His speech defended an Inland Revenue investigation into the “tax paid by the wealthiest New Zealanders relative to their economic income”. He is proposing a Tax Principles Act in this context.
Parker assured us that this was in the interests of fairness, not envy. Yes, really.
In arguing that the tax system should probably soak the rich more, he asserted that:
* New Zealand’s income tax system is not progressive;
* New Zealand is not a highly taxed nation;
* Wealth is being concentrated “into the hands of an ever-smaller cohort at the very top”.
All three assertions look false. First, on the facts, it is progressive. The top 3% of income earners in 2020 earned 18% of taxable income and paid 26% of the income tax collected. Research has found that the tax system remains progressive, even after factoring in GST.
The average income tax per person in the 3% group was $77,000 compared to a median payment of $4,100. How much more grasping would a ‘fair’ tax system be?
Second, New Zealand is a relatively highly taxed nation. Of 64 countries with a population of at least two million and a reasonably high GDP per capita, 39 had a lower tax to GDP ratio than New Zealand. Outside Europe, only Brazil and Israel had a higher ratio.
Third, on Statistics New Zealand’s estimates, the top 1% (and 5%) owned a smaller proportion of total wealth in 2021 than in 2015 (or 2018).
An article in the latest Sunday Star-Times by Max Rashbrooke presumed to ask, “How do we fairly tax the rich?” It appears that the “we” are a political majority who are not rich.
Apparently, “we” see no conflict of interest in this. Rashbrooke suggests it is fair that “we” should hit the rich with a more comprehensive capital gains tax, a wealth tax, and for good measure, an inheritance tax.
Of course, ‘we’ set the thresholds sufficiently high to exempt ourselves. “We” can be predatory because Rashbrooke assures us that the rich have few emigration options. That is how we like it.
Fair outcomes cannot be expected from an unfair process. Majoritarian plunder is immoral.
A single income tax rate has greater constitutional appeal. Redistribute through the welfare system.
Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, Director of Capital Economics, and former Director of the New Zealand Treasury. His articles can be seen HERE.
1 comment:
the most fair way to tax the rich (or others for that matter) is to encourage spending that preferably promotes domestic economy (you could argue that even imports can achieve this objective); encourage savings that provide capital in the form of equity or debt to local industry; discourage money poured into unproductive assets like gold, unused land, etc. beyond a threshold. if a moderate tax rate increases overall earnings and thus overall tax collection, that is more desirable than a token high tax rate that yields far less.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.