd like to look it up.

Cheers.

Up
1
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 7:26pm 1686468378

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.

Up
3
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:16pm 1686471405

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.

 

Up
3
by  Foxglove.  |  11th Jun 23, 8:40pm 1686472819

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.

Up
14
by  In Vino Veritas  |  12th Jun 23, 4:08pm 1686542938

And also Foxglove, it upsets the previous standard that IRD were not allowed to go on "fishing trips". They had to make specific requests that related to something they could see, rather than just ask for a jumble of things in the hope of stumbling on something.

Up
4
by  Foxglove.  |  12th Jun 23, 4:55pm 1686545726

Unwelcome flashback to Rodney Hide, exposing the culture in IRD, for instance,  a cartoon on the notice board depicting a tax payer impaled on a meat hook.

Up
1
by  sharetrader  |  11th Jun 23, 6:55pm 1686466553

as from last year you had to supply the total net value of your trust to IRD , so they now know how much is held in trusts that return tax returns in NZ 

Up
5
by  rolande  |  11th Jun 23, 7:42pm 1686469332

Went I went to uni all the farmers' kids got student allowances. 

Up
13
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:19pm 1686471569

Yes, so I understood as well.

Up
2
by  marewa  |  11th Jun 23, 6:56pm 1686466571

Those faces do not represent the true multicultural society that I live in. How about you?

Up
1
by  100bucks  |  11th Jun 23, 7:13pm 1686467607

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.

  

Up
20
by  huttman  |  12th Jun 23, 11:28am 1686526086

are you sure they have done good things in environmental area? have you seen what they've done to our public transport systems by slowing everything down? 

Up
4
by  macca  |  12th Jun 23, 12:43pm 1686530639

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.

Up
6
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 11:44am 1686440678

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. 

Up
7
by  Officebound  |  11th Jun 23, 11:54am 1686441259

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?

Up
38
by  mja  |  11th Jun 23, 12:26pm 1686443219

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.

Up
28
by  nigelh  |  11th Jun 23, 12:58pm 1686445110

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.

Up
6
by  mja  |  11th Jun 23, 1:03pm 1686445398

The main concern is the loss of Medical Professionals to Australia. As an example, due to the loss of Pathologists biopsy results (eg skin lesions), now take 3 to 6 weeks. 3 Years ago 3-6 days. Australia has a 48 hour turnaround. 

Up
8
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  11th Jun 23, 4:37pm 1686458246

You can’t get an echo in Gisbourne any more. No sonographer. Shambles.

Up
5
by  mja  |  11th Jun 23, 7:24pm 1686468288

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.

Up
6
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  12th Jun 23, 11:09am 1686524957

Yep. A lot of GPs want an echo to assist with their management of HF (useful but not essential) or a better sense of possible AS. Major rate limiting factor. Or stump up $6-700 and get it done privately within a week or 2. 

Up
3
by  kiwichas  |  11th Jun 23, 8:27pm 1686472061

This tax proposal is obviously a crucial part of the Green's well thought out policy on retention of medical staff.:(

Up
5
by  DrGrump  |  12th Jun 23, 1:37pm 1686533838

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. 

Up
8
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:07pm 1686449241

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. 

Up
11
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 3:13pm 1686453215

They do work full time, they work a 40 hour plus week over 4 days.

Up
7
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 6:23pm 1686464618

No they don't, none of them work more than 6 hours a day, most of them only work a single 3 hour morning or afternoon shift each day.

Up
9
by  Vivid  |  11th Jun 23, 7:08pm 1686467326

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?

Up
9
by  kiwichas  |  11th Jun 23, 9:02pm 1686474177

In my clinic I do 50-60 hrs and am lucky to get 1/2 hr for lunch.

And little more than the statutory holidays, the joys of solo practice.

Up
14
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 7:36pm 1686468968

As a veterinarian I can categorically say that is horse sh$t and a massive generalization. If they are full time employed then the typical week is 4 X 10.5 hour days. You are lucky if you work less than 11 hours a day.

Up
11
by  DrGrump  |  12th Jun 23, 1:23pm 1686533020

This is not true.

Up
1
by  Feedup  |  12th Jun 23, 2:44pm 1686537889

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.

Up
4
by  danicriss  |  11th Jun 23, 4:04pm 1686456249

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

Up
20
by  nzphoenix  |  11th Jun 23, 4:28pm 1686457693

100%. No chance this is the reality. 

Up
10
by  Essen  |  11th Jun 23, 5:16pm 1686460609

I have half a dozen GPs in my family. This is a real phenomenon. Although, I think tax was just the final nail in the coffin to their CBF anymore mentality.

