sharetrader

View Poll Results: Should there be a Capital Gains Tax on Property

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    213 100.00%
  • Yes

    74 56.49%
  • Goff is just an idiot

    2,147,483,658 100.00%
  • Epic fail for Labour

    1,935 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 8 of 101 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121858 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 1008
  1. #71
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Minimoke its hard to believe you openly favour a regressive tax like GST. I think most people would agree that a regressive tax is the least equitable way for a government to tax the people.
    It would be a progressive tax on consumption. Those with more ability to spend would pay more tax. If you don't have the ability to spend you pay no tax.

    I'm not a big fan of taxes but they are of course a necessary evil. It goes without saying that if citizens want services from their government then taxes need to be raised to pay for those services.

    We might then walk down the path of what services should government pay for against what citizens should pay. And that leads us to the old chestnuts - paying for healthcare, education and the like. If you take the liberterian extreme the government would only pay for defense of the nation/citizens and a few other things. But in reality we are a a country that on the whole tends to be much more socialist than anything else. So government has quite an appetite for tax revenue.

    I'm not a fan on taxing income as this creates a disincentive to earn and invest. For those motivated to earn more they expend more energy and cost on devising ways to avoid/evade tax and this isn't productive - unless you are a tax lawyer / accountant of course!.

    So if we want the spoils of ones labour to go to the toiler and the rewards of risk to go to the risk takers we need an alternative. That being consumption.

    What do we all consume? New and second hand goods and contracted services. We all have choice on what it is that we consume and the price point we are prepared to pay for those goods and services. So a consumption tax is only regressive if those on increasingly larger incomes spend comparably less. A person on a low income may choose to buy a second hand Toyota Corolla whereas a person on a high income might choose a new Prius. A corporation might choose a Hilux. They all pay the same tax thought the amount they actually pay is discretionary based on the purchasing decision.

    Rental on property would be taxed as would car and concrete mixer rentals as you are, in one sense, buying a service from an asset owner. I'd be inclined not to tax residential property purchases (but would tax the real estate agent fee) as you aren't buying a services and since property is a long term "asset which is expected to hold or improve its value over time it is more of an investment than a good or service. An investment in property precludes government from having to provide state funded property. MT tax would also cover transactions such as "trade Me" - anyone done the sums on lost GST as consumers obtain goods in this manner?

    In answer to PTC's question I probably wouldn't tax labour through an employers wages. An employer will already pays tax on the purchase of accident insurance, training, safety boots tools and equipment. That's probably enough tax to satisfy governmental spend.

  2. #72
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    [QUOTE=minimoke;350980]It would be a progressive tax on consumption. Those with more ability to spend would pay more tax. If you don't have the ability to spend you pay no tax.

    But its a regressive tax. For simplicities sake assume it costs $23,000 to afford the basics in life. A guy earning $23,000 is paying GST at 15% currently. Even if a guy earning $115,000 spends twice as much($46,000) and saves $69,000 he is paying twice as much GST as the guy on $23,000 but as a proportion of his income his is paying GST of roughly 7.8%. The more he saves the less GST he pays as a percentage of his income. Assuming everyone needs to spend on the basics such as food etc poor people have less choice as to whether they want to pay GST or not and end up paying GST at a higher proportion to their income.
    GST is good as it is simple, it catches drug dealers, cash operators etc and it may discourage excessive consumption to a certain degree but I don't think it should be raised anymore, in fact I don't think it should have gone to 15%.

  3. #73
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    [QUOTE=Aaron;350989]
    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post

    But its a regressive tax. For simplicities sake assume it costs $23,000 to afford the basics in life.
    We might be at odds here. It places a similar burden on the poor as it does the rich. For a start we can't assume what the costs of the basics of life are. At best we have the questionable "poverty line" which could be used as your base except NZ doesn't have an official one. We could then use the "working For Families threshold - but thats an expense which is partly paid for by the consumption tax. Mark Hotchin has said he can't live on $1,000 a week and Alan Hubbard has been given $1,000 week to live on.

    I guess you could say its regressive if every one had to buy, say milk at $3.50 a bottle generating $0.70 in tax. But we have choice. A poor person can buy milk at $2.80 a bottle, contributing $0.56 in tax and the rich person can go spend $5.50 on a bottle contributing $1.10. The milk doesn't cost double but the rich person is paying more than twice the tax.

    So it would be a very fair tax. Individuals get to choose how much tax they pay through their purchasing decisions.

  4. #74
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    What about abolishing all taxes and just having a Consumption tax payable by everyone at say 25% on all purchases.
    I'd be a starter and suggested to Roger Douglas raising GST to the point of eliminating income tax when GST was introduced. His objection was if it got too high it would lead to evasion and avoidance. It is a valid point. Therefore he favoured a higher GST and a flat tax of 22%. He would have got there if it weren't for Lange losing the plot, and calling for a cup of tea break, which has cost this country dearly ever since.

