ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[mistaTea]

Good point, MT about primary residence. In the US, capital gains tax has to be paid on sale of primary residence (with certain concessions).

But need to be realistic as Australia exempts family home so we will be shooting ourselves in the guts if we tried to implement US capital gain tax regime on family home here!

But there is a crying need to level the playing field out there for the betterment of NZ as an economy & as a society.

What is lacking is political leadership and that lies at the heart of all of NZ’s tax issues.

Yeah, and in truth I am not such an idealogue about a purist CGT that I cannot accept there would need to be some give and take. Some exceptions.

After all, it is pointless to introduce a CGT that the general public hate and feel is too 'radical' because they will just vote in another crowd next time to undo it.

Like all policy, we want any changes to our tax regime to be enduring.

So you probably end up with things like exempting the family home so that we don't spook the horses.

I would just always caution that for the CGT to be effective, you need to have any exemptions to the absolute minimum. Otherwise it becomes a compliance and enforcement nightmare and fails to meet its objectives (effectively and efficiently broadening the tax base).

I also think that any attempts to be 'clever' like Cullen by calling it Capital Income Tax instead of Capital Gain is an absolute no-no. If that were to be implemented, then high salary earners could be paying 39% of their capital gain to the govt. How would that incentivise kiwis to invest in anything other than the family home which would be exempt?

You call it what it is... a gain on capital... and you bring in a nominal tax of, say, 10%. This enables investors to kick some money into the tax tin, while also recognising the risks they take inherent to investing and also the need to ensure people are not turned off making investments in NZ business etc.

[Ferg]

So what is your point?
[snip]
Your suggestion to make voluntary contributions reminds me of when Republican senators suggested the same to Warren Buffet after he suggested their tax system needed changing.

"It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that can't be solved by voluntary contributions,"

My point is that 1) you are advocating for a CGT so go for it and 2) that report is out of step with current tax legislation. Start making voluntary contributions if you truly believe this is the right thing to do. Lead by example. Practice what you preach.

As for Warren's quote, the counter reply was:

"Senator McConnell says that Washington should be smaller, rather than taxes getting bigger. And since some, like President Obama and Mr. Buffett want to pay higher taxes, Congress made it possible for them to call their own bluff and send in a check," said Don Stewart, McConnell's deputy chief of staff.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80A24X/

So was Mr Buffet just virtue signalling and not willing to put his money where his mouth was? You don't get to complain about low or no taxes and when offered the chance to cough up then say "I will if you will". That's imposing your expectations on others who are not advocating for the same position. I'm not the one complaining about a lack of CGT here. Feel free to update us on your voluntary CGT contributions.

[Aaron]

Feel free to update us on your voluntary CGT contributions.

Based on your logic Ferg why aren't all taxes voluntary?

Perhaps I am more selfish and self centred than you and would struggle to pay any tax if I didn't have to. Or perhaps you are a little too trusting of others and perhaps a little naive.

I have no doubt that if all taxes were voluntary you would be putting in plenty.

Somehow I am not surprised you have a lot more respect for the views and actions of Mitch McConnell than Warren Buffett.

Although your advice to switch to voluntary taxation is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

[iceman]

Based on your logic Ferg why aren't all taxes voluntary?

Perhaps I am more selfish and self centred than you and would struggle to pay any tax if I didn't have to. Or perhaps you are a little too trusting of others and perhaps a little naive.

I have no doubt that if all taxes were voluntary you would be putting in plenty.

Somehow I am not surprised you have a lot more respect for the views and actions of Mitch McConnell than Warren Buffett.

Although your advice to switch to voluntary taxation is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

I didn't read Ferg's posts to be in favour of totally voluntary taxes, as you suggest. He is simply pointing out hypocrites like Buffet, Stephen Tindall, Ian Taylor, Sam Morgan and others that have claimed publicly that they want to pay more tax. Why don't they ? I think there is something seriously wrong with a tax system where something like 80% (from memory) of "taxpayers" receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
Taxing the other 20%? even more is hardly the solutions. Your claim that lower income earners generally pay higher marginal tax rates than high income earners is simply a load of rubbish. They don't. Look at the whole picture after the various payments from the state. Most lower and middle income households in NZ receive more from the state than they pay in tax.

