ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Aaron]

You are looking at NZ's tax regime as is where is and from there, what's the best way to adjust tax rates.

ACT to me is looking at the tax regime holistically and making the call as to what the tax regime must be for NZ to regain its competitive positioning in all matters relating to tax.

One thing is for sure - tinkering around with the tax regime since the introduction of GST has delivered bugger all in terms of fairness on the one hand and provision of incentives to work hard and take risks on the other.

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” GB Shaw

If looking at the tax system holistically why not bring in a capital gains tax first and if it works, then flatten the progressive income tax rates. Although as a left leaning bleeding heart I would prefer to look at reducing the GST rate before the income tax rates.

I know why ACT would never do this (because their voter base would get hit hardest) but you have admitted not being adverse to the possibility of a capital gains tax.

Anyway pointless speculation on my part as we only have one vote in October and no party proposing this.

I would suggest David has looked at things the way they are, and asked why not even more?

[SBQ]

If we are still talking about ACTs income tax policy someone on $48,000 or less ends up paying an extra $180 whereas someone earning $800,000 saves $38,269. If you wanted to cut taxes why not an initial tax free threshold that everyone benefits both rich and poor?

I am not discussing govt spending, plenty of waste I imagine.

BUT ACTs income tax policy seems very mean spirited to me. Admittedly they are the party for the wealthy (according to Roger Douglas) so I guess they should provide policy that appeals to their voter base but I just do not think it is a good idea for the country as a whole.

A tax free threshold is more difficult than you think. The simplicity of NZ's income tax system would be complicated exponentially because it requires mandatory filing of tax returns every year. There requires a declaration by the individual to the tax debt how much they earned in income taxes from ALL sources. Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

There's a primary motive to ACT's reasoning for giving the benefit to those that earn more income. I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income? Especially during times when we are experience massive brain drain (proven by what the gov't is doing now to shore up more $$$ in union disputes over pay from teachers, nurses, doctors, and most recent, the NZ Police force). The Labour Party really did a good # on causing this high inflation, through irresponsible spending, and now the people are demanding them to fix it through higher pay in social services. One thing that doesn't fit well with me is to maintain a current tax revenue for IRD that will give Labour the ticket to again, waste more $$$, spend more $$$ on unproductive programs, fueling more inflation. The only way this can be done is by simply lowering the overall tax take by the gov't. Hit it them who ever is in governing power that we simple don't have the $. But if you leave the same amount as before, then previous the behaviour will never change.

[Aaron]

A tax free threshold is more difficult than you think. The simplicity of NZ's income tax system would be complicated exponentially because it requires mandatory filing of tax returns every year. There requires a declaration by the individual to the tax debt how much they earned in income taxes from ALL sources. Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

There's a primary motive to ACT's reasoning for giving the benefit to those that earn more income. I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income? Especially during times when we are experience massive brain drain (proven by what the gov't is doing now to shore up more $$$ in union disputes over pay from teachers, nurses, doctors, and most recent, the NZ Police force). The Labour Party really did a good # on causing this high inflation, through irresponsible spending, and now the people are demanding them to fix it through higher pay in social services. One thing that doesn't fit well with me is to maintain a current tax revenue for IRD that will give Labour the ticket to again, waste more $$$, spend more $$$ on unproductive programs, fueling more inflation. The only way this can be done is by simply lowering the overall tax take by the gov't. Hit it them who ever is in governing power that we simple don't have the $. But if you leave the same amount as before, then previous the behaviour will never change.

Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

Currently all wages with PAYE deducted are returned to IRD it would not be too hard to return the wages that have no PAYE deducted. IRD does an assessment on everyone, it is just that wage earners don't have to file anything as the tax is already deducted. Everyone gets the benefit of the tax cut at lower levels. A dumb or at best weak arguement SBQ.

The brain drain people are going to countries with higher tax rates so another weak arguement IMO. I think they are going for higher wages and might be sick of weak leadership in the NZ Parliament pandering to selfish ar*eholes on the left (welfare/handouts) and on the right (tax cuts/loose monetary policy)

I agree on the waste side of things.

$40,000 of taxpayer dollars for a farewell party

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...HXN7UMGIBPYE4/

These people are living in a different world. Sounds like time to check what is actually being achieved at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples other than lavish parties. You won't hear Labour or Greens criticising this as votes are more important than integrity and you suspect they are all living in the same taxpayer funded bubble.

3 CEOs costing 2.4mill for something that has not happened yet.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/three-wat...20%24815%2C500.