  5. #75
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    I'd be a starter and suggested to Roger Douglas raising GST to the point of eliminating income tax when GST was introduced. His objection was if it got too high it would lead to evasion and avoidance. It is a valid point.
    It might have been a valid point 20 years ago when we still had cash. Electronic financial transactions have now got to the point where pundits are suggesting the rare Chequbook will be extinct in 10 years time.

    Evasion would be quite hard but obviously not impossible. A person has an identifiable income because this is money going into their bank accounts. Expenditure can be tracked by money going out of those bank accounts. Finding where the money gets spent on investment (shares / property etc) is easy because you'l have a certificate of title. The balance is what you have consumed and the tax is easitly identifiable. The trick is finding a tipping point were the effort going into avoiding tax isn't worth it.

    The tax can't get "too high". Its simply a function of government expenditure. The more more teh electorate wants the more government spends the higher the tax needs to be. So rather than focusing on evasion/avoidance we should focus on the productive value of that government expenditure. If its not productive get rid of it. For example if faced with a 30% Consumption Tax would we really want to be paying for a Ministry of Womens Affairs? No, get rid of the Ministry and drop your tax rate.

    And thats why the tax gets paid by the citizens - those who are consumers of governement services. Tourists coming into NZ could be tax free (making us really attractive as a tourist destination) providing they don't consume government services. Of course they will to some extent (eg policing) but they could insure against those risks.

  6. #76
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    It might have been a valid point 20 years ago when we still had cash. Electronic financial transactions have now got to the point where pundits are suggesting the rare Chequbook will be extinct in 10 years time.
    But the black economy will never die. Under an extreme consumption tax, bata would flourish. Not just in goods but services also. 'I'll do your heart transplant if you paint my house' sort of thing. Or possibly a mechanic fixes a car for an electrician who installs some new power points. It's illegal now to engage in swapped labour schemes, even casual or informal arrangements. which I am sure would suprise many people.

  7. #77
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    [QUOTE=minimoke;350994][QUOTE=Aaron;350989]
    We might be at odds here. It places a similar burden on the poor as it does the rich.

    I don't think we are at odds, I just don't think you understand what I am saying. That GST is a regressive tax is a fact not an opinion.
    The less income you earn the more GST you pay as a percentage of your income.
    As far as the basics in life go we could agree that everyone has to eat and drink and wear clothes etc. It doesn't place a similar burden on the rich as it does on the poor. The poor will be spending a greater portion of their income on essentials to survive but the wealthier you are the more discretion you have in regard to your consumption/spending.

  8. #78
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    [QUOTE=Aaron;351001][QUOTE=minimoke;350994]
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    That GST is a regressive tax is a fact not an opinion.
    The less income you earn the more GST you pay as a percentage of your income.
    As far as the basics in life go we could agree that everyone has to eat and drink and wear clothes etc. It doesn't place a similar burden on the rich as it does on the poor. The poor will be spending a greater portion of their income on essentials to survive but the wealthier you are the more discretion you have in regard to your consumption/spending.
    GST is commonly considered to be a regressive tax - but only where all things are equal. It is arguable that a person paying $2.80 is simply paying for the milk.They aren't buying a service and perhaps they cant afford a service - but they are buying a good. Where as a person paying $5.50 is paying for the milk and a service. The greater a person's income the greater their opportunity to purchase additional services - consequently the greater their share of the tax burdon.

    I'd also suggest it isn't regressive because poor people have their income topped up through either government benefits or "working for Families". The "poor" person isn't spending all their income on things that attract tax. They are being subsidised by the government who is funded by the higher income earners who contribute more to the tax take. Consequently the tax burden isn't fully felt by the poor person.

    If we look at my milk analogy, lets say a poor person earns $10. Roughly 5.6% of that person income has gone on the tax. Lets say the rich person earns $20 - he's still paying around 5.6% tax. How is that regressive?

    (Oh - and I assume we can take it that a "regressive" tax is seen as a very bad thing because it hurts the poor where as a progressive tax is a very good thing because it hits the rich. Ideals I'm not comfortable with!)

  9. #79
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    [QUOTE=minimoke;351006][QUOTE=Aaron;351001]
    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    GST is commonly considered to be a regressive tax - but only where all things are equal. It is arguable that a person paying $2.80 is simply paying for the milk.They aren't buying a service and perhaps they cant afford a service - but they are buying a good. Where as a person paying $5.50 is paying for the milk and a service. The greater a person's income the greater their opportunity to purchase additional services - consequently the greater their share of the tax burdon.

    ****I agree, people in general tend to spend more the more they earn and I agree that the wealthy will pay a lot more GST than the not so wealthy. What I am saying is that the not so wealthy will pay more GST as a percentage of their income and they have less choice in reducing how much tax they pay.****

    I'd also suggest it isn't regressive because poor people have their income topped up through either government benefits or "working for Families". The "poor" person isn't spending all their income on things that attract tax. They are being subsidised by the government who is funded by the higher income earners who contribute more to the tax take. Consequently the tax burden isn't fully felt by the poor person.