Up
12
by  Vivid  |  11th Jun 23, 5:08pm 1686460116

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.

Up
22
by  Averageman  |  11th Jun 23, 5:31pm 1686461517

Summary. Not patching over the lack of medical staff anymore because of the tax penalty to do extra shifts. Can't say I blame you.

Up
10
by  rolande  |  11th Jun 23, 7:45pm 1686469538

Since starting work I've never worked less hours or less hard when I've approached a change in tax bracket.

It might be true for you, but most people I know keep working hard so they can keep pushing through to some higher level. 

 

Up
10
by  Averageman  |  12th Jun 23, 7:38am 1686512298

You will find medical staff will be not volunteering for night shit or working 20 hour weekends. Do either of those on top of a full time job, and then pay it thru the nose on tax and remain motivated.

Up
5
by  DrGrump  |  12th Jun 23, 4:53pm 1686545599

Medical sector in NZ is facing certain challenges and high rate of burnout which is probably trumping the desire for more income from staff inc GPs.

Up
1
by  DrGrump  |  12th Jun 23, 4:51pm 1686545504

Share your sentiment. I’m a GP also. The services that the patients are receiving continue to decline. It usually ends up falling back to me = more stress and more work, which does make the higher tax rate even more unpalatable. 

Up
2
by  sadr001  |  11th Jun 23, 7:07pm 1686467221

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.

Up
10
by  wortho  |  11th Jun 23, 8:07pm 1686470842

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.

Up
4
by  mja  |  11th Jun 23, 7:37pm 1686469068

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. 

Up
11
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:02am 1686513758

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 

Up
3
by  Flying high  |  11th Jun 23, 12:28pm 1686443289

Fock 45 percent

This only appeals to those who don't pay it, until they do (although unlikely)

Greedy tax rates

Up
20
by  linklater01  |  12th Jun 23, 10:41am 1686523268

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.

Up
5
by  Nzdan  |  11th Jun 23, 12:38pm 1686443884

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.  

Up
13
by  nigelh  |  11th Jun 23, 1:01pm 1686445260

I suspect it would steer people in a different direction.  Spending more during their working life rather than saving.

Up
5
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 1:03pm 1686445430

Change that $15k to $300k and your flippant remark is just that. I should have corrected that prior statement, “not an incentive to improve oneself in this country”

Up
4
by  Nzdan  |  12th Jun 23, 7:43am 1686512593

Turn down the extra $300k then? 

Up
2
by  Flying high  |  11th Jun 23, 1:04pm 1686445445

A lot of people don't think about taxes until they get hit personally. They still have a choice to pay high tax, or make a few changes.

Some guys pay a hooker, others get a girlfriend, and put up with her personality to get it for free 

Up
10
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:09pm 1686449393

If you work an extra day a week or overtime, and you have to pay 45% of that day's wages in tax, plus the cost of childcare and transport to work, is it even worth getting out of bed for?

Up
9
by  rjn1  |  11th Jun 23, 3:35pm 1686454550

Yip, it comes into the thought process for any rational person.  39% limits the additional work I'll take on more than 33% would, 45% would limit it further.  It's very simple incentive psychology. 

Up
11
by  Pa1nter  |  11th Jun 23, 4:28pm 1686457699

If you use every extra dollar you earn intelligently, it should have a compounding effect that'd see you accumulating "f" you money much earlier in life (if at all).

Up
0
by  Vivid  |  11th Jun 23, 5:42pm 1686462120

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.

Up
16
by  Uncle Bulgaria  |  11th Jun 23, 4:24pm 1686457493

Depends how much you earn and how hard your work is I suppose.

If you are a doctor slaving through 10 minute appointments all day, you might.

If you work in finance on a cushy number with easy commission, you probably go in. 

Up
8
by  Officebound  |  11th Jun 23, 7:22pm 1686468171

You know we're talking exclusively about people who are paid ~$100 an hour or more right?

Up
4
by  mfd  |  11th Jun 23, 8:54pm 1686473666

And if the Green's proposal were put in place, the opposite logic would apply for those earning less than $120k. Lower tax rate, therefore more incentive to work for those where pay and travel/childcare may actually be quite close numbers. 

Up
2
by  kiwikidsnz  |  12th Jun 23, 8:12am 1686514332

Confirming that its driven by envy.

Up
6
by  alphabeatrium  |  11th Jun 23, 7:21pm 1686468101

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.

