 |
|
Dr Muriel Newman
Contact Muriel:
Email: muriel@nzcpr.com
Phone 09 4343 836
or 021 800 111
PO Box 984, Whangarei
|
|
|
|
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
26
July 2011
Capital
Gains Tax – Labour’s great leap
backwards
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View
>>>
|
Since
the 2008 election, the Labour Party has been desperately
searching for a new identity and relevance. As the main
opposition party they have failed to gain political traction
– if anything they have simply made National appear better
than they really are. Now with an election just months away
they need policies that will give them a real breakthrough,
and Phil Goff needs to give his caucus a reason to support him
as leader.
Make no mistake, the capital gains tax that Labour has
proposed - and that they are hoping will give them they
breakthrough they wish for - is being considered not because
it would be in the best interests of the country, but because
it is in their best interests. They believe a capital gains
tax would be a good foil to National’s planned (and
unpopular) partial privatisation of state assets. Their
capital gains tax policy is a desperate grab for a cut-through
policy by a desperate party.
Let’s not kid ourselves – the partial
capital gains tax being promoted by Labour is designed to
appeal to their primary constituency by promoting the politics
of envy. Contrary to Labour’s political platitudes it will
not be good for the country: it will raise very little revenue
– after 15 years it will only raise 3 percent of the
estimated $120 billion in tax – but it will add huge
complications and compliance costs to the tax system. This is
one of the reasons that none of the five government tax
reviews over the years have recommended a partial capital gains tax with a multitude of exemptions.
The 1967 review of the tax system by the Ross Committee
examined the feasibility of a capital gains tax but rejected
it on the basis of the low revenue yield, the huge
complexities, and the disincentive effect that such a tax
would have on risk taking and growth investment.
The 1982 Task Force on Tax Reform conducted by the McCaw
Committee also examined a capital gains tax, finally
recommending against such a tax on the basis that it would not
produce significant revenue but would create substantial
complexity within the tax system.
The Valabh Committee differed in their conclusions in
their 1989 Report by recommending that a comprehensive capital
gains tax that had no exemptions should be introduced - in
conjunction with a reduction in income and other taxes. In
other words, the Committee saw the introduction of a
comprehensive capital gains tax that included private housing
and all other assets, as a legitimate mechanism to broaden New
Zealand’s tax base and lower tax rates across the board.
The McLeod Committee’s 2001 Tax Review followed the
recommendations of the earlier government reviews to oppose
the introduction of a capital gains tax on the basis that it
would not make the tax system fairer or more efficient, and
that it would not raise substantial revenue but would instead
increase the complexity and costs of the tax system as a
whole.
The 2010 Tax Working Group on the other hand came out in
favour of a capital gains tax, but only if it was
comprehensive, and accompanied by a general reduction in
income tax and company tax across the board. They also
strongly recommended that company tax, Trust tax and the top
income tax rates be aligned to reduce distortions within the
tax system.
In other words, none of the expert working groups have
recommended a partial capital gains tax of the sort that
Labour is planning, which is riddled with exemptions such as
the family home, Maori land, gambling winnings and other
sweeteners aimed at their voting base, but which is designed
to crack down hard on wealth producers. The fact that the tax
policy also includes an 18 percent increase in the top income
tax rate to 39 cents in the dollar, demonstrates that Phil
Goff is taking a great leap backwards towards Labour’s
origins in the British working class. There, within an
entrenched class system where those with capital were able to
get ahead, while those without had few opportunities, the
politics of envy and greed had resonated.
The fundamental problem for Labour however, is that New
Zealand does not have a dominant capital-based ruling class.
Our deeply entrenched culture is pioneering.
Most New Zealanders are aspirational, with an outlook
on life that is based on the belief that anyone can get ahead
in this country if they are prepared to knuckle down and work
hard. By and large we are a country of ‘doers’ - we roll
up our sleeves and get things done. Which is why the sharp end
of Labour’s ‘us-and-them’ class-based style of politics
is an uncomfortable fit with many New Zealanders and probably
explains - to some extent - why, since the end of World War
II, the Labour Party has only been in power for a total of 21
years, compared to National’s 40 year history in government.
In fact, in the late nineties, Helen Clark won the
election by moving the Labour Party towards the centre-ground
of New Zealand politics in order to attract the swinging
voter, who usually determines the outcome of elections. It
could be argued that this is the strategy that Phil Goff
should have used – especially in light of former Labour
Prime Minister David Lange’s warning that a capital gains
tax is the sort of tax you introduce if you want to lose not
just one election, but the next three!
The reality is that most New Zealanders want a government
that will do what’s right for the country. They do not want
to see politicians putting their own political self-interest
first. Kiwi families want the opportunity to do better for
themselves and their families - they do not want their
government to put hurdles in their way. Policies based on envy
and greed have no place in a modern economy, where people
aspire to get ahead.
In his tax policy launch speech, Labour Party leader Phil
Goff said the capital gains tax would make our tax system
fairer: “You should pay your fair share of tax no matter how
you earn your income”.
So, let’s look at who is paying their fair share of tax
in New Zealand.
According
to Treasury, 75 percent of taxpayers now pay no more than
17.5c in the dollar in tax. Over half of all income tax in New
Zealand is paid by the 13 percent of taxpayers who earn over
$70,000. The 5 percent of taxpayers who earn over $100,000 pay
almost a third. That means that better off New Zealanders
already shoulder the lion’s share of the tax burden in this
country. In other words, they already pay more than their
“fair share”.
When it comes to household income figures, the Minister of
Finance recently explained in Parliament that the number of
households paying income tax is surprisingly small, with
single-income families with two children paying no net tax
until their income reaches $50,000 a year: “The
lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more
in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million
households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay
no net tax - that is, their total income support payments
match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of
households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of
transfers - over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers.
This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is
fair.”[1]
In his article Capital
Gains Tax pitfalls and false prophets, this week’s NZCPR
Guest, financial commentator Frank Newman, has examined
Labour’s tax policy announcement and as well as reminding us
that a capital gains tax already exists in New Zealand, he
raises very serious concerns about the lack of policy detail:
“Not surprisingly Labour does not want to talk about the
detail behind their policy – ‘The
key point for us is not to be dragged down into the detail on
the CGT. The public don’t care and we get boring’,
says Labour strategist and MP Trevor Mallard.
“This probably explains why whenever they are asked a tough
question the party faithful reply: ‘An
Expert Panel will be established to deal with issues that are
technical in nature and involve areas where a high degree of
specialised knowledge is required before a final decision can
be reached.’
“Detail is important – it’s like the fine print on a
contract – it’s the detail that actually matters because
that's where the fish-hooks are.”
In his article, Frank discusses a number of the major
fishhooks that can be identified in Labour’s capital gains
tax policy including the fact that there would be no
adjustment for inflation. In a country where the government
has historically been the key driver of inflation – not only
through overspending, but through inflationary policies like
the Emissions Trading Scheme (which has pushed up the price of
power and fuel to cause rampant cost increases throughout the
whole economy) - then taxpayers would be forced to pay
excessive capital gains taxes on grossly inflated asset
values. To read Frank’s full article, click here
>>>.
In thinking about new taxes it is important to remind
ourselves about the nature of politics - once taxpayers allow
a capital gains tax to be introduced, how long will it be
before a cash-strapped government removes the exemption for
the family home, or increases the rate from 15 percent to 20
percent or higher? And before
you say that could never happen, think about GST, which has
now been increased from the original 10 percent to 15 percent,
or the compulsory employer KiwiSaver contributions, which are
now on the rise.
In addition, it is crucial to remember that it is low taxed
economies
like Hong Kong and Singapore that have strong growth and high
living standards – neither of which has a capital gains tax.
High taxed economies like New Zealand have stagnant growth and
low living standards. If we want New Zealand to be a country
with a growing and vibrant economy that encourages
entrepreneurship and wealth creation – and keeps Kiwis who
want to get ahead at home - then lower tax, not capital gains
tax, is the way to go.
This
week’s poll asks: Do
you support the introduction of a capital gains tax? Click here for poll >>>
Footnotes:
1.Hansard,
Oral
Question to Bill English
Skip to top Skip
to this weeks poll
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>
Skip to top Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|