Might pay to check their affiliations to a political party.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former...J7HGYNEXMNSD4/

Arrested at the airport on his way on a $92,000 taxpayer funded world holiday. Ripped off at least $1.4million

You are right the excess and waste seems endemic but I still do not see how ACT punishing poor people rectifies this.
Perhaps using your point that "there is no greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?"

Is ACT using a carrot and stick approach? Assuming poor people are only poor because they are lazy or stupid making life harder for them might encourage them to become more aspirational and work harder or longer hours, not sure the reasoning for such a mean spirited tax policy..

How about someone earning $800,000 saving $38,269 in tax, where is the line where aspiration becomes greed? What are they aspiring to?

And while I think about it has anyone leaving NZ said they are leaving because tax rates are too high? Even the high profile property development guy or fashion lady or Mark Ellis did not state tax as their main reason for leaving. In fact one of the reasons Marc Ellis left was because "I thought we were egalitarian and unified". I notice the likes of Bruce Cotteril fail to mention this when quoting Marc to make their point.

Repeating Neo Liberal mantras that sound reasonable is not the same as reality.

[Panda-NZ-]

Tax in almost every other OECD country except singapore is higher.

What have we got to show for our low taxes (on the wealthy)? nothing much.

[nztx]

Tax in almost every other OECD country except singapore is higher.

What have we got to show for our low taxes (on the wealthy)? nothing much.

What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much.

[SBQ]

Currently all wages with PAYE deducted are returned to IRD it would not be too hard to return the wages that have no PAYE deducted. IRD does an assessment on everyone, it is just that wage earners don't have to file anything as the tax is already deducted. Everyone gets the benefit of the tax cut at lower levels. A dumb or at best weak arguement SBQ.

The brain drain people are going to countries with higher tax rates so another weak arguement IMO. I think they are going for higher wages and might be sick of weak leadership in the NZ Parliament pandering to selfish ar*eholes on the left (welfare/handouts) and on the right (tax cuts/loose monetary policy)

I agree on the waste side of things.

$40,000 of taxpayer dollars for a farewell party

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...HXN7UMGIBPYE4/

These people are living in a different world. Sounds like time to check what is actually being achieved at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples other than lavish parties. You won't hear Labour or Greens criticising this as votes are more important than integrity and you suspect they are all living in the same taxpayer funded bubble.

3 CEOs costing 2.4mill for something that has not happened yet.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/three-wat...20%24815%2C500.

Might pay to check their affiliations to a political party.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former...J7HGYNEXMNSD4/

Arrested at the airport on his way on a $92,000 taxpayer funded world holiday. Ripped off at least $1.4million

You are right the excess and waste seems endemic but I still do not see how ACT punishing poor people rectifies this.
Perhaps using your point that "there is no greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?"

Is ACT using a carrot and stick approach? Assuming poor people are only poor because they are lazy or stupid making life harder for them might encourage them to become more aspirational and work harder or longer hours, not sure the reasoning for such a mean spirited tax policy..

How about someone earning $800,000 saving $38,269 in tax, where is the line where aspiration becomes greed? What are they aspiring to?

And while I think about it has anyone leaving NZ said they are leaving because tax rates are too high? Even the high profile property development guy or fashion lady or Mark Ellis did not state tax as their main reason for leaving. In fact one of the reasons Marc Ellis left was because "I thought we were egalitarian and unified". I notice the likes of Bruce Cotteril fail to mention this when quoting Marc to make their point.

Repeating Neo Liberal mantras that sound reasonable is not the same as reality.

Over a decade ago there was a huge campaign by various "tax return" specialists getting people in NZ to file their tax return to IRD. These are businesses who claim that individuals are not getting their fair share of tax credit back (or in their view, IRD was taking more than their fair share). Why? Having spoke to these "get your tax refund back" specialists, despite that PAYE is taxed at the source, the problem was they're far from accurate. One example is you have individuals that have bank accounts that don't have the correct tax with-holding So during years where the individual had low income, their bank account was taxed at 33%. How about those that hold more than 2 jobs? IRD is no fool and the interest is not for them to refund the full credit to individuals despite how you assume PAYE is all that is required (because under PAYE, the correct tax deduction is not always correct or you can be sure IRD would not be fully reflective to each individual tax credit).

