Hipkins puts wealth tax back on the table

Public Policy / news

Labour caucus backs Chris Hipkins as leader and reconsiders tax policy for 2026

7th Nov 23, 2:37pm by Dan Brunskill

Labour leader Chris Hipkins speaks at the 2023 campaign launch in Auckland

A downsized Labour caucus has voted to keep Chris Hipkins on as party leader after their defeat in the October election.

The party’s constitution requires the leader to hold a confidence vote within three months of an election, during which they need to win 60% support to stay on.

Hipkins said he did not know the exact vote count, only that the 60% threshold had been met. There does not appear to have been any meaningful challenge to his leadership.

The NZ Herald had reported a rumour that David Parker was considering making a bid, although even that story suggested it may have been a bluff to secure policy concessions.

If that was the case, it may have been a successful gambit. Parker resigned as revenue minister after Hipkins nixed a wealth tax he had developed for Budget 2023.

The Labour leader firmly ruled out wealth or capital gains taxes saying: “under a government I lead, there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election”.

Today, he said the policy slate had been wiped clean and all types of tax reform could be considered for the 2026 election campaign.

He said the caucus meeting on Tuesday morning included a “brief conversation” about tax but it didn’t get into specifics.

“I have also been clear with the caucus. We lost. So we start again, and that means everything comes back on to the table and that includes a discussion around tax.”

“In 2026, our tax policy could look quite different to our 2023 tax policy”.

Some members of Labour were unhappy with Hipkins’ pre-election decision, and at least two voiced some support for a wealth tax while campaigning in electorates ahead of the election.

It is possible that leaving some room for future tax reform was necessary to ensure the caucus supported Hipkins staying on as party leader.

Carmel Sepuloni was voted in as deputy party leader, replacing Kelvin Davis who chose to stand down. She said she had no ambition to be the leader.

Hipkins said he would lead “a vigorous” opposition, as opposed to “relentlessly positive”, and hold the new government to account when it does form.

"Christopher Luxon indicated during the election campaign that he was going to be working around the clock as soon as the election was over, to pull a government together,” he said.

“I’ve kind of lost count on how many weeks it's been now, but it's certainly been a long time and I think New Zealanders deserve to know what the new government is going to be”.

When asked what the Labour Party stands for now, he said it stands for “progress”.

“We stand for a fairer New Zealand one where those who are working hard, are able to get ahead. Clearly we need to reflect on the policy platform that we put before the electorate and refresh that”.

“We lost the election, therefore we need to go back to the drawing board”.

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.

141 Comments

by Nifty1 | 7th Nov 23, 2:52pm 1699321921

What do they actually stand for?... these flip-flops based on polling etc. are getting old. Hipkins should be gone, they need to start again...

by Eschaton | 7th Nov 23, 2:52pm 1699321962

Most politicians flip flop.

by dumbthoughts | 7th Nov 23, 2:57pm 1699322266

You flip if you want to, but this chippy's not for flopping.

by kiwichas | 7th Nov 23, 3:48pm 1699325283

It's called lying

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 4:54pm 1699329254

Really? So when presented with a more complete picture, and then changing one's mind, it's called lying? Good to know.

by hootenany | 8th Nov 23, 8:19am 1699384796

No one was presented with a more complete picture, apart from loosing an election so trying something else. If you can tell me what new evidence was presented to him to make him change his mind then sure.

by FCM | 7th Nov 23, 2:57pm 1699322221

I think they looked in the cupboard and it's bare. Although I suggest the people sitting around the labour table won't be the same people in 2026.

by HouseMouse | 7th Nov 23, 3:05pm 1699322715

Chippy undoubtedly nixed the wealth tax because he thought it would cost Labour in the election. I think it had the opposite effect

by Jesse1 | 7th Nov 23, 3:43pm 1699324998

It definitely increased the votes to green.

by hootenany | 8th Nov 23, 8:23am 1699385036

You are probably right, but it may have moved some people who would of voted national to labour. So the left may have had less overall seats, so probably a good choice overall.

by Stephen06 | 7th Nov 23, 3:10pm 1699323031

...“We stand for a fairer New Zealand one where those who are working hard, are able to get ahead. ...

Yeah right. Three weeks ago, it was tax all who are trying to get ahead.

Stop lying Hipkins.

by Nzdan | 7th Nov 23, 3:19pm 1699323587

In your opinion, who are these people "trying to get ahead" that they were trying to tax?

by kiwikidsnz | 7th Nov 23, 3:43pm 1699325014

The half of NZ households that actually pay net income tax to fund the other half.

They don't vote Labour so no worries.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:00pm 1699329653

LOL ... "that actually pay net income tax"

Cherry picking tax numbers to make a b.s. point about from where tax is collected? So very 'NACT politician' of you.

And by "fund[ing] the other half" you mean paying the universal pension of all the oldies collecting it, right?

Pub economics at its worst!

by Nzdan | 7th Nov 23, 5:13pm 1699330409

I pay net income tax, and I don't vote Labour. But I'm also not a loser that begrudges those who work hard but receive subsidies to help prop up our rentier society.

by DD62 | 7th Nov 23, 8:07pm 1699340843

He Can't! A pathological liar! From the moment he entered politics he has been caught out telling lies countless times! So thick skinned though he just doesn't care,

by Foxglove. | 7th Nov 23, 8:33pm 1699342427

Who can forget. Reporter - “why can’t frontline health workers have saliva tests instead of the invasive nasal swabs?” Hipkins - “because they don’t want them.” Likewise, ponder that one from “the front of the queue.”

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:22am 1699384967

Can't be forgetting the thousands of exemptions the nurses got fast tracked through to keep the system from crumbling during mandate periods while the many who had moderate-to-severe reactions to the vaccinations got no look in and were made to either go against their GP's recommendations and go for round 2 or be excluded from a large part of society. Sorry Chippy, you have the credibility and integrity of a wet piece of cardboard.

by delboy | 8th Nov 23, 10:29am 1699392587

The vaccine mandates were simply evil. The mandates are how Ardern and Hipkins will be remembered.

by Black and White | 7th Nov 23, 9:04pm 1699344270

Must have got these skills off John Key.

They are all the same is this new to you.

by sammnz | 7th Nov 23, 3:52pm 1699325579

I don't think he necessarily should. He appears to be learning from his failures, which is important in politics; and unlike the usual scenario where people tend to quit when they lose, he wants to continue and rebuild Labour to what it once was- a party which cares about the low-middle income families, perhaps without the pandering to the minorities and unrealistic social agendas that are forced upon the majority.

by agnostium | 7th Nov 23, 4:46pm 1699328790

I don't get the criticism. They stood on a policy platform. They did not get support from the majority of the population, it stands to reason they would review that policy platform, that is the nature of democracy.

Only ideologically driven parties would not respond to feedback from the public (provided through election votes?!?!)

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:08pm 1699330080

100% agree with both you and sammnz.

It completely correct and proper that a political party should go back to the drawing board. And IMO embracing a concept like fairness - a profound and deep rooted Kiwi trait - is critical.

To do otherwise is to become a fringe party that will keep banging a drum but changing nothing.

by Foxglove. | 7th Nov 23, 7:01pm 1699336873

There is very good reason to restructure policy and consolidate. The last two elections have seen both major parties skittled, losing 50% or so of their parliamentary seats. That in itself illustrates an electorate, if not fickle then certainly changeable. The forthcoming coalition government is hardly guaranteed in terms of either stability or longevity. For a start under mmp, no junior parties have ever had to share a similar sizeable representation. And then, amongst that, there is the colourful history of WP/NZF vis a vis the National Party itself, coupled with the capriciousness of WP himself. Watch this space.

by Nzdan | 7th Nov 23, 5:18pm 1699330718

It's the usual gripe for the sake of griping. Complain about a policy/stance, then complain when they switch things up by claiming they're "vote buying". It's actually quite bizarre if you put it into a real world context.

Would be like buying a car, asking if they can fit a tow bar, and once done ridiculing them for trying to score the sale.

by Averageman | 7th Nov 23, 3:01pm 1699322469

No fresh idea's then. Surely Taxinda already show that this is an un-electable position. To fraught with loopholes for avoidance. They would be better off pushing a universal land tax.

by Jesse1 | 7th Nov 23, 3:46pm 1699325188

A standard capital gains tax isn't fraught with loopholes. Most other countries worked it all out a long time ago. Australia's had it for nearly 40 years.

by kiwikidsnz | 7th Nov 23, 3:52pm 1699325560

The Oz CGT is full of loopholes, starting with the family home.

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 4:27pm 1699327646

And the fact that you can simply invest via a self managed super fund where income tax on rents or dividends is only 15% and the CGT is 10%. You can contribute pre-tax income to the superfund, as well as distributions when you reach 60 are tax free. This is how people buy rental property and shares in Australia.

by solardb | 7th Nov 23, 4:22pm 1699327341

I think the readership here may consider taxing capital gains , a inconsiderate loophole. Just like they consider their house value rising means they are richer. Same house though .

I stand to lose from a capital gains tax on land, but i am now sick of seeing that all the time and work i have put into working produced less wealth than if i had brought property and did virtually nothing.

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 4:29pm 1699327749

I actually consider the lack of a capital gains tax to be compensation for still living here. If I have to pay one like everywhere else, then I might as well live somewhere else.

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:05pm 1699344349

That's the spirit!

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:27am 1699385272

While I understand your predicament, if those living here were just here to sit and wait on capital gains, we would, in the long term, wind up with more productive businesses, manufacturing and innovation if many left for this reason should a full CGT be introduced. Banks would be less incentivised to lend for residential property and have less demand, and would by way of necessity would need to increase lending for business. I can't say that sounds like a bad thing

by wingman | 9th Nov 23, 4:33pm 1699500810

Why didn't you then? Not very smart.

by 1689 Baptist | 7th Nov 23, 3:48pm 1699325329

We had 1.5% land tax in Pennsylvania. Rents were through the roof. I dont think a land tax has the effect most people hope for.

by huttman | 7th Nov 23, 3:50pm 1699325428

better off pushing a universal land tax.

you mean a council rates?

by E46 | 7th Nov 23, 4:02pm 1699326137

Property tax, not a land value tax.

by Uncle Bulgaria | 7th Nov 23, 3:06pm 1699322803

Bit late to start realising the Greens were on to something

by Cheetahlegs66 | 7th Nov 23, 3:20pm 1699323615

Bit late to start realising that the envious and jealous were on to something.