Up
5
by  April Spruiker  |  11th Jun 23, 9:13pm 1686474834

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.

Up
16
by  DrGrump  |  12th Jun 23, 1:45pm 1686534351

If the pay rise if for doing the same amount of work then sure. This is not the point here. GPs are largely self employed. 

Up
1
by  HGWR  |  11th Jun 23, 1:02pm 1686445341

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. 

Up
10
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:03pm 1686448994

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".

Up
13
by  HGWR  |  12th Jun 23, 1:55pm 1686534948

That's a fair point, that it may be harder for us to change if other countries don't.

Up
0
by  vman  |  11th Jun 23, 11:54am 1686441245

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

Up
15
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 12:20pm 1686442849

Yet so many here want to move there. The main motivation cannot be to escape higher taxes, can it?

Up
31
by  NoRegrets  |  11th Jun 23, 2:41pm 1686451262

Lots of exceptions in Australia including no GST on many items, incentives to save, no tax on retirement earnings.

A wealth tax here is a killer for older asset rich people with no income. Widow with a $4m house and nothing else.

Up
14
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 4:06pm 1686456412

I think the TOP LVT policy allows pensioners to defer payment of the tax until the property is sold or the title transferred. One would imagine the Greens have thought about this type of asset-rich, cash-poor situation?  Maybe not.

Up
9
by  Brendon  |  11th Jun 23, 6:05pm 1686463541

The TOP policy of lowering income tax which is funded by introducing a LVT (a tax switch) is a far better policy. LVT is a tax on unproductive capital. And land is immobile. It cannot run away. So it is very efficient - easily assessed and hard to avoid. 

Up
12
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:22pm 1686471752

I agree.

Up
3
by  dubious  |  12th Jun 23, 9:56am 1686520603

We're really meant to feel sorry for a widow with a $4mm house?

Up
4
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 12:24pm 1686443076

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.

 

 

Up
6
by  Nzdan  |  11th Jun 23, 12:41pm 1686444107

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.

Up
3
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:31pm 1686450668

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?

Up
20
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:25pm 1686471948

All very clever/good policy-making, for sure.  When I was in government and dealing with acts and regulations, I always felt legislation was so much better written in Aus.  Just an impression.  

Up
4
by  sharetrader  |  11th Jun 23, 7:07pm 1686467254

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

 

Up
3
by  macca  |  12th Jun 23, 1:05pm 1686531926

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!

Up
3
by  Lanthanide  |  11th Jun 23, 11:52am 1686441164

The interest home page incorrectly states their policy is a universal basic income. It isn't.

Up
7
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 12:22pm 1686442960

Yes, I noticed that too.  Not to say the Greens proposal is not worth thinking about, though. And it looks like they have responsibly costed it. 

Up
5
by  Vivid  |  11th Jun 23, 6:13pm 1686464001

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".

Up
14
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:29pm 1686472158

I didn't say the policy was good - I said it was costed (meaning revenue neutral).  Let's just wait and see how National manage to do that with their tax changes/proposals.

Up
3
by  Magnum  |  12th Jun 23, 11:29am 1686526150

Its only revenue neutral if they get the money in - If you face tens of thousands of tax a year you have a high budget to restructure your affairs

Up
1
by  kiwichas  |  11th Jun 23, 8:35pm 1686472506

And what if is Maori owned land/assets???

Up
0
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  12th Jun 23, 11:16am 1686525367

Exempt. Maori Trusts are excluded. Otherwise it would be racist and they burn any Maori voters. 

Up
4
by  Te Kooti  |  12th Jun 23, 12:08pm 1686528537

Those Trusts are quite different to those pakeha hide their assets in.  They are generally collective trusts for hapu and iwi.  

Up
1
by  macca  |  12th Jun 23, 1:13pm 1686532392

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.

Up
11
by  macca  |  12th Jun 23, 1:13pm 1686532419

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.

Up
1
by  buyandhodl  |  12th Jun 23, 1:51pm 1686534711

Why would it be racist to treat people the same regardless of their race? Or were you being sarcastic?

Up
1
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  12th Jun 23, 4:14pm 1686543262

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.

Up
4
by  JohnfromtheTron  |  11th Jun 23, 11:54am 1686441298

The Robin Hood party

Up
6
by  Eschaton  |  11th Jun 23, 12:04pm 1686441886

They're thrashing against the undesirable outcomes of a broken monetary system that benefits those closest to the manipulated money supply.

Up
14
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 12:49pm 1686444569

Greens & TOP want to simply steal from people who worked all their lives to provide a home for their families and handout to people who can't be bothered getting out of bed.

