Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has criticized ANZ New Zealand Chief Executive Antonia Watson for expressing support for a capital gains tax during an interview with Radio NZ.
Watson, who leads the country’s largest bank, said it would be fair to implement a capital gains tax that captures property investment.
“It is true that people are investing in housing for the purpose of getting a capital gain. If that is the purpose of it, why not have it as part of the tax take?”
“If someone had the courage to do it, I wouldn’t be jumping out of bed with joy, because … it's a hard tax to comply with,” she said. “But it's probably a fair way to tax another kind of income in this economy.”
Watson, who wrote a dissertation on tax compliance costs at university, said it would not be fair or practical to tax unrealised gains, such as through a wealth tax.
When asked about her comments, Luxon said it was no surprise that the CEO of an Australian bank was wanting to take even more money away from New Zealanders.
“She’s more than welcome to enter the political domain,” he told reporters in Parliament.
“But the point I'd make is that the big Australian banks make a lot of money off the New Zealand public, and maybe taking more money isn’t the right way forward.”
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said if Watson was really worried about the wellbeing of Kiwi’s there was “a lot she could be doing”.
Inquisition
Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee is gearing up to begin its inquiry into banking competition, which is expected to summon the big bank CEOs for a grilling.
Public submissions will close at midnight on Wednesday and hearings will likely kick off sometime next month. The terms of reference include scrutiny of the price of banking services, and the profits made from various kinds of lending.
Willis has been critical of competition in the banking sector, after a Commerce Commission market study found it lacking. The Finance Minister said the battle between banks looked more like a “cozy pillow fight” and has promised to take action.
ANZ’s Watson likely didn’t intend to enter the political fray. Her endorsement of a capital gains tax was fairly muted, while her opposition to a wealth tax was more enthusiastic.
Labour has been looking at making a capital gains or wealth tax a centerpiece of its 2026 re-election campaign.
Deputy party leader Carmel Sepuloni said on Tuesday that no decision had been made on exactly what their tax package would look like, but making no changes was off the table.
Existing taxes
New Zealand already taxes some realized capital gains and unrealised wealth. For example, gains on investment properties owned for less than two years are subject to income tax rates.
Domestic investments in the share market are taxed as income when bought and sold for a profit, although long-term investments are exempt.
Investors who own over $50,000 of overseas shares have to pay income tax on an assumed dividend payment of 5% each year, regardless of whether any dividends were actually paid.
And, local council rates are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value and aren’t related to its owner’s income or cash flows. These are both taxes on unrealised wealth.
Labour Party MPs and members appear to be debating whether a wealth or capital gains tax would be better. The former would be less conventional but may generate more revenue, while the latter has the support of a much broader cohort — including Watson.
172 Comments
We are at an interesting cross-roads; this lot of ideologues are the unlucky ones holding the baton as the change is happening. Luckily for them, the real problem is being avoided by the media,
The question is: What is money (Supplementary: what are they taxing, or not)? This is where Professor Coleman's series falls flat on its face too; urging them to save what?
On a finite planet, there was going to come a time when the real underwrite couldn't back the proxy. We are traversing that phase. Taxes expect to be spent - exchanged for energy and materials - as do 'capital gains'. The latter are backed by nothing more than wishes (most are in based, in reality, on boxes subject to entropy: houses); taxing them therefore is a portion of ditto. Rampant de-valuation, a jubilee, or collapse are the near-term options.
Too late in the game, both approaches (egalitarian and selfish) are fighting over an illusion; a false concept of what WEALTH really is.
https://research.cbs.dk/files/59001182/wpec162004.pdf
Have a read of this. A bit wordy, lots of sections for maths geeks only. Obviously theres many factors at play when it comes to influencing house prices, but the assumption of this piece being that if the effect can be singled out, capital gains taxes make the booms and busts bigger.
NZ is staring an increasing tax deficit in the face, we simply need more tax.
Raising GST and income tax will lead to increased avoidance and migration to Straya. The last white elephant in the room is and "effective" tax on property speculation. In its current form it is simply to easy to bypass via a "I didn't mean to speed officer". If only that worked on the road.Today's model is and always will be a joke and open to abuse. This abuse is creating the massive structural divide in NZ, and the have access to debt model is holding the rest of NZ hostage, people and businesses. Enough is enough.
