Hipkins’ tax gamble

Written By: - Date published: 6:25 pm, July 12th, 2023 - 92 comments
Categories: chris hipkins, Economy, greens, labour, maori party, political parties, politicans, tax - Tags:

Tax policy is in the news again.

All eyes are on the Labour Party and there is a lot of discussion on what it will do next year if it regains power.

The party’s policy platform, decided on through a rigorous process of vetting and endorsement is reasonably clear.  It says this about tax:

Labour is committed to a fair, progressive, and transparent taxation system that promotes social equity, sustainability, and long-term economic growth.

And also this:

Labour will continue to use and improve the income tax system as a vital tool to provide all New Zealanders with adequate resources, and to reduce income inequality. Labour supports a tax system that promotes an economy based on productive enterprise rather than speculation, that ensures greater fairness and looks closely at targeting untaxed wealth in the wider economy.

And also this:

Being a parent is an expensive business. We will use tax and benefit systems to support families facing the costs of raising children.

Those general statements heavily point the introduction of a capital gains tax or wealth tax, or so you would think.

And there has been quite a bit of work in the background on how unfair the tax system is and what can be done about it.

The basic problem is that over the past 40 years the wealthy have done very well in Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere.  And this a problem that is now attacking the foundations of our society.  There is plenty of wealth to share around.  But it is being hoarded by the few to the detriment of the many.

Labour Minister David Parker realises this.  He had IRD conduct a deep dive into the extent of the problem and produced a report that had some jaw dropping conclusions.

From the Beehive website:

Inland Revenue research released today reveals a large differential between the tax rates ordinary New Zealanders pay on their full income compared with the super-wealthy, Revenue Minister David Parker says.

“This internationally ground-breaking research provides hard data showing that the wealthiest New Zealanders pay tax at much less than half the rate of other Kiwis,” David Parker said.

“The data, based on full income information from 311 of our wealthiest citizens, shows that the average person in this group pays an effective tax rate of just 8.9% tax on their economic income – that is, income from all sources, including capital gains on investments.

“In contrast, most New Zealanders pay tax at more than twice that rate. For example, someone earning a salary of $80,000, with no other income, pays 22% tax on that income, excluding GST.

“The difference is mainly because the very wealthy earn only a small portion of their income from wages and salaries, unlike most New Zealanders.

“The differential is even larger when GST is included: for the wealthiest, their effective tax rate rises to 9.5%, but for the person on an $80,000 salary, it goes up to around 28 or 29%. That is because wealthy New Zealanders spend a much smaller portion of their income each year, compared with other earners.”

The High Wealth Individuals Research Project is internationally significant because it uses real data, unlike other overseas studies which draw on surveys or scenarios, David Parker says.

“In 2020, the Government changed the law to enable IRD to require high-wealth individuals to provide their earnings data, in order to do this work,” David Parker says.

“To be clear, this work is not about chasing tax avoiders, nor is it about attacking the rich. Wealthy New Zealanders are usually hard-working and creative people who comply with current rules. They have assisted IRD with this inquiry, and I am grateful for that.

“The excellent work in this survey will enable future discussions on tax policy to be based on solid evidence. Later this year, we intend to introduce a Tax Principles Bill to ensure that information like this continues to be transparently collected and reported on.”

Today’s IRD report release is accompanied by a new Treasury report setting out effective average tax rates across the population. It uses scenarios to show that effective tax rates paid by middle New Zealanders (including GST) are between 6.8 and 10.8 percentage points higher than for the wealthiest people.

When I wrote about the report a few months ago I said that the question is what the Government will do with the report.  Jacinda Ardern had ruled out a Capital Gains Tax while she was Prime Minister.  To the best of my knowledge Chris Hipkins has not announced his position although given his Blairite approach to politics I do not anticipate anything radical.

Well today we learned what Hipkins will do with the report.

From Stuff:

Labour will not propose a wealth tax or a capital gains tax at the election, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said on Wednesday.

“I’m confirming today that under a Government I lead there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election. End of story.”

He said “now is simply not the time for a big shake-up of our tax system”.

I am not so sure it is the end of the story.  As pointed out by Grant Robertson the Labour Party has an election manifesto process requires a degree of agreement between caucus and the party council.

We’re at the very sharp end of that process now.”

Time will tell if Hipkins’ statement was well sourced or premature.

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori must be grinning from ear to ear.  There must be more than a few lefties thinking about throwing their support behind either or both of these parties.

Maybe this is a great example of five dimensional chess.  Maybe Labour will eat into National’s support while ceding support on the left to the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.   Maybe the left’s vote will grow.

But if this happens if the left wins then their hands in terms of any negotiation will be strengthened.

All eyes will be on the next poll.  And results will be interpreted either as an elegant example of five dimensional chess.  Or the sort of political triangulation that saps the energy and passion out of progressive activists.

92 comments on “Hipkins’ tax gamble ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Patricia Bremner 1
    12 July 2023 at 6:41 pm

    Well these last two polls point to a mistake. I am one of those looking Left.

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    12 July 2023 at 6:45 pm

    Anyone forgotten about Willie & JT? Them radio guys. Now one's a Labour Minister running a Maori caucus within, the other is running TMP outside parliament, but a former Labour Minister as well.

    So 3 guesses, these two are still in cahoots, so what will they see as the best move for all Maori. Join TMP or fight each other is two guesses. Do a deal with Winston could be the third. Depends what the Maori king's leverage is too. Depends also on the extent of perception of betrayal around 3 Waters…

    • Belladonna 2.1
      12 July 2023 at 7:04 pm

      I'd say the possibility of doing at deal with Winston would be highly unlikely.
      They have nothing in common…

      The big question is whether Meka Whaitiri was the first pebble in the landslide of the Maori seats to TPM.
      Several labour Maori MPs (e.g. Mahuta) have ruled any shift out, categorically.

      Maori king is Tainui (Mahuta’s seat) – and that’s the extent of his direct influence. You might as well ask what the perspective of Ngai Tahu is – they are much stronger and better organized in the South Island.

      • Dennis Frank 2.1.1
        12 July 2023 at 7:34 pm

        Maori king is Tainui (Mahuta’s seat) – and that’s the extent of his direct influence.

        Months ago (perhaps last year) I expressed a similar view to the only Maori I know (almost my age) and he immediately rattled off a list of all the Maori tribes he knew were onboard with the Maori king politically. This man is a Labour voter, staunch.

        • Belladonna 2.1.1.1
          12 July 2023 at 7:40 pm

          Don't think Ngai Tahu or Tuhoe or the Awa tribes from Taranaki were among them….Not 'our' King…..
          That’s not to say their politics din;t run in parallel – but the Maori King espousing them won’t be a significant factor.

