Labour tax announcement coverage

139 comments on “Labour tax announcement coverage ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   14 July 2011 at 2:37 pm

   * The top tax rate goes up to 39 per cent for those earning more than $150, 000

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5284832/Labours-tax-package-removes-GST-on-fruit-and-veges

   Threshold is quite a bit higher than I was expecting. Most people had tipped it at $120k. I think there’s room in there for a 36% rate at $120k.
   • queenstfarmer 1.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:12 pm

     As far as tax increases go, this is quite sensible.
   • freedom 1.2

     14 July 2011 at 3:19 pm

     I think a lot of people would settle for just the 39 at 150k being added. A 36 at 120k seems scrooge like. There are always problems with rearranging rate zones in income tax. Fewer rates will always be the more balanced approach. I also believe it harnesses less anti-tax sentiment.
   • rosy 1.3

     14 July 2011 at 8:50 pm

     I reckon they need to implement a policy to prevent tax-bracket creep. If they’re aiming at the top 2% the top rate needs to have an adjustment that indexes it to that top 2%. Not having this last time lost Labour a lot of votes – and those voters will stay away if they think they’re going to get caught again in a few years time.
     • Lanthanide 1.3.1

       14 July 2011 at 9:49 pm

       It is mentioned in the .doc file that the tax is “indexed”. I think this means it will automatically be inflation adjusted, which is funny because none of the other thresholds are.

       But it’s going to be quite a long time before many people move into the $150k territory.
       • rosy 1.3.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 10:04 pm

         Excellent. Even though it seems a long way to reach $150K people with aspirations do have it in their sights, I think. The might also expect that they will be hitting higher incomes (probably not as high as they’d like) at the same time their costs go up – mortgages, children etc. The indexing needs to be told loud and clear.
2. freedom 2

   14 July 2011 at 2:45 pm

   the telling point is the presentation by the newspeper itself. The tax moves that are positive for the country and affect the greatest number of NZ people are stuck at the bottom in a hope no-one notices zone. Apart from that, what is there to complain about?

   if you earn $150k plus and can’t make do on close to $1800 a week in the hand, i would look at your priorities in life
   • vto 2.1

     14 July 2011 at 2:51 pm

     freedom, what are you on about? Just because the cleaner, the gardener, the nanny, the annual mid-winter escape holiday, the euro wagon, the regular restuarants are not a priority for most doesn’t mean they are not a priority for others.
     • freedom 2.1.1

       14 July 2011 at 2:54 pm

       too true, the gold wrapped butter portions for the master’s toast mustn’t be overlooked
       • Sanctuary 2.1.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 3:35 pm

         What does butter taste like, anyway?
     • Ianupnorth 2.1.2

       14 July 2011 at 3:37 pm

       Come on, the cleaner, nanny, gardener are all tax deductable; the winter skiing holiday is part of the sponsorship of your kids to be in the school ski team (don’t laugh I know someone who has done this)
        
3. Bunji 3

   14 July 2011 at 2:46 pm

   Labour’s press pack: strictly embargoed until 3pm…
   @keithng on Twitter:

   Came late. Did not see the “Strictly Embargoed till 3” sheet in the press pack. #labour2011 #mybad #cgtsurprise

   Please forget I said that Labour is proposing a CGT. #labour2011
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   14 July 2011 at 3:00 pm

   http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/

   Seems that Labour managed to stuff up a get a website up and running about these policies.
   • freedom 4.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:13 pm

     Clear, conscise, factual. A pro asset sales video is going to be struggling to compete with that
5. Secret Squirrel 5

   14 July 2011 at 3:05 pm

   [Bunji: Website is up]

   All I can see is negatives, nothing about what’s supposed to be positive.

   So it’s the Not-Asset-Sales tax policy.

   Update: I’ve loaded a 4.5MB 2.1 page Word doc that tells me nothing new.
   • Secret Squirrel 5.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:20 pm

     I’ve now downloaded loaded a 4.7MB Word Doc, error, has to recover the .DOT.
     Formatting and font variations look a bit wonkky, may be due to the .DOT problem.

     Why didn’t they PDF it?

     Otherwise pretty much as expected, quite a few exemptions, not comprehensive as is still claimed.

     We’ll see what happens from here, and what comes out of the fine print.
   • freedom 5.2

     14 July 2011 at 3:25 pm

     so people being able to afford fruit and vegetables is a negative
     people being able to plan for a retirement is a negative.
     people being able to rely on the onging ability to generate power is a negative.
     people using their income to fund the purchase of a house in a few years after the hyperinflated prices begin to normalise is a negative?

     the only negative i see is the predictability of your lack of clearly stated criticisms

     (ps your name link is busted)
     • Secret Squirrel 5.2.1

       14 July 2011 at 3:30 pm

       The website is all anti-asset sales which is negatives. I thought it would have been promoting the tax policy.

       It took me two large DOC downloads including an error to find out any detail.

