By Richard Meade*
In New Zealand, capital gains tax debates spring up like zombies. Each time they get killed off, back to life they come.
New Zealand already has some types of capital gains taxes – such as the bright-line test (which taxes residential land bought and sold within two years) and taxes on other various activities. So the debate is more about expanding taxes on capital gains, rather than introducing a new tax.
ANZ’s chief executive Antonia Watson triggered the latest furore this week when she argued since people invest in housing for the purpose of realising capital gains, those gains should be taxed.
This earned a sharp rebuke from the government. But there was also muted support from the Labour Party, which sees capital gains taxes as a potential issue for New Zealand’s next general election.
Despite the government’s position, Inland Revenue is consulting the public and experts on how to address long-term challenges like superannuation and healthcare funding. Capital gains taxes has been put forward as one option.
Supporters of capital gains taxes also argue it is needed to create a more fair tax system, rather than relying on taxing income and consumption via the goods and services tax (GST).
Taxing Jack and Jill
So is it more fair to tax income from all sources, including capital gains? Superficially the answer is a clear “yes”.
But mapping out the future for notional taxpayers – Jack and Jill – shows how it could be anything but.
Imagine Jack and Jill are each 21 years old, with the same qualifications, the same job and the same expected lifetime salary. They both plan to retire at age 65, and to simplify things, suppose neither has any existing savings and won’t have Kiwisaver accounts.
For whatever reason, neither of them marry or have children and they both rent the same type of apartment, with the same rent, all their lives.
What separates them is that Jack is a party animal, who spends every dollar he can, and saves nothing. Jill, by contrast, saves a quarter of her post-tax income, foregoing current consumption so she can consume more when she retires.
Some of her savings generate taxable cash returns such as interest, non-imputed dividends and rents. But they also accrue capital gains, which are treated as either being fully taxed like any other income (at Jill’s marginal tax rate), or not at all.
Assume Jack and Jill each have a pre-tax annual salary of NZ$50,000, which will stay constant in inflation-adjusted terms. Allowing for inflation only strengthens the contrasts discussed below.
For this illustration, New Zealand’s current personal tax brackets and rates apply for each year until Jack and Jill retire at age 65.
Jill’s savings are assumed to generate a taxable 2% annual cash income (distributed each year), and annual 4% capital gain (reinvested each year, taxable or not).
With these assumptions, Jill accumulates a retirement nest-egg of $1.5 million, while Jack has nothing to show for his working life when he retires.
Since Jill earns income from savings as well as her salary, she pays more lifetime income tax than Jack. It would work out to be over a third more even without capital gains taxes, but more than double with capital gains taxed.
Jill pays less lifetime GST than Jack, mainly due to her higher savings rate, but she still pays much more total tax than Jack over their working lives.
While many other scenarios and assumptions are possible, this simple illustration shows that even without a capital gains tax, Jill’s thrift is rewarded by her paying more overall tax than Jack while they are still working – and much more so if capital gains are taxed.
Plus Jill accumulates more savings to be used to pay for aged care if she needs it, whereas under current rules Jack qualifies for taxpayer subsidised aged care as soon as he needs it. Jack benefits despite paying less lifetime tax and having lived it up a lot more than Jill before retiring.
A question of fairness
This shows that taxing capital gains is not obviously fairer than leaving them untaxed. Different lifestyle and savings choices result in differing lifetime contributions to the tax system (Jill contributing more) and differing burdens on aged care subsidies (Jack imposing more).
So if we are going to have a debate about capital gains taxes, we might need a broader definition of “fair”. We also need to take a broader view of how we incentivise – or not – desirable activities like saving for retirement.
New Zealand might be out of step with other developed countries in terms of not more widely taxing capital gains. But we are also out of step in terms of how poorly our tax system incentivises retirement savings.
That many New Zealanders take the route of saving for their retirement through tax-free capital gains on residential property is no mistake, even if it is an accident of policy.
If we shut that route down by extending the reach of capital gains taxes, how else do we comparably encourage people to save for retirement and reduce any future burdens they might place on the tax system?