Ever notice that the loudest advocates are those who have the least (nil) to pay?

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 3:32pm 1699324346

The loudest are the ones that hold multiple properties that call others envious etc.

The second loudest are the ones that are paying excessive amounts of PAYE while asset holders can make tax free profit. They are pissed off, not envious.

by whakahokia mai | 7th Nov 23, 3:49pm 1699325398

Agreed. 👍

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 4:28pm 1699327680

100% Agree.

by TronMVP | 7th Nov 23, 8:02pm 1699340521

Why should anyone be pissed off that someone else has an asset that may go up in value?

Who is complaining that we pay too much PAYE income tax?

Why don't we have a 45% tax for income over $300,000 if we need more tax raised?

Why can't the government do all that it needs to with the $120 Billion tax take?

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:08pm 1699344521

Pay attention.

by TronMVP | 7th Nov 23, 10:13pm 1699348426

Tax paid by the average worker in NZ was 20.1% compared to 24.6% average in the OECD.

(Sourced from the OECD website)

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:33am 1699385596

People aren't worried about comparing themselves to the OECD, unless it were dirt cheap to up and leave for many other countries and simple to integrate into society, make more money and become wealthier, however this isn't a simple endeavour. People are wanting a fair and equitable system that doesn't hold favour over a set part of society, in this case property. How do you think it would feel for someone say in their 40's with two children who rents, seeing others in their early 30's who happened to buy a house when they were much more affordable in terms of DTI, who has then leveraged said mortgage again and again to buy 2 or 3 extra properties, and will be living off the rent by the time this younger person hits their age, and knowing that the tax they pay is minimal compared to a hard working mother or father who has worked all of their life under PAYE. More work, less benefit compared to the other who sits and watches as the money rolls in and capital gain getting no tax if they hold for the long term.

by murray86 | 8th Nov 23, 8:39am 1699385966

Does that include GST? I doubt it. It is easy to misrepresent tax when you a structure like ours. Michael Cullen did it.

From memory a university prof did some research and found the average tax rate for ordinary kiwis was much higher when taking into account all the ways tax is collected, not just PAYE.

by M0ralHazard | 7th Nov 23, 3:44pm 1699325064

Whats the quote, something about the Greens policy today being Labour policy in 10 years time?

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 3:50pm 1699325417

And National's in 20 years and ACTs in 30 years.

by Foxglove. | 7th Nov 23, 3:50pm 1699325429

Actually for six years they were pretty late about everything. Even the pandemic border closure and lockdown had to be urged by medical professionals & academics. Still most immediate leaders, eg Bridges, of defeated governments don’t last long, or as per Goff, incur a heavy defeat so any contenders biding their time are probably being prudent.

by Te Kooti | 7th Nov 23, 4:10pm 1699326601

The Greens on to something, like anti-semitism for example?

by Foxglove. | 7th Nov 23, 4:57pm 1699329453

The Greens know what they mean and that’s all that’s important. Hence similarly, a co-leaders vitriolic accusation of cis white men for her almost injuries is not owned because nobody but her understood what it meant.

by Te Kooti | 7th Nov 23, 4:20pm 1699327253

I have nothing but contempt for them, if it was left to me I'd deport them to Gaza tomorrow.

by DD62 | 7th Nov 23, 8:15pm 1699341306

Right with you on that Te Kooti! Swarbrick's little performance was disgraceful! She is a real class act! How any thinking person could vote for the Green rabble is absolutely fascinating.

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:14pm 1699344880

Stay classy.

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:13pm 1699344838

Is it racist to criticise certain governments actions now?

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 5:23pm 1699330984

The Greens got 11.6% of the vote. That directly correlates with the 11.3% percent of the voting population who are currently dependent on a benefit. In case anyone was wondering why so many people voted for them.

by Palmtree08 | 7th Nov 23, 5:49pm 1699332570

You are confusing causation with correlation.

by Jesse1 | 7th Nov 23, 5:57pm 1699333069

I know plenty that vote green and I don't think any are on a benefit (beyond WFF). Get out into the community, you might find the world doesn't fit into your box.

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:36am 1699385770

I know a few who voted them, but they voted based on the ideals they stand for, and couldn't answer any of my questions when I queried if they know if the Greens had any logical plan on how to enact their proposed policies or on the effectiveness of said policies.

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:18pm 1699345129

I heard 38% of people pee in the shower...

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:36am 1699385803

With stats like that you should get into selling real estate ...

by HGWR | 7th Nov 23, 10:53pm 1699350834

It's plain to anyone who pays attention that the green vote mostly comes from affluent, high decile areas. The idea their voters are a bunch of dole bludgers is a level of fantasy that the greens themselves would be proud of.

by April Spruiker | 14th Nov 23, 3:30am 1699885852

Yes, you’re right on the money. Most Green voters will be 1 university students or 2 well-educated young professionals (under 35s), and : older Wellington progressives (who likely own property).

I fall into the second category. I’m in my early 30s a data scientist, on a decent salaried income (around 200k) who has always voted Green. Most of my friends fall into this camp too. I can honestly tell you beneficiaries wouldn’t be caught dead for voting gree , they think they’re a bunch of lesbian whale lovers obsessed with identity politics (perhaps right and a side of the party I don’t particularly like). However, I support the greens because (although certainly far from perfect) they are the party with a policy platform that supports the best chance of an equal fair go for all New Zealanders - social mobility and a system that provides equal opportunities, and rewards merit and talent is important to me. I say this as a child who was raised on a benefit and although I worked hard I owe a huge debt to the NZ tax payer (also how I know beneficiaries would never vote green, like I’ve never heard of anyone hah).

by kiwi_overseas | 7th Nov 23, 3:23pm 1699323791

We need a Labour Party that stands for fairness.

1. Capital gains tax

2. No wealth tax, but instead:

3. Inheritance/death tax tied to NZ passport ( inheritance if the beneficiary is a NZ passport holder, death tax if not.) (Permanent residence visas outside NZ should be expired and then permanent residence visas have a max life of 5 years. After that have to get NZ passport.)

4. Move the retirement age up to 67 and then for it to be related to average life expectancy but retain the right to take superannuation at 65 if you don’t have other income from employment.

by kiwimm | 7th Nov 23, 3:46pm 1699325178

Inheritance is not fair. You get money just for choosing wealthier parents.

by huttman | 7th Nov 23, 3:52pm 1699325579

Hence I will burn every dime I have before I die.

by yeahnah | 7th Nov 23, 4:07pm 1699326466

And the reason the government should take a share of my hard earned capital, just because I die, is?

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 4:09pm 1699326578

So they can take less while you are alive. It sounds great to me, but way too hard to implement (because you can just spend it beforehand).

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:13pm 1699330382

And pay GST, duties and other taxes as they spend it.

Seems fair to me.

by agnostium | 7th Nov 23, 4:57pm 1699329448

Well for one, you're dead.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 7th Nov 23, 6:29pm 1699334941

You don’t choose your parents. They chose you. If they are financially well resourced, great. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder? Don’t like private schools? Deep down wish you could afford the Euro car and Omaha bach?

I’m transparent. We were working class, Papatoetoe PrimarySchool. Wish like hell we had money when I was kid. I’m 100% envious of the wealth that some have. And don’t wish them any ill will for it.

by kiwimm | 8th Nov 23, 9:58am 1699390729

That's my point - choosing parents is not an option so the tax is unfair.

by wingman | 9th Nov 23, 3:02pm 1699495349

If I ever think my children will have to pay inheritance tax I'll leave the country...permanently...just like thousands did in the 1980's.

by kiwikidsnz | 7th Nov 23, 3:48pm 1699325327

"We need a Labour Party that stands for fairness."

Then proposes to steal from others who worked all their lives to provide a home for their families and a legacy for their children.

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 3:52pm 1699325571

By that theory all tax is theft!

"from others who worked all their lives to provide a home for their families and a legacy for their children" is just as sad as saying "mom and pop investors". It really doesn't matter how nice or wonderful or special you think you are, you should still pay a fair amount of tax.

by kiwikidsnz | 7th Nov 23, 5:03pm 1699329825

"By that theory all tax is theft!"

No, it isn't & I didn't say that either. Don't try to put words in my mouth to conflate your argument.

Start by attempting to define "fair".

by meh | 7th Nov 23, 6:35pm 1699335304

In theory, all tax is theft and it always was.

If it's not voluntarily given, and taken by force or threat of force, then it must be theft.

The counter argument, which does not negate the above, is of course, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's".

The assumption being that if one partakes of the services provided by the Empire, one owes a debt and must give back.

Which, when applied to capital gains and wealth, suggests those gains only arise via Govt and monetary policies, via the connected infrastructure, via society as a whole, therefore one must give back.

To argue against that suggests the following has some truth -

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Another way to look at it - https://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/9896/serving-mammon

Take it how you will.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 9:20pm 1699345208

Fascinating ... From your reference source's About page:

Ministry Matters™ offers practical and immediate inspiration for preachers, teachers, and worship leaders. With thousands of original articles and blogs, unique book reviews, and weekly worship and preaching helps in our This Sunday area, MinistryMatters.com provides both community and inspiration to Christian leaders.

Hmm. After reading the article, I find myself thinking carefully about the phase, "The enemy, of my enemy, is my friend."

by interesting1234 | 7th Nov 23, 4:05pm 1699326305

Inheritance/death tax tied to NZ passport

A passport is simply a travel document only able to be obtained by NZ Citizens. Many citizens don't have passports and I'd have to argue that a lot of NZ citizens by descent overseas don't have passports as they or their parents haven't registered their NZ citizenship. I'd agree on the rest of your points however.

by kiwi_overseas | 7th Nov 23, 6:27pm 1699334824

If they are inside NZ, being born in NZ would suffice.

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:40am 1699386043

Does this apply to those born in NZ who do not qualify for citizenship by birth? One has to have a parent who is a permanent resident of NZ when the child is born in order for those child to get CITZ by birth. The tied up that loophole back in the mid 2000's to stop people flying in and giving birth to allow their child better opportunities and access to healthcare etc.

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 4:10pm 1699326623

Whatever they do they need to come up with an actual policy before the next election, not "we will have a tax working group". They should already have enough information to decide exactly what a wealth tax would look like and who will pay it.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 4:31pm 1699327895

100% Agree. Enough of this "captains call" b.s.

by solardb | 7th Nov 23, 5:05pm 1699329916

Sounds like it was pretty much ready to go before the last budget.

by whakahokia mai | 7th Nov 23, 3:47pm 1699325270

Several months too late.

by Hastings | 7th Nov 23, 3:57pm 1699325873

He deserves another chance…but only just. Once the incoming visionaries have cracked on with their random agendas, Hipkins will seem like the solid option.

by i am not a nimby | 7th Nov 23, 4:08pm 1699326538

Now come on- there were untold number of "commitees" formed between 2017-2023. you certainly wont get too farr with the same approach, will you??

by solardb | 7th Nov 23, 5:01pm 1699329666

Who do you think wrote National's policies. certainly not Willis.

by Firstclass | 7th Nov 23, 4:07pm 1699326435

Who cares what Chris Hipkins says, he is history, gone, voted out by New Zealand.

by Squishy | 7th Nov 23, 4:15pm 1699326952

Judiciously the probability of Labour enacting any policy they campaigned on is extremely low anyway. Labour sees policies as predominantly aspirational ideas rather than milestones by which progress can be judged.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:18pm 1699330709

aspirational is Sir (Prince?) John's favorite word. Please use it appropriately. ;)

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 4:20pm 1699327225

Washington State is in the process of implementing a 1% wealth tax. It would cost Jeff Bezos $1.6B a year to continue living there (actually a lot more as he would have to sell shares to fund it, and also pay CGT on those shares). So he's now moving to Florida. This is what happens when you implement wealth taxes.

I for one would be out of here. Its not worth it for me to actually pay to live in NZ, when I could keep that money and have just as good a lifestyle, if not better, in Australia.

by Firstclass | 7th Nov 23, 4:33pm 1699328017

100% nailed it Sir !

by Te Kooti | 7th Nov 23, 4:34pm 1699328062

Yep, you can still spend 182 days in NZ as well. Plenty of countries welcome economic migrants.

by JimboJones | 7th Nov 23, 4:43pm 1699328629

Any change to taxation may work out better for some and worse for others. In this case a wealth tax that is used to decrease income tax is good for income earners and bad for asset holders. It could actually be good for the country if people with a high asset to income ratio leave, at the end of the day they will probably sell their assets to someone else anyway.

I wonder how much tax Jeff Bezos currently gives to Washington State?

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 5:06pm 1699329987

When they leave, they also take the income tax that those assets pay (from rents, dividends, interest etc) along with any personal income tax those people pay in their employment, and the corporate tax that their businesses pay. This then leaves the asset-less population left to make up the shortfall in income tax. This is exactly why France scrapped its wealth tax - the country actually collected less tax as a result of the wealth tax.

"Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income" for the period 2014-2018. Now what happens if he also moves Amazon's headquarters to Florida as well?

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:46am 1699386379

Amazon and Jeff are very smart with what they do. For example their entire European division Amazon EU S.à r.l. is based in Luxembourg for the tax advantage, they have their largest warehouse in Poland where labour is cheap and they purchased x2 767's to continuously fly goods from Poland to the UK for people ordering with free delivery as it was cheaper for them to do so, and allowed the UK warehouse stock to be solely for one-day deliveries. At one point when DVD's were a thing they used to have their base out of Jersey for the DVD side of the business as it was a tax loophole, until the govt caught on and closed it off.

by paashaas | 7th Nov 23, 5:09pm 1699330151

You are completely missing the point of the example - no one in Washington State will better off once Jeff Bezos and other rich people ( who tend to pay a lot of tax of all kinds - in absolute terms ) move out.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:20pm 1699330800

Really? Prove it. History shows no such thing.

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 5:26pm 1699331200

"French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated. In a paper published in 2008, he concluded that the ISF caused an annual fiscal shortfall of €7bn and had probably reduced gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.2 per cent a year. "

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-…

by Foxglove. | 7th Nov 23, 8:02pm 1699340556

And then a couple of questions. How do you establish, record and maintain all the values of all the assets and then what happens if after paying tax on any unrealised appreciation, how do you rebate if said unrealised appreciation should be established to have then reduced. Hells bells if you read where this started, the Greens manifesto 2020, it may as well in terms of practicality, have been dreamed up by a primary school think tan

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 9:45pm 1699346752

And yet all OECD countries have a wealth tax in the form of a CGT except NZ. Go figure, ay?

And if all countries get around to implementing other wealth taxes - then where will these people go?

Doubt more wealth taxes will come? They will.

Just watch the world implement a global taxation scheme to stop profit shifting (think FB, MS, Google, et al).

It's taking time but more wealth taxes will get here. Why? Because the French taught us what guillotines are used for. ;)

by Foxglove. | 8th Nov 23, 7:19am 1699381195

CGT is calculated on the margin for example of the difference between the purchase and selling prices of an asset. A wealth tax is calculated on the estimated value of an asset . Arriving at that value is not exactly simple and nor is tracking it year to year.

by Jesse1 | 8th Nov 23, 10:14am 1699391649

Maybe National should introduce a CGT which will probably stop Labour from introducing a wealth tax when they are next in. If we end up with a wealth tax we only have ourselves to blame for resisting a CGT for so long.

by K.W. | 8th Nov 23, 2:13pm 1699406036

That has probably been the plan all along. Let the Greens/Maori float a preposterous 5% wealth tax, and then implement an CGT and sell it as "at least you'll be better off than having the wealth tax".

But any CGT will influence people's decisions to invest. Currently lack of CGT improves an asset holder's returns, making the NZ housing, commercial property, stock market and businesses more profitable. Once those profits are significantly reduced, people will probably start to look offshore and realise that better returns are available elsewhere. With significantly lower private investment what will the NZ economy be like?

by hootenany | 8th Nov 23, 8:53am 1699386838

You call them asset holders, I call them people who don't spend their money as soon as they get it on consumerism. If we want our country to be more than a destination for rich tourist, we need to encourage people to invest. New Zealanders are not good savers, the last thing we need is to give a shove to the relatively few who are to leave the country.

I do think we need to get out of "investing" in houses though, but for that to happen house prices need fall a lot, get rid of the attitude that housing is a safe investment.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 4:52pm 1699329137

Re .. "I for one would be out of here."

NZ Inc might be a better place without you. ;)

But on a more serious note ... Why are you defending the perceived rights of billionaires?

Your past comments identify you as being so clearly removed from their class, and their 'struggles', that I can not understand why you'd think their struggles are in any way related to your own.

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 5:15pm 1699330535

I'm not commenting on the "rights of billionaires". I'm making the point that people and capital are mobile, and they will be moved to locations where they get the best return. And while I (and most of NZ) are not a billionaire, why would anyone pay hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to continue living in NZ, when they can simply jump on a plane to Australia? The idea that NZ is somehow a better place to live than Australia, the UK, the USA or parts of Asia is just silly - much better lifestyles are available overseas. So save your money and go spend it elsewhere. Rather than hang out here and slowly go broke, while misguided people like yourself clamour for ever more handouts and welfare. I'll be in a Gold Coast penthouse with an infinity pool enjoying cheap GST free fruit platters for breakfast.

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 5:25pm 1699331129

People and money are mobile.

"Capital" is not.

by Nzdan | 7th Nov 23, 5:32pm 1699331545

Like the claim I read a while back about NZ's top tax bracket at 39%, someone's "doctor friend" (wasn't you was it?) was apparently going to move to Australia because he was sick of being taxed to death. This is despite Australia's top tax rate being 45%.

Are you saying despite lifestyles being better elsewhere, people choose to live in New Zealand because there's a little less tax? I like the taste of beer in green bottles, doesn't mean I buy a box of double browns every weekend to save money. What a strange logic you've presented.

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 6:19pm 1699334360

I have a friend who is a doctor, and at the hospital where they used to work, all the doctors in their particular field are moving to Australia. In a few months, there will be no doctors of that specialty practicing. Currently my friend is being flown up to this hospital on weekends to cover severe short staffing there, so its going to be critical soon. Same thing is happening in the hospital where they are currently employed - people are dying as a result of understaffing. But good luck trying to attract more doctors here when they cant buy a house and have to pay a wealth tax on their worldwide assets.

by the Joneses | 7th Nov 23, 9:22pm 1699345377

You know doctors are paid with taxes right?

by GetFeeling | 7th Nov 23, 9:58pm 1699347493

New wealth taxes, of any kind, would result in the lowering of other taxes like PAYE, maybe even GST.

Ergo, the doctors without houses you mention might actually be able to afford to buy a house.

by K.W. | 8th Nov 23, 2:07pm 1699405639

Its not that they cant afford to buy a house, its that they are banned by the Foreign Buyers Ban from buying houses, as unlike Australia, there is no exception for Temporary Residents to buy a place to live. I note that this was one of the main issues in Lauren Dickerson's distress at moving here - all the rental houses she looked at were crap. She felt she had made a big mistake moving from having a nice house in Sth Africa to having to live in a poor quality rental in NZ. So along with taking a big paycut, doctors have to lower their standard of housing as well. You'd have to be pretty desperate or disqualified from practicing elsewhere to agree to do that.

by Foxglove. | 8th Nov 23, 4:05pm 1699412749

The plan all along? Hardly a coincidence then, that Minister Parker sneaks through legislation empowering the IRD to not only enquire into but demand disclosure of assets held by the public. Ostensibly just to work out the circumstances of a selective group of the very wealthy. Yet once the evaluation was completed the legislation remained and it would provide exactly the necessary authority and mechanism to implement a wealth tax. Minister Parker famously initially disavowed any such intention but why did he then throw the toys out the window and jump after them when PM Hipkins dismissed any notion of a wealth tax?

by murray86 | 9th Nov 23, 7:09am 1699466977

You're dreaming!

Take a look at history. Politicians NEVER reduce other taxes when they introduce a new one. GST was introduced on the promise that PAYE would be eliminated with GST set at 12%. What actually happened? GST is now at 15% and Governments won't even consider countering bracket creep of PAYE.

You need to look at the research on wealth taxes in NZ. So few would qualify for them if a reasonable bench mark is set, that the Government would gain much at all from them. Simply not worth it.

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 8:54am 1699386897

Yet up until the early 80's the top tax rate was 66% in NZ and there were oodles of people flocking into the medical field and STEM areas also as it was a way to earn more irrespective of the tax, provide for their families to have a better life and greater opportunities, and help fund the many services that everyone enjoys such as public healthcare and infrastructure. I don;t think a wealth tax is the right way to go, but your argument that increasing tax rates simply causes people to leave is 1./ Not as true as you think 2./ Shows that your real loyalty is to wealth and you are happy to use any country willing to maintain said wealth and 3./ a damning indightment of the mentality of today that shows many as hoarding wealth, not willing to give back to society for the betterment of all and instead thinking only of what benefits them the most, while forgoing everything and everyone else.

Is this mentality any different than the vikings who would use their own resources up then pillage further and further afar to maintain their way of life and living standard? Food for thought

by Foxglove. | 8th Nov 23, 9:10am 1699387852

Muldoon’s 66% was absorbed into Rogernomics, introducing GST for example, on the way to a flat tax rate that never eventuated. Since then GST has been increased by that government and that of Key’s but as well income tax has been increased by the subsequent Labour governments and of course bracket creep has added hugely to that take as well.

by Let me be Frank | 7th Nov 23, 7:52pm 1699339925

"Rather than hang out here and slowly go broke, while misguided people like yourself clamour for ever more handouts and welfare. "

Do you think if you had hundreds of millions/billions that you could ever go broke?....if you did you must have made some very poor decisions.

by solardb | 7th Nov 23, 5:03pm 1699329822

so he would move to avoid 1 % of his $ 160B wealth , pretty miserable life.

Maybe we should start a give a little page for him .

by K.W. | 7th Nov 23, 5:17pm 1699330658

Considering he plans to donate most of his wealth to charity, the wealth tax is actually taking money directly from the poor by depriving future charities the use of it.

by meh | 7th Nov 23, 8:35pm 1699342552

Very similar to Andrew Carnegie, lauded as one of the richest Americans in history, the epitome of "self made" and a great philanthropist. Given the means of achieving his success - insider trading, monopolist tactics, worker exploitation - one could suggest his philanthropy was simply redemption. Is Bezos any different?

And then there's this - https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2023/jun/30/uk-super-rich-beware-pitch…

Why not just pay better wages now, lobby the govt for better policies that benefit the 99% not the 1%, use his power and influence for the benefit of the poor and needy rather than sending giant phallus' into space?

by meh | 7th Nov 23, 7:59pm 1699340340

Research Adam Smith's theories on taxation (proportionate but ultimately higher on the rich and not via wealth taxes for the reasons you've stated - he knew the wealthier were ultimately the most selfish), corporate profits, workers rights and wages, business influence in govt legislation, and then wonder why we've created the complete opposite.

by Wrong John | 7th Nov 23, 5:37pm 1699331875

Hipkins & his lot are now warming the benches on the other side of the house. Hooray & thank God for that. What's his first job in opposition? Re-instate the taxes he didn't have the balls to stick with while he was in power. Gutless as usual from Labour.

Many years ago Labour used to represent the working class part of our culture. Today their so-called educated elite run the cutter on behalf of the underclasses, which are made up from most of the 350,000 working aged people collecting a benefit & their school-less children, many of whom already have careers outside the tax system in the illicit drug industries, theft & of course, the breeding of more multi-generational dependants.

We should perhaps also include those in prison & those taking up beds in our over-administered, under-nursed health system after 40-50 years of eating takeaways.

by Rampart | 7th Nov 23, 9:07pm 1699344423

Well said

by nktokyo | 7th Nov 23, 6:17pm 1699334276

LOL

by Black and White | 7th Nov 23, 9:10pm 1699344620

These comments above are sadly very typical NZ behaviour.

Kick the man when he is down.

We are turning into a nation of losers.

Lift the game NZ.

by MLSmith1 | 7th Nov 23, 9:35pm 1699346120

Your a loser if you voted Left… imagine the state NZ would be in with Racist Greens and Maori party in power with there partner, hear no evil, see no evil Labour!

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 9:35am 1699389342

As much as I bag the left, I think anyone who votes for what they believe in votes well. It is those who vote for anything otherwise in the name of strategy or a 'wasted vote' that are skewing the platform.

by Rob Reid | 7th Nov 23, 10:56pm 1699350971

They won't want to, but perpetually broke govts feeding bottomless pits of need were always going to have to turn to clawing back some of the wealth gifted by monetary policy. The capital gains have topped out at barely sustainable levels, and taxing income is close to maxed out now too with the cost of living. So wealth it is. But not yet - few more years of govt debt to rack up first.

This has years to play out.

by Roger the dodger | 8th Nov 23, 12:05am 1699355118

Wealth tax huh? 6 years minimum for National then. Thanks for coming.

Lots of people here unable to read the room.

by murray86 | 8th Nov 23, 7:50am 1699383058

one of the most frustrating things coming from politicians and many commenters in these streams is the superficiality and reluctance to demand substantial regulation and laws that do not constitute an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

An example here is the "Wealth" tax, which leads many people to talk about housing. I would much prefer a Government to put a package of laws in place that regulated housing at all levels and resulted in restraining the cost of accommodation to affordable levels for every one. A "Wealth" tax or a CGT tax simply will not do that.

Where I would apply a wealth tax is a business owner who pays his employees around the minimum wage while the business turns a profit in the millions.

by Rob Reid | 8th Nov 23, 9:03am 1699387426

We would not need all those housing bandaids if the govt/banks didn't solve every problem with more/cheaper currency units. They can't be trusted with currency and the sooner we migrate away to storing savings in money outside their control the better.

by Escander | 8th Nov 23, 2:00pm 1699405203

Ha Ha, must have been too subtle for anti crypto crowd to pick up on.

by interesting1234 | 8th Nov 23, 9:35am 1699389319

Interesting, however if a CGT was introduced and the bright line scrapped due to this replacing it, would we not see a flood of housing to the market to sell before this came into effect, thus reducing house prices to affordable levels and with the reduction in financial burden to the young, we would potentially see an uptick in births thus increasing the future tax pool long term?

by murray86 | 8th Nov 23, 11:46am 1699397177

I had a bunch of rentals over 20 years ago. I can assure you the profit from selling houses was always taxable. It's just that IRD never chased it. I'm picking the bright line test actually has made them less liable than they used to be.

by linklater01 | 8th Nov 23, 8:41am 1699386095

There must be a deep streak of selfishness running through Kiwis-an "I'm all right jack' attitude. How else to explain the almost visceral reaction to any form of capital taxation.

NZ is the only country in the (36 strong) OECD without a comprehensive CGT. Why? Take the US, the UK and Australia, all 3 have had one for a long time. The UK also has an Inheritance Tax, while both the UK and Australia have property taxes. Victoria now has a tax on vacant property, while in their Super fund, balances of over AUS$3m can be subject to tax on unrealised gains.

Are we so wealthy that we can turn our noses up at additional revenue? Hardly, if we look at the economy. Our exports as a share of GDP is now only 22.54%( and falling) while the average of 160 countries is around 42%.(global economy.com)

We run a substantial trade deficit, while core crown debt has risen sharply. Treasury estimates that that we will need to spend over $200bn on infrastructure thanks to decades of underinvestment. We a rapidly growing population of older people, we face ever increasing costs for superannuation and health costs. Since we have been unable to make ourselves more productive, where will all the money come from?

I have lived here for 20 years now, as have my family and I have 4 NZ born grandchildren. We all enjoy living here, but increasingly, there is much that I don't like and though I won't be around to see it, I won't be surprised if my grandchildren leave.

by K.W. | 8th Nov 23, 2:04pm 1699405441

I've always viewed the lack of CGT as simply compensation for still living here, enduring a lower standard of living, and not moving overseas where you could expand your business or improve your personal income through higher wages. Much like UAE and Singapore have a 15% income tax rate in order to encourage professional people to move there so they can be a dominant regional business hub.

by Zwifter | 8th Nov 23, 2:42pm 1699407770

I don't think we are going to see another Labour government for a couple of terms. Really its quite pathetic, try and second guess the sentiment of a nation and then come up with policy to match to try and get the most votes.

by wingman | 9th Nov 23, 4:24pm 1699500268

Amazing the number of socialists wanting death taxes. There were death taxes in NZ but they cost more to administrate than they collected.

We are implored to lead useful, crime-free lives, to make something of ourselves, to acquire an education, to save our money, to start useful enterprises, to employ people and create things.

But when you do left-wingers want the successful to pay more taxes and even threaten them with death taxes. I for one will not be paying should they eventuate, just like the wealthy in the 1980's who jumped ship to QLD where former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen welcomed them.

The Govt want the wealthy to move here and bring their money and expertise and then threaten them with wealth and death taxes. The definition of a socialist....someone who likes to spend other people's money.