       Then I could see some of what you’re talking about.
       Then I could see some positives, plenty of debatables, and complexities in CTG, GST and PAYE which I see as negative.
       • wtl 5.2.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 3:43 pm

         Yes, you are right about the some parts of the website being substandard (i.e. the document downloads). But by any stretch, this has to be a huge improvement on Labour’s previous efforts at maintaining a website 🙂

         However, your framing of the ‘anti-asset sales’ pitch as being negative is childish and simplistic. Yes, it is negative in the sense that they are opposing a policy. But they are doing so in a positive manner, suggesting to Kiwis that we should ‘own our future’ and pay out debts by growing our economy to generate more income, not flicking of some assets for a quick boost that is detrimental in the long term. I don’t really see what you are trying to get at, about from trying to find something anti-Labour to say. You really are becoming more and more of a bore.
         • Secret Squirrel 5.2.1.1.1

           14 July 2011 at 3:59 pm

           However, your framing of the ‘anti-asset sales’ pitch as being negative is childish and simplistic.

           ??

           A website is promoted. All you get is repeat dissing stuff you’ve been hearing for weeks, and unless you can be bothered with downloads (that should not be DOCS!) you don’t find out anything about the grand new policies.

           That’s not childish, it’s marketing 101.
           • felix 5.2.1.1.1.1

             14 July 2011 at 4:16 pm

             All your comments in this thread are very negative.

             How about you set a good example instead of just repeat dissing.

             I agree about the docs though. WTF are you thinking, Labour?
           • wtl 5.2.1.1.1.2

             14 July 2011 at 4:17 pm

             Right. So marketing 101 is all about classifying pitches as being positive or negative based on whether they are telling you to do or not do something*? Positive/negative isn’t determined by the overall tone of the pitch? And putting a simplistic black/white label on a pitch isn’t considered childish and pointless?

             Great marketing school you are going to there!

             Anyway, this whole argument is all a bit pointless. The fact that you are refusing to debate the policy itself is telling. It seems that you really aren’t interested in constructive debate, but just want to find something to whine about.

             * If you watch the video, you’ll note that this isn’t even true. Cunliffe argues against asset sales by proposing an constructive alternative.
             • Secret Squirrel …

               14 July 2011 at 4:30 pm

               No, marketing 101 is having the confidence to put the product you are trying to sell as prominently and as easy to see as possible.

               My initial impression was of a lack of basics in how it was presented, and frustration with it being difficult to access. Many people wouldn’t bother downloading – was that the intention?

               It will take time to have a decent look at it all to be able to debate the details.

               My feeling at this stage is that it could help Labour a bit, but I’d be surprised if it will be a game changer. We’ll have a better idea in a week or two.
6. tsmithfield 6

   14 July 2011 at 3:34 pm

   Judging by the very small income from CGT in the early stages, it looks like Labour’s promises will have to be front-end funded by considerable amounts of extra debt. THEN if the projections for income from CGT don’t work out, all we’ll have is the debt.
   • Blighty 6.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

     of course a cgt brings in little money in the first years. there have been little capital gains since v-day in the first years. that’s why it starts before the $5K tax-free bracket.

     you’ve got to think longer term than one or two years.
     • freedom 6.1.1

       14 July 2011 at 3:59 pm

       you can’t say that to a capitalist, they have no comprehension of slow gain
   • lprent 6.2

     14 July 2011 at 3:57 pm

     The alternative is to sell assets in the short term, thereby losing the revenue streams from them over the longer term and having to go into debt later rather than sooner.

     Ok – so your point is?

     There is no particular reason to think that a CGT will fail to engender revenue.
     • tsmithfield 6.2.1

       14 July 2011 at 4:07 pm

       “There is no particular reason to think that a CGT will fail to engender revenue.”

       I seem to remember articles here about the world financial system being essentially fucked (which it is btw), and that future recessions are a certainty. Assets tend to lose value during recessions. So, it is quite likely that assets will decrease in value in the future and that projected capital gains won’t be realised.

       In contrast, if assets are sold now to raise revenue, there is an upfront cash gain that can be accurately budgeted for.
       • lprent 6.2.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 4:16 pm

         I seem to remember articles here about the world financial system being essentially fucked

         A post from me? I don’t think so.

         …future recessions are a certainty.

         Yes they are. I have been in the midst of about 5 or six during my lifetime.

         … if assets are sold now to raise revenue

         Or the tax-cuts get reversed as being unaffordable as I have said many times. It looks like Labour are going to do that as well as CGT.

         …there is an upfront cash gain that can be accurately budgeted for.

         You notice that Bill English did not remove the dividend revenue stream from those assets from his future budgeting? Because of the nature of how the government extracts dividends those are also able to be accurately budgeted for.

         Don’t you want to know why? Because it leaves a really large hole in his future budgets. So selling the assets accurately causes a greater debt over the medium term.

         But I forget – you’re a rightie – the longer term is a meaningless concept for you. Why do I bother talking to mayflys with the attention span limited to the next sex scandal…
       • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.2

         14 July 2011 at 4:21 pm

         Assets tend to lose value during recessions.

         No they don’t. Especially major infrastructure ones such as power generation facilities. What happens is that they lose monetary value but their actual value, which is measured by what they supply to society, remains the same.

         In contrast, if assets are sold now to raise revenue, there is an upfront cash gain that can be accurately budgeted for.

         And so can the net loss from those sales which is what the left is doing and what the RWNJs are trying to deny exists.
7. Pauline 7

   14 July 2011 at 3:35 pm

   Oh dear! another epic fail in tax policy from labour.

   What they don;t tell you and what alot fail to understand is that the real rich don’t draw wages and therefore do not pay PAYE.