*Richard Meade, Senior Research Fellow in Economics and Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
183 Comments
Why should Jack be punished for living a little whilst he is young? Jill saving up just drives inequality, saving instead of spending is the core driver of inequality in New Zealand. Everyone should be encouraged to spend everything as soon as they earn it as this will drive GDP growth and lower inequality. There will always be foreign capital available for capital intensive projects that become necessary or the government could take over all capital intensive operations such as starting businesses (further reducing inequality)!
Spot on. This is the Squirrel and the Hare rewritten for grown-ups.
https://medium.com/@arkaotsu/the-wise-squirrels-secret-a-children-s-tal…
However, it usefully points to Andrew Coleman's just-completed 13-part series arguing for a limited form of compulsory superannuation saving to cover the decade from the ages of 65 till 75.
Jill's net savings permits net investment. Without positive net national saving there will be nothing to invest in the aggregate and the standard of living in the aggregate will not continue to increase.
It is also fair that Jill pays less consumption tax (gst) because she is taking fewer goods and services out of the pool, leaving them available for others. That said, if Jill ends up spending substantially all of her saved money to live on in her retirement, the assumption that she will pay less consumption tax does not seem valid.
Jack can spend whatever he likes. If he has equal access to information and opportunity, the outcome is on Jack. Jill will end up paying for Jack's lifestyle party one way or another.
As to spending everything as you earn it? Are you serious? How do you ever achieve anything that requires a major financial commitment? Maybe we all live in state housing? We are not all "equal" thank goodness. As much as socialism demands coffee coloured clones of each other serving the state, that would get boring very quickly as people grow up.
Jack isn't being punished for living while he is young, he gets to enjoy his life when he is young, however your actions should have consequences if you blow all your when your young then that is your problem. Because he spent it all he gets even more money for a retirement home because we don't want people old people to just die. As a society we don't want that but living with the consequences of your choices is absolutely fair.
The crazy mental gymnastics that come up with we should all spend everything we have as soon as we get it because it will increase GDP is why I think modern economics is a bunch of nonsense.
The problem with GDP is it doesn't measure USEFUL production it measures any production. If there is a beach anybody can go onto and enjoy nothing is added to GDP. If I put a sign up and charge $10 entry it does, even though it slows down everyone's entry, some people won't go, and I have to use resources to administer it.
In the beginning new production was allocated to obviously useful things like farming, then GDP made sense since my example was the exception not the rule. Now days it appears the more an more of the economy is just allocated to transferring money, like crypto, NFT, high frequency trading, licensing car seat warmers, dynamic pricing (in my day it was called scalping), "earning" money from the increasing value of your house. Encouraging people to work in town so that cafes remain open.
"The crazy mental gymnastics that come up with we should all spend everything we have as soon as we get it because it will increase GDP is why I think modern economics is a bunch of nonsense."
LOL. If you studied economics you'd know that is NOT what it says at all.
So how do you propose we control the flood of the worlds poorest flocking to NZ in this scenario? Surely this is a recipe for reducing the collective standard of living in this country, where our best and brightest leave the country as well- by default those are individuals who aspire to be above average.
A land tax, based on the value of the land utilized, would be preferable to CGT. As a piece of land increases in value the tax collected also increases, so a land tax is automatically taxing capital gain. I think also that a tax levied on a regular basis is preferable to one which is levied only whan a property is sold; and of course the property in question may never be sold, though of course it will continue to enjoy whatever benefits gave rise to the tax in the first place.
In selling a property the owner is also losing that property's benefits, including the rent that he could earn from it.
"If all assets are leased from the government who owns everything".........
God no, if the government owned everything that would be terrible. History shows us again and again how dangerous that idea is!!!
Private property(assets) is a huge driver for people to work harder and achieve more, which is why the Capitalist system is so much more successful than a Socialist one. It's part of the reason why even China pivoted towards a more of a capitalist economic system.
A great system - the best system - when hard work creates something. A house, a field of carrots, a fat pig. But not when achieve more means simple redistribution - the obvious example being land; it is not being created so it ought to be out of the capitalist system. As it was before Pakeha arrived?
As it was before Pakeha arrived?
That's great that means Maori can't claim it since they didn't own it right?
Working hard, saving should give you ownership of things like land, and a houses etc. The problem isn't ownership of land, or a house, or pigs, its when it goes too far and the fact just owning a house, land, fat pig whatever starts earning you so much that you can't even dream of making same money by actually working.
