The dollars and sense of introducing capital gains taxation
Gerrard Eckhoff (Opinion ODT 9.6.25), railed against the possible introduction of a capital gains tax "and its numerous close relatives — the land tax, the wealth tax, asset tax, inheritance tax which all hover over those who choose to take a risk to benefit themselves and their families".
He claims that advocates of higher taxes ("the Left" and "the tax and spend gallery of the envious") "believe that a CGT is needed to offset what they see to be the original sin of being productive and successful".
That description of those arguing for CGT and/or wealth tax is about as accurate as his arithmetic, as in: "land or a building in 50 years' time will be worth a few thousand percent more than its value today ... so a $3 million home will be commonplace". Taking "a few" as three, adding 3000% to the current average house price of $914,000 would make $28.3m, not $3m.
New Zealand at present suffers from low tax income, significantly less than comparable OECD countries, and inadequate for funding its essential social services: education, healthcare, housing for the poor, and support of the disabled, sick, and unemployed, not to mention NZ Super, let alone paying for its planned defence spending growth.
He seems to regard any form of taxation of capital acquired through business as evil, comparing it to "demanding money with menaces", and asks "why it is so wrong to be able to sell your main asset untaxed after a lifetime of work and retire with some discretionary spending money?".
He doesn't show, though, why it is acceptable to tax every dollar earned by those on the minimum wage (or less), who often struggle to buy food, housing, and heating, but not the capital generated by their hard work, and eventually realised, mostly tax-free, by their employers.
Most OECD countries have a CGT, as well as steeper progressive income tax rates — Australia (which is attracting many of our young people) doesn't tax the first $18,200 earned, but has a top marginal income tax rate of 45%, plus 2% Medicare levy, on income over $190,000, compared to NZ's 39% on income above $180,000. It has a CGT (allowing for inflation, excluding the family home). Many OECD countries also have inheritance tax, ranging from 4% (Italy) to 80% (Belgium).
New Zealand already has a CGT, on rental property resale, though the present government severely reduced its scope. It could be extended to cover most realised capital profit (perhaps exempting owner-occupied homes), but that would take significant time to introduce and to start producing significant tax income.
A form of real-property tax, as proposed by economist Susan Edmunds in 2020, which would deem the value of real estate above a personal exemption threshold to be capital invested and earning a notional income, to be taxed at that taxpayer's marginal rate, could be implemented quickly, as property values are regularly measured, and the IRD could easily incorporate the necessary calculations into its systems.
An inheritance tax should also be considered, which, as Thomas Picketty has argued, would restrain the inequality explosion New Zealand has suffered over the last 40 years.
Mr Eckhoff claims "Few members of the Left have ever owned and run a business, so simply do not understand the implications of extra taxation of small businesses."
I was once an owner-operator of a small business and an employer.
The most difficult tax problem I had wasn't business-related but personal: managing the provisional tax system with a marginal tax rate of 66% (that dates me) on my personal earnings.
Personal-realised CGT, and property and inheritance taxes, aren't taxes on a business. They are taxes on individuals' income and assets, whether earned by daily work or by capital gain.
IRD research shows that from 2015 to 2021, while middle-income New Zealanders paid, including GST, an effective tax rate of 20.2% on their personal income, the equivalent for the wealthiest, thanks to realised capital gains and use of trusts, was 9.2%.
Is that fair, Mr Eckhoff?
• Tony Fitchettis is a retired doctor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
The dollars and sense of introducing capital gains taxation
Tony Fitchett questions the maths on capital gains and property taxes. Gerrard Eckhoff (Opinion ODT 9.6.25), railed against the possible introduction of a capital gains tax "and its numerous close relatives — the land tax, the wealth tax, asset tax, inheritance tax which all hover over those who choose to take a risk to benefit themselves and their families". He claims that advocates of higher taxes ("the Left" and "the tax and spend gallery of the envious") "believe that a CGT is needed to offset what they see to be the original sin of being productive and successful". That description of those arguing for CGT and/or wealth tax is about as accurate as his arithmetic, as in: "land or a building in 50 years' time will be worth a few thousand percent more than its value today ... so a $3 million home will be commonplace". Taking "a few" as three, adding 3000% to the current average house price of $914,000 would make $28.3m, not $3m. New Zealand at present suffers from low tax income, significantly less than comparable OECD countries, and inadequate for funding its essential social services: education, healthcare, housing for the poor, and support of the disabled, sick, and unemployed, not to mention NZ Super, let alone paying for its planned defence spending growth. He seems to regard any form of taxation of capital acquired through business as evil, comparing it to "demanding money with menaces", and asks "why it is so wrong to be able to sell your main asset untaxed after a lifetime of work and retire with some discretionary spending money?". He doesn't show, though, why it is acceptable to tax every dollar earned by those on the minimum wage (or less), who often struggle to buy food, housing, and heating, but not the capital generated by their hard work, and eventually realised, mostly tax-free, by their employers. Most OECD countries have a CGT, as well as steeper progressive income tax rates — Australia (which is attracting many of our young people) doesn't tax the first $18,200 earned, but has a top marginal income tax rate of 45%, plus 2% Medicare levy, on income over $190,000, compared to NZ's 39% on income above $180,000. It has a CGT (allowing for inflation, excluding the family home). Many OECD countries also have inheritance tax, ranging from 4% (Italy) to 80% (Belgium). New Zealand already has a CGT, on rental property resale, though the present government severely reduced its scope. It could be extended to cover most realised capital profit (perhaps exempting owner-occupied homes), but that would take significant time to introduce and to start producing significant tax income. A form of real-property tax, as proposed by economist Susan Edmunds in 2020, which would deem the value of real estate above a personal exemption threshold to be capital invested and earning a notional income, to be taxed at that taxpayer's marginal rate, could be implemented quickly, as property values are regularly measured, and the IRD could easily incorporate the necessary calculations into its systems. An inheritance tax should also be considered, which, as Thomas Picketty has argued, would restrain the inequality explosion New Zealand has suffered over the last 40 years. Mr Eckhoff claims "Few members of the Left have ever owned and run a business, so simply do not understand the implications of extra taxation of small businesses." I was once an owner-operator of a small business and an employer. The most difficult tax problem I had wasn't business-related but personal: managing the provisional tax system with a marginal tax rate of 66% (that dates me) on my personal earnings. Personal-realised CGT, and property and inheritance taxes, aren't taxes on a business. They are taxes on individuals' income and assets, whether earned by daily work or by capital gain. IRD research shows that from 2015 to 2021, while middle-income New Zealanders paid, including GST, an effective tax rate of 20.2% on their personal income, the equivalent for the wealthiest, thanks to realised capital gains and use of trusts, was 9.2%. Is that fair, Mr Eckhoff? • Tony Fitchettis is a retired doctor.
The Spinoff
6 days ago
- The Spinoff
The draft plan to finally fix New Zealand's broken infrastructure
The Infrastructure Commission says we're spending more than most developed countries on infrastructure – while getting some of the worst returns, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A scathing review of infrastructure failures New Zealand's infrastructure is in crisis, and the Infrastructure Commission's draft National Infrastructure Plan doesn't mince words. The 30-year strategy, unveiled at yesterday's infrastructure symposium in Wellington, paints a picture of underinvestment in maintenance, chaotic project selection and dismal returns. New Zealand spends more of its GDP on infrastructure than any other OECD country, yet ranks in the bottom 10% for return on that investment. The report calls out successive governments for favouring headline-grabbing glamour projects over essential maintenance, leading to schools with leaking roofs, hospitals with sewage issues, and NZDF homes rife with mould. The commission found that ministers repeatedly rushed to announce projects before establishing whether they were actually achievable. 'Half of the large projects seeking funding through central government's annual Budget lack business cases to demonstrate that they're ready to fund,' according to the draft plan. Short-term thinking and policy flip-flops have created a wasteful cycle of boom-and-bust in the construction sector, the report argues, making infrastructure builds more complicated and expensive than they need be. Welcome to the era of user pays Among the plan's most contentious recommendations is a greater reliance on user-pays systems to fund infrastructure. 'New Zealanders will soon see that rolling out in, for instance, water metering in pretty much every district, the tolling of new highways, and time-of-use charges starting on Auckland's roads,' writes Newsroom's Jonathan Milne. Infrastructure Commission CEO Geoff Cooper emphasises this isn't about making every project pay for itself, but finding a more sustainable and equitable funding model. While social infrastructure – like schools or hospitals – is likely to remain fully publicly funded, Cooper is calling for user-pays to become the default wherever it makes sense. 'You can have urban roads that are subsidising rural roads, same with electricity transmission and distribution, but the network as a whole should cover its own costs through those user charges,' Cooper told Oliver Lewis at BusinessDesk (paywalled). The 17 priority projects Out of 48 submissions, just 17 projects made it onto the first round of the commission's Infrastructure Priorities Programme, a key feature of the draft plan. Six of them relate to much-needed upgrades of Defence Force housing and facilities, such as new barracks at Linton Army Camp and the regeneration of the Devonport naval base. These projects won praise from Cooper for being well-scoped, achievable and urgent. Also endorsed was the Reserve Bank's vault upgrade and the redevelopment of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison. A major urban project to make the cut was Christchurch's 22km Mass Rapid Transit line, which aims to connect Hornby and Belfast along a 21-station route. The commission stressed that inclusion on the list doesn't guarantee funding but provides a clear signal that the project is of national significance. What missed out High-profile proposals that didn't make the list include KiwiRail's Marsden Point Rail Link and Auckland Strategic Rail Programme, both of which are being reworked or resubmitted. Corrections saw three prison redevelopment projects rejected, despite one – the Christchurch Men's Prison redevelopment – being underway via a public-private partnership. A multi-user ferry terminal for Cook Strait ferries, put forward by the Greater Wellington Regional Council, was also omitted. As Lewis writes, reasons for rejection ranged from lack of readiness to insufficient national relevance. Some proposals – like a maglev rail system for the Waitematā Harbour crossing – were more aspirational than realistic. The commission is currently reviewing 70 additional submissions for the second round of the programme. For many in the infrastructure community, including rail minister Winston Peters, the rejections no doubt stung. 'We expect the Infrastructure Commission will see the light,' he said of the Marsden Point project, 'and if they don't, we will have some serious questions.'
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
Thousands of over-65s earn more than $200,000 - should they get NZ Super?
More than 9000 people aged over 65 earn more than $200,000 a year, and another 33,000 earn between $100,000 and $200,000 - and the Retirement Commissioner says it's fair to question whether they should be able to claim NZ Super as well. The data comes from the 2023 Census. The number earning between $150,000 and $200,000 has decreased from 2018 but the number earning between $100,000 and $150,000 has lifted by 10,000. The Census also showed that the number of people over 65 still in the workforce had increased. Just over 24 percent of people aged over 65 were in work, up from 22.1 percent in 2013. The biggest increase was among people aged 70 to 74. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson is opposed to putting up the age of eligibility for NZ Super. She said if there were questions about the cost or fairness of the scheme, they needed to be addressed with a package of measures. "Then you absolutely have to look at means-testing again. It's really unpopular but it would be improper if we didn't look at all the sensible options if the goal is to reduce the cost to the state." She said the problem to be solved needed to be defined and then the possible solutions assessed. "Means testing is absolutely one of those options but politicians run away from it because it's got a pretty ugly history and it does make it a more complex system. There's no doubt about it, people will start arranging their affairs and start avoiding tax and all that kind of stuff. "But if you boil it down to a very simple thing - is it right that someone earning over $180,000 or $200,000 - I think $180,000 is probably about the mark because that's when the tax rates go up - is it right that people out there earning over $180,000 can also acquire Super, it's an extremely good question." She said it would be easy to capture the earnings of people being paid a salary while receiving NZ Super but much harder to assess other income. "It's both complicated and it's easy. The easiest thing is to leave well alone. The next easiest thing is to just put the age up but that is too easy because there is harm attached to that…. So that's what I'm talking about when I say please could we have a package if we do any system change at all and can we please stop talking about this as single issue?" She said there should be a cross-party political conversation to determine a path forward. University of Auckland associate professor Susan St John earlier outlined a plan to treat NZ Super as a tax-free basic income grant and put recipients on a higher tax rate. She said it would be a better option than the age of eligibility or the amount paid. It would create a situation where there was a break-even point beyond which people would be better off, on a net basis, not claiming NZ Super and instead being taxed at standard rates. She said the tax scales she had modelled were less harsh than the abatement that applied to people receiving a benefit. The government has introduced parental income tests for young people receiving the JobSeeker benefit and will restrict access to the member tax credit in KiwiSaver to those who earn more than $180,000. St John said the reason that similar moves weren't made on NZ Super might reflect historical attitudes towards the "deserving and undeserving". She said NZ Super was effectively income-tested through the tax system because people who were earning other income would pay higher rates of tax. "Just far less draconian than the clawbacks for children with Working for Families and adults in the benefit system." Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said means and income testing in Australia meant that only about 60 percent of the population would qualify for the pension. If that were true in New Zealand, it could save about $9b a year. There are 74,850 people aged 30 to 64 earning more than $200,000. The median income for people aged over 65 is $26,600.