   So really, it looks good but does diddly-squat. Those that take the ‘hit’ will be uni educated professionals who have strived for years and racked up a big student loan that will be hit the hardest! Oh dear! More professionals shooting the gap to OZ.

   And as for CGT, I’ve worked out plenty of ways around paying that without talking to my accountant!

   Also, raising the top tax rate to 39% will just make people with money hide their income again….by putting their money into trusts, offshore accounts or their businesses…back to square one again.

   What a pathetic effort D- Phil…walk the plank now!
   • Blighty 7.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:41 pm

     another vested interest who doesn’t want to pay her fair share of tax like the rest of us do.

     Pauline? More like parasite.
     • Pauline 7.1.1

       14 July 2011 at 3:55 pm

       oh, but I do. the proposed new top tax rate does not affect me as I earn way below the threshold. That I own rental properties does not make me a tax avoider-unlike Clark & Goff et al….I have always rented my properties out for a profit and paid tax on the income I receive from them.

       I also pay plenty of business tax and I am an employer as well.

       But I am smart enough to see how these taxes can be avoided. you could drive a STOP the GST bus thru them! This is the trouble with labour, they aren’t very bright when it comes to the details of tax law. Having Silent “T” on the case aint helping obviously…but then, he’s richer than most people anyway, why do you lot have him as an MP? More hypocrisy! lol
       • Bunji 7.1.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 4:34 pm

         Nice lines, from a fresh face who has suddenly popped up. Silent “T”, Phil G must go, imply Clark & Goff are tax avoiders… all the classics of a pro.

         So, hmm, yes, I believe you are a successful business owner who has time to reply repeatedly and at length on a Thursday afternoon.

         And also that you’re much brighter than the minds at the OECD, IMF etc who recommend a capital gains tax, or indeed all those people paying CGT in all the other OECD nations (other than Turkey). So you won’t pay any CGT that you rightly should. But you’re not keen to share these smarts obviously.

         In your world is Phil Goff hypocritical because he wants to raise the tax rate he’d pay? Wealthy successful people wanting to contribute to society are all hypocritical?

         Many many easily refutable arguments – most people jumping the gap to Oz are in fact earning below average wage – that’s where the really big gains are to be made in Wages (which is of course why people are leaving, not the fact that they want to pay 45% top rate tax over there). If only we had a govt that was interested in growing wages, rather than unemployment.

         Anyway, I have to work, so can’t stop… I’ll leave it to the others to go through the rest…
         • lprent 7.1.1.1.1

           14 July 2011 at 4:41 pm

           Does look like a astroturfer…
           • Jim Nald 7.1.1.1.1.1

             14 July 2011 at 9:00 pm

             From the tone and choice of words Pauline uses, it is more likely a man rather than a woman.
         • mickysavage 7.1.1.1.2

           14 July 2011 at 7:41 pm

           Is that you Cameron?
           • lprent 7.1.1.1.2.1

             14 July 2011 at 11:11 pm

             Nope..
   • mickysavage 7.2

     14 July 2011 at 5:55 pm

     … raising the top tax rate to 39% will just make people with money hide their income again….by putting their money into trusts, offshore accounts or their businesses …
      
     And Rental properties and shares.  Oh wait, they will now have to pay tax when they sell them …
      
8. Pauline 8

   14 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

   as for the remove gst from fruit and veges palava….well, that favours those on higher incomes as they tend to spend more on such items..

   People on low incomes with obesity issues aren’t gonna magically start making better food choices because it’s cheaper! think about it! The price drop will soon be absorbed by the supermarkets and called seasonal inflation and you are back at square one again within 6 months!

   more ‘feel good’ rubbish from a party bereft of credible ideas…what a joke!
   • wtl 8.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:53 pm

     I think what Cunliffe said in the video (re the CGT) is apt in your case:
     You’ll notice those who complain the loudest are typically those with the most to lose.
     • Pauline 8.1.1

       14 July 2011 at 4:03 pm

       and yet…I stand to lose nothing by those policies….actually, I’ll pay less tax-

       and as for CGT, well, that’s easily avoided and most professional landlords, like myself will just not sell their properties but hold onto them. In fact, the canny investor will leverage off their equity in their houses and buy more which will not make 1st home ownership anywhere near affordable.

       what CGT will actually do is drive rent and house prices up as it has done in both Oz & the UK.

       it will do nothing to dampen the housing market-infact, it will have the opposite effect.

       You lot just like this policy because you feel that people like me should pay more, more, more…well, it aint gonna happen because you lot fail to actually understand the ramificatiions.
       • wtl 8.1.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 4:23 pm

         Meh, a whole lot of ranting suggests that the CGT policy must have touched a nerve.
       • lprent 8.1.1.2

         14 July 2011 at 4:45 pm

         ..what CGT will actually do is drive rent and house prices up as it has done in both Oz & the UK.

         I rather suspect that you have cause and effect totally confused. But based on yout comments today, you do appear to be quite a confused astroturfer.

         Umm IMHO that IP does tend to indicate that you are very unlikely to be anything more than a astroturfer.
   • davidc 8.2

     14 July 2011 at 4:00 pm

     the fresh fruit and vege line is pure smoke…. a poor household would spend what $20? a week on fresh food .. spuds and some apples? everything else vege wise will be frozen. so what do they save.. $3? whoopdefuckendo.
     • Vicky32 8.2.1

       14 July 2011 at 5:49 pm

       so what do they save.. $3? whoopdefuckendo.