Yes taxing all capital gain would obviously be fairer. The problem is that we have the "tax them not me mentality" so many are asking for exceptions. The outcome is that no CGT is ever implemented. CGT needs to be applied to ALL properties, shares etc... for it to work. But the rate of CGT does not have to be the same as income tax, (30 or 33%), it can be lower.
Taxing increases in capital wealth is all well and good as a strategy in secular bull markets, but these things tend to move in lots of three or four decades. A secular dropping market doesn't create much capital gain to be taxed - and taxing increases in asset prices that are the result of monetary policy distortions (QE, low interest rates, etc.) not true productivity gains, just redistributes wealth (ie taxes capital not real capital gains).
The overarching goal is to prevent wealth from accumulating in the most wealthy in society to the point that they have too much wealth, power and influence where they can exert this to hoard even more wealth. If there are sustained losses on capital they could simply legislate to only tax gains and not worry about loss, thus removing any complications from this.
The question is not if you can legislate to not to cover capital loses the question is it fair of course you can there are plenty of unfair laws. If you consider your house increasing in value a gain that should be taxed it it not fair to put some one on the benefit if their house looses 100,000 in that year and they earn 100,000 since on paper the made $0. Hell if they earned only $80,000 why not pay them $20,000 extra, because they are earning less than 0.
If you don't own property for the purpose of selling it at a profit then it is completely fair not to tax that capital gain, it is a house, it was a house you have not made anything. The problem is that people take advantage of tax loopholes and say they really where not in it for capital gains when they clearly where.
One of my main problems with capital gains tax on houses is once you introduce it the government now has an even vested interest in maintaining their value in order to collect more tax.
We are also talking about it because many of our children cannot see any benefit to staying in NZ.
We are talking about it because our birth rate is declining and our demographics are becoming worse as a couple struggle to afford a family.
We are talking about is because many young people see no future and commit suicide.
Its all in the same pot and to think it’s all just fine shows a massive lack of awareness.
That's a post hoc view. The social issues you raise are all valid but can largely be sheeted home to declining productivity and inflated asset prices, chiefly houses, making it harder for young families. The need for tax increases is a direct result of government spending. Which is in turn the direct result of a state sector that is disproportionately large. And continuing that philosophy will continue to depress productivity.
A post hoc view is required to address the cause of current issues so as to improve or better future effects and outcomes.
Declining productivity can largely be sheeted home to the drive for unproductive tax free gains, which drives the demand for more asset price inflation, which drives the demand for more debt creation, which drives... Or one could say that declining collective wealth, the "social" issues can largely be sheeted home to the demand for more individual wealth.
The need for tax increases is the result of a history of underspending in necessary social and community infrastructure, the over and under taxing of incomes. I don't think there is a philosophy to have a disproportionately large state sector.
This may help: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Go to the pub. Talk to pub-economists. You'll get such logic ad nauseum.
NZ & UK have approx the same total tax take of 36-37% of GDP yet the UK is more productive and this is the problem Govt over reach and the public sector significantly staffed by no nothing drongos is what needs addressing , let Kiwis get on with the lives without bureacratic obstruction and interference and watch the economy grow.
"" young people see no future and commit suicide"". I'm callous but these days young people are committing suicide because they are dumb. A modern child can be out of work, have no money and the state provides food and roof over their head and offers hundreds of opportunities. They would rather die than do something menial and useful such as clean toilets. Not just dumb but immoral and dumb.
The rest of your argument I completely agree with. Most young Kiwis would have a better life in another country and that is tragic.
Fair question but the premise is questionable - namely that taxes taken and spent by the state assist the standard of living.
My view is that, instead, it's better for the person who earned a dollar to spend or invest it, than the state. Core public services are always needed; education, military, police, health system, etc., but there is much fat in the system that can be trimmed.
Fair points, and I don’t doubt public money could be spent more wisely. There’s far too much bureaucracy, for a start.
But good public services cost a lot to run and maintain.
And if we are talking standard of living / quality of life, it’s no surprise that northern European countries come out tops, year after year.
"My view is that, instead, it's better for the person who earned a dollar to spend or invest it, than the state."
Could you provide some rationale for that view?
Perhaps provide some references to the happiest countries in the world where they are taxed far, far, higher than we are.
And perhaps also to wealthier countries that are likewise taxed far, far, higher than we are.
We should all watch recent interviews with the current retirement commissioner.
https://youtu.be/Cpgb78wp-_k?si=8VWiRB-0_Gdxlby6
She says she entered the job expecting that the current superannuation system would have to change as it was unsustainable. She now says she has had to change her mind in the face of facts and now says, yes it is sustainable.
Surprised me also, but I do wonder if this unsustainable super argument has been severely overhyped.
It's only sustainable if we run down essential core Government services.
But otherwise, sure, we're a sovereign currency issuing nation so it's 100% sustainable. Any reason we can't double the Pension payments so that all retired people can live lavishly on their old person benefits?
It is broke though. Very broken!
Implement a comprehensive CGT - while reducing "cost of living taxes" like GST & PAYE ... Winning all around.
Why do I call GST & PAYE cost of living taxes?
Simply because a) GST adds to the cost of everything that has to be bought from disposable income, and b) PAYE reduces disposable income to fund the cost of living.
Simple really. But because we've become so conditioned by the current system, most can not imagine a different system.
"You can't have a CGT that raises enough to lower GST and income taxes ..."
You sure about that?
It comes down to how the CGT is designed and how many exclusions, exemptions, rebates, allowances, adjusting factors, etc. etc. get put into the design by vested interests. Keep the CGT as vanilla as possible, and spread as wide as possible, and it is completely doable.
For example ...
CGT is paid by individuals and trusts. Gains made by companies are subject to corporation tax. In 2024-25 we estimate that CGT will raise £15.2 billion. This represents 1.3 per cent of all receipts and was equivalent to £530 per household and 0.5 per cent of national income. Source:https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/capital-gai…
The UK CGT has all sorts of exclusions and adjustments. (I know them well.) So I'd not call their CGT either vanilla, nor spread wide. But the most import bit is that they raise 1.3% of all tax receipts via their CGT. (But also take note of "equivalent to £530 per household" bit.)
In NZ, Core Crown Revenue is forecast 2024/25: $136 Billion. (link)
So - 1.3% of $136 billion is $1.77 billion. To put that in perspective, this year's tax cuts cost $2.57 billion. (link)
So not small change. But a better designed CGT than the UK's would raise more.
The USA? (Another CGT I know quite well and aren't a fan of.)
Figures vary but by GDP the US government's CGT is thought to be approximately 0.7 per cent.
Thus 0.7% of NZ's $415 billion GDP would be some $2.9 billion.
And $2.9 billion is a bit more than tax cut ($2.57 billion) we received this year.
So, like I said GV27, you sure about that?
Some country's CGTs are designed to account for inflation and allow reductions. The huge problem with this approach is that no single inflation index is suitable for this purpose. e.g. you can't use the CPI as it excludes many aspects of inflation and should only be used by the RBNZ.
Others - the better ones - use nominal amounts that are not adjusted for inflation. This actually makes fighting inflation become far more widely targeted.
In the NZ context, with the RBNZ charged with limiting inflation, it wouldn't matter what politicians did as the RBNZ would hobble money creation to tame inflation.
Note that if the RBNZ, in a moment of absolutely insanity, fuels inflation themselves (ala their idiotic covid response) ,when government is already doing enough to stimulate the economy, then yeah, inflation, as it did, will take off.
CGT is an unreliable tax as it depends on increasing asset values and sales and asset owners have the option to not sell which will happen to some extent if CGT is imposed, the arguments for a CGT have failed in every other country that has a CGT if increased cost of housing is the main target.
By golly, yet another example of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Pub-economics at its finest. This is becoming an excellent article for Latin.
That many New Zealanders take the route of saving for their retirement through tax-free capital gains on residential property is no mistake, even if it is an accident of policy.
If we shut that route down by extending the reach of capital gains taxes, how else do we comparably encourage people to save for retirement and reduce any future burdens they might place on the tax system?
This is a bizarre statement, is the author implying that without tax-free capital gains on residential property (with all it’s negative consequences for the economy, societal cohesion, etc), people won’t feel the need to save for their retirement? Is making easy money on the back of future generations so ingrained in Kiwi culture that we can’t see alternatives to wealth creation anymore?