Let them eat tax.
The tax take has increased massively over the last six years. Ordinary Kiwis can only live off their net pay. The solution cannot to take even more from them in a bid to avoid scrutiny of the quality of what it gets us.
Are we meant to believe that after increasing the tax take by 70%, it would have been all hunky dory if we'd just made that 71%?
We need to figure out why we're getting such bad value for money, despite the tax take growing massively and the government hiking them each year for over a decade by taxing the inflation component of people's payrises. If they can't make it work on 70% more revenue, then 71% isn't going to suddenly make them figure out what they're doing.
... or , because CGT is a stupid option ... as much as we do need to rebalance our tax system , CGT isn't the way to do it ... after 40 years of CGT in Australia has it stopped over investment in houses , has it made houses affordable , has it even managed to raise much money for the government ? .... NO ! NO ! NO !
The answer ? ... LVT ! ... land value tax ... simple , solved , you're welcome ...
Some here argue for a land tax as being on solely undeveloped land, but others here want every house to be captured by it. That doesn't work.
If you apply it at a national level, a postage-stamp sized section with a duplex on it in Aucklandis going to pay far more than a much larger bit of land pretty much anywhere else, regardless of use.
If you use that revenue to offset income taxes on a national level, then you're going to end up with a massive additional tax on one bit of the country that would result in an outflow to others.
It takes no account of zoning (i.e. what is possible to build) on land, just assumes that it is underdeveloped even if there is no further potential for development.
The people stuck paying it get no say in the inputs of demand for land (e.g. population growth has no overriding strategy, it just happens).
It rewards the government for actively ringfencing land and making housing more unaffordable; the last government couldn't get house prices down to save its own skin, imagine how much less you'll see done about affordability if Crown revenues actively rely on them increasing forever. We've seen with refusing to index the tax brackets because it would make the books look worse - the Crown has already shown it is prepared to abuse this power. We'd be idiots to lock it in even further.
We currently have local bodies who make insane arguments like "The people of Massey have the same access to services as the people of Takapuna" to justify rates increases. I just don't think we're smart enough to actually set this tax up as anything but a blatant cash-grab. That's all we know in NZ. You'd need techinically competent and intelligent administrators to set this up in such a way that it wasn't a giant mess, and if they exist in NZ, they don't work for the state.
We also lack the capability to actually build in a space efficient way. We are still building leaking apartment blocks. We still have no adaquete framework in place to stop this from happening over and over and over again. If you're going to seek an outcome with the tax system that incentivises intense land use, then it actually needs to be possible.
She is just setting the record and taking credit for the future tax switch somewhat away from taxing Labour to also taxing the Capital Gains.
Just the same as the National Housing Minister, Chris Bishop, calling for still more housing price falls. Taking credit for the inevitable, is just smart jawbone work. This will bake in the -40 to -60% house price falls Nationwide, in real terms!!
Auckswamp and Wellytank are already at -40 to -45% REAL FALLS!
It isn’t. If you bought the house with the intent of making a capital gain then any profit at the point of sale is considered income. To me the capital gains tax is a lazy way out as in an ideal world property capital gains would be very modest. The cost of building is far too high and council rules and regulations don’t help either.
The rich don’t have to pay as long as they don’t sell and the slightly better off are the ones that pay as they might need to sell. It is similar to how the mega rich borrow against the shares they own to avoid paying tax.
It isn’t. If you bought the house with the intent of making a capital gain
Here lies the flaw, proving intent. Also it is only 2 year bright line so people can flip and flip and flip houses for a living. We are getting a lower and lower percentage of home ownership as time goes on, yet the number of houses grows, so what does this tell us: a smaller percentage of the population is hoovering up more and more properties as time goes on, and have the benefit of using equity to increase their rate of aquisition exponentially. Those with 10 properties will not worry about the DTI and LVR changes as they already have sufficient equity to continue leveraging for future purchases.
You can still be taxed for flipping houses if you have a pattern of buying and selling. If you are doing it for a living then you are captured by other sections of the Income Tax Act.