Up
22
by  Chaosinflesh  |  11th Jun 23, 12:57pm 1686445065

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).

Up
23
by  Brendon  |  11th Jun 23, 5:08pm 1686460094

BS. TOP plan is to reduce income tax - thereby incentivising work. And increase tax on land. Which is sensible because land in NZ has been going up in value through no effort of its owner - literally whilst these self entitled twats faff around in bed. 

Up
19
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 4:39pm 1686458364

I’m glad someone gets it.

Up
3
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 5:15pm 1686460526

See my comment below & try to understand that unrealised CGs are not $.

My CV & LV has dropped 30% in the last 18 months. Are the Greens going to give me a wealth tax credit of 2.5% ?

Up
6
by  Brendon  |  11th Jun 23, 6:07pm 1686463622

That is not how LVT works. You don't get it. 

Up
8
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 6:24pm 1686464654

You may very well think that...

Up
5
by  Chaosinflesh  |  11th Jun 23, 6:45pm 1686465904

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.

Up
7
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 4:54pm 1686459292

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.

Up
2
by  Due Diligence  |  11th Jun 23, 12:47pm 1686444461

Robin Hood stole taxes from the tax collector and gave it back to the people. The opposite of what the Greens want to do. 

Up
21
by  theberg  |  11th Jun 23, 1:56pm 1686448582

Exactly. 

The Greens think they can create equality and content but they are deluded. The tax collector will become more powerful and oppressive. 

 

Up
8
by  E46  |  11th Jun 23, 11:00pm 1686481207

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. 

Up
19
by  Eschaton  |  11th Jun 23, 12:05pm 1686441952

Inheritance.

Up
5
by  sadr001  |  11th Jun 23, 7:18pm 1686467913

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.

Up
2
by  E46  |  12th Jun 23, 12:27am 1686486452

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.

Up
3
by  hootenany  |  12th Jun 23, 7:59am 1686513546

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.

Up
0
by  E46  |  12th Jun 23, 9:48am 1686520090

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.

Up
1
by  gladtobekiwi  |  11th Jun 23, 12:06pm 1686441968

Knowing a vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens, means this policy will no doubt harm Labour in the polls.

Up
26
by  paashaas  |  11th Jun 23, 7:46pm 1686469580

Not sure about that .  I think it might pull some TOP vote back towards the Greens.

No one outside half wits voting for either of those parties will pay attention to this new "policy" which has no chance of becoming law..

Up
3
by  solardb  |  11th Jun 23, 8:32pm 1686472350

I think the Greens and Top should do a deal in Ilam. The Green candidate pulled 3,260 votes in 2020, the party 4,500. If they pulled their candidate and backed Rafi, in exchange for combined bargaining power for their similar policies.   

 

Up
1
by  paashaas  |  11th Jun 23, 8:44pm 1686473075

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. 

Up
2
by  solardb  |  11th Jun 23, 9:25pm 1686475519

Well , at least it seems we have hats in common , at least .

Up
0
by  Due Diligence  |  11th Jun 23, 12:30pm 1686443414

How to ruin a country 

Up
28
by  100bucks  |  11th Jun 23, 7:23pm 1686468224

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 .

 

Up
6
by  sharetrader  |  11th Jun 23, 8:27pm 1686472048

corporates already move a lot of revenue offshore to minimize any nz company tax, they use a lot of processes to achieve this from all sorts of license fees , payments to head office etc etc 

Up
3
by  Flying high  |  11th Jun 23, 9:25pm 1686475540

even the pet and cosmetics industries are bigger polluters than cows..

That would take some doing. How so 100b

Up
1
by  100bucks  |  11th Jun 23, 10:35pm 1686479727

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

Up
0
by  Flying high  |  12th Jun 23, 6:28am 1686508084

Huge double standards, by some. It depends how determined we are to reduce methane emissions. But do we really want men and women not using deodorant or women not applying make-up.

Up
0
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:10am 1686514210

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

Up
3
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 12:32pm 1686443543

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. 

 

Up
10
by  J.C.  |  11th Jun 23, 12:41pm 1686444119

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.   

Up
4
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:40pm 1686451212

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…

Up
10
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 3:06pm 1686452802

Back when NZ had wealth taxes such as death duties Oz (Queensland) used to run marketing campaigns here to attract Kiwis to relocate there. And that was for a 1 off tax, not an annual event.

Up
2
by  Beanie  |  11th Jun 23, 3:58pm 1686455893

Wouldn't NZ be better off if retired people worried about death duties did leave the country?