          • Dennis Frank 2.1.1.1.1
            12 July 2023 at 7:55 pm

            So how do you rate Labour's handling of co-governance as a causal factor for Maori? And then add to that the likelihood of Maori having no faith in the economic benefits of Grant's neolib budgeting. I mean, those seem likely causal factors behind the rise of the TMP poll rating in the three recent polls.

  3. Johnr 3
    12 July 2023 at 6:47 pm

    Gees! I think I'll go to bed and put my head under the pillow.

  4. Corey 4
    12 July 2023 at 6:50 pm

    I actually got dm'd by a few relatively unpolitical, middle class gen z and fellow millennial friends the moment he said "end of story"

    There were various "who do I vote for " or "why vote for Greens or the Maori party or Top for xyz when Labours ruled out doing xyz"

    Young people are pretty pissed off at Labour and Hipkins, my fear is by ruling out policies young people want, young people won't just not vote Labour, they won't vote at all because they won't see a point if he's ruled out the policies they want.

    I hate these captain calls. They are undemocratic, short sighted and low imagination.

    A cgt is not radical. The fact Hipkins considers it radically left tells you everything you need to know about Hipkins.

    And fancy basically ruling out any tax reform when every other party has major tax reform policies and the majority of the public want it.

    It's time for Hipkins to put up or shut up. Stop telling us what you rule out and start telling us what you rule in.

    Enough of the boy from the Hutt and sausage rolls bullshit, there's only a couple weeks left of this parliament.

    Labours manifesto better not just be words of intent, vibes, best wishes and statements, it better be in depth, articulate, analysis of costed policy's not bullshit like "we believe every kiwi deserves the chance to succeed"

    Vibes and good intentions aren't enough

  5. Ad 5
    12 July 2023 at 6:53 pm

    I would prefer to see Hipkins campaign on his actual tax reforms, which are actually pretty major:

    – The Bright Line Tax of 10 years on sales of houses other than the family home is as good as a capital gains tax as we are ever going to get here.

    – Big writeoffs on housing as an investment killed off

    – Income tax increase to 39% for income over $180,000

    – Big if impermanent decreases to fuel tax

    – 44% of greenhouse gases subject to carbon prices

    – Trustee tax rate of 33% increased to 39%, bringing it in line with high earners

    So Hipkins, go tell the people what you have done on tax and be proud of it.

    Also anyone who thinks there will be streams of Labour voters pulling away to the Greens because they are begging to be taxed hundreds of thousands on wealth, I'd say very unlikely.

    • SPC 5.1
      12 July 2023 at 6:57 pm

      Also anyone who thinks there will be streams of Labour voters pulling away to the Greens because they are begging to be taxed hundreds of thousands on wealth, I'd say very unlikely.

      Less than 1% of New Zealanders would be impacted by a wealth tax and how many of those are Labour voters?

      Whereas the zero tax below $10,000 and the Greens income policy …

      Labour still has room on company tax – by looking at a progressive tax based on profits (as per 33-39 on banks) as the US does.

      • alwyn 5.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 5:18 pm

        " by looking at a progressive tax based on profits (as per 33-39 on banks) as the US does".

        Can you please provide a link to this statement. It is not something I have heard of

        • SPC 5.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 5:56 pm

          The House version of the budget reconciliation bill includes a provision to raise the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 26.5 percent and reintroduce a progressive rate schedule. Under the proposal, the amount of corporate income tax imposed would be 18 percent of taxable income under $400,000, 21 percent of taxable income between $400,000 and $5 million, and 26.5 percent of taxable income above $5 million. This proposal allows lawmakers to argue that they are reintroducing progressivity into the corporate income tax, only a few years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated it.

          https://www.aei.org/economics/a-progressive-corporate-income-tax-doesnt-make-a-lot-of-sense/

          You'll note the case made against it in the article – we however have our dividend imputation system.

          And besides a lot of our company profits (banks) just flow offshore if not taxed.

    • adam 5.2
      12 July 2023 at 7:25 pm

      Also anyone who thinks there will be streams of Labour voters pulling away to the Greens because they are begging to be taxed hundreds of thousands on wealth, I'd say very unlikely.

      I agree, a lot of people will vote for the shit lite party as the see it's worlds better than the shit party. If your a true conservative who else can you vote for? Te Pāti Māori party is to scary, the greens are toooo progressive. act are wreckers, and the shit party can't get it's head around basic statistics, let alone demographics, nor a rain radar. Lets not forget donkey snuffed all the conservative’s out of the shit party

      A lot of people they may not like the shit lite party, but for them, the other choices are worse.

    • Hunter Thompson II 5.3
      13 July 2023 at 8:44 am

      As you noted, under existing law we have a de facto capital gains tax already.

      It's not just the bright-line tests. There are other rules, especially for land, that catch dealer, developers and builders. They have been part of the Income Tax Act for many years.

      No doubt the PM thinks his announcement can bring in some votes.

    • Mike Nolan 5.4
      13 July 2023 at 10:14 am

      I'll be voting Greens this year if Labour can't take a decent tax policy to the electorate, after 5 elections campaigning for Labour in an unforgivable electorate. If six years of government including an MMP majority only brings a few modest incremental wins, then what's the point?

    • newsense 5.5
      13 July 2023 at 10:19 am

      Can’t say :this is what we’re guna do. Must say: non frightening, don’t be scared various roading lobbies and farmers.

    • Shanreagh 5.6
      13 July 2023 at 10:58 am

      I agree with all this Ad.

      Also anyone who thinks there will be streams of Labour voters pulling away to the Greens because they are begging to be taxed hundreds of thousands on wealth, I'd say very unlikely.

      I also think, as I said below, that Labour internal polling has probably told them/reinforced to them that The Greens wealth tax idea is a big turnoff to voting for Labour if it needs The Greens to help.

  6. Charlotte Rust 6
    12 July 2023 at 6:58 pm

    Done with Labour, two ticks Green Party. A cgt, land tax, wealth tax whatever way it’s spun is a bottom line with me, it’s time the left properly addressed housing un-affordability and equity/equality. Ardern pissed me off by ruling it out and now Hipkins is playing the same populist card. The cost of living crisis does not affect the truly wealthy and it’s not going away for the rest of us – resources are getting more expensive and no govt/change of govt can magically think that away.

  7. adam 7
    12 July 2023 at 7:15 pm

    Labour has no choice but to say this.

    That's why they are called shit lite .

    If you want labour to have a spine, then want them to shift on this you should give your party vote to Te Pāti Māori

  8. Alan 8
    12 July 2023 at 7:27 pm

    The confused will not vote, this could be one of our lowest turnouts yet.

