Well, Mike, you're the one putting words in my mouth, or rather my posts....let's just call it assumptive attribution. A common disease of the right wing posters around here, quite tiresome, but if that's what amuses you lot c'est la vie
A capital gains tax would ensure some sort of fairness of distribution in our one horse property driven economy, where politicians, especially this lot are in thrall to the real estate industry. It's amazing how nz is the only country in the oecd not to have a cgt - we must be geniuses, or know something that other countries don't or.....probably keen to enrich the already wealthy and mega landlords and keep the middle class locked in.
I'm picking the latter.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-front-page-capital-gains-tax-experts-still-want-it-so-could-this-issue-rise-from-the-dead/H66T3JMYARA5XFGY2NNZBMIIAM/#:~:text=“In fact, New Zealand is,gains tax,” Nightingale says.
Sorry, but you've the one assuming things..... I've voted for which party I think would be best for the country at any particular time meaning I've voted for Labour more than any other party over the last 36 years.
Again, I'll ask you the same question you avoided before (just slightly reworded).... why do you think that a CGT on shares is fair when it would negatively affect people saving for their first house when using KiwiSaver as a tool to get their deposit? I'll help you out... a couple on the medium household income of $125,000 PA saving up for a deposit over 15 years using KiwiSaver would have $180,000 saved up for their deposit (if they were in a growth fund with 3% employee and 3% taxed employer contributions at 5% after tax and fees). Since 40% of that is untaxed capital growth in shares meaning $72,000 is currently untaxed but tax that @ 30% and their deposit drops down to $155,000. At an average savings rate of $12,000 PA, and you've just made them wait another three years before they can buy their first house... all because you think a CGT is "fair".
The problem with a CGT is it doesn't just target the "already wealthy and mega landlords" but will keep the middle class locked in. An employee in KiwiSaver on $80,000 PA contributing 3% and their employer also contributing 3% (which then is taxed) in a growth fund at 5% PA after tax and fees (according to the sorted.org calculator) would have just under $235,000 to retire on. Because 40% of that is made up from capital gains on shares, that means that, at the moment, $90,000 is untaxed. By putting a CGT on that, you've just meant this person's weekly income from their KiwiSaver account has dropped from $180.80 PW to $157.70 PW.
An inheritance tax (on estates over $500,000) with the reinstatement of gift duties would be far better at reducing the intergenerational wealth transfer than a CGT. For example, in NZ, the average amount of wealth that each Baby Boomer will transfer between now and 2050 is just over $1.4 million in NZD while, in the US, which has a CGT, the average transfer amount is $1.75 million in NZD per Boomer for that same period. By way of comparison, in the UK which has an inheritance tax, the average amount in NZD that each Boomer will transfer is just over $610,000 after tax.
As for the article you posted, of course tax accountants want a CGT introduced.... it will mean more money for them as they come up with new schemes for the rich to avoid paying it.
What is interesting as that in 2000, the then General Manager for Tax Policy for the IRD, Robin Oliver, prepared a paper on Capital Gains Tax which outlined five key points which any party wanting to have a CGT in their tax policy for an election would need to address. Each time that Labour has since tried to campaign on a CGT, it has only provided information on one of them (shown bolded) while ignoring the rest....
· whether the tax base needs to be indexed for inflation;
· the timing of recognition of gains and the extent to which tax can be levied on anaccrual basis (and if on a realised basis, as is likely, the definition of “disposal” or“ realisation” is critical) and how to account for capital increases through capital expenditure;
· the ambit of any such tax, including the treatment of personal assets such as including residences;
· the treatment of capital losses;
· the appropriate rate of tax.
Think of the third one for a moment. Two identical houses are purchased at the same time by a landlord for the same price (say $600K) in the mid 2010's. He spends $5,000 on each bringing them up to the HHS. One, he doesn't alter but the other he spends $50K putting on an extra bedroom and bathroom. Ten years later, he sells both. The unaltered house has had a capital gain of $150,000 meaning, if the tax rate for a CGT was 33%, he would net $100,000 profit. If the second house had a capital gain of $210,000, he would $140,000 profit. But he hasn't because the added value he added to the house was $50,000.... his real capital gain after tax on a house that went up in value partly on the improvements, he made to it is only $90,000.
But, Labour never gave us any detail on how the value of improvements would work, nor how it would be indexed for inflation, nor the timing of recognition of gains, nor the treatment of capital losses nor the rate that a CGT would be set at.
Until a party is willing to let us know these things BEFORE we vote, I wouldn't vote for them. As much as I dislike a wealth tax (because it's an inefficient way of raising revenue) at least the Greens and the Māori Party gave us enough information to vote on them.... Labour has never done that when campaigning for a CGT.
www.rnz.co.nz
