FFS leave GST alone Chippy

[SueDonim]

Indeed. Especially seeing the vast majority of tax payers pay a much larger percentage of their income in tax than those very few wealthy at the top of the pile. The ones who also happen to own most of the assets. Along with a great deal of power.

Bring on the wealth tax.

That's specifically why I said "income tax". There is nothing fair about the proposed wealth taxes. The report that supposedly showed the richest not paying enough tax was looking at capital assets, not incomes. The richest people already pay the highest proportion of their higher incomes. The taxing of unrealised capital can never be fair.

[Lilith7]

I can't agree with 16 year olds having the right to vote; partly because they lack life experience but mostly due to the human brain not being fully developed until the mid 20s.

I do think though that civics should be taught in high schools.

And perhaps those of us who get to say 65-670 should be tested for dementia/alzheimers to make sure we're fit to vote.

[SueDonim]

I can't agree with 16 year olds having the right to vote; partly because they lack life experience but mostly due to the human brain not being fully developed until the mid 20s.

I do think though that civics should be taught in high schools.

And perhaps those of us who get to say 65-670 should be tested for dementia/alzheimers to make sure we're fit to vote.

Yes, fully agree about young people, especially about teaching civics at school. I'm not so sure about testing the older age group though. The principle sounds good but at what point would you say that someone with pre-dementia mild cognitive impairment is going to make a bad decision because of that? At least they have their lifetime of experience behind them so might still be capable of a sensible vote. [I doubt that I'll get to 670 - but close to 100 would be good].

[dken31]

I think less effort should be put into making voting easy.  E.g. cut down the orange man budget and make people have to take a bit of initiative. I not implying that barriers should be deliberately created; just that the current system of almost holding people's hands and walking them to the booth is dialled back.

That way, only those that actually care about it will make the effort to vote.  This means they're more likely to have bothered to get informed prior to choosing who they vote for rather than turning up on the day and just picking someone who "has a nice sounding name" or they remember seeing their face on a billboard.

There is an idea that more people voting is "good for democracy " however I just don't see what good comes from the vote of someone that didn't really care and doesn't really know who they're voting for due to not having ever bothered to get informed.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Indeed. Especially seeing the vast majority of tax payers pay a much larger percentage of their income in tax than those very few wealthy at the top of the pile. The ones who also happen to own most of the assets. Along with a great deal of power.

Bring on the wealth tax.

That's specifically why I said "income tax". There is nothing fair about the proposed wealth taxes. The report that supposedly showed the richest not paying enough tax was looking at capital assets, not incomes. The richest people already pay the highest proportion of their higher incomes. The taxing of unrealised capital can never be fair.

One of the things I like about the Greens is they do their homework. The reality is the wealthiest do not pay anywhere near the same income tax that you and I pay. That's backed up by the recent treasury reports, plural, all of which say the same thing.  And that is a huge problem.

[dken31]

The wealthy absolutely do pay their "fair share" of income tax at far higher % than the poor and middle classes.

The recent reports asserting the contrary, included estimates of unrealised capital growth as "income" and it was only by doing that that they could "show" that the rich were paying a lower rate.

There is a pervasive myth that rich people can dodge tax by using trusts and companies, when that just isn't true. Yes, trusts can currently be used to dodge the top 39% rate, but that loophole gets shut at the end of this year and trusts have still been taxed at 33%.

Someone with $50K annual income pays $8K tax at 16%. Someone with $500K annual income, using the trust "loophole", and splitting between them and their partner, pays $147K at 29%. From next year, that'll increase to $155K at 31%. Someone with $5M annual income pays $1.6M tax at 33% and, from next year, that goes up to $1.9M at 38%.

I've read the Green's tax policy and it is abundantly apparent that either they don't actually have a proper understanding of our current tax system or they're being deliberately misleading to appeal to the emotions of the general public who definitely don't properly understand out tax system. Either way, it is full of untruths and misleading partial truths.

The Maori Party policy is event worse. It is so amateurish and reads more like a high school accounting class project than a policy document from a political party wanting to have actual control over other people's lives.

[Kenj]

The wealthy absolutely do pay their "fair share" of income tax at far higher % than the poor and middle classes.

The recent reports asserting the contrary, included estimates of unrealised capital growth as "income" and it was only by doing that that they could "show" that the rich were paying a lower rate.

There is a pervasive myth that rich people can dodge tax by using trusts and companies, when that just isn't true.  Yes, trusts can currently be used to dodge the top 39% rate, but that loophole gets shut at the end of this year and trusts have still been taxed at 33%.

Someone with $50K annual income pays $8K tax at 16%.  Someone with $500K annual income, using the trust "loophole", and splitting between them and their partner, pays $147K at 29%. From next year, that'll increase to $155K at 31%.  Someone with $5M annual income pays $1.6M tax at 33% and, from next year, that goes up to $1.9M at 38%.

I've read the Green's tax policy and it is abundantly apparent that either they don't actually have a proper understanding of our current tax system or they're being deliberately misleading to appeal to the emotions of the general public who definitely don't properly understand out tax system. Either way, it is full of untruths and misleading partial truths.

The Maori Party policy is event worse.  It is so amateurish and reads more like a high school accounting class project than a policy document from a political party wanting to have actual control over other people's lives.

Thanks for the data dken31. I hope that now, OHH will show her data to back up her words. 

[Oh_hunnihunni]

The wealthy absolutely do pay their "fair share" of income tax at far higher % than the poor and middle classes.

The recent reports asserting the contrary, included estimates of unrealised capital growth as "income" and it was only by doing that that they could "show" that the rich were paying a lower rate.

There is a pervasive myth that rich people can dodge tax by using trusts and companies, when that just isn't true.  Yes, trusts can currently be used to dodge the top 39% rate, but that loophole gets shut at the end of this year and trusts have still been taxed at 33%.

Someone with $50K annual income pays $8K tax at 16%.  Someone with $500K annual income, using the trust "loophole", and splitting between them and their partner, pays $147K at 29%. From next year, that'll increase to $155K at 31%.  Someone with $5M annual income pays $1.6M tax at 33% and, from next year, that goes up to $1.9M at 38%.

I've read the Green's tax policy and it is abundantly apparent that either they don't actually have a proper understanding of our current tax system or they're being deliberately misleading to appeal to the emotions of the general public who definitely don't properly understand out tax system. Either way, it is full of untruths and misleading partial truths.

The Maori Party policy is event worse.  It is so amateurish and reads more like a high school accounting class project than a policy document from a political party wanting to have actual control over other people's lives.

Thanks for the data dken31. I hope that now, OHH will show her data to back up her words. 

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publication...ion-wealth

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-...er-earners

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/4887...ird-report

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-fina...-kiwis-pay

[dken31]

Have you read and understood the report (and its assumptions) or are you just going on the headlines? The report was commissioned for an ideological purpose which it unsurprisingly managed to achieve (given that it is easy to manipulate an outcome once you add in assumptions) and then it created some great headlines.

Countries that hate on their rich too much, and especially those that introduce "wealth" taxes, find out the hard way that rich people are surprisingly mobile and that it often isn't too difficult for them to become tax resident in a fairer tax jurisdiction.

[Kenj]

Thanks for the data dken31. I hope that now, OHH will show her data to back up her words. 

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publication...ion-wealth

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-...er-earners

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/4887...ird-report

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-fina...-kiwis-pay

Fascinating, unfortunately I couldn't follow anything. Sounds a bit gobbledy-gook to me.... as it was probably intended. 

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Very likely. Boffins do have their own language!

[Lilith7]

Thanks for the data dken31. I hope that now, OHH will show her data to back up her words. 

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publication...ion-wealth

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-...er-earners

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/4887...ird-report

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-fina...-kiwis-pay

 That seems clear enough.

"A report prepared on behalf of the Government says high wealth families pay a median effective tax rate of just 8.9%, as they earn significant income from untaxed capital gains.  

The High-Wealth Individuals Research Project was conducted by Inland Revenue to fill a data gap in tax records and was released on Wednesday morning. 
Revenue Minister David Parker said there was accurate data on the wealth of more than 90% of New Zealand’s population from household surveys, but little information on the total income of the wealthiest families and the taxes they paid. 
IRD was given the funding and legal powers in 2021 to compel high wealth individuals to respond to a survey of their income and taxes in order to fill this knowledge gap. Parker said the study found high-wealth individuals collected roughly 80% of their income from capital gains and were paying half the tax rate of middle-income New Zealander."

[Kenj]

Very likely. Boffins do have their own language!

I just have this problem with politicians. I don't believe or trust any of them. The cynicism that I have, reared its head again today. 

After rubbishing National on their roading scheme a couple of weeks ago, Labour just today, announced a similar scheme,

See what I mean?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I share that distrust, and have only found a couple worth paying attention to. I have often thought our system is flawed, volunteers should be looked at sideways. We should shoulder tap better people to put our faith in and be very suspicious of those who actually want the job...

[SueDonim]

The problem is this...
"as they earn significant income from untaxed capital gains"

You don't earn income from capital gains until you sell the asset. And it's only when you sell the asset that you know how much it is worth. Capital assets can be all sorts of things from art works and classic cars to property. Values can and do vary greatly. We have had a period of high growth in property values, but they are now dropping. So if someone was taxed on what they were worth last year, this year is totally different. Would they get a refund to compensate for the fall in value? Not to mention the changes in business viability. Kiwifruit orchards used to be worth huge amounts but the whole industry is in very dire straits at the moment and the value of the orchards is likely to drop significantly. With residential property, some people made a lot of money in the last couple of years but if they were selling to buy up, the relativity still meant that the next purchase would still have cost a corresponding amount more. And so on.

The bottom line is that the proposed wealth taxes would likely force people to sell their assets just to pay the tax, and having the cash in the bank, getting taxed every year would just whittle it away to nothing. So the hard work in planning for a comfortable retirement would have been totally wasted. And like dken31 said, people would just move offshore, taking their wealth with them.

Capital gains tax is at least a bit fairer, but is still complex over time. And as I've said a number of times before, is unnecessary. We already have income tax to cover income from sales of assets that were bought with that purpose in mind. Traders pay tax, if only IR would actually follow up and charge it. In the main investors don't sell assets because they are investments, and they pay tax on the income generated from the asset, eg rent.

Wealth taxes would just increase costs throughout the economy. They have no real benefit, and are totally unfair.

---

I share that distrust, and have only found a couple worth paying attention to. I have often thought our system is flawed, volunteers should be looked at sideways. We should shoulder tap better people to put our faith in and be very suspicious of those who actually want the job...

When I was working for local government I had every intention of standing for council in order to fix all the problems that I could see "from the inside". Over time I came to realise that people who become politicians don't have the power to make the changes they want and just become part of the system.

[Lilith7]

I share that distrust, and have only found a couple worth paying attention to. I have often thought our system is flawed, volunteers should be looked at sideways. We should shoulder tap better people to put our faith in and be very suspicious of those who actually want the job...

Agrred. Although...there are two politicians I'd trust with my life if need be.


Rod Donald & Sonja Davies.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yup. They aren't all bad apples.

[Kenj]

Yup. They aren't all bad apples.

That was a pretty big box of apples from which you only found 2 good ones though. At least 120 in it, sometimes 121+ at any 3 year period. 1.6% doesn't sound to good and that's only 1 term's  numbers. 

Rod and Sonya go back a few terms!

[Lilith7]

Yup. They aren't all bad apples.

And to be fair, I now have some respect for Jim Bolger since he somehow found the courage to speak against Neo Liberalism. Just a pity it wassn't decades earlier - but at least he acknowledged the damage done.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yup. They aren't all bad apples.

That was a pretty big box of apples from which you only found 2 good ones though. At least 120 in it, sometimes 121+ at any 3 year period. 1.6% doesn't sound to good and that's only 1 term's  numbers. 

Rod and Sonya go back a few terms!

Funny thing though, that percentage I find reflected in my daily life. Way too many people, too few really good ones, lol.