Capital Gains Tax

[Te Whetu]

Ok, we should switch to M1, M2, and M3 if we want to discuss this properly. For those who have not done economics (ever/recently):

M1 – Cash, on demand deposits etc. (This is money you can go out tomorrow and spend).
M2 – All of M1 and also short term deposits etc. (Effectively cash and other amounts which can be converted to cash within a reasonable time frame).
M3 – All of M2 and also longer term deposits.

Issuing debt doesn't destroy dollars, but merely exchanges their form. When you buy a Treasury security, you exchange cash for a security - both denominated in NZD's. This does not destroy your financial assets, but rather changes the length of maturity (where cash has an instant maturity, and Treasuries have longer maturities). It's best to think of a Treasury security like a normal term deposit at a bank.

You can't look at a treasury security as a normal bank term deposit. A bank term deposit gets on-lent (subject to reserve requirements), so does not reduce the amount of cash available. However a treasury security reduces the cash (M1 and M2) in the economy, but needs to be repaid later.

Yes a treasury is a financial asset, but it is not M1 and is not generally used to purchase goods and services. Thus something which is in M3 and not in M2 will generally be accruing interest and not be used to purchase goods and services.

Consider this: If I printed myself $10 billion NZD (assume they are identical to legitimate currency) and stored them in my basement, would I be causing inflationary pressure? No.

"Printing money" as such is only inflationary if people use/spend that money. If they choose to de-leverage or save (especially de-leverage), then there won't be inflationary pressure.

I feel you are getting way off track and losing the point here. We are talking of the government printing money. This implies they are spending it, sure they could print and keep it at the reserve bank, but this is the same as not printing it at all as it would not enter M1. When I say "printing money" I'm obviously talking about the government printing money and spending it.

That is incorrect sorry, and is a common mistake.

You don't need to apologise. Anyway apologising on a forum as you are arguing the other side of a point just sounds condescending.

Government deficits that are offset by the issue of government securities are NO LESS inflationary than deficits not offset by anything - or "money printing" if thats what you like to call it. This is a very important point.

Consider this:

Scenario A - Issue of Securities
Private Sector Financial Balance Sheet Before: Deposits 200, Equity 200
- then securities are issued: Deposits 100, Securities 100, Equity 200
- then government deficit spends: Deposits 200, Securities 100, Equity 300

Net result: 100 increase in net financial assets

Scenario B - "Money Printing"
Private Sector Financial Balance Sheet Before: Deposits 200, Equity 200
- then government deficit spends by printing: Deposits 300, Equity 300

Net Result: 100 increase in net financial assets

Difference: In Scenario A, the private sector has 100 additional net financial assets in the form of Treasury securities. In Scenario B, the private sector has 100 additional net financial assets in the form of cash. What's the difference between cash and Treasury securities?

Answer: Treasury securities are the most liquid financial investment on the planet. The owners of Treasury securities are always savers (whether that be banks or pension funds etc), therefore it is not important whether they hold cash or Treasury's. They will be saving either way - not issuing securities and forcing them to hold cash will NOT suddenly make these savers go out and spend. Furthermore, if these savers did want to spend, they could trade their very liquid asset for cash quickly and easily. Therefore the difference between Treasury securities and cash (when considering inflation) is negligible.

A agree; in your two examples financial assets do increase by 300. However in one M1/M2 increase by 200 and the other by 300. The long term impact of both is an increase in cash when the debt is repaid but in the short term this is not the case.

Those that buy the treasury securities don't then use them to trade for goods and services. When the government spends by borrowing they still pay in cash, those that get the deposits are the parties who wish to save.

Lets take your Scenario A:

Government sells 100 securities to China, China needs to purchase those treasuries with NZD. To do this China first purchases NZD and then uses these to buy the NZ government securities. The NZD is removed from the economy and both M1 and M2 are reduced.

Note that China doesn't then use those treasuries as pseudo cash to buy stuff. Also note if later on they do need cash then they can sell the securities but this takes the cash out from elsewhere in the economy.

The same would be true if it was an NZ investment fund instead of China purchasing the government securities. Except in this case it would not need to go through the intervening step of purchasing NZD as it would already have local currency.

Thats a bad idea. Our economy is struggling with additional spending (deficits) that are larger than ever. Remove this spending, and the economy goes down the hole.

Remove this spending and you lower the crowding out of private investment. Removing spending means less inflation and lower interest rates. This in turn means people borrow more to invest elsewhere. It also means households have lower interest costs which mean they can return to spending sooner.

Now I’m no Act supporter, I’m not saying we should chop spending and taxes too far or quickly. But what our current government is doing seems both sensible and pragmatic. A low inflation and interest environment is easily the most encouraging of business development and expansion. If we want to grow the economy then this seems like the best way to go about it.

The only thing we need to be careful of is that property prices don’t start ramping up again, which is why I’m quite happy for a tax on property. Now whether this is in the form of FDR or CGT is a fair argument, and it is an argument which needs to be had.

Thanks for reading.
Te Whetu