From a Canadian perspective, they too have the exact same PAYE system there for as long as I can remember. Yet it's by law individuals must file a tax return and because of the complexities of their tax system and how often the amounts taxable changes throughout the year, individuals usually use a tax software program to file their return and ensure they get the full credits they would be entitled to (not just the personal income threshold exemption).

Futhermore, there's a legal stance that when you file annual returns, you're signing a declaration of it's accuracy so in case of future audits, you can be held accountable. This is no different in Australia or other countries that have a minimum income exemption threshold; PAYE is not the sole source of income. Tax depts always want to factor say if a person sells an expensive painting or classic car for capital gain, or a part time tradesman that has individual income on the side.

Regarding why so much brain drain happening in NZ? The skilled are not leaving NZ for Australia because the taxes are radically different. They're leaving because the 'buying power of the Australian $' is so much more than what they would have living in NZ. Houses are cheaper and larger in Australia for what you get. Their gov't has more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. Their gov't knows that investment into productive assets increase the standard of living for all Australians (so they invest heavily in mining and resource extraction). So there's no blaming those that are fleeing NZ to Australia. If my children grow up wanting to move there, I would not hesitate one bit. Just look at the stats, Australia is leaving NZ behind in standard of living.

Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?

[Balance]

What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much.

More parasites, beneficiaries, losers and peasants (like panda-nz).

More criminals.

More in state housing waiting list.

More useless and fat cat civil servants.

And ever more BS from the spendthrift and big taxing Hipkins & ministers.

[Panda-NZ-]

What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much.

oodles of jobs.

There's a job coming out of every sidewalk. Even one for you who spends all day posting from stuff/NZH during daytime hours.

[Balance]

oodles of jobs.

There's a job coming out of every sidewalk. Even one for you who spends all day posting from stuff/NZH during daytime hours.

Panda-nz, the Labour bred peasant who wanted Ryman to go bankrupt by loading up on more debt.

[Aaron]

Over a decade ago there was a huge campaign by various "tax return" specialists getting people in NZ to file their tax return to IRD. These are businesses who claim that individuals are not getting their fair share of tax credit back (or in their view, IRD was taking more than their fair share). Why? Having spoke to these "get your tax refund back" specialists, despite that PAYE is taxed at the source, the problem was they're far from accurate. One example is you have individuals that have bank accounts that don't have the correct tax with-holding So during years where the individual had low income, their bank account was taxed at 33%. How about those that hold more than 2 jobs? IRD is no fool and the interest is not for them to refund the full credit to individuals despite how you assume PAYE is all that is required (because under PAYE, the correct tax deduction is not always correct or you can be sure IRD would not be fully reflective to each individual tax credit).

Regarding why so much brain drain happening in NZ? The skilled are not leaving NZ for Australia because the taxes are radically different. They're leaving because the 'buying power of the Australian $' is so much more than what they would have living in NZ. Houses are cheaper and larger in Australia for what you get. Their gov't has more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. Their gov't knows that investment into productive assets increase the standard of living for all Australians (so they invest heavily in mining and resource extraction). So there's no blaming those that are fleeing NZ to Australia. If my children grow up wanting to move there, I would not hesitate one bit. Just look at the stats, Australia is leaving NZ behind in standard of living.

Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?

SBQ don't know if you noticed but the "tax refund" companies have all but disappeared. Not even sure what your point is regarding PAYE. The tax system largely relies on honesty and maybe fear of the IRD and their powers and penalties. Wage workers largely don't need to worry about tax returns anymore it is all done for them through the employer deductions and IRD being able to calculate the tax based on the information provided. Most investment income is also taxed at source and the information and taxes forwarded to IRD.

Regarding going to Aussie "more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. "

That seems to refute your earlier statement "that I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?" NZ has much lower taxes and according to you Australia has stronger public institutions (public institutions are usually funded by taxes).

Possibly you are arguing that Australia is growing the pie rather than discussing how the pie is divided. Although Aussie might have a larger pie and more of that pie goes into public institutions through taxation, so it further appears you are weakening your initial statement about taxes.

"Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?"

Finally something I agree with. The answer to your question might not be simple but as I am not an intellectual I would suggest a large reason this does not happen is that a large cohort of a certain voting generation that shall not be named is more concerned about setting themselves up for a comfortable retirement than the future of NZ.

Sounds like Chris Hipkins popularity is declining due to his "captains call" on capital gains tax. Good job he gets what he deserves for being weak. Although in his defence it worked for John Key and Jacinda Ardern and they were both very popular. Maybe NZ is starting to tire of weak leaders pandering to the shi*iest voters.