       Lucky, lucky you to be in a position where $3.00 is just something to sneer about, unlike the people you’re claiming to know…
       • davidc 8.2.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 5:58 pm

         What people I claim to know? who?

         So “poor” household saves $2.61/$20 and a “rich” household saves $9.14/$70.

         So why is Labour giving rich pricks like me a tax cut?

         Because its a retarded policy that is aimed at vote buying that is why.
         • bbfloyd 8.2.1.1.1

           14 July 2011 at 7:30 pm

           davide…. you just head on down to your nearest foodbank and repeat what you just said.. make sure you’re warmed up and have a good pair of running shoes on first though.

           you’d probably make a more effective tool than a stress ball at relieving some of that burning anger most of those that need help to get food of any variety feel constantly..
   • McFlock 8.3

     14 July 2011 at 4:00 pm

     “as for the remove gst from fruit and veges palava….well, that favours those on higher incomes as they tend to spend more on such items..”

     Lol – I don’t even support that policy (I think it’s tokenistic and doesn’t go far enough – just ditch GST completely), I still feel compelled to point out the idiocy of that statement. The reason people on higher incomes spend more on fruit and veges is because fruit and veges are currently too expensive for many people. Labour’s objective in ditching GST on said items is to ENABLE poorer folk to spend more on them. There are arguments around the validity of the policy, but your opening line is just desperate.
     • Pauline 8.3.1

       14 July 2011 at 4:05 pm

       desperate? perhaps more a lack of comprehension from you I think. *rolls eyes*
       • bbfloyd 8.3.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 7:36 pm

         pauline…now your just getting ugly.. your presence here is an irritant. you have nothing to add of any substance, yet prattle on like you mean it. someone should answer for lying to you about your intellectual capacities.
   • Vicky32 8.4

     14 July 2011 at 5:44 pm

     People on low incomes with obesity issues aren’t gonna magically start making better food choices because it’s cheaper!

     And you know that how?
9. TightyRighty 9

   14 July 2011 at 3:42 pm

   really? this is labour’s tax trap that John Key supposedly walked into?

   Labour and it’s retinue of supporters expended all that energy walking round with chests puffed out and smiling smugly to themselves over this?

   in the immortal words of George Gregan, philosopher, politician, winner, “four more years”.
   • Blighty 9.1

     14 July 2011 at 3:55 pm

     yeah, Labour is offering to put in a CGT, which every economic commentator supports, and cut income taxes for 98% of people. National is offering …. asset sales.
     • TightyRighty 9.1.1

       14 July 2011 at 3:59 pm

       actually, if you earn income blighty you get a tax cut from labour. so your venn diagram needs some work. deliberately posing that 98% of people earn an income therefore get a tax cut is misleading and false. around 55% of people in new zealand earn an income, as defined by getting paid for work done. the rest are dependents. if they are welfare dependents, they are going to get an effective pay rise for sitting round doing fuck all. typical labour. pay those who sponge to sponge some more and penalise those who work to fund it. nice one Labour, the party of lazy shits and thieves.
       • davidc 9.1.1.1

         14 July 2011 at 4:04 pm

         But 98% of “taxpayers” will get a $525 saving so that is $1.1 billion less tax paid, how many years till this policy is at least neutral?

         I thought this was Labours magical way to earn enough to avoid selling a few bits and pieces?
         • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1.1

           14 July 2011 at 5:07 pm

           balancing the books is to labour what magnets are to insane clown posse

           http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/aug/18/insane-clown-posse

           We’ll start calling labour voters bluggalo’s

           Labour – where ignorance all on it’s own is a virtue
           • freedom 9.1.1.1.1.1

             14 July 2011 at 5:28 pm

             tr, please do not comment on what you do not understand. ICP have a particular media face they present and if you knew anything about the how and the why of ICP you would know the writer of that article got caught in the trap as easily as you yourself did by referencing it. The endless creativity they are a part of and the ongoing force of nature they have become, is because of hard work and a loyalty to playing games with the ignorance of the established media.

             Their music is brutal, crass and mind numbingly violent. It is also dedicated to celebrating freedom and worships at the temples of human achievement. Also known as ART.
             • TightyRighty …

               14 July 2011 at 5:56 pm

               how do magnets work? fucking miracles freedom, that’s how apparently.

               ICP are free to make stupid statements that you interpret as ART, As i am free to point how fucking stupid they are.

               BTW, you don’t become an internet meme for getting it right do you dawg? juggalo’s. I shit em.

               edit: I love the irony of some idiot called freedom telling people what they can and can’t comment on according his/her view of a persons knowledge on a subject. such a classic lefty
               • freedom …

                 14 July 2011 at 6:21 pm

                 TR you have a valid point with my original line, and telling people what not to do or what not to say is not something i normally do, so i will definitely be more careful how i phrase my statements. The rest of it i stand behind without reservation.
         • Ari 9.1.1.1.2

           14 July 2011 at 5:45 pm

           1) That’s the revenue reduction on some of income tax. You need to consider the net effect when the other 2% are included, which I would imagine will probably be in the neighborhood of breaking even.
           2) The net changes between the GST exemption and the capital gains tax should probably increase revenue, too.
           • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1.2.1

             14 July 2011 at 5:58 pm

             “should probably” = definitely maybe
10. policywonk 10

    14 July 2011 at 3:55 pm

    39% envy tax?