Up
10
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 4:11pm 1686456717

Gosh, that's a harsh but valid point where our medical system is concerned, and perhaps also where our housing market is concerned..  A move to Aus would however not disqualify them from receiving the NZ pension. 

Up
1
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 6:43pm 1686465806

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?

Up
4
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 6:55pm 1686466532

Charity begins at home. Most of us work all our lives to provide a secure home & a better start in life for our kids than we had. 

Our kids. Other peoples kids are their own parents responsibility.

Up
8
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:11am 1686514268

And just how many rentals do you own?

Up
0
by  kiwikidsnz  |  12th Jun 23, 8:14am 1686514498

Zero. Thanks for asking.

Up
2
by  Te Kooti  |  11th Jun 23, 5:14pm 1686460495

The Laffer Curve KW. 

Up
2
by  NoRegrets  |  11th Jun 23, 7:57pm 1686470249

They probably haven’t factored in the 5% that is as already collected under FDR rules!

Up
0
by  J.C.  |  11th Jun 23, 12:38pm 1686443900

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. 

Up
11
by  Nzdan  |  11th Jun 23, 12:46pm 1686444394

That assumes the majority of middle class homeowners care about the spot price of their home. 

Up
5
by  Chaosinflesh  |  11th Jun 23, 12:59pm 1686445178

Unless they're threatened with negative equity, why would a current owner occupier care at all? They buy/sell in the same market.

The only people affected are the over-leveraged, wannabe-overleveraged, and FHB.

Up
4
by  J.C.  |  11th Jun 23, 1:02pm 1686445341

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. 

Up
4
by  Prasad  |  11th Jun 23, 12:58pm 1686445119

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

Up
7
by  Chaosinflesh  |  11th Jun 23, 1:05pm 1686445526

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.

Up
7
by  interesting1234  |  11th Jun 23, 6:18pm 1686464331

New Zealand will become the Cayman Islands next target market

Up
1
by  Zwifter  |  11th Jun 23, 1:13pm 1686446028

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.

Up
10
by  Essen  |  11th Jun 23, 5:28pm 1686461332

I agree. I don’t know why we don’t just copy some of the settings in Australia. There are also some good ideas out of Singapore. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

Up
2
by  April Spruiker  |  11th Jun 23, 9:33pm 1686476002

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…

Up
4
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:14am 1686514442

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.

Up
1
by  nigelh  |  11th Jun 23, 1:15pm 1686446107

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.

Up
8
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:46pm 1686451585

Just wait until all the Pacific Islanders get wind of the fact that if they move to NZ they will get automatic residency, and then be paid more than the average wage in Samoa to do absolutely nothing, and a whole lot more if they keep producing babies. 

Up
13
by  solardb  |  11th Jun 23, 10:40pm 1686480002

The Greens get all their policies audited by one of the large accounting firms. I'm not sure about now, but they used to be the only party to do so.

Up
1
by  Te Kooti  |  11th Jun 23, 1:24pm 1686446651

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 

Up
28
by  Fegus Woodward  |  11th Jun 23, 2:34pm 1686450872

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.

Up
27
by  Advisor  |  11th Jun 23, 7:37pm 1686469044

Good comment, aptly summarises the modern green/woke movement.

Ironically, they hate high earners but their "bigger government" aspirations often lead to more high-paying bureaucratic/unproductive jobs being created in the public sector. 

Up
13
by  dumbthoughts  |  11th Jun 23, 9:00pm 1686474014

I wonder how many Wellington quangos and paper pushers earning $180k+ are suddenly going to decide that the Green party "ain't it" (or maybe even think twice about voting Labour)? 

Up
0
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:16am 1686514593

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.

Up
1
by  dumbthoughts  |  11th Jun 23, 2:45pm 1686451524

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. 

Up
19
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 2:49pm 1686451755

Yup, its a classic case of "if I can't have it, nobody else should be able to have it either".

Up
16
by  dumbthoughts  |  11th Jun 23, 2:55pm 1686452121

And, to my point, also an element of "I don't see value in it, nobody else should be able to have it either". 

Up
8
by  Te Kooti  |  11th Jun 23, 3:42pm 1686454927

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. 

Up
21
by  Advisor  |  11th Jun 23, 4:39pm 1686458389

It comes from risk takers and entrepreneurs

They don't get that though.

The typical greenie believes that high earners/wealthy got where they are not by making most of the economic opportunities presented to them but by stealing from the poor.

Up
15
by  Te Kooti  |  11th Jun 23, 5:20pm 1686460817

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…..

