Capital Gains Tax

[Bjauck]

You think it’s unfair if one earns an high salary and fair if they don’t, so the ones who do earn high wages should support the ones who don’t? And you address this imbalance through tax.

Is that a summary of what you think?

No. However if there is a debate about what is fair to deduct by way of tax from someone's income or other gains then there is an equally valid discussion about what constitutes fair income or gains in the first place.

For example if you think teachers are underpaid then you are more likely to think it is "unfair" to deduct as much tax from them as someone else who has the same income.

Also you may think it unfair if someone's income from their business does not fully account for the costs (for example) on the environment and for which the current government does not insist on compensation. In other words you may think it unfair that some of the true costs of an activity are socialised, whereas the exaggerated profits are privatised.

[nztx]

Why do we need further Wealth Transferring Taxes anyway ?

Think everyone's Super & Kiwisaver funds may well also be caught by mutations of this, in the same way as failed CGT hoped
to capture it's target & kneecap everyone from all walks in process

What of initiatives to simplify Tax processes ?

Have these been thrown out with the trash due Politician's excessive spending / wasteful initiatives - in their soul digging to find a convenient target audience to inflict to try to fill the coffers for the wasted billions under their terms ?

What will this potentially do to the country's productivity / retirement planning / people's savings investing habits ?

It is no secret that there is a small bunch of high / middle earners shelling out a sizeable portion of "Net Taxes" at one end
and a vast raft at the lower end, all in the "Net Tax Refund / receiving Tax Credits spectrum throwing in top ups, W4F etc

Seeing this sort of collect from one & seeing where it gets disbursed & the vast extent of 'subsidy' to another sector never ceases to amaze year in year out, with ever increasing levels for the net tax refund / credit group

The drag on the economy at lower end of the spectrum increases every time gleeful politicians pursuing their self serving
goals elect to ramp up W4F etc etc

Should the Lower Spectrum on the receiving end not be more productive to justify the vast pool of 'Net Tax Refunds/Credits' they pocket each year ?

[artemis]

A further context is '2 workers for every 1 beneficiary'. Some interesting discussion and official numbers by Lindsay Mitchell at the below link, noting that the beneficiary number includes those on super. If the impost on workers continues to rise we should not be surprised if some of those workers make economic adjustments.

As they say - time is the new money.

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com...neficiary.html

[Bjauck]

A further context is '2 workers for every 1 beneficiary'. Some interesting discussion and official numbers by Lindsay Mitchell at the below link, noting that the beneficiary number includes those on super. If the impost on workers continues to rise we should not be surprised if some of those workers make economic adjustments.

As they say - time is the new money.

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com...neficiary.html

So definitely time to tax capital gains as other countries in the OECD do. If the impost on workers' incomes rises but capital gains generally remain untaxed, then the economic change taxpayers will try to do will be to structure their affairs to enable more untaxed capital gains, further burdening those who earn taxable incomes?

[artemis]

So definitely time to tax capital gains as other countries in the OECD do. If the impost on workers' incomes rises but capital gains generally remain untaxed, then the economic change taxpayers will try to do will be to structure their affairs to enable more untaxed capital gains, further burdening those who earn taxable incomes?

It is not either / or. And appears unlikely there will be a capital gains or wealth tax for at least the next 3 years. Yet as a smaller economy and higher debt $$ need to come from either increased revenue or reduced spending or of course both.

For example -
- productivity increase - probably means increased automation, fewer jobs in those sectors.
- spend less tax / rates revenue - some stupid expenditure out there that should be examined. And canned.
- new industries supported but limited support so sink or swim.
- less regulation unless supported by rigorous benefit cost analysis and post implementation reviews with consequences if results are nothing like projections.

[Bjauck]

It is not either / or. And appears unlikely there will be a capital gains or wealth tax for at least the next 3 years. Yet as a smaller economy and higher debt $$ need to come from either increased revenue or reduced spending or of course both.

For example -
- productivity increase - probably means increased automation, fewer jobs in those sectors.
- spend less tax / rates revenue - some stupid expenditure out there that should be examined. And canned.
- new industries supported but limited support so sink or swim.
- less regulation unless supported by rigorous benefit cost analysis and post implementation reviews with consequences if results are nothing like projections.

Of course there will be no CGT as vested interests have blocked that. So it looks like investment continues to favour Real estate (see the latest REINZ figures) and not into productivity improving business investment. So NZ will have to continue to rely on immigration and not productivity improvements for any GNP growth. And increased tax revenue to pay for covid will have to be squeezed out of workers, income earners and GST...

[Sir Ten]

Has anyone else wondered whether the only way to deal with the "housing crisis" is to wait 30 odd years? And even if that helps, Gen X'ers and Millenials are largely screwed?

- Those that own a large proportion of the houses are, let's say, 50 years or older (yep, it's an assumption, that I haven't had time to find supporting information for... yet... but if I'm onto something, I do have 30 odd years)
- In 1996, only 23% of the population were 50+. As of 2018, it was closer to 32%.
- When the boomers start pushing up daisies there should be an increased level of supply
- In the meantime, a large proportion of Gen X'ers and Millenials probably need to come to the realisation that home ownership is not going to be the norm for their generations. Their job is to stop procreating - which has been helped by slow wage growth relative to house price growth - i.e. large families (say, 5+) are unaffordable
- Therefore, in 30 years time we have less people, more houses and prices go down

I know it's very simplistic and that the government can and will tweak around the edges but, as we've seen, all governments (regardless of colour) have struggled to make much of an impact.

The variable in there that needs some attention is wage growth. And by wage growth I mean, productivity driven wage growth, not wage growth driven by government intervention (minimum wages) which just leads to price increases and inflation. At the moment, it seems like our pollies are throwing darts at the board with things like fees-free university, etc.

Hard not to feel sorry for millenials. I reckon many of them are pretty f*cked. Doesn't help that they're been encouraged to behave in ways that don't necessarily foster much self-responsibility... and did I mention robots. Robots are coming for them and their jobs too.

[artemis]

....
I know it's very simplistic and that the government can and will tweak around the edges but, as we've seen, all governments (regardless of colour) have struggled to make much of an impact.....

There is an even simpler solution, if there is a housing crisis at all. It is ECON101 - supply and demand. Not much ordinary folk can do about demand, but certainly can do something about supply.

But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.

Realistically there are going to be some limits, but need be nowhere near as many as there are now. But if people in the supply chain can make a decent buck from building, they will. And if cheap, people will buy or rent. Might mean cookie cutter or imports in containers from China. Might mean permanent trailer parks.

Might be like an idea Rodney Hide wrote about a few months ago, a small trial subdivision where people could buy a section and build what they like with minimal or no consents or comebacks. Every buyer agrees.

People put up basic baches for generations and just got on with life. Worked well.

[Sir Ten]

But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.

Agree. So simple, but seemingly, so hard.

[Bjauck]

...
But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.

Realistically there are going to be some limits, but need be nowhere near as many as there are now. But if people in the supply chain can make a decent buck from building, they will. And if cheap, people will buy or rent. Might mean cookie cutter or imports in containers from China. Might mean permanent trailer parks.

Might be like an idea Rodney Hide wrote about a few months ago, a small trial subdivision where people could buy a section and build what they like with minimal or no consents or comebacks. Every buyer agrees.

People put up basic baches for generations and just got on with life. Worked well.

Back to dangerous and unhealthy slum housing and landlords?