    10% of households have an income of $150,000 or greater. And those 10% already fund 71% of net taxation. These would be the rich pricks that are not doing their fair share and must pay more according to Labour.

    pfffft
    • felix 10.1

      14 July 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Show some evidence for this claim please, and then put your comment into a meaningful context by also stating what proportion of the wealth of the nation is controlled by that same 10%

      Nah, didn’t think so.
    • mickysavage 10.2

      14 July 2011 at 5:57 pm

      The problem with this analysis is that it talks about income tax and PAYE only and pretty well all of the superannuants are in the lower part of the income distribution.  So it makes it look like all of the poor are getting a free ride whereas the reality is not this good.
       
    • Puddleglum 10.3

      14 July 2011 at 8:42 pm

      ‘envy tax’? A tax on envy it is not.

      I wish the right would stop coming up with these childish labels – ‘politics of envy’, ‘envy tax’. Grow up. This isn’t some expression of envy, it’s a judgment about how best to provide public and social services from the national income without hurting those who are least able to sustain the hurt.

      Also, what proportion of that 10% have a single income earner earning more than $150,000? 
11. side show bob 11

    14 July 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Cool next year I’ll make sure I don’t make more then $150,000. Hate to be a rich prick, it’s so uncool. Better to be poor, envious and more importantly socialist.
    • mickysavage 11.1

      14 July 2011 at 4:05 pm

      So it makes a difference that you earn 61c in the dollar rather than 67c on earnings over $150k?  You are obviously rich, greedy and more importantly stupid.
      • side show bob 11.1.1

        14 July 2011 at 4:34 pm

        Stop making crap up Mickey, no one makes 61c in the dollar. You are sounding more and more desperate every day. What about the plethora of other taxes that you conveniently forget about. An example of why many around here earning over $150, 000 are paying more then (39%) of tax. 95% of the rates in our local town are paid by rural land owners, where’s you fairness now Mickey, why don’t you speak of some of the true figures of who pays what and how much they pay..How much tax would you really like Mickey, 100% would probably be your cup of tea.
        • mickysavage 11.1.1.1

          14 July 2011 at 5:58 pm

          If you are a farmer sideshow then I am sure that you will be fine.  The CGT will not apply to your existing farm.  And you should pay rates.  Your use of the land and contributing to pollution and run off is causing all sorts of damage and expenses for the rest of us.
          • Secret Squirrel 11.1.1.1.1

            14 July 2011 at 6:23 pm

            ??

            So if he sold his farm in 10 years it wouldn’t be subject to CGT?
            • mickysavage 11.1.1.1.1.1

              14 July 2011 at 7:44 pm

              Not unless he buys it after the tax starts.  Didn’t you get the memo?
              • Secret Squirrel …

                14 July 2011 at 8:31 pm

                You obviously didn’t get past the canned talking points.

                Page 10:
                The CGT will be forwarding-looking and only apply to gains accrued after implementation. Past gains will not be affected.

                The transition will involve a ‘valuation day’, or ‘v-day’, whereby all capital gains prior to v-day are tax-free; those after v-day subject to tax.

                All I had to do was go to the website, realise there was no info there, work out what vulnerable document to download and search half way through it.

                Valuation day will be fun won’t it.
                • Lanthanide …

                  14 July 2011 at 9:52 pm

                  That’s how it worked in Australia. Seems they managed it ok.

                  They’re probably going to have to use some proxy for it. No idea how it’ll work, government valuation on property is the obvious one but shares etc are harder to pin down. But I expect that we’re not going to have valuers scouring the country on v-day. Instead, when you sell the asset, they’ll simply work out the v-day value then through whatever method they determined was appropriate.
                  • Secret Squirrel …

                    15 July 2011 at 7:01 am

                    Instead, when you sell the asset, they’ll simply work out the v-day value then through whatever method they determined was appropriate.

                    How do you suggest that’s possible ten years later? Twenty years later? No way is that practical.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      15 July 2011 at 9:35 am

                      If you have concerns, perhaps you should research what happened in Australia, because they have exactly the same concept.
    • policywonk 11.2

      14 July 2011 at 4:06 pm

      Yup -God forbid we should be successful at what we set out to do!
      • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1

        14 July 2011 at 4:27 pm

        What’s that? Rort the tax system so that you don’t pay your fair share?
        • higherstandard 11.2.1.1

          14 July 2011 at 4:28 pm

          What’s a fair share DTB ?
          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1

            14 July 2011 at 6:18 pm

            Pay according to your means
            • davidc 11.2.1.1.1.1

              14 July 2011 at 6:20 pm

              so if I have 100 million of assets and no income I pay zero right?
            • higherstandard 11.2.1.1.1.2

              14 July 2011 at 6:21 pm

              So if I’ve got a big salary and an even bigger mortgage do I get a low tax rate ?
              • Lanthanide …

                14 July 2011 at 8:13 pm

                If that mortgage was forced upon you by some outside evil monster, then sure.

                But if you willingly chose to enter that mortgage, then no.