All the Brightline does is effectively 'assign' intent by saying that it does not matter what your intent was if the property is bought and sold within a certain time-frame, unless it meets specific exemptions.
Other sections of the Income Tax Act still apply.
The length of the Brightline is irrelevant if someone is in the business of flipping houses for profit.
I think a lot of the calls for a CGT stem from the understanding that if we maintain the current status quo, we might end up with a much more aggressive form of capital tax from the left block.
If I was in National I would seriously consider being proactive about this rather than just ignoring the very real systemic imbalances in our taxation system that are getting accentuated by shifting demographics amongst other reasons.
100% spot on, how can so many commenters on here not see that any crack would be the thin edge of the wedge, we will end up paying the same income tax plus the new tax. We would still have ever worsening services like we have seen with last labour govt's increased tax take, swelling of public sector parasites and every public service doing worse.
Because people think tax policy should reinforce their political identities first and foremost and will completely overlook the absolute mess their favourite teams got us into because they don't like the other team more.
No amount of revenue would have made the last Labour government suddenly able to execute or deliver quality policy outcomes. Stop taking the bait with this and demand better from them, or else nothing will change.
I think this issue is more about shifting demographics and global trends than about public service workers.
As wages rise in poorer countries, costs beyond our control will continue to increase. And with more retirees than new entrants to the workforce, our own expenses will continue to rise, particularly in areas like superannuation and health funding. This demographic shift could mean we end up spending more just to maintain our current standards, or even to avoid falling even further behind.
There really is no easy or practical solution to these problems, and we are hardly alone with these issues, Japan, China and South Korea all have much worse demographic issues facing them than us. At least with a capital gains tax we are somewhat diversifying tax revenue away from income earners, even if it isn't a great form of taxation and carries a lot of it's own issues.
Interest earned on TDs is taxed, rental income is taxed. In that regard, they are the same. The TD doesn't appreciate in underlying value (unless you have deflation of some sort over the life of the investment, which increase the value - but you aren't taxed on that when it matures).
It's unlikely and not strictly technically correct but it's arguably the same process as property prices increasing over time, only in reverse.
Not sure who the vested interests are but there's lots of claims being made about how tax functions not all of it is correct or in good faith. I note even RNZ had to correct some texts they got from listeners about professional house flippers paying 'no tax' - a claim that one senior political leader made in a TVNZ debate once which was allowed to go un-checked.
A CGT to be fair must account for inflation/risk and time - an asset say shares bought for dividends and sold 10 years later at a capital profit is not iincome so must not be treated as income, a flat rate of tax may address this if it is sufficiently small to still encourage investment.
So in other words, it's not going to raise enough revenue to lower income taxes. And we probably don't want it to.
So people need to be honest about what they're suggesting and accept it just means more tax on top of the huge explosion in Crown revenues over the last decade.
The amount of effort and the obsession with a CGT/Wealth tax/Land tax in fact any tax show how idiotic NZers have beceome when the only solutions to the debt mess created by Labour especially, is increased productivity and getting better value for tax spending. A Norweigina Billionaire has just show the stupidity og a Govt who deicded to increase the wealth tax marginally, result he upsticks moved to switzerland with his cash and much less tax for t Norweigian Govt, but a windfall for the swiss.
A CGT is not going to bury property speculation. You just won't make as much money due to the tax on profit. I own investment property. The time I've sold it the value has increased so much I don't mind giving some back to the government. It would be nice however if they spent it wisely.
So this Antonia Watson gets publicity saying that she thinks it is fine to tax people more tax that provide housing to people that need to rent?
Who on earth gives her the right to say what she thinks?
I believe that all Bank CEO’s should be paying 80% tax on their salaries cos they do nothing for the NZ economy!
All Capital Gains Taxes does is increase house prices and rents, you only have to look at Australia to show this!
Reality is that if a CGT is introduced there is going to be a mass exodus of investors exiting the market and will be a more serious shortage of housing as investors will not bother.
A better suggestion from MS. Watson would be for her to suggest that those that are bleeding the taxpayers by relying on benefits, to get off the couch or bed and earn a living.
Maybe a little morally ambiguous. That isn't me by the way - I no longer own any investment properties after selling my UK house, and paying capital gains on the profits after allowed expenses. There was also a tax free allowance per year.