The bright line test , is a capital gains tax. Everyone who buys a property into a company structure pays tax on any capital gains, and there are a fair few of those out there now, to enable deduction of interest.
All the time spent on debating capital gains would be better spent debating our current subsidies and where they end up. I believe that accomodation supplements push up rents and are a bigger wealth transfer mechanism that any capital gains will ever be, especially now the horse had bolted.
If a property is purchased for the purpose of resale then the length of time between purchase and sale doesn't matter. The difficulty for the IRD lies in proving that a property was purchased for that purpose. Intent is not a very practical criterion for that reason, but what else is there.
"The bright line test , is a capital gains tax."
In practice, it is not.
It is a trader tax. It taxes low volume trades where a person buys low, does some renovation, and sells higher. People who do this for a living are clear about their intent and pay taxes accordingly. This 'low volume trader tax' simply levels the playing field between real renovators and those who are pretending not to be.
I think that taxing the churches (and them paying rates) should rank ahead of this discussion on CGT.
CGT is going to be very messy and those with sufficient funds will find a way around it.
We do need to broaden the tax base to encourage those that contribute/invest rather than simply hoard assets. For example, with shares, if the shares where purchased and those funds went to the company = not taxable, simply trading shares with no capital going to the company = taxable.
Yes, charities are a huge rort. The only tax exemptions should be for actual dollars spent on feeding and clothing the poor, not for ruining their minds with religion, nor for art works, sports, or the host of other 'charitable' pursuits people dream up for a tax-free buck.
Are you suggesting that only churches " fundamentally encourage the formation and maintenance of families and discourage many antisocial and harmful behaviors" and that justifies their tax-free status?
If that is the case, I demand tax-free status as that's exactly what I do as a parent. And teachers likewise. And police.
Need I go on?
Of course not - nothing so extreme. It's just that these institutions, churches and other charities, exist for reasons that transcend economics and to date the populace has seem fit to, if not actively participate in their activities or believe in their methods, give them a break. That's a judgment call I for one agree with. Whether and how to tax individuals who work for a living in different occupations is a different debate and not one that hitherto has been seriously entertained.
This would be a lot simpler if successive governments' behaviour hadn't painted us in to a corner. The nuts and bolts of tax reform itself are likely a smaller problem than our political behaviour and consequently diminishing public belief in the state's competence.
To get public consent to broaden the tax base, the citizens need to be convinced that the money will be spent intelligently, effectively and efficiently by government. The roster of failed, failing or vastly over budget public projects, as well as the public service's previously huge growth, don't give evidence of that. There may be a lot of resistance until that trust in probity can be established and where it is believed government is up to the task of managing our money.
The idea of redistribution of wealth via the state also struggles for the same reasons. Belief in competence, issue politicisation for other ends, reflexive adversarialism, our addiction to 'strong' leadership, the inability to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups... It all demonstrates that we are in no way a mature country.
Some of the specific problems -
Property capital gains are what a lot of people are relying upon for their retirement savings and have calculated return on the current regime. Taxing them suddenly is potentially going to leave a fair number of older people short on their retirement, meaning there's going to be a greater reliance on a state that can't afford it.
People have mortgaged themselves to the eyes for an asset that while it has tax advantages is also concrete and can't be lost via theft or negligence: there is a lack of trust in state and financial institutions that would encourage investment rather than speculation on property.
Financial education has never been promoted: it's like there's been a conspiracy of silence to make sure the majority of people don't have even a basic understanding of money. It's cast by education as though knowing about money is a bit distasteful - an arrangement that works well for the cognoscenti in government, banks and financial services industry.
Our investment environment is a mess: there is little capital for productive enterprises as it's largely been hoovered up by the property market and our amateurish investment management is expensive and under-performing. We have a long way to go to building up a mature investment environment to replace buying and selling houses.
Some of the proposals for CGT from some give the appearance of wanting to double-tax investments: at source and then on draw-down or as part of personal wealth if you invest well and save hard. There needs to be a lot more clarity and consensus to give stability and avoid the perception of disincentivising thrift and other useful behaviour like investing in the country's enterprises. Given the reflexively adversarial nature of our politics that is likely the biggest stumbling block to tax reform.
What happens if the amount raised by CGT is not what they anticipated? Why not instead introduce a land value tax and immediately reduce PAYE tax on the first $20k of income. Even look at reducing company taxes.
It's a guaranteed, stable form of tax revenue. Home owners could work extra jobs and not be burdened with so much tax on their work. Companies would have incentive to invest in growing their operations and keep more of their return. Many landlords would become net tax contributors.
A land tax could be added to people's rates demands, and handed over to central government by the local authorities in question. If the latter were allowed to deduct a certain amount by way of a commission it would provide them with an additional source of revenue. This would make it very economical to collect such a tax.
"What happens if the amount raised by CGT is not what they anticipated?"
Good question.
People who know little about sovereign currency issuing governments will talk b.s. about how lumpy CGT revenues are. And yes, they can be lumpy, especially during recessions when they can be quite low.
But, and here's the thing most people don't understand, governments can simply 'borrow' from their central bank to make up the shortfall and pay it back when they're back in the money.
And as JFoe et al will tell you - governments should be deficit spending in recessions to stop the recessions getting worse, while taxing more in better times to dampen enthusiasm while paying back their central bank.
So in other words, we should give ourselves infinite credit, to the central bank who made a mess of the Covid response, because the government totally won't just rack up tens of billions of dollars of debt and end up with nothing to show for it because... it will be different this time?
This doesn't work without locking in higher and higher baseline inflation for future generations or a reduction in their living standards, or possibly both.
"So in other words, we should give ourselves infinite credit ..."
We don't need to 'give ourselves' anything that we already have.
Or put more bluntly - we have unlimited credit whenever we need it.
But like a gun owner, who could shoot anyone anytime they wanted to, we chose to use it (for the most part) more judiciously. (And yes, covid, was one of those times when the RBNZ - and not our government! - completely lost the plot!)
Given the reflexively adversarial nature of our politics that is likely the biggest stumbling block to tax reform.
Great points, and I agree entirely that talking about money should be without fear or taboo as normal conversation with friends and family. Add in that we have a culture built upon our parents generations which have prospered from the property game, and so many have been raised with no knowledge of other ways to build wealth, or it is too foreign or scary for them to educate themselves and have a go at it. We now have an entrenched mentality where everyone keeps to themselves financially and doesn't want any change that adversely effects them, despite the growing need for large scale changes for the sake of equity in society and financial prudence for things like pensions and healthcare funding. The rise of individualism in a capitalist society has come at the expense of the communities and collective.
Firstly , someone get a large fish and slap Antonia Watson across the face with it ... how can anyone on $ 12 million per year be so thick ! ... CGT is a stupid idea , the dumbest of dumb taxes ... its extraordinarily complicated & raises bugger all revenue ...
... secondly , if we strip away WFF , the accomodation supplement , and charities tax free status ... 3 things .... and suddenly we're flush with cash .... Solved ! You're welcome ...
( stop blubbing , Antonia ... fish is good for you )
I like that you have used yourself as the example.
points out something very obvious when discussing any future tax changes.
When it comes down to it, 99% of people passionately advocate for a solution that means other people pay more tax, but somehow they are excluded. All in a very well articulated way, based on fairness.
Someone once made the observation that the cut-off point at which our idealogues suggest you are no longer a rank-and-file worker and become a rich prick seems to be $1 above whatever a Victoria University tax lecturer earns.
But on a national scale, it's $1 above whatever you earn. Everyone else above that is creaming it, while you remain dutifully poor and down-trodden.
Most of us figured out the 'if everyone else jumped off a bridge' question when our mums put it to as kids.
Some people apparently are still working it through.
Other OECD countries have roll-over relief, exemptions, thresholds... funny how the tax-grab crowd never mention this when they bring up what other countries do.
You only tax capital gains above the return that would have been achieved at the risk free rate (OCR).
If that capital gains tax is applied to all properties, all the time, accommodation costs will fall and people will not need as much for retirement. Couple this with a pension that people can actually live on. We used to be a proper country etc.
"You only tax capital gains above the return that would have been achieved at the risk free rate (OCR)."
Et tu, Jfoe?
As soon as you introduce any qualifications, adjustments, exceptions, etc, etc. you provide a wedge for well-funded whiners to find reasons why we must never have a CGT.
Like I've said, "set the rate low, make it comprehensive & simple, but get a CGT on the books NOW".
Agree it’s rubbish. You could likewise compare Jack who’s on the dole to Jill who works and say it’s unfair for Jill to pay income tax as Jack doesn’t. Tax isn’t meant to be fair in terms of everyone paying the same amount in their life, but it should be fair that you are taxed on all forms of income / gains
That's because everyone is supposed to be equal in this world now. It all started to go wrong in this country when we dropped the ball on education and passing exams that mattered. People that study, pass exams and then go on to work hard deserve the better jobs and better pay and this provides the motivation to get ahead and save and invest.
we are not all equal
Correct, you can't pick your parents, and the easiest way to build wealth is to start with parents that have it. This is why we have taxation to best prevent too much of the wealth, power and influence from accumulating in a smaller and smaller percentage of people :-)
Taxing increases in asset prices introduces a very significant moral hazard.
The state is already incentivised by short election cycles towards easing monetary policy because it encourages short and medium term spending (though is not weighted towards productivity gains).
Asset prices are also increased by easing monetary policy. So if increases in asset prices are taxed, then easing monetary policy will increase the tax take. As I said above in this thread, taxing increases in prices which flow principally from monetary easing (ie which are not increases in real productive value), is a tax on capital per se, and not actually a tax on real capital gains at all.
You statements need a lot of refinement.
Why? They fail to acknowledge monetary policy is 100% under the control of an unelected MPC at the RBNZ.
The fact that the MPC is unelected does indeed create a very significant moral hazard. Especially as our government has few tools to rein in what the MPC does.
I have read the Act - many times. (And even while it was being constructed. And each amendment or discussion of an amendment.)
I expect you have also read it - but without an understanding of what the legal terms mean. And with little to no understanding of how executing the powers you believe politicians have over the RBNZ would be a complete nightmare without a massive & significant event to enable it.
Those issues aside - the fact you've conflated 'government' and 'monetary policy' together in your original comment is where I'm taking issue. No need to worry though. The bulk of Kiwi voters make exactly the same mistake.
Asset prices increase because we believe that is wealth creation, is supported by the debt leverage/tax model, and enabled by the iniquity and "unfairness" of the revenue/capital distinction written into Income Tax law.
The law to impose taxes proceeds to limit the definition of income, overtax work and effort, and undertax income from capital and ownership. The intent of modern tax law was always to tax the peasants and not the owners.
It's a function of mankind's historical owner/slave model, and our drive for wealth is simply the perceived path to freedom.
There should be an annual tax on the 'unimproved' value of land, but that is for the current running of the state, and perhaps already largely accounted for by local-body rates.
A capital gains tax on sale should be comprehensive, with as few exceptions as possible. Certainly the family home should not be exempt (if it were, what's the point?). And farms? Oh, the horror!
Why? I'm using my land efficiently - I live in medium density housing. The local authorities and government have contributed to the shortage in Auckland. Why should I get an enormous tax bill so that people who live in less efficient housing in parts of the country with lower land values can get a tax cut?
There's no logic to that. At all. Unless your primary aim is just to funnel more and more revenue to the state, under the guise of 'We'll have some of that, thanks'.
Given we strangled land supply in our biggest city and forced prices up hugely, what's going to happen when we make Crown revenue contingent on it?
Not only that, it would have to keep increasing. Which means more constriction of supply.
We've already seen that affordability and demographics issues like starting a family are secondary concerns, more likely just trifling; the real aim is just to funnel as much into Government coffers as possible.
That argument could prevent anything, no matter how desirable, being done. Probably any change in taxation arrangements will throw up winners and losers. Where the latter are concerned the government should take steps to soften the blow, as Grant Robertson did, in phasing in his nondeductility of interest change, over a four year period. However a government should not be deterred from introducing a desirable change just becase a handful of people are disadvantaged by the change.
I'll just leave this here. (Source: Terry Baucher's recent article)
https://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/baucher-2024-sep…
An awful lot of countries not impressed by the Jack and Jill argument.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capital-gains-tax-by…
It's coming, Kiwis. Just not while Christopher Seven Houses Luxury is in charge.
wrong and in some centres like auckland it is even lower, once it goes below 50% then the scales will tip for GCT and rent controls aa the young will start outvoting those it affects
we have too many policies advantage an investor over a first home buying which both compete in the same segment of the market
Home ownership rates fall below 60% - report (1news.co.nz)
The family home is going to be exempt from capital tax in most arguments put forward. It's only the gain on investment properties that should be taxed. Why should a paper boy or girl who saves some money from their round pay tax on the interest when someone with 7 houses doesn't (although under our current law should if the property was bought as an investment, but that never seems to be applied)?
Interesting that this discussion is happening in the media now, about 2 years out from the election.
If one of the major parties is sufficiently clever and brave to reorganize our tax system then the first words in every discussion need to be "We are going to reduce the amount of income tax paid by every working NZer". Then start talking about other forms of tax. Most voters have short attention soabs and limited understanding.
Start the discussion now, provide options, pro's and cons, and rationale for each, so by the time election rolls around people have been somewhat more educated and conversed in said options. Great strategy as the commoners have to be convinced to vote for it, or hey'll just vote out the lot that brings it in by necessity
If someone invests in an asset that increases in value 4 % and inflation runs at 4%, then there is no gain to be taxed.
If the asset increases 6 % and inflation runs at 3 %... only then have they made 3% gain.... only tax that.
IMO Capital gains should only be charged on inflation adjusted gains.
Salary and wages are adjusted to keep pace with inflation... Homes increase in $ value with inflation, but that is not a gain. At the end of the day it is still the same asset worth about the same number of annual salaries it was when it was purchased. Likewise if there was to be a CGT, it should take into account the inflation for the period the asset has been owned.
Right so its just another "Envy Tax" then ? People voting for something that doesn't affect them ? Unfortunately it will affect everyone, house prices and thus rents will increase because someone has to pay the tax. I think we can pretty much assume that Labour are now gone for a decade but I'm sure if only 20% of the population owned all the houses, then Labour who are going to be so incredibly desperate to get back in will try and bring in a CGT.
Lots of noise all dancing around the real issue. That working kiwis increasingly cannot afford the cost of shelter in NZ.
Why, its speculative tax free status and easy of leverage via lazy banking practice. Should art, old cars and business all be tarred with the same brush...? Maybe, but last time I looked art, old cars and business shares were not in the same essential cateogory like food, water and shelter.
The rest of the noise is the leveraged investors all moaning about the prospect of tax where there historically has been none. The rule around tax on investment property should be easy. If its negative leverage, or it is rented for income at any point in its holding period, then normal tax rates apply.
What the writer has failed to address is why some capital gains is taxed and others isn't. Why should my interest be taxed but my profits on selling my investment property not? That is not logical. The family home has being touted as being removed from capital tax, so that incourages that investment but other property investments should have capital tax the same as savings do.
Term deposits don't increase in value over time, so they are bereft of capital gain. If you deposit $1,000 dollars for one year, what you receive back at the end of that year is $1,000. In the meantime you will have earned interest, which is a form of profit and is therefor taxable as income. Capital gain is not income, it is merely an increase in the value of an asset in the absense of any tangible change in the asset itself.
"Capital gain is not income, it is merely an increase in the value of an asset in the absense of any tangible change in the asset itself."
Nice spin. But total nonsense.
For example, a wholesaler buys at one price and sells at a higher price. Using your logic, the asset being sold has experienced no "tangible change" therefore there can be no income to be taxed. Another example, a share trader buys at 9:00am and sells at 10:00am for a higher price. Once again, you're saying that because the asset being sold has experienced no "tangible change" therefore there can be no income to be taxed.
Good to know. I'll take your argument to the IRD next time I file a tax return. /sarc.
Very simple elegant solution, that will cost the taxpayer nothing in the end (as long as they start means testing super) and a CGT is brought in for all property, apart from the family home.
Have all KiwiSaver deposits tax free and no tax on kiwisaver funds. But all withdrawals will be taxed as income.
Damian Grant, like so many, makes a fool of himself by assuming all CGTs are designed the same. They're not. NZ thinktanks on the subject have proposed numerous different designs and no two CGTs implemented in every OECD country (except NZ!) are the same. And in my opinion, all are vastly overcomplicated due to the outsized influences of vested interests (i.e. the capital rich) throughout the design process.
Damien Grant: Why a capital gains tax may not be such a great idea
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.