[dln]

That's imposing your expectations on others who are not advocating for the same position.

That is what all law does.
The alternative is anarchy.

[Balance]

People like Stephen Tindall donates generously to charity & provides equity funding for businesses, especially start ups to the time of tens of millions of dollars each year. Far far better spend of their money than to be ‘donated’ to the government to spend on consultants, breeding parasites and fat cats.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

[mistaTea]

People like Stephen Tindall donates generously to charity & provides equity funding for businesses, especially start ups to the time of tens of millions of dollars each year. Far far better spend of their money than to be ‘donated’ to the government to spend on consultants, breeding parasites and fat cats.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

Yeah, and Buffett has donated colossal amounts to charities that actually do good in the world. So he is effectively volunatrily paying a tax... he just chooses not to give it to Uncle Sam.

However, if taxes were raised for everyone in his position so that Uncle Sam got a bigger cut he would have no issue with it.

I don't really see the contradiction or hyprocrisy. Warren does put his money where his mouth is.

[Aaron]

I didn't read Ferg's posts to be in favour of totally voluntary taxes, as you suggest. He is simply pointing out hypocrites like Buffet, Stephen Tindall, Ian Taylor, Sam Morgan and others that have claimed publicly that they want to pay more tax. Why don't they ? I think there is something seriously wrong with a tax system where something like 80% (from memory) of "taxpayers" receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
Taxing the other 20%? even more is hardly the solutions. Your claim that lower income earners generally pay higher marginal tax rates than high income earners is simply a load of rubbish. They don't. Look at the whole picture after the various payments from the state. Most lower and middle income households in NZ receive more from the state than they pay in tax.

I don't think anyone has ever said they "want" to pay more tax. They are looking at society and suggesting they are in a position to pay more and still live comfortably.

They are then accused of being hypocrites or virtue signaling for some reason.

80% of taxpayers receive more from the state? I think it was closer to 50% but quote what you like it is an online forum. I think you will find as fewer and fewer people own more of the assets and income that they will be contributing even more in future years and that 80% figure might be closer to the truth eventually. The wealthy will be even more important and have more power. Sounds good.

I guess as wealth and income inequality gets worse, social mobility decreases, society will slowly get better.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

Is this the Kerry packer who blew $20million in one night gambling in Vegas? Some might consider that spending wasteful, not Kerry obviously as he probably had more fun big noting than contributing to roads or healthcare back in Australia.

Its his money you might argue but did he not need a well functioning society to buy his newspapers to get the money in the first place. I don't think he would have done so well in a less literate society.

Anyway I think we are going round in circles and I need to do something productive.

[iceman]

Yeah, and Buffett has donated colossal amounts to charities that actually do good in the world. So he is effectively volunatrily paying a tax... he just chooses not to give it to Uncle Sam.

However, if taxes were raised for everyone in his position so that Uncle Sam got a bigger cut he would have no issue with it.

I don't really see the contradiction or hyprocrisy. Warren does put his money where his mouth is.

You and Balance are absolutely right about wealthy people generally contributing much more to their communities than direct taxes. I see that in my own small community.
So I shouldn't have named the people I did in my earlier comments, which was a response to Aaron's tall poppy syndrome nonsense which annoys the crap out of me.

[Balance]

You and Balance are absolutely right about wealthy people generally contributing much more to their communities than direct taxes. I see that in my own small community.
So I shouldn't have named the people I did in my earlier comments, which was a response to Aaron's tall poppy syndrome nonsense which annoys the crap out of me.

Chill, iceman.

Those who contribute the least to society are usually the ones who screech the loudest about equality and fairness - Ardern being the best case in point.