Capital Gains Tax

[Balance]

A capital gains tax would not need to be at marginal rates. It could be a set rate. Somewhere between 15c and 25c in the dollar.

Just have to look at the Australian CGT regime and adopt it for NZ.

It is a fact that primary residences are exempt from CGT in Oz and it is also a fact that the CGT has not stopped property prices from going berserk there.

Nevertheless, I believe a CGT is long overdue to help channel investments to more productive pursuits than just property, property and more property.

[777]

We don't need a capital gains tax. The government needs to spend less or spend more efficiently.

If there was to be a capital gains tax, (I would like to see a reduction in income tax or a reduction in GST). In addition you will need to have an inflation adjuster to account for artificial price increases.

Australia have a capital gains tax that is at marginal rates for any gain realised when sold within 12 months. If held for longer than 12 months then there is a 50% discount on the tax. This was easier than applying an adjustment for inflation.


The USA is different but similar to Australia in that it depends on length of investment.

[Bjauck]

We already tend to over capitalise our homes now, new kitchen every 10 years, I know people that have put in $100K & $200K kitchens.
Everyone has butler's pantries, walk wardrobes, mud rooms etc you name it.

Although I think a CGT is an essential tax tool, it won't be enough to fund the massive infrastructure deficit.

Where NZ goes wrong is we leave land development in the hands of developers. In the past the Government used to develop subdivisions or entire towns.

The Government should buy land for redevelopment, rezone it for development & then either sell it to a developer and take the huge increase in value, or even complete the development & sell it on to residential buyers.

At the moment landbankers, farmers & developers get a huge windfall when land is rezoned. It's money for nothing that the Government or Local Council could be benefitting from to fund infrastructure. Maybe overcapitalised was the wrong word. Ensuring good quality well insulated and appointed housing is not a waste of resources. The trouble is the cost of land is so high in NZ, resulting in less ability to afford a high standard for the improvements on the land.

[Bjauck]

We don't need a capital gains tax. The government needs to spend less or spend more efficiently.

If there was to be a capital gains tax, (I would like to see a reduction in income tax or a reduction in GST). In addition you will need to have an inflation adjuster to account for artificial price increases. That would be great but perhaps wishful - Along with a concessionary CGT/IT scheme for KiwiSaver to encourage bigger balances rather than investing yet more in housing real estate.

Demands for expenditures for increased defence, infrastructure, health and aged care would probably outweigh further efficiency gains.

I am not sure what artificial price increases are. The inbuilt inflation from the RBNZ remit? However why would an inflation adjustment be any more likely for a CGT, than for example a tax-free IT threshold, or automatic inflation adjusted IT brackets? The latter two should receive greater priority.

[blackcap]

Demands for expenditures for increased defence, infrastructure, health and aged care would probably outweigh further efficiency gains.

I am not sure what artificial price increases are. The inbuilt inflation from the RBNZ remit? However why would an inflation adjustment be any more likely for a CGT, than for example a tax-free IT threshold, or automatic inflation adjusted IT brackets? The latter two should receive greater priority.

Why do we need greater expenditure on defence, infrastructure, health and aged care on a per capita basis? You would think technology etc has granted efficiencies that would have led to reduced spending requirements? Maybe technology is not that efficient after all?

I was not debating the inflation adjustments on IT threshold and automatic inflation adjusted IT, they have merit on their own right. Inflation is a thief and has cost the tax payer dearly to the benefit of the beauracracy which seems to get larger and larger.

As Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying "Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government."

[Bjauck]

Why do we need greater expenditure on defence, infrastructure, health and aged care on a per capita basis? You would think technology etc has granted efficiencies that would have led to reduced spending requirements? Maybe technology is not that efficient after all?

I was not debating the inflation adjustments on IT threshold and automatic inflation adjusted IT, they have merit on their own right. Inflation is a thief and has cost the tax payer dearly to the benefit of the beauracracy which seems to get larger and larger.

As Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying "Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government." More and greater technology and treatments obviously mean more technological advance in more areas that needs to be paid for. However that requires the technological advances, that make the labour force more productive, need to be invested in. NZ's investment environment however is such that any money available is prioritised in making the price of land more expensive.

Previous governments of course did not provide the expenditure needed to service the level of immigration and population growth that their policies encouraged. So we will need to pay for the catch up now. There is now a backlog of expenditure needed to provide the infrastructure and services necessary.

You were debating an inflation adjustment for any CGT. Of course that naturally begs the question for inflation adjustments elsewhere in the tax system. You seemed to want "fairness" for the owners of assets in particular.

[Panda-NZ-]

Compare NZ's Auckland.. to Melbourne.

Cost of living is actually lower in the latter, salaries higher and it's a nice place to live. Why even stay if you have NZ citizenship.

[Daytr]

Maybe overcapitalised was the wrong word. Ensuring good quality well insulated and appointed housing is not a waste of resources. The trouble is the cost of land is so high in NZ, resulting in less ability to afford a high standard for the improvements on the land.

Hence my concept about local & Central Government buying land, rezoning it to create new subdivisions etc.