It's hard to imagine the gains being looked at retrospectively, so for those with large portfolios already the damage would probably be small and only forward looking.
You could argue there's some 'pulling up the ladder' but honestly, property investment is so out of proportion in this country I think anything we can do to discourage it and redirect investment is largely for the good.
The basic issue is the unavailabilitgy to invest in assets of business at a level of risk were the tax is not reflective of the time/risk effort, wastful spending and debt is another issue and taxes that do not reflect this will simply lock those assets up and stall their market - no sales no tax.
So.. what happens to those houses the investors are 'exiting the market' from? Is it
1. The houses magically go 'poof' and cease to exist, or
2. There is a cascade of houses made available for sale, with prices dropping due to excess supply and a feedback loop ensuring further falls?
Personally, I expect a CGT will have no effect on these people at all - they just happen to now be paying tax on profit like all others (note I am against taxing unrealized gains - but leverage that equity to a deposit and it's realized and due taxation!).
The real problem I believe is not PAYE vs CGT, but the split in our tax system between 'business' and personal tax. Tax all on revenue, and we could broaden the tax base easily and fairly. And this is the crux with interest deductibility - in NZ, specuvestors get it, but owner-occupiers do not - despite the money being spent on the same item.
"Reality is that if a CGT is introduced there is going to be a mass exodus of investors exiting the market"
The Man, The Man2 and now The Man3. No matter the account name you still spout the same pearl clutching BS - don't let the door hit your investor ass on the way to selling up.
You missed “The Man’s back”
CGT will only hinder prosperity in NZ.
House prices and rents WILL increase just as in Ozzie!
If it was brought in I would stop providing housing for others, take the gains and put my feet up!
No point trying to help people if we are going to be punished.
I can tell you I do a heck of a lot of work that I am not paid for apart from the reward of financial increase on property value.
Or just don't sell the property, never have to pay the tax, and clean up on the rental income until the day you die. Furthermore, if this brings property values down you can use that rental income to hoover up more properties and build your empire.
You're in it for the yield, not the CG, right?
A better suggestion from MS. Watson would be for her to suggest that those that are bleeding the taxpayers by relying on benefits, to get off the couch or bed and earn a living.
Superannuation or Landlord Subsidies? Take your pick. https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
Who on earth gives her the right to say what she thinks? Is that not part of being a democracy, being able to say what you think? I think your post is full of rubbish, but I would defend your right to spout it.
What makes our economy so special or different that we can ignore almost entirely ignore capital taxation? Why are we the only member of the OECD without one? Why do over 130 countries including the US have one?
I dealt with both CGT and Inheritance Tax for clients in the UK for many years and they have Stamp Duty on property as well.
Lol who in earth gives you the right to say what you think...
Have you questioned the line between those needing to rent, those wanting to rent, and why?
I think all property owners should be taxed 100% on the capital gains. It is not by their effort those gains arise, and contributes nothing to the economy.
A better suggestion from Ms. Watson would be for her to suggest that those that are bleeding the taxpayers by relying on govt. subsidies, tax breaks and residential rents, go out and earn a living.
If NZ had a CGT, it means tax could be reduced elsewhere. E.g. most other western countries have a tax free threshold that everyone gets, so the first 10k to 20k of income earned from wages, salary or other income could be tax free for everyone.
No tax is good, but a CGT is one of the few taxes which is unlikely to disincentivise. E.g., income and company taxes disincentivises hard work, so having high income and company taxes leads to less productivity in the economy. Having a CGT will not disincentivise property investment because if you’re having to pay it, it means you’ve made money without having to work hard for it, so why why not pay tax on it.
The number of people who would rather make no capital gain so they don’t have to pay tax on it, rather than making a capital gain and paying tax amazes me.
This is the point Luxon is completely missing.
The Kiwisaver question is more complex than just 'Capital Gains' but there should absolutely not be any further taxation of balances in Kiwisaver until we've fleshed out the on-entry vs. on-exit issue (which acheives the same end, just over a longer time-frame).
It's bad enough it gets captured by the FIF rules in some way. Let's not get it clumsily caught-up in political hysteria about a CGT.
This point is oversold IMO. This relies on asset price inflation forever. We probably don't want that. So if we assume we don't actually want to be collecting huge capital gains tax revenues to begin with, you either 1) have to raise that by making the net huge (i.e. dragging in Kiwisaver, which is clearly insane) or b) you still need other forms of taxes collecting revenue at roughly the same rate.
So unless we are going to live with everything continuing to get more and more expensive, then the idea that we can reduce wages (particularly a zero-tax threshold that would apply to everyone, and therefore be expensive for little real gain) is perhaps not as black and white as some make it out to be.
We can disincentivise property investment by taxing it specifically, not by reconfiguring our tax system to perpetuate the problems it causes.
A Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on investment properties is fair enough, particularly as their owners can already claim expenses on rental properties. Both the declaration of rental income and expense deduction claims against this income make those properties easily identifiable to IRD as subject to a Capital Gains Tax, should it be introduced. Thus, it wouldn't be hard to apply.
The family home should never be included in a CGT and, for the same reasons as stated above, can easily be separated from housing stock qualifying for CGT.
Disagree personally, all housing should be subject to CGT or it distorts the market. Then you wind up with some folk just flipping houses and moving from place to place as their 'family home'. It's juts a loophole. Why should someone be able to avoid said CGT simply because they live in the house? A property is a property.
Simple answer 'interesting1234', "a property is a property" is not correct as you say because mortgage interest payments on an investment property are tax deductible whereas mortgage interest payments on the family home are not tax deductible. Whilst this deductibility is against income from the rental property, this clearly identifies the property as a business, or investment, that should attract tax on its profits, as all businesses do. I have to pay tax on such mundane things as bank investment interest earnings, so why shouldn't an investor in housing pay tax on their gains also.
I we were to take your line, then if "a property is a property" is true and CGT should apply to all, then mortgage interest costs should also be deductible for all housing.
All costs. Like my exploding insurance costs. Rates. Repair items. Refitting the house to a normal standard. If this is suddenly going to be considered an income-generating asset for the State to get their mits onto, then they can come to the party with helping me keep it in fit working order and in the state it was when I acquired it.
After all, it's about 'fairness'.... until suddenly it's not.
Valid points, and yes on your last point I could argue that my investing in purchasing my own house, maintenance costs etc are investing in my own future, so should I also be able to claim the same tax benefits that favour investors for making greater financial gain versus an owner occupier. I could create a company and have the house owned b said company, pay 'rent' to the company and claim my car is a company car to claim 15% of the fuel tax back each year, consider depreciation and claim that improvements are a company expense and are hence tax deductible, as then I'd likely be able to claim said tax benefits at present, but personally I don't (know of some that do however). A property is a property as it is an investment by whomever purchased it, for financial reasons of course when considering the longer term of O/O, however the owner occupier gets more than just a monetary benefit in said long term once they discharge the mortgage, they get shelter, security of not having to move every time the landlord is 'having a family member move in'. Hoping everyone is having a good day wherever you may be folks :-)
Other than:
- landlords who got the 3 billion tax break and
- roading lobby who got a commitment to spend all the infrastructure budget on the world's most expensive roads
- the tobacco industry that got their tobacco free laws repealed
- Big oil who got climate emission reductions thrown out
Are there any sectors that think the govt is doing a good job? Health? Police? Education? Banking? Planning? Local Government? Three Waters?
Okay, well another dumb question about what is a capital gain.
Everthing goes up in the $ cost when we have inflation, so what is a "Caplital Gain" when a property only keeps pace with inflation? A property will increase in $ value but the investor will not making any gain if inflation is the same.
If property prices increase faster than inflation then by all means tax the inflation adjusted increase as profit, but if we tax $ increases, without accounting for inflation, we are taxing someone for making no gains... as I see it.
What have I got wrong?
So say goodbye to some foreign ownership and say hello to lower house prices for the future of New Zealand: The next generations. People will have more children from lack of fear of finances, less financial stress form high mortgages, better ability to pay down student loans so more incentive to gain tertiary education, and better ability to build a larger kiwisaver for retirement. Such a horrible result eh?
