There is a CGT on Property now. Not enforced,,,, to hard to administer !!! etc. etc.
if IRD cant administer what's in exinstance now, how can they cope with the xtra
workload. Not doing their cause any good at all.
BB
Printable View
Enforcement in this country is a nightmare - fraud is simple. UK and most places have field teams in place to counter fraud, particularly among beneficiaries. These people turn up in a van and observe. They turn up unannounced on work sites etc. The policy in NZ is that if benefit fraud is reported and as a probation officer, I was bound to report cases over the years, the standard reply was "Oh well we'll get them in" The fraudster only had to go into the office and deny the allegations and that was the end of it. One "boarder" was quite proud of the fact that he had a separate room fully set up as his room which he never used. He paid a minimal board so not to interfere with his partners DPB while he worked full time in a good job. Any capital gains tax will only go to benefits administered from an office and it is cheaper to pay fraudster rather than employ more staff. I know of others on ACC for years who work just about full time in the cash economy.
The same can be said for immigration. The only reason takeaways are as cheap as they are is due to the illegal migrants working out the back or staff who are paid well under statutory minimums. IRD misses out on loads of tax due to the cash nature of these businesses.
In many cases the employees are legally allowed to work but require the employment as a condition of their pending application for permanent residency. Often their employers take advantage of this. I came across an employer just last week who told two (legal) chinese workers they would now be paid 35 hours for their 45 hour work week because business was bad. As both had pending PR applications, they were too scared to rock the boat and risk losing employment so accepted the pay cut. Two workers who already had residency did not get the pay cut. The employer, also a Chinese national resident in NZ driving expensive cars and owning a nice home, belongs to a family whose net worth is in excess of US$100m. Not the kindest advertisment for capitalism (although I suspect a fair representation of chinese capitalism) and not the sort of concept the endears them to a non capital gains environment. Also (now) not my client.
Almost immediately across the road, a Korean restaurant owner has played similar games with two Korean staff, while Kiwi staff and Korean staff with PR status avoided this treatment.
...and I feel I'm fast running out of establishments where I feel morally comfortable just buying a coffee...
Obviously wealth taxes such as a capital gains tax, death duties or inheritance tax still unpopular reading the comments at the end of the article. The funny thing is most of the people who come up with the "wealth creator", "politics of envy" diatribe aren't even in the ten percent. If you want smaller govt and lower taxes then go to a country that has these things. Last time I looked Somalia didn't have much central govt interference and I imagine tax rates are pretty low.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...max-rashbrooke
Although that said no idea who Rashbrooke is but certainly am open to his suggestions. Better ask John Key though, he thinks raising a regressive tax like GST so we can make a progressive income tax regime less progressive is a way to make NZ better. Also Mr Rashbrooke doesn't seem to remember honest John has already explained that a capital gains tax is just to difficult to implement. I can only imagine Honest John thinks the top ten percent are doing it tough and wants to help out he is such a nice guy. Did you see him having a beer with the all blacks, great stuff John look forward to the flag vote as I appreciate what a big difference this will make to the welfare of NZers.
Only one problem with Rashbrook. Inequality in NZ is not rising so the whole argument falls flat at the start. It's been pretty much flatlining since the early 90s http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...nequality.aspx
Aaron, you sound a bit like Ron Mark. Anyone that doesn't agree with you or didn't arrive in a waka should leave the country !
You misunderstand me about the Somalia quote. Just saying that if you don't like govt and tax have a look at a country that is probably doing without either and see if it is a better place to bring up your kids. Also with the threat of a flight of capital Somalia is probably a country where you could invest and build whereas a more developed country like NZ you might just be bidding up asset prices rather than adding any real value.
Your proposition that the income equality survey somehow shows NZ being a fairer place> I haven't spent the time to question it but I would note it is an "income inequality" survey. Once you hit $70k income you might as well have the money taxed in the family trust or leave it in the company if you are reinvesting it. I would note for many years farmers have been mortgaged to the hilt taking big risks(or so it seemed until recently when central banks main goal is to protect banks and borrowers) buying another farm instead of paying more tax. The reasons for this are two fold you get capital gain from the land and if you pay enough interest to the bank your income will be reduced enough so that you can get family assistance or maybe your kids can qualify for student allowance. If anything the "income" survey like our tax system ignores wealth and capital gains.
I read in the Herald Saturday that a some of the wealthiest people in NZ ONLY HAVE AN INCOME OF $70,000. This would tend to show your argument inequality isn't rising because of an income equality survey is not correct. Income will become even more equal as everyone who is able will cap their income at $70k. Totally ignores wealth though as we ignore wealth taxes and death and inheritance taxes.
Just to ram a point home there iceman.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/who-are...y-surprise-you
Tax is the price you pay for civilization, but there is also no requirement to structure your affairs so that you pay the most tax possible.
As your income rises, there is a tendency for your wealth to rise also. Once your income/wealth combination reaches or passes a certain point, it becomes an option to structure your affairs so that you minimize your tax obligations.
If, for example, the top tax rate kicks in at $70,000pa income, I would expect there to be a lot of people who can control their taxable income who turn out to have an income of $65-69,999pa.
Personally, as an honest man, I always try to pay the right amount of tax.
Tax is the price you pay for civilization, but there is also no requirement to structure your affairs so that you pay the most tax possible.
As your income rises, there is a tendency for your wealth to rise also. Once your income/wealth combination reaches or passes a certain point, it becomes an option to structure your affairs so that you minimize your tax obligations.
If, for example, the top tax rate kicks in at $70,000pa income, I would expect there to be a lot of people who can control their taxable income who turn out to have an income of $65-69,999pa.
Personally, as an honest man, I always try to pay the right amount of tax.
You misunderstand me GTM 3442 all I am saying is that an income equality survey isn't especially helpful in establishing the need/benefit of a capital gains tax and says absolutely nothing about the distribution of wealth in NZ. I have no problem people capping their income, the company still pays tax at 28% or the Trust at 33%.