    • newsense 8.1
      13 July 2023 at 3:06 pm

      The danger is not only not voting, but in turning away what might be Labour’s only advantage- a good volunteer ground game.

      Heard today all kinds of things that people believe Labour have or haven’t done- do people associate the prescription changes with them? How about early childhood education increases?

      How can these and other policies be cemented in people’s minds? Because at the moment Labour is allowing National to define it.

  9. Alan 9
    12 July 2023 at 7:48 pm

    The hard left in Labour will go to the Greens or TPM.

    The right of Labour and uncommitted middle ground voters will vote National, because they know that a vote for Labour is potentially a vote for the coalition of chaos – and given the hugely disparate views on the left, as displayed here today, it can fairly be described as a coalition of chaos.

    • SPC 9.1
      12 July 2023 at 7:53 pm

      The uncommitted centre might say they do not like how things are going, or the prospect of ACT in NACT.

    • bwaghorn 9.2
      12 July 2023 at 8:45 pm

      Coalition of caos?? Very catchy didya thunk it up all by yerself??

    • Ad 9.3
      12 July 2023 at 9:42 pm

      The hard left are already in the Greens. nothing to worry about.

    • Incognito 9.4
      12 July 2023 at 11:07 pm

      You have come out as Lefty; have you told your parents yet?

      You are implying that the TS commentariat is made up of Lefties and that it is representative of the Left in NZ.

      Do you see a lot of strawmen in your dreams? Or only hairy little creatures?

    • Patricia Bremner 9.5
      14 July 2023 at 2:25 am

      There is more common ground in Labour Greens and Te Parti Maori, than in Act and National. Seymore wants to be DP with all the baubles, he will have to climb over Willis first.

  10. bwaghorn 10
    12 July 2023 at 8:38 pm

    In a wealth tax, do owners of share ,land ,or gold get a tax refund if prices crash??

    • Shanreagh 10.1
      13 July 2023 at 11:04 am

      Off course not its a paper book value exercise done in accordance with the politics of envy. If that happens the thresh-hold will be lowered to catch the new values of what constitutes wealthy.

      /s

      • weka 10.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:11 am

        you just made that up. It's in direct contradiction to GP concepts of fairness and the kaupapa of the policy which is to tax excess wealth.

        It might be something neliberal parties do, but since you are supporting neoliberal positions it's hard to see why you would be critical of that.

        My understanding is that high wealth will be taxed annually based on the assessed worth at the time. If housing prices drop in the following year then a bunch of people will no longer have to pay the tax.

        If house prices crash, or even decline over a number of years, then a whole raft of economics would have to be reviewed. We'd be better off having GP policies in place at that point, neolib policies will use austerity.

        • Shanreagh 10.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 2:52 pm

          My comment had a S tag on it.

          I worked through and was affected, to the extent of losing my job and more or less my future in roles I had wanted to follow, by the very worst of the neo-lib excesses visited on NZ by the Nat/labour neo-libs.

          So i am not a neo-lib.

          But feel free to throw that insult around if you cannot/do not want to examine/critique anything I say for any merit.

          I've never really understood though why we have to insult anyone who does not toe the party line……

          • weka 10.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2023 at 9:15 pm

            it's not throwing an insult at you, it's a summation of the arguments you've been making about a wealth tax in the past month.

            I saw the sarc tag but it didn't make sense. Do you mean you don't think the threshold would be lowered in response to economic down turns?

            • Shanreagh 10.1.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2023 at 10:53 pm

              Well I'm not a neo-lib. I don't advance neo lib arguments and I think I would know as I sat through 4-5 years of ministerial briefings/drafted cabinet papers/commented on cabinet papers and CE briefings on this to be able to probably go on Mastermind with ‘neo-lib as manifested in the structures of the NZ Govt’ as my specialist topic.

              I have been on here asking why with this large majority we had Labour did not undo any/many of the neo-lib stuff including ownership of power companies.

              If anything my views are little 'l' liberal. I see a place for govt in the lives of people, I see the ability to work to fund oneself as a public and private good, i think artists are important people,…we cannot learn about what NZers wnat by looking overseas I believe in co-governance….

              But I don't call myself anything.

              My views are a hodgepodge based a little on the ideas of 'there but for the grace of god go I, playing it forward.

              So please don't put me or my views in a little box and label it so you can conveniently not address them.

              It is fine for you to say 'I don't agree' and if you can be bothered explain why…you don't have to call them a name.

              • Shanreagh …
                14 July 2023 at 9:40 am

                The theoretical background to the work carried out by nats/Labour in the late 1980s and 1990s came from the Chicago School of Economics

                'Chicago School is a neoclassical economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1930s. The main tenets of the Chicago School are that free markets best allocate resources in an economy and that minimal, or even no, government intervention is best for economic prosperity.'

                and

                Also beneficial to an economy, according to the Chicago School, is the reduction or elimination of regulations on business. George Stigler, another Nobel Laureate, developed theories regarding the impact of government regulation on businesses. Chicago School is libertarian and laissez-faire at its core, rejecting Keynesian notions of governments managing aggregate economic demand to promote growth.

                https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicago_school.asp#:~:text=Chicago%20School%20is%20a%20neoclassical,is%20best%20for%20economic%20prosperity.

                The main proponents were Prebble, Douglas, Caygill and Richardson. I don't think they called themselves Neo-libs at the time.

                This ideology postulates that the reduction of state interventions in economic and social activities and the deregulation of labor and financial markets, as well as of commerce and investments, have liberated the enormous potential of capitalism to create an unprecedented era of social well-being in the world's …

                These two definitions are so far from what I believe in. I lost my job as did many other diligent PS as part of the pursuit of this idealogy so I am hardly likely to support it. I had made a conscious decsion to join the PS when I left university as it was the only place I could see that that did not foster the excesses of male domination in salaries and opportunities.

              • weka …
                14 July 2023 at 12:24 pm

                I didn't say you were a neolib, and this is another example of you not listening to what people are saying.

                I said you are supporting neoliberal positions. That's not an insult, it's an analysis of politics.

                My views are a hodgepodge based a little on the ideas of 'there but for the grace of god go I, playing it forward.

                This is how it comes across to me too, but that's not incompatible with what I am describing. For instance there are lots of Labour voters who want other people to be ok but still support some of Labour's neoliberal positions

                For weeks you have been arguing against the GP wealth tax. From what I can tell, you think it's bad policy in part because you believe that people who bought a house at a time when property prices were still relatively low, have been able to pay off a moderate mortgage because of that, and who have now accrued very large capital gains thanks to the property market, should be allowed to keep those capital gains and not pay tax on them.

                You do qualify that by saying that instead of paying tax as it accrues, there could be death and sales taxes instead. The GP policy allows for this option but you have consistently failed to explain why this is not acceptable but a death/sales tax is.

                I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude from that that you want to protect housing market accred assets (separate from paying off a mortgage) for those that have them.

                The property market, including the accrual of capital gains from continual growth operates as "free markets best allocate resources in an economy and that minimal, or even no, government intervention is best for economic prosperity"

                (quote from your comment below).

                It's blatantly obvious at this point in time that free market housing has created a massive poverty problem in NZ, the oppose of economic prosperity.

                You are literally arguing against a set of policies that would enable government intervene in the market. You still haven't explained why, you just keep coming back with things like 'the family home should be excluded'. The only way that makes sense in the context of the GP policy is if you want to retain the excess capital gains on very expensive houses, at the expense of people living in poverty. That’s a neoliberal position.

                So yes, I see you as definitely supporting neoliberal positions. Imo the housing crisis exists at this point because Labour voters who would otherwise want to end poverty won't vote for ending poverty in a meaningful sense because so many of them own houses with large capital gains. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a sticking point.

                • Shanreagh …
                  15 July 2023 at 11:30 am

                  So yes, I see you as definitely supporting neoliberal positions. Imo the housing crisis exists at this point because Labour voters who would otherwise want to end poverty won't vote for ending poverty in a meaningful sense because so many of them own houses with large capital gains. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a sticking point.

                  Though perhaps rather than snideness, which is unbecoming, many also feel that the Greens Policy would not ended poverty in a meaningful way.

                  I know that had the Greens wealth policy not caught the family home then I would have supported it.

                  Had the rates worked off the policy work from Treasury of catching those with assets over $5m and excluding the family home, many more would have supported it.

                  I have mentioned several times that home ownership of just one home the home to live in, is something the majority of NZers aspire to. It is something that NZ Govts have supported since the breaking up of the great estates in the 1890s.

                  Many people do not class as wealth, owning the home you live in. People have to live somewhere. But do we need more than one? No we don't and that was a fruitful and non threatening way of taxing that the Treasury work was honing in on.

                  More's the pity that the furore/concern picked up on by internal Labour polling has put the excellent work done by The Treasury out of contention too.

                  In this extract from

                  https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300927549/wealth-tax-would-create-compliance-headaches-little-gain

                  this point has also been made…..that including the family home comes slap bang up again govt moves to 'encourage investment in owner-occupied housing' while also having the superficial attraction as it means a policy to exclude them does not have to be written.

                  Tax consultant Terry Baucher said any wealth tax that did not include a family home was not realistic.

                  “Excluding the family home is excluding one of the assets that is most easily valued. It’s also excluding something that the system has for decades been encouraging – investment in owner-occupied housing.”

                  • weka …
                    15 July 2023 at 12:46 pm

                    Though perhaps rather than snideness, which is unbecoming, many also feel that the Greens Policy would not ended poverty in a meaningful way.

                    Sorry, who are you saying is being snide? The Greens or me?

                    There was nothing snide in my comment. It's a political analysis, that for some reason you seem to be taking personally.

                    I know that had the Greens wealth policy not caught the family home then I would have supported it.

                    Had the rates worked off the policy work from Treasury of catching those with assets over $5m and excluding the family home, many more would have supported it.

                    Sure, but that Labour policy wasn't about lifting everyone out of poverty. I'm glad we have this clear though, you are advocating against a policy that would lift everyone out of poverty and advocating for a policy that would keep a big chunk of people in poverty. This is why I say you are supporting a neoliberal position.

                    Which btw, I explained in depth and you have just ignored after objecting to the characterisation.

                    I have mentioned several times that home ownership of just one home the home to live in, is something the majority of NZers aspire to. It is something that NZ Govts have supported since the breaking up of the great estates in the 1890s.

                    Yes, do you been saying that. You are also ignoring that capital gains from the housing market means that many people live in poverty. That's a political choice. It's relatively recent (say 30 years), and it can be reversed but you are arguing against that.

                    Many people do not class as wealth, owning the home you live in.

                    Indeed, and the GP policy also does not class owning a home you live in as wealth. It's only the individuals who have assets in the clear above $2m, or couples above $4m, which is a very very small number of NZers.

                    Incog gave some scenarios here so it's easy to see how this works

                    .https://thestandard.org.nz/the-very-strange-election-campaign/#comment-1958751

                    Your characterisation of the family home as inherently impacted negatively by the WT, is highly misleading. The greater majority of homeowners in NZ won't be affected unless they have a lot of other assets.

        • alwyn 10.1.1.2
          13 July 2023 at 5:30 pm

          "the assessed worth at the time. If housing prices drop in the following year then a bunch of people will no longer have to pay the tax."

          How do they propose to assess the worth Weka? You can do it for publicly traded shares perhaps but trying to settle on the worth of a small company is almost impossible. Try and assess the value of a panel beating business with 10 employees say.

          Even houses are hard to do. There is CV, on which rates are assessed but in Wellington the CV is typically about 20-25 percent more than the selling price of houses. Try and get the council to changer the rating rules though? Impossible.

          For houses that are not sold in a particular year how do you set the taxable value?

          • SPC 10.1.1.2.1
            13 July 2023 at 5:58 pm

            Just go to Quotable Value and give your address and they will give you their current valuation for your property.

            For a company. It’s assets, less its debts. The variable is goodwill (reputation – connections to business associates and customers).

            As per rates, change in property values up or down, is irrelevant (the only exception is a revaluation upward relative to other property, which only occurs with changes in zoning/development rules).

            • Belladonna 10.1.1.2.1.1
              13 July 2023 at 7:03 pm

              QV valuations are a very ballpark estimate – carried out entirely from the comfort of their ergonomic chairs.
              Which is why they are regularly challenged for rating purposes (9K of them in Auckland last year)

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/300832986/redstickered-homes-add-to-pile-of-9000-rates-valuation-complaints-in-auckland

              When I had a business valued around 10 years ago – the valuer straight-up asked me if I wanted the high value or the low value – there was several hundred thousand $$$ between the two….

            • alwyn 10.1.1.2.1.2
              13 July 2023 at 7:10 pm

              Of course QV will give you a figure. However, as I pointed out, it is nothing like the current market value. Are the wealth taxes going to be based on QV? If so what on earth does that have to do with some-one's real wealth?

              As for that figure of assets less debts. It is simply nothing to do with the price a business might sell for, and therefore what it might be worth as part of your wealth.

              • SPC …
                13 July 2023 at 7:26 pm

                You mentioned CV, which is adjusted only every 3 years. QV is adjusted regularly. And thus is much closer to market value (is based on the latest sales in the area).

                The assessment of business goodwill and thus a total value can be determined by a valuer.

                Of course, if you want to argue a preference for a CGT based on sale price, go for it. If not, do you want an estate tax and gift duties?

                • Shanreagh …
                  13 July 2023 at 10:58 pm

                  Death duties, tax on empty houses and a modest financial transaction tax if needed and shown to be needed, after the income tax rates are adjusted.

                  If the income tax rates etc are adjusted we may not need to have any sort of additional taxes, we haven't tried that option yet.

                • alwyn …
                  14 July 2023 at 2:37 pm

                  The problem I can see is that there are a number of these estimating tools. For example OneRoof claims to do the same thing. Their numbers differ pretty widely from the QV ones. I looked at a couple of properties on both sites They were $950k and $1,130k on QV and $1095K and $1,325 on One Roof. What should we use to set the wealth value?

                  Even then of course I was only looking at houses of which many are sold. How would you value a small business, which is the foundation of many wealthy peoples assets?

  11. Christopher Randal 11
    12 July 2023 at 8:42 pm

    The way I see it is that National have gone full on dirty politics with all Simeon's bleating about Labour Minister's conflicts of interest, but nobody on the left are hitting back with questions about the Uffindell report and other National MPs who have proved embarrassing.

  12. Sanctuary 12
    12 July 2023 at 8:50 pm

    If the Greens want a wealth tax then they need to be polling at 18%, not 8%. Go away and campaign hard and if the Greens get 20 seats next parliament then they can go back and ask the nice Mr. Hipkins about this again…

  13. UncookedSelachimorpha 13
    12 July 2023 at 8:57 pm

    No point voting for Labour at all, Green or TPM are the only parties that will change anything it seems. NAct awful, Labour just slightly less.

    Labour embraces Shit Lite as its core values.

  14. Darien Fenton 14
    13 July 2023 at 2:46 am

    A bit of a panic today. I wish Chippy had never said it, but he has kneecapped a National hitline for the election. Nicola Willis been crowing saying it proves "Labour was secretly plotting a CGT and Wealth Tax." I wish we lived in a society where we could be having a grown up conversation about increasing tax – but we have seen how any changes are seen as a tax. and there have been few under Labour. Remember Taxcinda? Ute tax? The poor landlords? As for the Greens saying today they could sit on the cross benches – well how futile would that be? I hate elections and particularly this competition of the pure vs the unclean on the Left.

    • Mike Nolan 14.1
      13 July 2023 at 10:21 am

      It's not the pure vs the pragmatic. It's the progressives vs the administrators. If 6 years of power including MMPs first majority government only results in incremental and modest wins, what is the point? We can't underestimate the impact of COVID, but bloody hell, extraordinary times called for at least something extraordinary in response. Yet our health and education systems are still going backwards, poverty and intergenerational dysfunction is still rampant, meth use is worse than ever, and from personal experience as a foster carer, OT/CFYF has never ever been so dysfunctional. Six years in, some great little wins along the way, one massive win in terms of our COVID response, and yet we all feel poorer, worse for wear and let down.

      • Shanreagh 14.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:34 am

        Yes I agree with all of that…..grumpy and worried. Some of us beset by climate change woes as well.

        I don't believe that the Greens wealth tax would have been the salve we needed.

        By failing to work on the death duties angle we have not looked at intergenerational wealth transfer. My view is that we quite like intergenerational wealth transfer if it happens in a modest way for ourslves but not for the so-called wealthy buxxxrs over there. ‘We can’t support that’

        • SPC 14.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 5:34 pm

          By failing to work on the death duties angle we have not looked at intergenerational wealth transfer. My view is that we quite like intergenerational wealth transfer if it happens in a modest way for ourslves but not for the so-called wealthy buxxxrs over there. ‘We can’t support that’

          So you oppose an exemption from death duties, or see it as something popular and easy to restore (we last had one in 1992)?

          Most that have death duties (2/3 in the OECD) have an exemption level and most do not meet the threshold. The tax on the top 10-20% being popular.

    • Anne 14.2
      13 July 2023 at 10:36 am

      I wish Chippy had never said it, but he has kneecapped a National hitline for the election.

      And that is precisely why he said it. Thanks for pointing it out Darien.

      How many recent conversations have people witnessed where less than well informed middle of the road voters have expressed their intention NOT to vote Labour because they are going to bring in a CGT. I've witnessed a few.

      These are the swingers who, in their ignorance, listen and read the likes of Hosking. HdPA and the rest of the ZB type tabloid tragics. They swing election results one way or another.

      Hipkins is a pragmatic politician as indeed was Helen Clark before him. He knows how far he can go before the voter axe will drop.

      As SPC says @ 5.1:

      Labour still has room on company tax – by looking at a progressive tax based on profits (as per 33-39 on banks) as the US does.

      And that kind of thing is what Labour will look seriously at doing.

      • Shanreagh 14.2.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:29 am

        Also good points Anne.

        Hipkins being a pragmatist will have left room to move …..

    • Shanreagh 14.3
      13 July 2023 at 11:06 am

      Good points Darien.

      Hipkins is ever the pragmatist.

      I wish we lived in a society where we could be having a grown up conversation about increasing tax

      I agree with this and be able to look at all forms of tax in the discussion.

  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    13 July 2023 at 6:29 am

    To paraphrase Bernard Hickey on RNZ this morning–“the middle is hostage to a decision made in the late 80s, when a proposed CGT was not implemented”
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/08-12-2020/capital-gains-tax-has-been-ruled-out-again-so-what-are-the-governments-options

    Which means anticipated untaxed gains from property is what many people have focused on for three decades now. They are not financial geniuses just recipients of the proceeds of a “one way bet”. It is treacherous territory for Parliamentary politicians, who are mostly into property themselves. Yet the recent IRD investigation into tax inequity has produced up to 53% support for a wealth tax of some sort.

    I hope Micky’s scenario plays out, where Greens and TPM have a strong MMP bargaining position, but yet another wimpish “Captain’s call” from NZ Labour just puts off the day when the 50% of NZers doing it very hard will get a tax free threshold and more consideration. Jeez, when even Robbo is supporting some form of wealth tax/CGT what is Mr Chipkins problem? Monetarist zeal is one ugly manifestation of ideology, the NZ Labour leader is supporting “the few, over the many”.

  16. Mike the Lefty 16
    13 July 2023 at 7:55 am

    I'm sorry to have to say this but this Labour government has been a huge disappointment to me. In 2020 Labour won an unprecedented majority of total votes riding the wave of support earned by Jacinda's skilful handling of the Christchurch terror attacks and COVID epidemic. For the first time since the introduction of MMP, Labour could do what it liked without reference to any other party. Transformation of New Zealand's weak economy and fragmented society was just begging to be done.

    But Labour blew it.

    They decided not to do what was needed, instead they insisted that "kindness" was the way forward. I have no trouble with people being kind, but kindness in government is much different from kindness in individuals.

    The net result of this was some tinkering , some meaningless reorganisation of government departments, a few of the worst anomalies fixed, some good trade deals, some clumsy attempts to deal with climate change but for the most it could have well have been mistaken for John Key's National party government the economic policies were so similar.

    You have the means, people are calling for change and yet you are too afraid to move? Can anyone imagine that the National Party wouldn't have moved us back to the 1980s and 90s if they had had the same opportunity?

    Public opinion has changed over the last few years regarding taxation. I remember when Jacinda was publicly forced to promise on her political career that there would be no CGT on her watch, I think it was the 2017 election, to avert a last minute swing to National on poll day. Today there is much more support for such a tax but Labour, obsessed with staying in power at all costs, will not risk anything.

    The only real difference between Labour and National economically is that National say they will spend less, which is National's usual ploy of looking like they have a plan when they actually haven't.

    No, this government has been a disappointment, they had the means and a degree of public support to reform the economy – reclaim it from the speculators and wealth hoarders – but in the end chickened out.

    Sad.

    • Tiger Mountain 16.1
      13 July 2023 at 9:00 am

      Yep, a once in a generation lost opportunity. AO/NZ a long narrow country, which Chile has often been described as, but who would have thought Pinochet’s rigid monetarism would still prevail here in 2023? Population at barely 5 mill, a land of plenty, yet we still manage to maintain an enduring underclass and ravaged lives due to not making the wealthy pay their fair share, or regulating Aussie Banks and the Supermarket Duopoly.

      Part of it goes back to Sir (cur) Rog, Prebble, Bassett, Caygill and the rest purging of anything much left in NZ Labour. Most of the Labour Caucus are neo Blairist through and through and frankly know no better, a class left analysis is anathema to them.

      New movements and leaders always arise however despite the pundits, bloggers and media channel wankers. New Gens are just starting to outnumber boomer voters now so change is a comin’…one way or another.

    • Charlotte Rust 16.2
      13 July 2023 at 6:21 pm

      I wonder how much of this is due to the media and opposition constantly bagging the govt for every tiny move. I don’t recall it ever being so bad/prolific.

  17. Dennis Frank 17
    13 July 2023 at 8:59 am

    From Richard Harman this morning:

    The release of the Budget papers yesterday shows that from late last year, Treasury and two Cabinet Ministers spent six months working in secret on a wealth tax, all the time avoiding questions on what they were doing.

    The papers show that Treasury estimated a tax on individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population. However, that group would have assets totalling $5 billion or 26% of all the assets held by individuals. Nevertheless, it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers. But the Prime Minister,ruled it out in late April and even more emphatically yesterday.
    https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/

    So they weren't gunning for the 1%. Their target was the top half of them. Such selective socialism, yet they can't say so.

    What's not clear to me is whether the target actually was assets rather than income & if so, would Treasury just use current market value of those to do their cut thereof.

    I mean, the only real way to measure market value is to sell the item. Anything else is an estimate – even if expert. Hypothetical wealth extraction…

    • Shanreagh 17.1
      13 July 2023 at 11:26 am

      Yes indeed DF.

      This

      The papers show that Treasury estimated a tax on individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population. However, that group would have assets totalling $5 billion or 26% of all the assets held by individuals. Nevertheless, it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers. But the Prime Minister,ruled it out in late April and even more emphatically yesterday.
      https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/

      The Greens with their notions of what wealth is does not accord with the work that Treasury felt were the wealthy.

      I think the PM ruled wealth tax etc out in March and July for different reasons

      – March possibly not enough time to have delivered a well thought out fair plan before the election or even risk putting up the bones of one (it is horse scaring stuff in NZ where so many NZers own their own homes)

      – July possibly Labour's internal polling has alerted him to the fact that there is great unease in the Labour stronghold at The Greens proposals. If The Greens had followed the idea from The Treasury…..

      individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population.

      but

      it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers

      He may have been less inclined to knock it out as it would have built on the the work that had already been done by IRD. IRD had been doing some work on high net worth individuals and families that had been made public.

      https://www.ird.govt.nz/hwi-research-project

      https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/final-report-april-2023/report-high-wealth-individuals-research-project.pdf?modified=20230423203807

      https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/factsheets-supporting-hwi-report/tax-and-the-economic-income-of-the-wealthy.pdf?modified=20230420234159

      Anyway onwards and upwards…hopefully we will get some interesting ideas.

      • Anne 17.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 12:13 pm

        … Labour's internal polling has alerted him to the fact that there is great unease in the Labour stronghold at The Greens proposals…

        You may well be right Shnareagh but I think the greater unease was the internal polling picking up the number of people who have been fooled into believing (as we know NAct and it's media lackeys have been assiduously claiming) that Labour was going to introduce a CGT and it would include baches/holiday homes etc.

        I heard one such conversation only a few days ago.

        • Shanreagh 17.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 3:11 pm

          We obviously hear views from a wider group of people not just those who valued the CGT/wealth ideas or the current iteration by The Greens.

          My surprising one recently was with some younger female scientists who thought the ideas of including the family home and KS were ill thought out.

          I suspect that if The Greens had excluded the family home the concern about their wealth tax policy would not have been there. NZers and home ownership and our psyche about this are apparent to social historians but may not have been noted by The Greens.

          The Greens don't seem to set great store by home ownership or retirement savings eg Kiwisaver judging by a quick skim of the manifesto.

          That's fine but don't expect it not to be noticed and then added to concern about the low cutoff point for the tax or the inclusion of the family home.

          Whatever the poling was picking up I am glad that it was promptly picked up on and put away.

          Now hopefully we will get a commitment to looking at tax bracket creep and if needed upping of the rates themselves a la The Greens and also if needed floating of ideas adding to the tax take. CGT or Wealth taxes are not the only horses in this.

          I have a twinge of unease but also hope that Labour has a robust tax policy ready, or almost, to go.

          • SPC 17.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2023 at 5:26 pm

            Yeah sure a tax that impacted on less than 1% of people had an impact on polling … surprise

            I suspect that if The Greens had excluded the family home the concern about their wealth tax policy would not have been there.

            So why did Labour abandon a wealth tax that excluded the family home?

            • Shanreagh 17.1.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2023 at 11:05 pm

              Picking up on internal polling that was running scared on any notion of a wealth/cgt?

              The papers show that Treasury estimated a tax on individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population. However, that group would have assets totalling $5 billion or 26% of all the assets held by individuals. Nevertheless, it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers. But the Prime Minister,ruled it out in late April and even more emphatically yesterday.
              https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/

              and

              I think the PM ruled wealth tax etc out in March and July for different reasons

              – March possibly not enough time to have delivered a well thought out fair plan before the election or even risk putting up the bones of one (it is horse scaring stuff in NZ where so many NZers own their own homes)

              – July possibly Labour's internal polling has alerted him to the fact that there is great unease in the Labour stronghold at The Greens proposals.

              13 July 2023 at 11:26 am

  18. Mike Nolan 18
    13 July 2023 at 10:09 am

    That hurts. I've been saying for a long time that unless Labour takes a progressive tax policy to the electorate to combat National's tax plan they will likely lose. Being able to show how small tax cuts for upper-middle incomes, moderate ones for lower-middle incomes, and significant cuts for lower incomes would contrast with National's cuts for the rich and crumbs for the poor.

    Labour will apparently release their tax policy in the next fortnight. If it is as timid as I fear it will be, for the first time in 5 elections I won't be campaigning for or voting for them. I'll be sitting on the sidelines and voting Green or TPM.

  19. That_guy 19
    13 July 2023 at 10:25 am

    Disappointing to say the least. The issues that matter to me, in order of priority are:

    1) The ecological omishamblesclusterfuck crisis

    <daylight> because what does any of this matter on a dead planet?

    2) taxes, taxes,taxes

    3) Respect women and LGB kids.

    Here's my current position: both the Greens and Labour did not respect the rights of women, but of the people who trashed Speak Up For Women in a select committee, Deborah Russell (Labour) is still going strong and Dr. Kerekere (Greens) is gone.

    I have comms from Green MPs stating that they understand that gender critical people exist in the Greens and that their voices will be represented.

    And on tax Labour have just dropped the ball and then openly told us they will never pick it up.

    Guess it's back to the Greens.

    • weka 19.1
      13 July 2023 at 10:44 am

      Interesting analysis of your voting inclination, thanks.

      I think there is an opening for the Greens to shift on gender identity and sex. Won't be easy or fast, but Kerekere going and the party prioritising climate/eco and ending poverty over gender identity ideology is a good sign. The Greens understand what matters to voters just like every other party and my guess is that they have enough Rainbow things in their policy to satisfy most of their liberal voters, but it's the environment and wealth equity issues that will gain them votes from Labour.

      • That_guy 19.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:12 am

        For me if you're not acting and talking like a crisis is a crisis, you are out of contention immediately. This leaves the Greens, TOP and possibly TPM.

        TOP = no bums on seats unless something drastic changes. So they are out (for now).

        TPM = perfectly happy with indigenous people organising in their own interests, perfectly happy for them to be there, but I personally do not want to vote for party that is explicitly tied to an ethnicity. But I will look into their policies.

        The fact that the Greens are talking sense about tax and will have bums on seats is a bonus.

  20. Shanreagh 20
    13 July 2023 at 10:54 am

    Here is this for a bit of balance

    Tax expert Terry Baucher said both National and Labour Governments had created a problem by leaving tax thresholds unadjusted for inflation for so long. The cost of making any adjustment now had got “higher and higher” over time, he said. “It’s a headache entirely of their own making.”

    Robin Olliver, former deputy commissioner of policy at Inland Revenue and now a tax consultant, said the Government was right not to pursue a tax-free threshold.

    “It would be a very poor way of assisting the less well off. That is because most of those $10,000 or under are partners or children of higher income households. They get the full benefit. Moreover high wealth can direct some income to household members gaining more tax benefits. Lower income households are on 17.5% rate and now even 30%. Better to increase the threshold of $48,000 when the tax rate rises to 30%.”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300926510/heres-how-much-the-govts-abandoned-taxfree-threshold-would-have-given-you

    My view is that there are more ways to look at this. They rely on the currently well functioning (govt) records and the fact that people die and people sell.

    1 Death Duties: use BDM, Justice (probate)

    2 Financial transaction tax on shares and real estate: use Share registry, land transfer office based on survey system and Torrens land registry system.

    3 We could add a tax on unused housing stock or land being held for land banking against future land use changes

    4 We could adjust the Brightline test

    5 We could look at whether income is being declared from AirBnB (I suspect in many cases where this is being operated semi casually and no expenditure is being charged against the 'business' that this is not being declared.)

    I see the death duties tax as unproblematic as it is easily able to exclude the survivor of joint family homes. It sends a, possibly token signal, about intergenerational wealth transfers, as socialists we still believe in this don't we? (or are we saying it is OK for some to pass down wealth but not others?)

    What would be the problem in saying that we like the Greens tax brackets ideas?

    0-10,000 – 0%

    10, -50,000 – 17%

    50,-75,000 – 30%

    75, – 120,000 -35%

    120, -180,000 – 39%

    0ver 180,000 -45%

    then leaving the use of the increased tax in the various Votes up to NZGovt to use in budgets to meet the policies it is pushing for. Tied taxes such as that proposed by The Greens are traditionally disliked by The Treasury as tying the hands of any Govt. Any proposal involving tied taxes can expect big pushback from The Treasury.

    So if we have a range of different types of taxes, and none of them tied, it gives a Govt more flexibility on a year by year basis to direct funds to its programmes.

    If we focus on the high net wealth taxpayers/families such as those investigated by IRD (and these are asset owning people of well over 2M) then we may get an idea of other waypoints along the life of their caopital amassing journey where taxes can be pursued. This is a more specialist intrument than the blunt wealth or Capital Gains tax regimes.

    If we wanted to use a carrot system we could look at ways to reward people who directly transferred their wealth to others – such as say making contributions to a KS account for every child in NZ (so acting for parents/grandparents who wished they could do this but currently cannot), or directly funding remedial reading programmes, second chance education in prisons, budgetting advice. Not removing the role of Govt in these functions but giving a tax credit for direct donations from wealthy people.

    Please, now that for whatever reason the Govt is not pursuing wealth/capital gains tax, the decision is made and we can discuss other ways that have not been ruled out.

    Actually my view is that Labour has probably picked up in its polling, unease among its supporters about The Greens wealth tax proposals, these supporters may feel that if Labour forms a Govt and calls on The Greens that the Wealth tax will be the price that has to be paid. So they may move away from Labour or not vote at all, either prospect not being desirable. So the wealth tax, rather than making a Labour/Green grouping a desirable election outcome, is seen as being a poor outcome.

    • SPC 20.1
      13 July 2023 at 5:46 pm

      I see the death duties tax as unproblematic as it is easily able to exclude the survivor of joint family homes. It sends a, possibly token signal, about intergenerational wealth transfers, as socialists we still believe in this don't we? (or are we saying it is OK for some to pass down wealth but not others?)

      Most nations that have death duties have exemption levels and so most are exempt.

      • Belladonna 20.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 7:17 pm

        Just like most nations that have wealth taxes have exemption levels and so most are exempt.

        • SPC 20.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 7:29 pm

          And most nations that have CGT, exclude either all family homes or have an exemption that excludes near all family homes – they include some to capture those who buy mansion homes to store wealth.

          • Belladonna 20.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2023 at 7:34 pm

            Yes. The point is that all taxes exclude some groups of persons.

            You can't effectively exclude one from consideration on those grounds.

      • Shanreagh 20.1.2
        13 July 2023 at 11:15 pm

        Not going to comment about intergenerational wealth then? SPC 13 July 2023 at 5:46 pm

        Living in a family home is fair game to be taxed but passing down intergenerational wealth is not? I find that concept odd as the wealth that is passed down is the epitome of unearned income in the hands of the beneficiaries.

        Death duties if correctly set up would tax all but the levels would range from very little to quite alot depending on the size of the estate.

      • Shanreagh 20.1.3
        14 July 2023 at 9:47 am

        In NZ the charge for death duties could follow the lead in relation to probate.

        With estates valued over $15k, probate is a necessary part of the estate administration process that involves an application to the High Court for the will to be recognised and approved legally.

        https://www.publictrust.co.nz/resources/probate-explained-what-it-is-how-to-apply-and-how-we-can-help/

        At the moment estates valued at less than $15,000 are exempt from having to apply for probate and a death duties regime could link to that so it came in at a very low % $15,000 and then rose from there.

    • Belladonna 20.2
      13 July 2023 at 7:15 pm

      "That is because most of those $10,000 or under are partners or children of higher income households."

      These days you have to have a seriously high single income earner, for the family to be able to afford for one partner to earn less than $10K.

      One way around it, would be to increase the tax from people earning over (say) $180K to cover it.

      Actually, I think that quite a number of the people in that low earnings bracket are young teens on their first job. I think it’s highly unlikely that all (or even the majority) of them are from high earning families….

      • SPC 20.2.1
        13 July 2023 at 7:34 pm

        They should just bump up the low income earner rebate and extend its range to include more people (a lot more would get help from this for a lot less money than the zero tax under $10,000 – and then some money could go to adjusting the tax brackets).

        • Belladonna 20.2.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 7:39 pm

          Certainly agree that we need to adjust the tax brackets.

          Do you mean the IETC (Independent Earner Tax Credit)?

          Part of the attraction of not charging tax, rather than rebating it at the end of the tax year, is that the taxpayer gets to use the money in the meantime. And, there is less lost in the administration….

          • SPC 20.2.1.1.1
            13 July 2023 at 7:45 pm

            Yes.

            Independent Earner Tax Credit (IETC) is a tax credit you can get if you earn between $24,000 and $48,000 per annum and are not claiming a Working for Families Tax Credit. It is a tax credit of up to $520 so if you've paid more than this in tax, you can receive this back as a tax refund.​​

            This would help young couples and others trying to afford flats (and also save money to own).

  21. newsense 21
    13 July 2023 at 11:16 pm

    Not sure if anyone has posted Hickey’s scathing analysis of Hipkin’s ‘We need bread and sausages, so we have to screw over the climate’ type arguments.
    Apologies, quoted at length. Please read on the Spin-off link below or join Hickey on the Kaka.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-07-2023/so-this-is-how-the-story-ends

    …Hipkins said he decided not to go ahead with the tax switch because Labour did not have a mandate for a wealth tax and he wanted to keep things simple at an uncertain time. Here’s Hipkins again, with my bolding, and my comments on the bolded sections, below each quote.

    “With many Kiwi households struggling, now is simply not the time for a big shake-up of our tax system.”

    (He’s right about many households struggling, but it applies mostly to renters and the 99.5% who would have benefited from the tax switch.)

    (“Now” is a relative term. He’s effectively saying not for another generation, given if he wins the election that is three more years of no such tax, followed most likely by a National-Act government for another six to nine years.)

    “New Zealanders I talk to want certainty and continuity right now, and that’s what I’m delivering with this policy.”

    (Which ones? A Newshub-Reid Research poll in May showed a majority in support of a wealth tax.)

    “When I became prime minister I said the government I lead will focus on the basics. Experimenting with a wealth tax doesn’t fit that approach, which is why I’m ruling it out. My position on CGT is a continuation of the position the government has held since 2018.”

    (The risks of that experiment would be borne by the 0.5% of the population who are the most resourced to deal with the potential fallout.)

    (Technically, Jacinda Ardern did not rule out the CGT until 2019, but he’s sort of right because the CGT died in the week before the 2017 election when Ardern promised it would not be implemented in the first term, and would only happen after a Tax Working Group study, which meant never.)

    “While work was already under way on a potential wealth tax and CGT as part of a tax switch in the budget, I ultimately made the call not to proceed with it. We simply didn’t have a mandate to implement those tax changes.”

    (That’s worth challenging. As Grant Robertson pointed out yesterday, the wealth part of the tax switch would not have applied until after the election, which would have made the wealth tax part of the election contest to provide a mandate.)

    “Instead we have moved to address inequity in our tax system by increasing the top trust tax rate to match the 39% top income tax rate. This will help prevent trusts being used as a tax shelter and ensures the ultra wealthy pay their fair share. It also aligns with the increase to the top tax rate we implemented at the start of the term.”

    (David Parker’s study of the wealthiest shows an effective tax rate of 9% from those family trusts because most of the income is buried in untaxable capital gains.)

  22. newsense 22
    13 July 2023 at 11:19 pm

    Exactly. Get us a Labour PM with some guts and get about serving the country because this is not Labour tacking to the centre. This is a continuing betrayal of a generation and it will cement changes into the class structure of New Zealand that will bubble up in all kinds of nasty ways over the next 25 years.

  23. Nigel Haworth 23
    19 July 2023 at 11:25 pm

    My support for fundamental tax reform is long-established. The two most immediately-responsible and knowledgeable ministers (Robertson and Parker) also favour reform. The PM’s dismissal of tax reform begs the questions: when will it ever be the time for such change, and what sort of Labour Party do we need to promote such change?