The Green Party in government will end the tax advantages property speculators currently enjoy under National by implementing a comprehensive tax on capital gains, the Green Party said today.
The Green Party is the only political party to have consistently called for a comprehensive capital gains tax (excluding the family home) for more than 15 years. The IMF, OECD, and the Government’s own Savings Working Group have called for a tax on capital gains. National’s 2009 Tax Working Group found that the inconsistent taxation of capital in New Zealand breached all the principles of a good taxation system and significantly distorted investment decision across the entire economy.
“A comprehensive capital gains tax just makes sense and it’s time to just get on with it,” said Green Party Co-leader James Shaw.
“We’re facing a housing and a climate crisis so a capital gains tax and a proper price on carbon are two measures we want to see addressed in a first term of a new government.
“New Zealand is one of the only countries in the developed world to not tax capital gains consistently, which has helped to fuel growing inequality between those who don’t own a home and those who now own ten.
“A capital gains tax will make houses more affordable for young buyers who are currently priced out of the market, while property speculators will lose the current tax advantages of investing in and sitting on property.
“A comprehensive capital gains tax would also benefit the economy by shifting capital out of property speculation and into productive enterprise, creating more jobs and lowering the cost of borrowing for business.
“Exporters would gain from a capital gains tax as it would help take the pressure off our overvalued currency – driven higher from highly leveraged borrowing in the housing market.
“Taxing capital gains more fairly is one of the most economically transformative initiatives we could take, and delivering a fair and workable new capital gains tax will be one of our priorities in government,” said Mr Shaw.
Green Party policy principles for a capital gains tax:
- inflation adjusted
- realisation-based
- applies to assets sold in New Zealand
- includes a blanket exemption for the family home
- treats capital gains as income for tax rate purposes
Melissa Lee – as may be discerned from the screenshot above – has not been demoted for doing something seriously wrong as Minister of ... 
Very good to call time on a loophole for property speculators. Is there any reason, other than potential loss of votes, for exempting the “family home”?
I own no property, but my little nest egg of savings has the interest taxed consistently. this seems unfair if family homes are exempt from taxes.
I’m in two minds about it. I’d prefer if homes were homes not financial investments, and if a CGT were applied to the family home then that entrenches the investment ethic further and makes it harder to roll back culturally.
But I also get what you are saying about fairness. Probably too hard for them to touch.
Do you know what different CGTs do overseas in regards to the family home?
The US applies a CGT to family homes, but with various exemptions that have changed over time.
These exemptions have included things like allowing a taxpayer to get a CGT-free sale of a home once in their lifetime (leading to “tainted spouse” weirdness, google it if you’re interested), and at other times exempting the first $X of capital gains from a family home.
Based on my experience with US CGT on family homes, my preference is for CGT to apply to everything, and the only concession family homes should have is a rollover provision to defer CGT when moving home.
indiana below is correct that CGT won’t stop bubbles and won’t do much to reduce inequality. My argument for CGT is the fairness argument that those that benefit from capital gains should contribute some of it back to maintaining the society that made those gains possible.
yeah, that makes sense, keep it simple and apply across the board.
“and the only concession family homes should have is a rollover provision to defer CGT when moving home.”
What does that mean?
I assumed that a CGT might slow down some turnover of housing as investment, but that it was one tool of many needed to address the housing crisis. But I agree the fairness issue is important.
I think the rollover means, when selling and buying elsewhere, people do not pay CGT. It’s rolled over to the new property. Therefore, they must only pay CGT when they finally sell up.
Wikipedia:
Say your first home was purchased for $250k, and you immediately do a capital improvement renovation worth $50k. It’s now some time later and you want to move to a new place, You sell your current home for $500k and buy the new house for $750k.
With a straight across the board CGT with no concessions, you would be liable to pay CGT on $200k of capital gain ($500k sales price less cost basis of $250k initial cost plus $50k capital improvement). So you have to take out a bigger mortgage in your new place because of the tax bill, but the cost basis of the new place is $750k.
With a rollover provision, no tax is due now because you’ve rolled the capital gain over into a new property, your mortgage is smaller, but the cost basis of your new house is $550k, being the $300k you’ve rolled over from your original house plus the extra $250k you’ve paid for the new place.
Now you sell up completely, say because you’re moving overseas (or you kark it and your estate sells), and you get $850k for the house. In the straight CGT scenario you pay CGT on a capital gain of $100k, being the $850k sales price less the $750k cost basis. In the rollover scenario, you now pay CGT on $300k in capital gain, being $850k sales price less the $550k cost basis of the original house rolled over plus the extra paid for the new place.
Either way the capital gain tax paid adds up to the same amount, it’s just with a rollover it’s deferred until some sort of final reckoning.
The US applies income tax to all income … There a CGT is a lower tax rate applied to capital gains held for a long time.
The family home is exempt, the rules keep changing, it used to be that there is no tax if you buy a more expensive home within a maximum time, and a one time tax holiday when you sell the house as you retire, now it’s more complex, something like $500k every 5 years
From what I can see on the wikipedia page, most countries exempt the primary residence from capital gains tax. Some have a restriction that this residence is exempt from CGT after a certain number of years residence at the property.
Isn’t TOP policy an ‘elastic’ tax on the increase in value of all houses, inclusive of ‘family homes’, to be phased in over a period that would allow those poorer home owners, who would lose out in terms of a rates rebate balancing their tax obligation, time to move home?
I thought TOP wanted tax to be assessed per annum whereas a CGT is assessed only on sale.
A policy that pushes people to sell and move because they can’t afford annual tax on their home is bad for at least 2 reasons I can think of. One is that it undermines that the building and land that one lives on is a home in the deeper sense. The other is that it disrupts communities. Hmm, another is that it further pushes poorer people to move out of areas that are gentrifying.
From memory, the rates rebate most people would receive nullified the tax they’d be due for.
You mean they cancel each other out?
Hmm, with the theory being that the rates accurately reflect the tax due?
Yeah. Nah.But iike I said, it was only from memory.
http://www.top.org.nz/top1
Shifting tax from income to wealth. Lots of checks and balances and subtleties to smooth the transition and ensure measures of equity.
And even if you despise TOPs, there’s no denying some good ideas and intentions are in the mix.
The TOP policy isn’t a CGT at all.
You will still pay the levy even if the value of your house was decreasing.
Its closest equivalent is the FIF income you are deemed to make on some overseas investments.
I prefer the “family home” to be included in a CGT. For the obvious reason that the wealthy, and their accountants, will drive a bus through any exemptions.
Every spoilt brat will own a “family home”,
A better way of exempting it is to allow an exempt sum for capital gains. Say $250k before it is taxed.
That the usual suspects will find ways of avoiding it is not a reason not to have one.
We still have income tax despite half of the richest in New Zealand avoiding it.
Many of New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals pay tax on less than 70k of income. According to IRD.
The reason for capital gains tax is both fairness, (Someone who earns 100k a year by hard work should not be taxed more than someone whose house price rises by 100k without any effort on their part), and to broaden the tax base.
A “comprehensive” capital gains tax excluding the most widely held asset in the country.
“New Zealand is one of the only countries in the developed world to not tax capital gains consistently, which has helped to fuel growing inequality between those who don’t own a home and those who now own ten.”
Australia has had a CGT for a significant number of years, yet inequality there is at least equivalent if not greater than NZ.
The bright line test of 2 years has made it easier for the IRD to identify property speculators and tax accordingly on the gains they make. Extending the bright line test to 5 years makes sense to give the IRD a larger net to capture the speculators. A CGT will not change how property speculators behave – you can’t tax them out of wanting to build their portfolio – it hasn’t worked in Australia.
“Australia has had a CGT for a significant number of years, yet inequality there is at least equivalent if not greater than NZ.”
Then we could achieve lower inequality than Australia if we implement CGT. Win!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11908662
Reducing inequality does not make everyone richer, it make everyone poorer and disincentives them to achieve greater wealth. The couple in the article are example of people wanting to increase their wealth and be willing to pay the taxes associated with it, least of all the stress of being in phase of high debt. People who are not inclined to increase their wealth will be the ones who skew the inequality gap. But don’t worry just expect the government to give them money raised from taxing others to help reduce that gap. Win!
🙄
If being “inclined” to increase one’s wealth made it happen, there’d be no inequality because we’d all be rich to the limit of dreams of avarice.
Not sure If I am reading your response correctly, but I’m inclined to think you fit into the group of New Zealanders who have no desire to increase their wealth. If you don’t believe you can grow your wealth, you never will.
I would like to increase the wealth of the nation and of people in hardship, but that’s not the same as my own wealth.
I’m pretty comfortable where I am. Funnily enough, it just worked out that way – I never desired it or planned it out. Just luck.
But then, on the flipside, some of those who are “inclined” to increase their wealth fail, and end up more poor than they were before.
Inclination has fuckall to do with it. Most of it’s luck.
There’s also the problem of those who are ‘inclined’ to increase their wealth by means that beggar their neighbours e.g. creating bubbles by piling into residential property and turning their neighbours into lifelong renters or debt-serfs
HAhahaha. You are using an example, of a couple chalking up massive debt, by buying more and more properties as investment. With very little effort from these two, they are aiming to profit from private banks creating money via debt, thereby majorly contributing to the housing inflation bubble.
Meanwhile hard working Aussies are having to pay the increasing amounts for entering the housing market or for rent.
Man, what a joke!
So is the idea of a CGT working in Australia to help reduce inequality that the Greens are pushing?
A CGT would most likely reduce inequality, especially housing inequality to some extent. Earlier this year, NZ’s housing market was judged to be the most over-inflated in 10 OEDC countries:
I really wouldn’t expect a CGT to do much for inequality.
California is one of the few states to levy a state capital gains tax as well as the federal CGT (and the California CGT is at a particularly high rate), and California also has high inequality by US standards.
My support of CGT comes from the fairness argument, that fairness requires that those who benefit from capital gains share some of those gains back to maintaining the society that made those gains possible.
What are the Greens pushing? It’s hard to tell from that mess of a sentence.
Whatever it is, I doubt it comes from any kind of sensible analysis of their policies.
Reducing inequality does not make everyone richer, it make everyone poorer
Rubbish. Unmitigated, complete, farcical gibberish. Completely divorced from reality. Refuted by too many examples to mention.
Let’s see: if this is true, it mean that eg: the states with the lowest inequality in the USA would also have the lowest net worth and productivity.
I’ll leave it up to readers to check if there is any correlation whatsoever between these variables.
Bollocks
A few people would be poorer but it won’t really affect them. Many people would actually be richer.
The average would stay the same with the median rising.
Much better to ensure that a few people don’t become overly rich in the first place as we cannot afford the rich.
Well No! The”trickle down theory” was proven wrong some time ago. Increasing inequality in New Zealand has made the majority poorer and a few much richer. Whereas, when we were more equal we had one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Australia’s inequality is due to their doing very little to enhance the wellbeing of their indigenous people. These poor folk who are forced to the very extremities of society, constitute the large percentage of homeless and dispossessed.
What does that have to do with the Greens CGT proposal?
It means that your raising of the Australian CGT and inequality compared to NZ is irrelevant to NZ CGT proposals. Thanks for playing.
What does your initial comment have to do with the Green’s proposal? If you fail to understand the reason for a massive inequality gap across the Tasman – but then blindly assert that their CGT has had no effect on inequality. There are in effect two societies in Australia – those who can buy and live in houses outside the indigenous settlements and those who cannot. But inequality is measured across the whole nation.
I wonder if it will also apply to shares (both foreign and domestic) and dividends and replace the current regimes for both?
I think having a uniform system and rate for all investments will lead to more rational decisions.
That’s how the market is supposed to work. This having different rates for different things disrupts the supposed efficiency available from the market. Having no tax on one aspect of the market is a major disruption.
Personally against a capital gains tax as those who are the wealthiest can structure their affairs to avoid it just like many of the multimillion dollars companies do not have to pay any taxes as they earn billions and ‘apparently’ lose all their profits.
Also 50% of the super rich are not on the high tax rate. With the increase in family trusts and overseas owners a capital gains tax is just another unfair tax that rich don’t have to pay but honest and disorganised people do.
Would be interested in a small stamp duty of 1% on housing though. Most owners already pay 2- 4% of their property value in agents fees – and nobody is crying poor. That way no if’s or buts, or questions about taxation status, its just straight away, cash to the government to pay for hospitals and schools. (hopefully). Will make a crap load more taxes than this capital gains ideas that those that don’t really understand property and don’t own one, what is going on that think might work.
Capital gains taxes only effect if you sell and ‘make a gain less all the many ways not to make a gain’. This means a capital gains tax can mean billionaires can go around buying up NZ property and not sell them, no taxes. However with a stamp duty, money to the government as soon as they buy them and on the wealth of the purchase, those with 50 million to spend pay more those on $250k pay significantly less. If the Greens were more serious about raising taxes they would be advocating a stamp duty.
Also feel that the biggest money is made by banks and various paper money schemes. Would prefer to see a micro transaction tax on everyone who does any business here.
We are in the 21st century it is a shame that many seem trapped in 20th century ideas on taxation – because that is what is fuelling inequality.
Look at the UK and practically every other country with a capital gains tax. Does nothing to stop escalating prices so it’s about time Greens wake up about it and stop losing votes because people can already structure their affairs to pay less taxes so they are not going to stop with a capital gains tax. It’s just a negative policy that is not very practical when there are other policies that are much more workable for today’s times.
In NZ, you can effectively put all your assets in family trusts and cry poor at every opportunity. In fact now it’s now considered shockingly bad planning, if you don’t do it.
Trust laws with regard to how tax reduction gains can be achieved have been changed significantly over the past 5 years. Accountants will tell you there no benefit to having a family trust, if you want to reduce your taxable income.
“Tax avoidance is not advisable or workable as the sole reason to set up a trust. However, often, an incidental result of a trust owning income earning assets is better tax efficiency for the family as a whole.”
In other words, Tax efficiency…an efficiency not available to the prols.
“This could be subject to attack by the general anti-avoidance provisions in the Income Tax Act but the method is commonly used.”
In other words, being taxed is an ‘attack’.
I could go on, but you get the idea, family trusts are ‘handy’.
http://www.parryfield.com/what-benefits-would-a-family-trust-have-for-me/
Siobhan 5.1.1
22 August 2017 at 1:47 pm
( http://www.parryfield.com/what-benefits-would-a-family-trust-have-for-me/ )
One hell of a lot regulations have changed since 2011,
Trusts in NZ are not worth having anymore my accountant has been telling me for the last 4 years. I have a family trust which was set up in 1985 with a 80 year life.
It is a fair point that the mega rich will avoid this one by mitigating their structures and affairs as they do now and that only the honest idiots will end up paying much. Yet it is something surely and a start. Unless we destroy the mega rich they will always avoid everything so In some ways they are outside any normal consideraton.
My point is mega rich can’t avoid a stamp duty so why not start with that if you are serious about a property tax, rather than going with the tax that the mega rich can avoid.
A stamp duty can’t be avoided by those who leave the country.
Or by money launderers.
Or by anybody.
Yep got that and seems logical
That’s not an argument against a CGT but an argument for closing the loopholes that rich fraudsters are using to steal from the rest of us.
True but that too is not an argument against a CGT but an argument to stop the private banks creating money.
And that is an argument to ban trusts so that they can’t be used for tax avoidance.
The Income Tax Act already has a provision which would prevent a trust being used for tax avoidance. The difficulty lies in proving that that is what it is being used for. One wouldn’t want to ban trusts altogether though; they do have their uses. The trick would be to refuse recognition of trusts that do not have a legitimate purpose. For example I would regard a trust set up to support one’s children as illegitimate as I would expect parents to support their children themselves rather than pass that responsibly over to a trust. If one feels it necessary to provide for the support of one’s children after one’s death a trust could be set up in one’s will.
“a proper price on carbon ” James????
The carbon price must be a LARGE ONE HERE!!!!
Not a small increase from the current ridiculous price it has sunk to now.!!!!!!!
Carbon pricing now is a joke,
National are using cheap phony Ukraine credits to keep building “Roads of Diminishing Returns” Patrick Reynold of “Greater Auckland Transport” calls National’s “Roads of National Significance” .
We see these National fools are pushing for yet more roads for truck freight around our country !!!!
So a hefty increased price on Carbon UPWARDS TO $200 US IS SUGGESTED NOW will persuade the freight back to environmentally friendly low carbon rail right???
NOT THIS CURRENT PRICE.
Indicative Carbon Prices- NZUs
21-Aug-2017 NZUs- $17.95
http://www.carbonforestservices.co.nz/carbon-prices.html
Some 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces already use carbon pricing mechanisms, with more planning to implement them in the future.
HERE IS THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM EMERGING.
Our Environment Centre has received more than 2000 letters and petitions from residents from Napier to Gisborne fed up with 24/7 heavy truck traffic waking them all hours and poisoning the air with diesel smells.
People complain of overwhelming exhaust smells and heavy soot covering their homes since the rail service stopped three years ago.
Our centre believes the environmental impacts being felt must be taken into account when considering the saving of the Gisborne/Napier rail. It is vital for the public health and well-being of our communities and future generations to retain the rail link.
How safe is the air that we breathe?
The two pollutants which give most cause for concern are the toxic gas nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM2.5). Earlier this year, the UK’s highest court ruled the Government must take action to cut NO2 pollution.
The UK has been in breach of EU limits for nitrogen dioxide so it (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) published a consultation on draft plans to improve air quality.
This problem is now occurring in our cities and towns along heavy freight truck routes and rail is recognised as the answer for movement of freight and passengers.
Governments knew this 16 years ago when they conducted a study of rail versus road freight emissions, so why has the treasury advised we close all regional rail in New Zealand?
Evidence: the New Zealand Government in 1999 produced an “Impacts of Rail Transport on Local Air Quality” report.
Related articles:
The MoT Fuels and Energy Management group report shows how fuel-efficient and low-pollution rail transport really is. # 363.73926 RAI # 4037.
The report confirmed that rail freight per tonne per kilometre travelled had extremely low NOx levels compared with trucking’s freight per tonne per km higher levels (four times) of all harmful pollution emissions.
Quote from page 34 of “Impacts of Rail Transport on Local Air Quality” report: 5.5: Locomotive Emissions; Opportunities for Reduction.
“Based on these inventory results, there does not appear to be a specific need to target the emissions from the rail sector in managing local air quality.
The only emission of any significance from locomotives is of NOx but the output relative to other combustion sources is still minimal in terms of total activity measures.”
Why the Government needs to support rail for public urban residential health & safety:
-Evidence of much higher diesel air emissions emerging, thanks to the Volkswagen diesel scandal.
-Doubts are emerging about our urban air quality, public health and safety and emissions of truck freight 24/7 through our urban residential zones as New Zealand has set no standards.
-Since the VW diesel scandal, similar diesel truck emissions cheating was uncovered.
-No safeguards for communities near truck routes.
-We need the protection of public health agencies along with MoT oversight.
Government, please heed our call for the reinstatement of provincial rail services, to protect the health and well-being of all our regional communities, as overseas governments are doing.
Capital Gains Tax will help speculators and developers as they pay tax already as its their only income. It will hit those that buy – do – up etc and sell on the side – note (they get an unfair advantage over someone who is deemed a speculator,developer). Problem with leaving out the family home is how long do they live in it before its the family home (plenty of young couples buying doing up and flicking for a bigger better suburb etc)? Carolyn nth made the original point to leave out the family home is not fair to savers.
The Greens have just lost two key staffers:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11908733
This ain’t pretty.
Tory Whanau has been appointed acting chief of staff. Awesome name.
Right-wing MSM creating a crisis where there isn’t one in their ongoing attempts to undermine the Greens. It’s not as if they’re leaving because of some grievance and someone else will step up.
Really looks like stream-lining for internal harmony. Positive changes.
Hands being tied by internal blocking in economic policy development. Eyes on Barry (oh, look and me, I’ve got a degree in economics) sorry, no pressure 😉 Normal in the neo-liberal construct of democracy.
Compared to the policy catastropies of Labour (say nothing of Narcissistic National) the Greens still look like a serious least bad option from the top three parties, even on economics!
The potential problem is that Green policy aims to not increase foreign lending. Well shit like this needs to be cut out quick at Caurcus level during post election negotiations. Can’t sit on hands while waiting two years for Commission reports to return regarding Social Credit. The next govt will be holding some very hot potatoes.
These changes within the Greens should be assumed positive.
Another Ad, and media beat up.
Greens new three policies this election are;
1 Climate change.
2/cleaning up our rivers.
3/ end child poverty.
NO NO NO James you bloody forgot the “environment’ what a clanger.
Who instructs these dickheads?
First a bad environment is the cause of climate change!!!!!!
Health of all living creatures ;
Since we are defined as part of the ‘environment’ The Green Party has left us humans and all other species out of the picture?
They had better clean up that silly mistake.
Those three policies aren’t new, the Greens have been working on all three for a long time.
They haven’t stopped working on the environment. Here are their main policies for the election.
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/environment-policies
And their overall Environment policy,
https://www.greens.org.nz/page/environmental-protection-policy
If you want to see what they work on most weeks of the year, follow their blog and news pages, their twitter and FB accounts, and what they do in parliament. The environment is core to it all.
btw, it’s not down to Shaw. The Party develops policy and direction. That’s the caucus of which Shaw is a part, the exec positions, various committees and the members. Which isn’t to say the co-leaders don’t lead, but just that they’re part of a much bigger picture in terms of what the focus is.
Surely Climate Change = the Environment?
Interesting CV for one of them. There in lies the problem methinks.
“Morris-Travers was appointed chief of staff in May last year. She was an MP from 1996 to 1999, first with NZ First and then as an independent. She was a minister in the National Party-NZ First coalition.”
Brilliant stuff that esoteric pineapples,
Now we know for sure that the green party have been infiltrated by National it seems.
Bloody hell is that why the current lot I bump into are a belligerent lot?????
@ esoteric pineapples (8.4) … Just read about it in NZH.
A former Natz/NZF MP working in the Greens? Bit suspect, considering recent issues affecting the party! An attempt to destroy the Greens from within perhaps, taking out the left bloc?
I don’t understand why someone with such obviously Tory leanings, would be employed as a staffer in the Green party in the first place.
Please excuse my ignorance here. I’m not wanting to cause offence, but one “Tory Whanau” stepping up as acting Chief of Staff for the Greens? Really? Is this for real, or is someone taking the piss?
She’s actually just stepped down:
Edit: Oh. LOL. Tory Whanau is actually her name, and she is stepping up to acting chief of staff.
But, in practice, she’s not the kind of Nat tory family that Morris-Travers came from.
Tory Whanua was working for the Plunket before working for the Greens
Tory Whanau has been working for the Greens for a while, she’s not new.
Morris-Travers was a NZF MP 20 years ago. I’d be more interested in where she is at now.
My neighbour’s daughter’s name is ‘Tory’.
Nothing political, just an abbreviation of ‘Victoria’, as ‘Vicky’ is.
Since it is a highly emotive term here, I thought I should mention this in case there are a few here who are not aware.
Thanks! I was wondering where it came from.
RNZ news is reporting that they understand the stand downs were due to a review of the kind of advice Turei was getting before she resigned.
was that on Checkpoint?
It doesn’t strike me as a crisis, it seems normal to me that there would be some changes given what the Party has just been through.
It was in the half-hourly news bulletins.
Edit. it’s mentioned here in this RNZ article, by Chris Bramwell:
Ta. So basically more MSM making shit up.
So would the proposed CGT also apply to Motels? (they rent out accommodation) Farms? Businesses (think TradeMe, The Warehouse, Orcon – all sold to make their founders many untaxed millions), that old picture that you picked up at a flea market for a couple of dollars and later found to be an untraced Goldie?
Or will it just apply to residential rental property and nothing else?
I suspect the naughty speculators will be laughing all the way to the bank, with 85% of their “ill-gotten gains”.
Actually tax is already being paid on capital gain. The purchaser of a property pays for the capital gain from his tax paid income. The property being sold is still the same property that the seller bought at an earlier date so nothing has been created to underpin any additional income. Therefore, if a capital gains tax is applied, the same slice of income is being taxed twice.
The real problem with a capital gains tax, though, is that it is an example of the operation of Gresham’s Law. Overseas experience with capital gains tax indicates that it is ineffective in keeping down housing prices. It’s main effect seems to be that it would shut out other measures which are likely to be more effective, such as land taxes or property taxes.
Well said. Just look at Sydney if you want an idea of what a joke capital gains taxes are.
The only fair way is to remove cash from society remove Income Tax and GST.
Then collect a transfer tax on all electronic transactions in and out.
I would not know how many % would be needed. 1 or 2 maybe.
I was out probably a year back now with some pretty bright sparks from banks, accountants and sharebrokers. They were thinks 2 or 3 %.
They were saying that excise taxs on fuels, alcohol and ACC could be removed as all transfer tax income would cover everything.
Would virtually not need a TAX department either.
Seems the Greens like the idea of being in opposition. Lots of mum and dad investors have property (including myself ) we worked damned hard to get faced with exaggerated property prices compliments of governmental incompetence.
Now we are expected to pay for their F**K ups yet again with with yet another property tax imposed. Meanwhile government in this country are bathing in lakes of public money they waste on nonsense whilst we are compelled to pay “voluntary” school fees and take out private health insurance.
How about shutting out or greatly restricting foreign property investment instead, making big corporations pay their share of tax, require MNO’s keep a certain portion of their earnings in NZ (as China and others do) and ease the tax burden on ordinary Kiwi’s?
Of course this would require guts, conviction and common sense and both are in my opinion in short supply in NZ politics.