Capital Gains Tax

[Zaphod]

The context was that Stephen advocates for the wealthy to pay more tax to solve the various issues he sees in our society, but there are other ways to more effectively contribute to additional causes that he believes in.

I don’t begrudge paying tax, and I would hope that the majority of people do not, but the difficult part is always determining the level of taxation and what should be funded from it. Much of this is very subjective and invariably used for political gain during election years.

Stephen advocates for the wealthy to pay more tax to adequately fund various government services, but provides no details as to what he sees are the specific areas that are inadequately funded, nor why spending more money in these areas is the best method of rectifying the problem. Based on this alone we can’t decide whether his initiative is worthy of support.

We personally donated to specific initiatives such as a hospital refurbishment, trees & benches for a park because we saw a worthy cause that wasn’t being adequately fulfilled, in our opinion, based on existing spending from taxes. We are not in the top few percentage points of wealthy people in NZ either.

There also needs to be a much clearer definition of who is wealthy. Our PAYE system decrees that those who earn over $70K are wealthy, which places a proportion of those whom we believe are underpaid into the top (wealthy) bracket. With raging house prices, many people on modest incomes will be dragged into the top 5%, who would not be able to afford additional taxes without some significant compromises to their lifestyles.

IMO the situation and solution is complicated and deserves thorough analysis.

Don’t shy away from to continuing to post. It’s easy to misconstrue intent particularly on a long thread.

[Panda-NZ-]

To pay off debt, support modern infrastructure and maintain super at 65 among other worthy and important goals.

Our PAYE system decrees that those who earn over $70K are wealthy, which places a proportion of those whom we believe are underpaid into the top (wealthy) bracket.

That's not this govt's legacy though. The previous admin were in for nine years and did nothing about this theshold. The top 5% mostly pay nothing for the most part. what you're talking about are wage earners who are (rapidly) dwindling in their importance to the economy.

It may be time to update and modernise your way of thinking about things

[Zaphod]

To pay off debt, support modern infrastructure and maintain super at 65 among other worthy and important goals.

Debt will be a significant issue post COVID-19.

What modern infrastructure isn't being supported currently? Why isn't it being supported? What are the adequate levels of support?

Should we maintain super at 65? Many other countries have raised the age required to qualify for superannuation in line with increasing lifespans due to overall higher levels of health in the community. Cullen himself penned a paper proposing that national super should only top up income derived from an annuity purchased using Kiwisaver funds, so perhaps that's the solution to maintain super?

Claiming these are worthy and important goals is highly subjective.

That's not this govt's legacy though. The previous admin were in for nine years and did nothing about this theshold. The top 5% mostly pay nothing for the most part. what you're talking about are wage earners who are (rapidly) dwindling in their importance to the economy.

It may be time to update and modernise your way of thinking about things

Raising wages while not increasing the income thresholds is most certainly is a legacy of this government, as well as many predecessors.

[Panda-NZ-]

Debt will be a significant issue post COVID-19.

Not really, lowest in the world and owned by the RBNZ at 1%.

What modern infrastructure isn't being supported currently? Why isn't it being supported? What are the adequate levels of support?

The infrastructure commission will have some recommendations although the govt is delivering alot of announcements recently. I like the approach of making it more region-based than it was in the past. My personal hope is a country wide freight network through Kiwirail. This will reduce the enormous damage trucks do to roads (so less spent on resurfacing and maintenance) and stop the importation of feul and new models of trucks.

Should we maintain super at 65? Many other countries have raised the age required to qualify for superannuation in line with increasing lifespans due to overall higher levels of health in the community. Cullen himself penned a paper proposing that national super should only top up income derived from an annuity purchased using Kiwisaver funds, so perhaps that's the solution to maintain super?

It can be if we re-fund the NZ super fund and lift Kiwisaver, two epic mistakes by the last government. Though they don't believe in red tape and that it will impose a burden to some businesses so it wasn't done sadly.

[fungus pudding]

To pay off debt, support modern infrastructure and maintain super at 65 among other worthy and important goals.



That's not this govt's legacy though. The previous admin were in for nine years and did nothing about this theshold. The top 5% mostly pay nothing for the most part. what you're talking about are wage earners who are (rapidly) dwindling in their importance to the economy.

You sure have some strange ideas. Here is the real picture from NBR

"As a result, the rich shoulder a disproportionate burden of tax. The top 3% of all households (above $250,000 a year) pay a quarter of all income tax. The top 10% (above $175,000) pay 50%. The bottom 60% (less than $80,000) pay $6 billion in tax but receive $7 billion in handouts such as Working for Families. They are net tax recipients. In total, they suck in a billion dollars.

Meanwhile, the top 10% of households pay more than $11 billion in tax. They suck in nothing."

[Panda-NZ-]

Capital gains is not counted as income in NZ.

[Zaphod]

Not really, lowest in the world and owned by the RBNZ at 1%.

Interest rates are unlikely to stay at 1% until the debt is paid off though. Having relatively low debt compared to other countries, albeit only at this stage, does not offer comfort to tax payers who must still repay it. Debit is still a problem according to treasury forecasts.

The infrastructure commision will have some recommendations although the govt is delivering alot of announcements recently.

Do the government announcements correlate with what the infrastructure commission recommendations? Can these be funded adequately through existing taxation? Or are you proposing we just throw more money at it?

It can be if we re-fund NZ super and lift kiwisaver, two epic mistakes by the last government. Though they don't believe in red tape and that it will impose a burden to some businesses so it wasn't done.

Yes I think that if we had not funded the CHCH rebuild, we could have started recontributing to the NZ Super fund, or perhaps there was another way?

[Panda-NZ-]

Interest rates are unlikely to stay at 1% until the debt is paid off though. Having relatively low debt compared to other countries, albeit only at this stage, does not offer comfort to tax payers who must still repay it. Debit is still a problem according to treasury forecasts.

What do you mean since the interest is fixed for 10-30 years when the govt issues a bond.
after-inflation the interest is 0% ..

Do the government announcements correlate with what the infrastructure commission recommendations? Can these be funded adequately through existing taxation? Or are you proposing we just throw more money at it?

All of the above. the response should be adapted to the conditions we are in... which it has been for the most part.
Look around the world and we are in great shape.

[fungus pudding]

Capital gains is not counted as income in NZ.

It certainly is when it is income, although not when it is not income. The IRD will tell you the difference because I can't be bothered - or any accountant will explain it to you. And capital gains is a plural term. Therefore 'Capital gains are ...' is correct. 'Capital gains is ...' is not. Any educated person could explain that to you, but note that does not include school teachers.

[Bjauck]

It certainly is when it is income, although not when it is not income. The IRD will tell you the difference because I can't be bothered...

...and sometimes even unrealised capital gains can be taxed as income too.