    ****I don't want to debate how the taxes are spent just that GST is regressive and unfair.****

    If we look at my milk analogy, lets say a poor person earns $10. Roughly 5.6% of that person income has gone on the tax. Lets say the rich person earns $20 - he's still paying around 5.6% tax. How is that regressive?

    ****In your example both people spend roughly the same proportion of their income so pay roughly the same proportion of tax compared to their income although the $20 guy has paid almost twice as much GST. From a previous post you didn't want to debate how much the basic necessities of life are but can you agree that if you don't eat you die and if you don't have clothes and shelter hypothermia could be a problem in winter. Assuming you agree with the preceeding statements you can understand that at a very basic level people will need to spend a certain amount to live its not really a choice. ( option (1) buy food and pay GST or (2) die). Spending and consumption over and above that is discretionery. In your example if the basic necessities in life cost $10 then one guy is going to pay $2 GST. The other guy can spend $20 if he wants to and will pay proportionately the same amount of GST but he can also choose to spend $10 and invest the other $10. Tax paid as a portion of income for Mr $10 is 20% for Mr $20 its 10%. Also Mr $20 may benefit on not having income tax or capital gains on his investments.****

    (Oh - and I assume we can take it that a "regressive" tax is seen as a very bad thing because it hurts the poor where as a progressive tax is a very good thing because it hits the rich. Ideals I'm not comfortable with!)
    Personally I see a tax that expects those least able to pay actually paying a higher proportion of their income as unfair and bad. Its an ideal I am comfortable with. I also don't think progressive taxes are always better. In fact with a flat capital gains tax rate we could flatten the income tax rates as well and try and make things as fair as possible.
    Not sure how to break up your quote so my other responses are between the **** within the quote above.
    Last edited by Aaron; 12-07-2011 at 03:22 PM.

  10. #80
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    [QUOTE=Aaron;351032][QUOTE=minimoke;351006][QUOTE=Aaron;351001]

    Personally I see a tax that expects those least able to pay actually paying a higher proportion of their income as unfair and bad. Its an ideal I am comfortable with. I also don't think progressive taxes are always better. In fact with a flat capital gains tax rate we could flatten the income tax rates as well and try and make things as fair as possible.
    Well Aaron. there are parts of life that aren't fair. Sh#t happens. You either adapt to your environment, you do something to make the most of it or you do something to better it. The choice is the individuals. Now I figure paying taxes to support some lazy benificairy so they can enjoy a life style of sloth and KFC is unfair. I think its unfair I pay taxes so some fat person can get their obesity can be treated in a public hospital. I don't think it fair that my taxes are paying for the sins of our forefathers. But as I say Sh#t happens, time to move on.

    What I am saying is that the not so wealthy will pay more GST as a percentage of their income and they have less choice in reducing how much tax they pay.
    So Moses came down and wrote in stone that person should only pay a certain percentage in GST relative to their income. I don't think so. They do have some choice - but not necessarily a lot. They could buy that cheaper bottle of milk, they could go to the second hand shop for brand new clothes or alternatively they could do something to increase their income and hold their expenditure. I'd hazard a guess the low income earners are disproportionate users of government spending. We know for example that low paid Maori have greater numbers in prison than higher paid Asians. If you are a consumer why shouldn't you pay your fair share.

    I don't want to debate how the taxes are spent just that GST is regressive and unfair.
    As I have already pointed out a consumption tax is not necessarily regressive. That is your view but again something that isn't set in stone. That they are "unfair is certainly worth debate since that is pure opinion and speculation.

    If we look at my milk analogy, lets say a poor person earns $10. Roughly 5.6% of that person income has gone on the tax. Lets say the rich person earns $20 - he's still paying around 5.6% tax. How is that regressive?

    In your example both people spend roughly the same proportion of their income so pay roughly the same proportion of tax compared to their income although the $20 guy has paid almost twice as much GST. From a previous post you didn't want to debate how much the basic necessities of life are but can you agree that if you don't eat you die and if you don't have clothes and shelter hypothermia could be a problem in winter. Assuming you agree with the preceeding statements you can understand that at a very basic level people will need to spend a certain amount to live its not really a choice. ( option (1) buy food and pay GST or (2) die).
    We are fortunate to have a government that will provide a minimum level of income to families, beneficiaries, superanuitants that prevents them from dying. That seems to be fair to me but I can't figure why a person who is unproductive should have the same net income expectations as a productive person. Nor do I see why productive people should subsidise those who want a life style that their income can't support.
    Spending and consumption over and above that is discretionery. In your example if the basic necessities in life cost $10 then one guy is going to pay $2 GST. The other guy can spend $20 if he wants to and will pay proportionately the same amount of GST but he can also choose to spend $10 and invest the other $10. Tax paid as a portion of income for Mr $10 is 20% for Mr $20 its 10%. Also Mr $20 may benefit on not having income tax or capital gains on his investments.
    The reason being is that Mr$20 has earnt more than Mr $10. Why should he not be entitled to keep the benifits of his labours?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •