Because at least with a capital gains tax, you have sold the asset, so you made some money and can use that money to pay the tax.
With a wealth tax, you haven’t sold anything. You're just getting taxed because the house you live in and the assets you own are worth enough to tax. And so you need to start paying, but you don’t have any extra cash to pay that with.
And sometimes what will happen is that people like retirees might have enough assets to qualify, but won’t have even cash to pay the tax because they don’t work anymore.
So it’ll be lodged as a debt against the asset they own. Isn’t that nuts?
You haven’t done anything, you haven’t earned anything, and you haven’t made anything. You're just getting taxed because you have something.
There is nothing more ‘politics of envy’ than a wealth tax.
I can guarantee you the end result of a wealth tax- if the Greens get a chance to do this in Government- is that NZ will end up poorer.
In Norway they increased their wealth tax last year. As a result a record number of wealthy people left the country. Twice as many people left the country in 2022 than the previous 13 years combined. And in the end, they ended up losing tax.
Maybe that'll happen here. Or more likely, a whole bunch of Kiwis will stay here, but will transfer their wealth to Australia.
For example, maybe stop putting money into Kiwisaver and instead start putting it into Australian shares or Australian rental property, where it’s out of the way.
So we’ll end up with less wealth- but we’ll end up with more beneficiaries.
Because remember, the Greens are using the wealth tax to pay for a UBI for everyone. Even the Green Party’s own policy document predicts we’ll end up with an additional 45 percent uptake in benefits in two years.
Question is- will the Greens get to do this? As in, will they get into Government with Labour?
Well, their policy is less crazy than last election so it’ll drive fewer people away. But I think it’s still enough to swing some votes.
It's a tight election, which means every vote counts. And there will be just enough votes in nice swing electorates like Auckland Central.
Where Ponsonby and Grey Lynn people have houses worth close enough to $4 million. Who maybe weren’t sure about Labour or National- and this will make their mind up for them.
Because I bet there are a few out there who, like me, just hate the idea of a wealth tax.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show.
5 comments:
Rates in some parts of New Zealand are set by the value of your property.
If you own a home that QV (last August) valued at $2.5m when it was previously $1.8m then brilliant for you, you'd think.
Sadly your rates that may have been say $10k pa now go up by a significant factor based upon the increased value of the property (disregarding the percentage increase in rates as well).
You now pay much more for the exact same services recieved from your council.
Technically this is a wealth take too.
The only remotely fair tax would be some sort of true capital gains based on the annual value of all possessions, including the home. Discounted for COL rate of inflation (although only remotely relevant) and at a modest flat rate, and deferrable with moderate interes in some circumstances where securable. But it would create a huge acountig industry,dwarfing te reo and similarly totally non productive.
The 'Benefits Party' at it again. As if their internal bickering; crazy woke identity politics; or patently false comments about cis white men weren't enough, they come out with this latest nonsense that most certainly will not end poverty.
All tax is legalized theft, nothing more and nothing less.
Anna Mouse, your logic is incorrect I believe. If all ratepayers' property valuations increase by the same percentage, the share of rates paid will generally not increase. A lot of rates charged are allocated pro rata based on individual property valuations. The level of rates increase is another issue - too many councils just operate on a cost plus mentality, with little willingness to tighten their belts, which all the rest of us ratepayers continually have to do.
Post a Comment