                I thought those on the right were all about personal responsibility?
                • Ianupnorth …

                  15 July 2011 at 11:52 am

                  I find it reassuring when people as stopped in their tracks by common sense and fact!
12. freedom 12

    14 July 2011 at 4:06 pm

    “And those 10% already fund 71% of net taxation.”
    seriously you are going with that clanger, grow an independant thought bubble.

    ps. adding 1% to the oft quoted lie does not suddenly make it look more accurate
    you only make yourself look several factors more desperate

    all this chatter about $150K incomes has reminded me its time to go make more soup.
    • policywonk 12.1

      14 July 2011 at 4:11 pm

      Why stop at 71%? Let’s screw those rich pricks over until they’re paying 100%!

      Yeah right. What a great Tui’s moment.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        14 July 2011 at 6:20 pm

        The rich can pay more, they benefited the most, they should pay accoridng to their means.

        That’s fair.
        • U 4 United 12.1.1.1

          14 July 2011 at 7:34 pm

          That’s not fair its blonde!

          I am curious to learn who will be on the “expert panel” other than the New York based creep.
    • davidc 12.2

      14 July 2011 at 4:16 pm

      well according to this chart…

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html#comment-852104

      its 9.7 % of taxpayers pay 70.7% of the net tax.

      But dont let some facts stop your ranting…
      • felix 12.2.1

        14 July 2011 at 4:21 pm

        And they control how much of the wealth of the nation?
        • TightyRighty 12.2.1.1

          14 July 2011 at 5:09 pm

          god forbid we let the stupid control the wealth of our nation as you seem hell bent on achieving as you drive out the smart and successful.
          • rd 12.2.1.1.1

            14 July 2011 at 6:47 pm

            Too late – SFC, Hanover, Bluechip, Nathans, Ami, , Us Bankers etc have and do!!
          • kriswgtn 12.2.1.1.2

            14 July 2011 at 8:13 pm

            well NAct are in charge haha and youre still here 😛
      • Draco T Bastard 12.2.2

        14 July 2011 at 4:44 pm

        its 9.7 % of taxpayers pay 70.7% of the net tax.

        This sentence just proves that you have NFI WTF you’re talking about.

        But dont let some facts stop your ranting…

        The only people who do that are the RWNJs.

        http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53562/budget-2011-summary-all-tax-collections.

        PAYE doesn’t even make up 70% of taxes.
    • mik e 12.3

      14 July 2011 at 4:41 pm

      Thats because wages have been kept down taxes have increased on middle and low income earners jobs have been exported to countries that subsidize keep their currency low and have no worker rights. but you can go to Australia where they already have CGT and a higher that tax cuts in at $140000 . Theirs democracy where people get to vote for whom they want and their policies .
13. Rich 13

    14 July 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Lower than top income tax rates to allow for inflation

    Sorry, but I don’t see this at all.

    If property price inflation *happens* to be just over twice general inflation, then for a 15% taxpayer this works. Any other set of 3 numbers, it probably doesn’t, for instance, in 2002 house prices increased by 20% in real terms.
    • mik e 13.1

      14 July 2011 at 5:04 pm

      Why if i,m retailng I buy can of baked beans and sell them I pay gst + tax on profit but not if I buy shares investment property hold onto them for the required time and so on i get to avoid paying tax.
14. felix 14

    14 July 2011 at 4:26 pm

    How come the proper trolls aren’t here today?

    Why do we have to make do with these dregs?
    • Anne 14.1

      14 July 2011 at 4:42 pm

      How come the proper trolls aren’t here today?

      They’re attending a hastily arranged top level (ie. run by Cameron Slater & co.) “response to Labour’s tax package” course. They will probably be available this evening or tomorrow morning.
      Just be patient.
    • mickysavage 14.2

      14 July 2011 at 7:46 pm

      I think they are urgently seeking instructions from CT who are UK based and are currently all asleep.

      I suspect Anne they are not sufficiently stupid to follow a Cameron line … 
      • Anne 14.2.1

        14 July 2011 at 8:07 pm

        I was being kind to CT. Anyway, the course is finished (whoever ran it) and they’re moving in now!
15. higherstandard 15

    14 July 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Forgetting the tax increases at the top end, how does this iteration of a CGT, increase investment in productive and ‘economy increasing’ enterprises ?

    Honest question I am interested in peoples views.
    • davidc 15.1

      14 July 2011 at 4:30 pm

      It dosent, this is just envy taxation and vote buying.
      • Secret Squirrel 15.1.1

        14 July 2011 at 4:33 pm

        One does wonder how suddenly a far more complex CGT is supposed to be good for New Zealand.
      • mik e 15.1.2

        14 July 2011 at 4:44 pm

        Ask Don Brash he,s proposed several times before,
      • mik e 15.1.3

        14 July 2011 at 5:20 pm

        I bet you really envy those who are waiting in queues at the food bank while your quaffing down your glass of wine around the dinner table,those 20% of children brought up in poverty they envy your sins of gluttony and greed, NZ is no longer a classless society .Pity the the poor serfs they have to scratch out a living while those of us on higher incomes can look down their noses and the bonnets of their big cars and get a thrill out of the envy of the have nots ,
        • mik e 15.1.3.1

          14 July 2011 at 9:12 pm

          Just don,t forget to tell the peasants that we are so rich we don,t have to pay any tax
    • Draco T Bastard 15.2

      14 July 2011 at 5:28 pm

      The lack of tax on CG causes a shift from other investments that are taxed as they make a greater return. By taxing capital gains it “evens the playing field” so that CG no longer has an advantage over other investment types. This should, in theory, result in some movement away from property investment/speculation.
      • Secret Squirrel 15.2.1

        14 July 2011 at 5:58 pm

        If there’s no exemptions.
      • burt 15.2.2

        14 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

        Draco

        I would hate for you to miss this response to your question on another thread;

        See:

        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072011/#comment-352113
      • mikesh 15.2.3

        14 July 2011 at 11:09 pm

        I have a feeling people invest in property because they find it easier to understand, rather than because capital gains make it more profitable.
        • davidc 15.2.3.1

          14 July 2011 at 11:14 pm

          they can touch it, work on it and borrow cheaply at the bank on it.