Up
17
by  interesting1234  |  11th Jun 23, 6:23pm 1686464634

Should their wish be granted, the whole country will be sitting on their backside smoking the green with no purpose in life or incentive to achieve. And we think social media is the worst threat to our kids?

Up
6
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  11th Jun 23, 5:15pm 1686460522

Green voters are heavily weighted to Uni graduates with useless degrees and over estimate their value and what they should earn. They’re envious and bitter of others who have moved forward. 

Up
15
by  interesting1234  |  11th Jun 23, 6:26pm 1686464781

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.

Up
3
by  HouseMouse  |  11th Jun 23, 1:43pm 1686447822

Good work Greens. A real party of the left.

Up
7
by  Retail shop  |  11th Jun 23, 3:51pm 1686455487

.

Up
2
by  theberg  |  11th Jun 23, 2:04pm 1686449096

Defund the police

Up
3
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 2:09pm 1686449357

You forgot to add the /sarc

Up
5
by  donny11  |  11th Jun 23, 2:12pm 1686449550

You can  what you want about them. At least they have the stomach to implement real policy to address the issues facing kiwis. The other parties just pay these issues lip service.

Up
4
by  Feedup  |  11th Jun 23, 2:52pm 1686451948

Alas, while they may, as you say, have the stomach to implement policy..it is always along the lines of spending and taking from others.Never about how best to grow our economy so as to be able to afford all the 'nice' things we dream about.

Up
7
by  JimboJones  |  11th Jun 23, 6:57pm 1686466636

Seems to work for the Scandinavians. 

Up
3
by  Cheetahlegs66  |  12th Jun 23, 11:25am 1686525908

They don’t have an ethnic group that uses social services to the same extent as NZ.

if Maori had similar outcomes to Europeans then the strain on health and social accomodation providers would be eased significantly. 

Up
0
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 3:17pm 1686453476

They know just like ACT that they aren’t going to have enough seats to command such a transformational tax policy. They are all hat and no cattle.

Up
5
by  KH  |  11th Jun 23, 2:11pm 1686449465

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.

Up
5
by  Feedup  |  11th Jun 23, 2:48pm 1686451726

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never once heard the co leaders of the Greens come up with ideas of how to grow our economy...but...they do indeed seem excellent at coming up with ideas of how to spend other people's money!

Up
21
by  JimboJones  |  11th Jun 23, 6:59pm 1686466774

Why wouldn’t it grow the economy? Take from the rich who would just hoard it, give to the poor who will spend it. 

Up
2
by  alphabeatrium  |  11th Jun 23, 10:09pm 1686478166

Do you think rich people put their money in a mattress? Do you understand what capital is, and where it comes from? Wealthy people invest in productive assets.

Up
1
by  Chaosinflesh  |  12th Jun 23, 10:06am 1686521183

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.

Up
1
by  solardb  |  11th Jun 23, 7:55pm 1686470155

https://www.greens.org.nz/economic_policy

James Shaw is their Economics spokesperson , Jan Logie is the economics and community spokesperson. 

Up
0
by  Flying high  |  11th Jun 23, 3:04pm 1686452649

The last time we heard from Davidson with the Posy Parker protesters she was spewing vile

When someone disagrees with her, she gets mad and turns visibly green, her clothes shred and she runs around throwing stuff.

Up
16
by  Fegus Woodward  |  11th Jun 23, 3:34pm 1686454479

Its ok to be racist if you are agititated. Guys she got hit by a motorbike! As if you can justify racism because a motorbike drove past you.

Up
11
by  Yvil  |  11th Jun 23, 3:06pm 1686452796

Where's the incentive to work?  Then we wonder why there aren't enough bus drivers, teachers, nurses, hospo staff etc...

No work but income fir everyone, YEAH !!! 

Up
20
by  tomjones_04  |  11th Jun 23, 3:35pm 1686454558

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 

Up
4
by  interesting1234  |  11th Jun 23, 6:31pm 1686465070

Can verify that all of the new bus drivers being employed for one nz city (not one of the big 3) are all coming from overseas to take the jobs. I guess we have to import workers as we are too sophisticated to do them ourselves.

Up
2
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 6:42pm 1686465765

Perhaps the unemployment benefit is set far too high 

Up
2
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 6:51pm 1686466265

If you have enough kids, the benefit will pay far more than you would ever hope to earn in a low wage job.  Plus you go straight to the top of the list for a free Kainga Ora brand new 4 bedroom McMansion in the best suburbs of town.

