Capital Gains Tax

[dibble]

Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?

[artemis]

Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?

Some good questions there, dibble. The Labour CGT policy originally covered some assets but not others. Your de Kooning and heirloom diamond tiara were not included, nor were the family bach or small business if and only if sold under strict rules to fund retirement. Don't think those small businesses included rentals though. The last couple were tweaks based on negative feedback.

Along came the Tax Working Group with an increasing level of complexity. Finally it seeped into the voter's mind that their shares, their Kiwisaver, their farm, their lifestyle block were up for grabs. Not to mention their coffee franchise if sold. Idea dumped.

What Labour really wanted was to tax private rental housing and encourage it out of the market into 100,000 affordable homes and taxpayer subsidised social housing. When the CGT didn't work they changed tax rules for private rentals and brought in a lot of extra cost and compliance. Possibly get the desired result over time. Ms Ardern seems to think 2030 would be about right though as there is not much money in the kitty 2030 looks optimistic.

[moka]

A flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage on their earnings is the fairest way in my view, Big earners pay a lot - low earners pay little. Yet the socialists scream that that is unfair, because the high earners can afford more, so argue for a progressive system. And that sums up the problem in a nutshell. 'Fair' is impossible to define, making it a pointless and senseless word in relation to tax given there is no acceptable agreement.

I’m sure you’d quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.

[artemis]

I’m sure you’d quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell

[fungus pudding]

You are not paying more than your fair share.
Your fair share takes into account your ability to pay, not what you pay in relation to anyone else.
A fair tax system means that the costs of contributing to tax revenues are shared in a way that takes into account the ability to pay.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Karl Marx

'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.

[Bjauck]

'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.

If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?

Otherwise for one person $80 is petty cash but for another it means no food for a week. The punishment would not necessarily fit the infringement?

[fungus pudding]

If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?

Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.

[Bjauck]

Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.

I Wish that that were true...

If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.

[fungus pudding]

I Wish that that were true...

If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.

Indeed, So they should be levied so a low earner can pay them. Obviously a high earner could fairly be taxed the same percentage on his higher income. X on y Dollars should mean 2x on 2y, but not 3x on 2y.

[Bjauck]

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell

Fairness and social justice are nothing new. They have always been with us. They have just varied in their interpretation according to time and place.