Agree the Australian system would work. I think they pay CGT at their personal rate if sold within 12 months, after 12 months it is 50% of the personal rate. Seems fair if you cannot get a credit for a capital loss.
They also have a significantly higher tax on gains made from re zoning. There were many investors in NZ who effectively won Powerball when their farmland on the edge of town became residential or industrial zoned.
Antonia is just ahead of the game.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13887847/Anthony-Albanese-nega…
when I heard this I thought it sounded like part of a coordinated campaign. rnz is really a cheerleader for the left.
a capital gains tax is a silly idea. houses do not improve and you're not gaining anything. The fact that they have to carve out the family home shows that the idea doesn't work. all you are seeing is inflation. it is really an inflation tax which is a double insult.
a wealth tax is a better way to go as it drives productive investment. Just build on top of existing rates. the government can add a percentage after while extend it to other assets, shares, expensive cars in artworks, etc. use insurance valuations.
The following fact may or may not be of interest:
Sir George Grey, NZ premier from 1877 to 1879, and Balance, a cabinet minister, successfully managed in 1878 to get a land tax into law. It was based on taxation of the unearned increment i.e. a capital gains tax based on that portion of profit from the sale of land which exceeded the cost plus the value of any improvements.
The very next year it was repealed by the representatives of the landowners.
The concept of the unearned increment originated from the famous English economist John Stuart Mill in the mid-19th century. He reasoned that what we know as capital gain was in fact the collective efforts of the community without which there wouldn't be a capital gain. Thus, an investor in today's property market has had all the amenities within which his investment property exists (shops, roads, police, schools, businesses, the public service, even the government, etc) provided by the community. Hence, this community contribution should be realized as a tax if the price he sells that property for exceeds the value he paid for it plus the value of any improvements he made to that property.
Sounds very fair and I would reasonably pay it.
Taxing the unearned profits is totally sensible and required, to fund NZs more expensive future and infrastructure replacements.
The lazy accumulation of fat capital gains by the landlording class, should and will be milked, like the fat uddered cow it is..
LL selfish advantaging themselves via the taxpayer largess/deductions, then getting off Scotfree, on the real profits that they have chased, will be end!
It's just a matter of when.
Of course taxes will increase, Simeon has just committed us to build even more roads we can't afford, he needs to get an additional 6 billion by 2030. An extra billion a year has to come from somewhere mate. Don't like it don't vote for a party that wants to build unaffordable shit. You know who doesn't want to build unaffordable stuff - the Greens.
First observation is that RNZ has crossed or very nearly crossed the line between news and advocacy - it is clear RNZ support a capital gains tax. An alternative RNZ headline from "30' with Guyon Espiner" could have been "ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson does not support a Wealth Tax" - but that is not even mentioned on RNZ morning report.
One of the issues in NZ is that there is a very high number of small businesses, and people take a lot of risk and work very hard to create a successful small business and often don't take a large wage/salary, hoping to be able to sell the business when they retire - the sale of a small business would be subject to a capital gains tax - this may deter some entrepreneurship.
Some businesses own land but the business may only be marginally viable (for example some farming operations, residential rental housing, some commercial property) and are only viable because of capital gains of land values (capital gains subsidies the business). Business which rely on this will be less viable and many/some will cease. For example, there will be less residential rentals, and rents will need to be higher to be viable (since other investments will be better). The consequences of fewer rentals, higher rents and less money (investment) going into housing should be model carefully.
A capital gains tax needs to be well designed if it is not to have a lot of unintended consequences - maybe National should front foot this and introduce a well designed capital gains tax - the other lot is probably too idealogical to come up with a well designed tax.
Sounds to me to be a good reason to introduce it to me. We should be striving to have strong viable companies not those that don't make money and require future tax free capital gains to even exist. Our business people should be spending their energy on creating new better viable businesses. Or they should be repriced lower so that the income does give a good return.
Also it really sounds like the purpose for the operations you mention above are for capitals gains in which case they should be subject to capital gains tax currently anyway.
Thirdly other countries make people pay CGT on business sales so what makes us different?
We should just copy the system that Australia has had for the last 40 years and be done with it. It's really not that hard.