          Sweat equity has always been important for NZers and Labour seems to have forgotten that.
          • Colonial Viper 15.2.3.1.1

            14 July 2011 at 11:17 pm

            Sweat equity has always been important for NZers and Labour seems to have forgotten that.

            labourers and unionised workers know more about sweat equity than anyone else

            They also know that they don’t get any sweat equity in the current system, just piss poor wages
            • davidc 15.2.3.1.1.1

              14 July 2011 at 11:23 pm

              Well I have been a labourer but thankfully never a union slave.
              That is a concept well past its use by date.

              Soon as the students get up with the play and have some freedom the better too.
              • Colonial Viper …

                14 July 2011 at 11:34 pm

                freedom to be divided and ruled over is the freedom you are talking about

                Well I have been a labourer but thankfully never a union slave.

                Unions will be strong again mate, you fight for the richest 5% and we outnumber you 19 to 1.
16. Craig Glen Eden 16

    14 July 2011 at 4:42 pm

    All predictable (Im rich and Im so smart Labours dumb) from the usual great pretenders on the right. Nationals alternative is asset sales, making people redundant yeah thats a winner! So lets see wages are falling further behind Australia and more Kiwis now than ever are leaving to live in Aussie.

    Yeah National full of ideas ( the cycleway theres another winner) and really taking NZ forward ! The next 4 months will be interesting.
17. wawot 17

    14 July 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Curious – they propose removing tax from fruit and vegies to make them cheaper and adding tax to property to make it cheaper?

    Why not add tax to fruit and vegies to make them cheaper too?
    Or why not remove tax from property to make it cheaper?

    Or is the theory that if Labour either adds or removes taxes things get cheaper but if the others add or remove taxes on things they get more expensive?
    • mik e 17.1

      14 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

      You don,t eat property do you every body else including some property investors already pay capital gains so why should you get a tax break when you are claiming interest against income as well when every body else has to pay tax your just the same as every body else.
    • Ari 17.2

      14 July 2011 at 5:56 pm

      Adding a CGT to second-homes will make buying first homes cheaper, as the investors won’t inflate property prices as badly. I’m not sure why you’re trying to cast doubt that this will happen, it’s an incredibly likely and logical result from the rules proposed.

      Don’t be ridiculous about this, it’s the absense of the tax for people looking to buy their first property and the presence of it for investors that will make it cheaper for people looking to buy their own home. The difference from the GST situation is that GST isn’t designed to provide exemptions to lower- and middle-income workers, (although the exemption for fresh produce will probably reduce tax on healthier diets, and modify behaviour to a certain degree that way) so exempting those foods will likely stimulate the economy by allowing people who can’t buy enough food to get a little more bang for their buck.
18. Secret Squirrel 18

    14 July 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Asset sale proposal behind planned capital gains tax – Goff

    The catalyst for Labour’s support of a capital gains tax was the government’s proposal to sell shares in state-owned assets.

    Labour leader Phil Goff said at the launch of his party’s tax policy this afternoon that the proposal was a declaration of intent that effectively called on Labour to find the political courage to map out a better, more viable alternative.

    So it didn’t start as a “what’s the best way to deal with tax in New Zealand”.
    It started as a “what’s the best way to deal to National’s asset policy”.

    Good grief. But it fits with the promotional approach. And why the website is asset-centric.
    • mickysavage 18.1

      14 July 2011 at 7:49 pm

      SS I have tried to engage with you on an intellectual basis for a while but I now realise (again) that this is futile.

      DNFTT 
19. mikesh 19

    14 July 2011 at 5:28 pm

    A significant contributor to share price increases, I would have thought, would be retained earnings. As these earnings will have already been taxed, I wonder if persons paying CGT on share sales will receive a quasi imputation credit for the tax already paid.
20. Tangled up in blue 20

    14 July 2011 at 5:31 pm

    debt paid off while keeping our assets?

    Are there any projection/figures backing this claim up?
    • Tangled up in blue 20.1

      14 July 2011 at 5:49 pm

      Labour estimates its capital gains tax which excludes the family home will raise $78 million in the first year, rising to $2.27 billion after ten years and would raise $26 billion over its first 15 years.
      The new top rate – which Labour says would effect two per cent of salary and wage earners – would raise about $300 million a year.
      More than half the revenue raised from the new taxes would be used to fund Labour’s already announced policies to introduce a $5000 tax free threshold and to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables.

      Ok. So why is this being sold as an alternative to selling assets if it will increase debt and take many years before the CGT catches up to the tax cuts?
      • Ari 20.1.1

        14 July 2011 at 5:59 pm

        It will increase deficit for a few years, but overall it will decrease debt. They could always implement a policy that decreases debt immediately, but that would be much harder on investors and businesses.
21. alex 21

    14 July 2011 at 5:52 pm

    I love the idea of a CGT in New Zealand, and commend Goff for adopting this Green policy, Goff is starting to show real leadership.

    Miliband, on the other hand, is a complete hoax. Don’t compare them please. British Labour has been sycophants of the rich since Blair. Goff has inherited the mantle of Clark, and is starting to grow into her enormous shoes.
22. higherstandard 22

    14 July 2011 at 5:53 pm

    eh what, $20 billion between years 10 & 15 ?
    • Blighty 22.1

      14 July 2011 at 6:55 pm

      Hs. it’s $2.27b per year at ten years and $26b over 15 years in total.

      the revenue will be small in the first years because few people are selling anything that has made a large capital gain since cgt was introduced but, of course, it rise in the long term with economic growth, more stuff, inflation, and built up capital gains.
23. wtl 23

    14 July 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Thoughts on the video, anyone? I, for one, think it does a very good job in presenting an argument in a clear and concise manner, and manages to be inspirational about ‘owning our future’.
24. RedLogix 24

    14 July 2011 at 6:58 pm

    David Cunliffe’s video is superb. I’m really starting to like this guy.

    Well now I’ve seen the details, the tax package looks ok. … well still timid in my book… but just about anything would look good compared to the ethical and intellectual void that is National’s policy.

    As I’ve said often, a CGT really doesn’t concern me all that much. I never intended to sell my assets I have therefore it doesn’t affect me, and I think most long-term investors who are balanced towards yield rather than capital gain would agree. In that sense it works for me.

    Will it be enough to win an election? Well I think it will get them half-way there.

    The other big factor I’d like to see is for Labour and the Greens get out the message very clearly that they are capable of forming a united and stable govt. It’s my impression there has been a bit of good sea-change in the last few months between the parties and the dissapointments of the early 2000’s need to be well and truly buried. The one thing the NZ public will not vote for is a potential coalition that even sniffs of disunity.

    This is good stuff, progress at last and just in the nick of time.
    • Reality Bytes 24.1

      14 July 2011 at 7:49 pm

      I think the Greens and Labor are quite natural coalition partners, although Greens are a bit more principles over politics, whereas Labor are more middle of the road/Nat-lite, the key point is they have worked together before.

      It’s a bit different to the Act/Maori – National dynamic… Act seem to be going out of their way to disrespect National policy – in order to get enough swing-voters over to their side, to get them over the 5% threshold incase Bankster fucks it up.

      I think such animosity and cat fighting, if anything, creates alienated NACT voters, who may potentially get fed up with all that and switch over to LabGreens. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that such behaviour could make LabGreen supporters consider switching over to NACT, in any significant numbers.

      i.e. Acts actions must be hemorrhaging NACT voters at the expense of the general NACT bloc to try and fight for the survival of the Act party.

      Maori party is another story, if they end up being the king-makers, who knows how things will pan out. My gut feeling is though that they will probably side with Labour inspite of their NACT history. The only reason they went with Nats in the first place was to stay relevant.
    • Colonial Viper 24.2

      14 July 2011 at 11:35 pm

      Well now I’ve seen the details, the tax package looks ok. … well still timid in my book…

      More could have been done, yes, but this is just a start. The more support Labour sees, the more it will know that it has the backing to lead harder and further.
25. tsmithfield 25

    14 July 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Looks to me like Labour wants to solve the unemployment problem through inspiring the hiring of armies of tax collectors, accountants, and valuers. 🙂

    Just about everyone I have heard has been dissing Labour’s tax plan as half-hearted, complex, expensive to implement, easy to avoid, and based on dodgy assumptions.

    e.g. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/podcasts/audio/14183406.mp3 and http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/podcasts/audio/14182436.mp3
26. Sookie 26

    14 July 2011 at 7:22 pm

    Good on you, Phil Goff. Tax the rich. The ones with a conscience won’t mind, and the ones that will mind are greedy pricks and are unlikely to vote Labour/Greens anyway. If they don’t like it, they can piss off to…oops, Aussie has CGT and 45% tax on high earners 🙂
    • U 4 United 26.1

      14 July 2011 at 9:34 pm

      Define rich! It is certainly not in your ability with language.
      • Colonial Viper 26.1.1

        14 July 2011 at 11:43 pm

        Rich are the 8% of ordinary NZ’ers who own investment properties, compared to the 92% who do not.

        Next please.
        • wawot 26.1.1.1

          15 July 2011 at 1:11 pm

          The rich are the 17% of the households pay 97% of net income tax.

          What bastards – tax them more and give it to the 87% of households that pay 3% of the net income tax.
          • Colonial Viper 26.1.1.1.1

            17 July 2011 at 2:18 am

            The rich are the 17% of the households pay 97% of net income tax.

            That’s a blatant lie

            And even if it were true, it’d be because there was active wage suppression being practiced against the majority of workers.

            Next please.
27. gnomic 27

    17 July 2011 at 12:03 am

    Bit late to the party here, but above someone says NZ is no longer a classless society. I fear that even in its most egalitarian phases there has never been a classless society in NZ. Far from it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS