.....with a $10m threshold and family homes excluded
Despite the debate over tax policy, only 8% identified taxation among the country’s top concerns.
Almost two-thirds of respondents support a wealth tax targeting individual net assets above $10 million while exempting family homes, according to new Ipsos polling.
The proposed 2.5% tax attracted 64% support, with 26% opposed and 10% unsure. Those findings relate to that particular combination of rate, threshold and exemption.
Support was lower for other taxes. A capital gains tax on property sales excluding the family home attracted 45% support. Fewer than a quarter supported either a land tax or congestion charging.
Respondents were also divided over their own tax bills: 45% believed they paid the right amount, while 44% wanted to pay less. Just 4% thought they should pay more.
Despite the debate over tax policy, only 8% identified taxation among the country’s top concerns. Cost of living remained the leading worry, followed by healthcare and the economy.
The survey used online research panels to question 1,003 adults between September 3 and 11, with a stated credibility interval of ±3.5 percentage points.
[Centrist's] Editor’s note: Is a wealth tax more popular because respondents expect somebody else to pay it? A $10 million threshold and family-home exemption make that a reasonable question, although this poll cannot establish people’s motives. It recalls the old saying: “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.”
But approving a tax is easier than designing one. How should an annual wealth tax value a privately owned business or the rights to a musician’s songs when neither has a readily quoted market price? Which debts and contingent liabilities would count against those assets? And how would someone meet the bill if their wealth generated little cash?
For people whose income consists entirely of wages and already-taxed investment income, Inland Revenue generally calculates their income tax automatically. A wealth tax would introduce another layer of valuation and compliance for those affected.
Supporters should also explain how their proposal accounts for avoidance, relocation and the possible effects on investment. These are practical questions that a popularity poll cannot answer. The case for a tax should include what it would collect after administrative costs and behavioural changes, not simply how appealing it sounds when someone else receives the bill.
Click to view
The Centrist is an online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
Support was lower for other taxes. A capital gains tax on property sales excluding the family home attracted 45% support. Fewer than a quarter supported either a land tax or congestion charging.
Respondents were also divided over their own tax bills: 45% believed they paid the right amount, while 44% wanted to pay less. Just 4% thought they should pay more.
Despite the debate over tax policy, only 8% identified taxation among the country’s top concerns. Cost of living remained the leading worry, followed by healthcare and the economy.
The survey used online research panels to question 1,003 adults between September 3 and 11, with a stated credibility interval of ±3.5 percentage points.
[Centrist's] Editor’s note: Is a wealth tax more popular because respondents expect somebody else to pay it? A $10 million threshold and family-home exemption make that a reasonable question, although this poll cannot establish people’s motives. It recalls the old saying: “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.”
But approving a tax is easier than designing one. How should an annual wealth tax value a privately owned business or the rights to a musician’s songs when neither has a readily quoted market price? Which debts and contingent liabilities would count against those assets? And how would someone meet the bill if their wealth generated little cash?
For people whose income consists entirely of wages and already-taxed investment income, Inland Revenue generally calculates their income tax automatically. A wealth tax would introduce another layer of valuation and compliance for those affected.
Supporters should also explain how their proposal accounts for avoidance, relocation and the possible effects on investment. These are practical questions that a popularity poll cannot answer. The case for a tax should include what it would collect after administrative costs and behavioural changes, not simply how appealing it sounds when someone else receives the bill.
Click to view
Read more at RNZ
The Centrist is an online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
I don't understand what possible purpose an opinion survey on taxation can serve. Most people, if pressed, don't know the difference between a capital gains tax and a wealth tax and now it seems they don't know that a land tax is just a targeted wealth tax. The "results" of any such poll on such matters are therefore uninformed and so, worthless. The only folk who benefit from a wealth tax are first the valuers, followed closely by the lawyers when the valuers opinions are contested. New Zealand has tried, and abandoned, wealth taxes like estate duty and gift duty because they are too easy to avoid, cost more to administer than they raise in revenue, and wind up destroying the wealth they seek to tax where the holder has to sell the asset to raise the cash to pay the tax. Which is of course precisely why the left keeps promoting them.
They will get very little money and those that are in the net will think seriously about another country.
Also remember the slightly wealthy will buy expensive houses which will rise in desirability due to tax status again we are back into the capital gain game.
The poll showed that people in general want to pay less tax, so spend less in the Govt. sector. Look at the ridiculous growth of the spend since 2017 even inflation adjusted we are something like $40B to high.
We had a choice and if that had not happened we would have income tax less than half of now and incomes would have grown probably 15 to 20% you make your choices.
Yeh, right. A 10m threshold for now, which will be reduced if the left get in. Getting a wealth tax over the line is the first step, and it will get progressively lower as the continued destruction of this country plays out.
Why isn’t act reducing the minimum wage. These freeloaders have had it good for too long where is the action ACT
One assumes that 100% of the 64% who support a tax on wealth above $10 million, don’t have 10$ million.
I think Count Binface recently said it best “if I am elected I promise to increase the taxes of everyone, except you.”
Sick of the freeloading the wealthy get at the expense of wage earners. We have an unbalanced tax system. Thank god TOP and Labour will sweep to power and finally get New Zealand back on track.
I'm assuming anon at 3:50pm is being tongue in cheek - or has this person completely failed to understand the actual ramifications of Labour & TOP's policies? I'm certainly not happy with the flimsiness that National have demonstrated over the past 3 years, but a Labour/Green/TPM/TOP government would destroy this country quicker than any previous establishment.
Anon 350 probably noticed the economy and jobs going down the gurgler in the last three years while somehow the government has managed to spend even more money. The ramifications of affordable housing are acceptable to all kiwis. Who are you gonna leave your money to? And if they already have managed to get a house by then, then what does it matter anyway!
There is an alarming lack of economic literacy among some commenters this week.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.