What a bizarre response. It sounds like he is suggesting ANZ will be collecting the tax for themselves... While they probably aren't exactly a force for good in NZ, a big bank (or any big company) does have an interest in the wider health of a country. There is ultimately more profit to be made when a country is running well, in good financial shape, and supporting its citizens to live successful lives.
If we had a functioning housing market then CGT would be minimal anyway, as people wouldn't be making 20%+ gains a year.
Labour Party MPs and members appear to be debating whether a wealth or capital gains tax would be better. The former would be less conventional but may generate more revenue,
and NZ as a whole becomes poorer because those money all wasted away and nothing to show for it.
I support a CGT on condition of relieving taxes from labour work, and a fairer CGT Tax Rate. but a wealth tax is just killing the chicken for egg!
For someone who invests in property, you would think they would know the basics about how the property tax they are discussing normally gets implemented?
Either property investors are being dis-ingenuous with this lines of questioning, or property investors in NZ just generally aren't that bright? I am going to be generous and suggest it is the former.
Luxon's comment really shows what a dumb greedy liar he is.
A CGT is not taking money from Kiwis and sending it overseas as profit but taking money from wealthy people and redistributing it to all Kiwis.
Tax money stays in the economy, creates jobs, infrastructure, improves productivity and it could be used to build a more equitable tax system, where income from work is taxed less.
Of course they'd take their money and go overseas, it's common sense.
How do you think those people got wealthy? Won lotto?
They got wealthy because they've got the smarts, and if you penalise them, they'll desert the sinking ship. Just like what's happening in the UK, right now.
Luxon's onto it. He used to be my boss...a very, very smart guy.
If it's all so easy to make a killing in property, why aren't you doing it? I can tell you why....you haven't got the balls.
You get that NZ competes internationally for talent? Perhaps somewhere that has less crime, traffic, higher incomes, better pension schemes, better schooling outcomes, maybe at worst a three hour flight away...
Therein lies the rub. I can't take the land with me, but I can take my family and my future tax earnings to somewhere with a better lifestyle. If I have to pay a CGT either way then those other pesky things are going to make the difference.
You're trying to have this both ways. You need increasing house prices to have capital gains tax revenue. You need lots of it to reduce taxes on wages.
So which is it, is housing going to be cheaper, or are taxes going to be lower?
You need to pick one. Try to think about why the people who might want you to vote for them don't bring this up very often.
House prices will undoubtably go up in dollar terms over the long term.
Whether they go up more or less than general inflation over the long term is debatable.
Personally I think a land tax is better, but the argument you were making was about a capital gains tax. I was refuting that.
Only those looking to take more than they contribute to society would prioritise living in a country without a CGT on housing. They can stay away.
Singapore doesnt have a CGT. Or you could move to Italy where you pay a maximum of $100k a year in tax regardless of how much you earn or have in capital gains. Known as the Golden Visa, there are many countries only too willing to give special tax deals to wealthy new residents.
But in my case I would move back to Australia, and then utilise the Self Managed Super Fund scheme for all my investments where the income tax rate is 15%, capital gains tax is 10%, and everything is completely tax free once I turn 60. Currently I pay NZ income tax on all my worldwide assets, so if I leave, all that income tax will then go the Australian Govt.
I view the lack of a CGT as compensation for accepting a lower standard of living in this country. Without that compensation, I will move to where I get a higher standard of living in return for paying my taxes. I doubt I am the only one in NZ who thinks like this.
Has anyone considered that with the talk of CGT tax any sensible investor will just sell the property to another entity at market rates, arms length etc, before the tax comes in. Then the subsequent capital decline will be a tax loss which they can either claim or offset on other subsequent property purchases that do rise.
The smarter investors probably did this as soon as the bright line test was reduced to 2 years.
I also wonder if people consider that this will result in people having their weekend work taxed if the family home is included. Head out into the garden to build a deck add value to the house and pay the tax man when you sell. People focus on the big investors but overlook the impact on the average joe who will probably be the most affected.
I also wonder if people consider that this will result in people having their weekend work taxed if the family home is included. Head out into the garden to build a deck add value to the house and pay the tax man when you sell.