Up
9
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:19am 1686514773

There'll be so many births that affluent suburbs will lose value as residents can't sleep due to it sounding like popcorn popping all round.

Up
0
by  fernglas  |  11th Jun 23, 3:50pm 1686455423

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? 

Up
15
by  K.W.  |  11th Jun 23, 6:54pm 1686466450

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.

Up
3
by  Retail shop  |  11th Jun 23, 3:50pm 1686455425

What does the Green Party consider assets?

Up
4
by  Due Diligence  |  11th Jun 23, 8:16pm 1686471416

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. 

Up
8
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:39pm 1686472785

Their current tax policy is here;

https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system

 

Up
2
by  E46  |  11th Jun 23, 10:09pm 1686478196

Their current proposal is a land value tax, not a wealth tax, none of the listed would be touched under an LVT.

Up
3
by  Roger the dodger  |  12th Jun 23, 6:27am 1686508023

TOPs policy is idiocy. They would crush people owning property with a massive tax increase.

They are particularly punitive on single earners with a high value house.

 

Up
4
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:20am 1686514822

Divorce sounding a bit more costly? 

Up
3
by  E46  |  12th Jun 23, 9:45am 1686519940

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.

Up
5
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 2:01pm 1686535272

"No one ever made any money working for someone else"

Up
0
by  Beanie  |  11th Jun 23, 4:29pm 1686457761

I wonder how many of the Greens have bought a Lotto ticket..you know, where money is taken from many poor people so that one person can be made rich. Tax free even. 

Up
3
by  Uncle Bulgaria  |  11th Jun 23, 4:32pm 1686457924

It looks better thought through than anything you will ever see from the Nats or ACT but will be written off as ‘lunacy’

Up
2
by  Essen  |  11th Jun 23, 5:33pm 1686461589

I actually saw a sensible policy from National earlier today on GE policy that would likely have great benefits for the environment in time.

Up
8
by  ikimpaul  |  11th Jun 23, 4:37pm 1686458259

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.

 

Up
8
by  jeremyr  |  11th Jun 23, 5:24pm 1686461075

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).

 

 

 

 

 

Up
17
by  Roger the dodger  |  11th Jun 23, 5:32pm 1686461552

Your last sentence applies to Labour as well 🤣

Up
3
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 7:07pm 1686467246

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.

 

Up
5
by  J Croxford  |  11th Jun 23, 4:42pm 1686458569

Do ministers pay tax?

Up
0
by  Flying high  |  11th Jun 23, 5:16pm 1686460609

Only if you're white

Up
6
by  Roger the dodger  |  11th Jun 23, 5:30pm 1686461432

Hipkins will be running away from this on Monday morning. Will be fun to watch.

Up
11
by  Albert2020  |  11th Jun 23, 5:35pm 1686461704

Yeah this is going to hurt Labour.

Up
1
by  Essen  |  11th Jun 23, 5:35pm 1686461737

I’m beginning to feel sorry for Hipkins. On an individual level, his performance hasn’t been too bad. But he is going to lose the election because of his colleagues and coalition.

Up
1
by  interesting1234  |  11th Jun 23, 6:34pm 1686465242

He made his choice to step up to the helm of a sinking ship. He will simply have to accept the consequences and go down with it.

Up
5
by  dumbthoughts  |  11th Jun 23, 8:06pm 1686470779

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? 

Up
11
by  Kate  |  11th Jun 23, 8:47pm 1686473230

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? 

 

Up
7
by  Roger the dodger  |  12th Jun 23, 7:34am 1686512088

I think he makes a fair point. It certainly feels like landowners are being lectured at by the Greens. 

Not sure why you think Luxon was lecturing anyone in his response? 

Up
3
by  Averageman  |  11th Jun 23, 5:45pm 1686462327

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...?

Up
13
by  solardb  |  11th Jun 23, 8:25pm 1686471951

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 .  

Up
6
by  Averageman  |  12th Jun 23, 7:39am 1686512390

Exactly.

Up
3
by  kiwichas  |  11th Jun 23, 8:43pm 1686473011

Are the Greens going to tax Maori owned land??

Up
2
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 9:04pm 1686474271

As in the original article:

"Assets held by charities, NGOs, and collectively-owned Māori land — which is subject to the 1993 Maori Land Act — would not be taxed. "

You didn't really think that they would, did you  ?

Up
6
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 8:22am 1686514957

Treating all NZ'ers as equal with the same tax applications? Don't be silly, that's far to sensible

Up
9
by  Audaxes  |  11th Jun 23, 5:49pm 1686462595
Up
2
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 6:22pm 1686464534

10/12. Its different for introverts.

Up
0
by  MLSmith1  |  11th Jun 23, 6:55pm 1686466538

Haha… commies coming after you 

Up
1
by  Kiwisaint  |  11th Jun 23, 7:41pm 1686469305

Picture looks like casual Friday in the office, followed by some then attending an after-work Oktoberfest party

Up
0
by  Beanie  |  11th Jun 23, 8:41pm 1686472890

They have the same picture on their website, except in their effort to crop Kerekere out they have also cut Swarbrick out. (Unless it's just my phone)

Up
0
by  Mystery  |  11th Jun 23, 8:28pm 1686472106

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.

 

 

Up
6
by  kiwikidsnz  |  11th Jun 23, 8:41pm 1686472906

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.

Up
4
by  Mystery  |  12th Jun 23, 12:54pm 1686531265

Thanks for your comment. Didn't realise Australia was unhappy with the current arrangement and are changing it in 2024. Interesting to know.

 

Up
1
by  kiwichas  |  11th Jun 23, 9:10pm 1686474633

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"

Up
4
by  Flying high  |  12th Jun 23, 7:05am 1686510354

Does anyone think this policy does not stoke inflation. Have the Greenies learned anything from covid policies and outcomes, hell no.

Kate refers to the party as the Greedies, thats bang on.

Up
5
by  solardb  |  12th Jun 23, 9:24am 1686518692

Where's the extra money to stoke inflation?

Taking money off some and giving it to others, does not stoke inflation.  

Up
2
by  kiwikidsnz  |  12th Jun 23, 12:43pm 1686530601

Yes it does. Because you're stealing it out of people's unrealised equity (ie adding it to in money in circulation) & handing it out to people who will spend it immediately.

The forecast take was $12 Billion in the first year.

Up
5
by  Chaosinflesh  |  12th Jun 23, 1:53pm 1686534781

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.

Up
1
by  kiwikidsnz  |  12th Jun 23, 4:03pm 1686542637

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.

 

Up
0
by  Chaosinflesh  |  12th Jun 23, 6:51pm 1686552696

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.

Up
0
by  Colin Cameron  |  12th Jun 23, 8:08am 1686514137

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

Up
8
by  dumbthoughts  |  12th Jun 23, 3:13pm 1686539584

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.

Up
3
by  youngdumbandfullofit  |  12th Jun 23, 8:26am 1686515204

Happy to see where this would take the country. 

Way more keen for a big shake up and potential failure and then future revamp of the tax system than the continuous fiddling. 

Up
3
by  Flying high  |  12th Jun 23, 8:30am 1686515441

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.

Up
1
by  buyandhodl  |  12th Jun 23, 8:55am 1686516939

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.

Up
3
by  interesting1234  |  12th Jun 23, 2:28pm 1686536891

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. 

Up
0
by  yeahnah  |  12th Jun 23, 9:24am 1686518648

$385 basic wage will be worth about 0.385 cents after about a year of rampant inflation if these turkeys get in

Up
3
by  blobbles  |  12th Jun 23, 11:28am 1686526117

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.

Up
2
by  dotti  |  12th Jun 23, 11:57am 1686527829

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.

Up
2
by  GregF  |  13th Jun 23, 10:41am 1686609697

Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts down.  This is the reason I pay to help sustain this site - the channel is then available for all of us to discuss and ponder such ideas.  Cheers!

Up
0
by  macca  |  12th Jun 23, 12:36pm 1686530187

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.

Up
3
by  HistoryRepeats  |  12th Jun 23, 1:37pm 1686533834
Up
2
by  EdwardD  |  12th Jun 23, 2:34pm 1686537293

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.

Up
4
by  Chris-M  |  12th Jun 23, 2:48pm 1686538104

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.

Up
2
by  Twitchbar@  |  12th Jun 23, 3:31pm 1686540672

Green the new red

What else can these clowns dream up?

Up
3
by  stefanblaise  |  12th Jun 23, 5:00pm 1686546019

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.

Up
7
by  The_Golem  |  12th Jun 23, 5:06pm 1686546373

Given the greens have what looks like a de-growth agenda, it has the appearance that the plan is to tax a smaller economy more heavily to meet their aspirations, which are...what?

It also looks a fast track to penury.

Up
2
by  Firstclass  |  12th Jun 23, 6:42pm 1686552144

"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

 

Up
3
by  Twitchbar@  |  16th Jun 23, 7:15am 1686856506

Greens under the bed

Up
0