That's a pretty weak argument against CGT. If I decide to get a second job at the weekend I'd get taxed on the earnings. Not sure why you wouldn't get taxed if you're doing work to improve the resale value of your property.
Have you considered that building a deck in the weekend is simply an action one takes to increase the enjoyment of ones home?
Maybe this adding value for the purpose of capital gains is the false value?
Have you seen recent Oneroof reports attempting to calculate/justify the capital value attributed to renovations.
Either way your weekend work isn't being taxed. It's the extra income the house has allegedly made that is being taxed.
We're all told that property rights prevail above all else - why shouldn't the property's income be taxed?
The real issues are being lost though. That some forms of income and profit should not be taxed. That everyone else should pay tax but not me, and that applies more so to the wealthiest. It's mine, mine, mine.
The deep psychological/emotional flaw that one receives these gains yet is more upset by the loss of tax.
That the housing and residential investment market is the most highly manipulated and distorted of any other market.
And the real brainwashing - that your home is a financial asset. The financial illiteracy is astounding. Remove all the extremes and investment distortions, and look at the norms for the average homeowner.
Interest is paid first over the life of a mortgage. The bank wants your interest before their capital. As mortgage size grows so does the interest component. Add all the other costs and without capital gains it's a liability. I did some numbers many years ago just looking at the interest expense. I can't remember exactly which year popped out, maybe 2012 or 2014, but the calcs suggested most capital gains were non existent after factoring in this holding cost. We needed bigger capital gains to make "ownership" financially viable.
Economics isn't intelligent enough to measure the collective cost of our debt/property model.
It's all been done before.
Piggy Muldoon gouged high income earners 66c in the dollar and there was death taxes in the 80's.
The Premier of QLD at the time, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, implored kiwis to abandon ship and move. And they did...in their thousands, never to return.
It was those 66% taxes that funded the core infrastructure of our nation, and how many of that time still became engineers, doctors, specialists, business owners, and other higher earners of the time in that tax bracket? Plenty of course, as they had a sense of wanting to earn and give back to society arguably more so than today and were held in greater regard by the public. Did they all leave to Oz? Of course not, they went to Uni and got good high paying jobs, and paid 66% tax, they still wound up with more in their pocket weekly than most.
“It is true that people are investing in housing for the purpose of getting a capital gain.
Lol she's only 20 years late to the party.
Luxon said it was no surprise that the CEO of an Australian bank was wanting to take even more money away from New Zealanders.
This has to be the most unintelligent comment. Luxon and Willis would be better off questioning why private banks have the right to create a nations money.
Council rates are not a tax on unrealised wealth. They are a few for services based on capital values. Suggests we don't really know what wealth is.
But therein lies one of the issues - our fixation on "capital" as the value driving everything. Tax is not the solution. There's an underlying issue with humanity, and the narrative and beliefs governing our behaviour.
Was it in any way a valid criticism?
"I love it that the CEO of a big bank from Australia wants to take more money off New Zealanders,"
"As a former CEO, I understand what she's doing... the big Australian banks make a lot of money off the New Zealand public, and I would just suggest to her that maybe taking more money off New Zealanders isn't the road forward."
The poster was pointing out that the criticism was stupid and non-sensical. Take your blinkers off..
The starting point in all these dissenting discussions seems to be "assuming nothing else changes".
Maybe those people would have to pay less income tax as the government is making money from CGT, so workers can pay off their mortgage at a faster rate? Increasing the government percentage of spend in the economy is a completely separate issue.
Maybe demand for houses would decrease as investors exit the market, so we have 'downward pressure' on house prices?
The Machiavellian part of me wonders if having the head of what is quite possibly the least popular company in the country come out in support of a CGT is some kind of dark plan to depopularise the idea. And yes, I know that is ascribing far too much organisational ability to the dark overlords.
Or it's a PR campaign to convince the public that the banks 'have people's best interests at heart'(!)
All that said, if a CGT is introduced, how will you stop a haemorrhage of capital overseas as people liquidate assets to leave, and how would it not precipitate a property market crash that would injure a lot of people other than speculators, and halt residential building?
I'm not saying we don't need to tax speculative earnings, but successive governments have painted themselves, the market and the entire country in to a corner regarding its implementation.
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.