What is the Real Economy?
The ‘Real Economy’ is made up of the farmers, manufacturers, tourist operators and service providers that sell to the world and generate New Zealand’s external income. As Angus Tait once said, “There are three ways to generate wealth; you farm things, you make things or you dig things up.” That is the essence of the real economy.
[ read more ]

mist Posted:
Perhaps IMF formulas are not accurate for this area.
(view article + comment)
mist Posted:
" tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct" it can only be correct if it is true. Observation and repeated sampling has proven that the hypothesis is faulty. Tax increases in one area are not causally linked to decreases elsewhere - not "possibly", not "it adds up". "Philosophically" it _might_ but testing proves it does not. One could even say "it should" but we both know an equivalent term for "it should" is "doesn't" What drives taxes down is political advantage. If a political party has an agenda they don't want the public to look at too closely, then sweeters (aka "bait") is put forwards. Tax decreases is a classic. This can be achieved because the tax increases and tax decreases are not linked. They're not zero sum nor do they have causal or proportional connection. This is because the "buffer solution" in the middle is that endless hole. tax increase means more spending. tax decrease means more government borrowing. The in/out relationship is decoupled, through size and power in the marketplace (financial economy). The abysmal productivity is because of the massive overheads from doing business in NZ. personal taxes double the rates of the US, huge taxes on goods and services, massive levies on critical imports, price gouging in the energy and communications markets, interest rates 300 to 500 times that of the US!, and not nearly the number of cost writeoffs either (subscriptions, training, vehicle rebates). Nor would get the 401k option either, of rebuying into the same market and not having to pay CGT. Oh and horrendous ever inflating local rates, again much much higher, for less, than our foreign counterparts (excepting Scandinavian countries). Our "abysmal production" is a result of this overtaxation being sand in the gears of the economy, wearing it down and rubbing out real growth. Putting CGT makes that problem worse!! And to sum up... your last comment.... O.M.G. You think that improving our situation, of people not wanting to save or invest in government buggered industry is to bugger up the ability to accumulate equity in useful assets??????? Where do you think people are going to get savings or capital to do anything??? (including retiring when their earning ability is severely reduced!) Put it in finance companies???????????? Buy the oh-so-excellently-performing NZX? In the few companies squeaking by?
(view article + comment)
John Walley Posted:
I think we agree on the lending without security issue. It might well be that the intent to change the source of tax and not increase government spending is fictitious, however given the provision that government spending does not change the statement that tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct. The broader point is demonstrated by the Romney situation where he pays tax at half the rate of his salaried staff - and in the USA capital gains carry a 15% tax rate - it will be interesting to see how that one pans out. For New Zealand the economic distortions supported by the complete absence of capital gains tax are clear from our abysmal productivity record. Why save, why invest in production (taxed interest paid or via the income statement) when money can be made without tax from passive asset appreciation.
(view article + comment)
carl Posted:
"a Capital Gains Tax means less tax in other areas or lower borrowing for the same amount of government spending. " Only in your wildest dreams, mate. a drip or a bucketful does not change an infinite hole. The only reduction in tax you would see is short-term, and done to create a perception. Once the elephant was sold it'll be put back up, often with extra claw-back clauses to catch more cash. And Banks do lend for shares - but at lower rates of coverage. 50% for business assets is rule of thumb, 80% for first mortgages, 20-25% for basic unencumbered share parcels. with additional security and reasonable ability to cover debt servicing compliance. That's the ball. So why's the man (original poster) running with such blatantly obvious fouls????
(view article + comment)
DGS Posted:
SEE ABOVE
(view article + comment)

Recent News

BusinessDesk: The reality of slow growth sinks in despite good US home sales; ratings agencies... - Interest, 23 Feb 2012 Tweet Equities in Europe and on Wall Street fell as indicators in the euro zone and China tempered optimism about the pace of the global economic recovery. In early afternoon trading in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 0.31...
PALACIO: Reinventing the World Bank - Project Syndicate, 23 Feb 2012 PALACIO: Reinventing the World Bank Robert Zoellick’s announcement that he will not seek reelection as President of the World Bank has focused attention on whether the tradition of putting an American in charge will or should endure. But, legitimate as that question is, it is just a minor aspect...
Rebuild slower than thought - Fletchers - Stuff, 23 Feb 2012 The Christchurch rebuild is gaining momentum, but at a slower pace than anticipated, Fletcher Building chief executive Jonathan Ling says as the big building company lowers its full-year profit forecasts.
Carlton Court businesses closed - Stuff, 22 Feb 2012 Another four Christchurch businesses have been closed because of concerns about the earthquake risk posed by their building.
DAVIES/SHILLER: Grit is Good - Project Syndicate, 22 Feb 2012 DAVIES/SHILLER: Grit is Good Nowadays, many are questioning the old assumption that greater market efficiency is always and everywhere a public good. Phrases like “sand in the machine” and “grit in the oyster,” which were pejorative before the 2008 financial crisis, are now used to support...
Bryan Gould: Leaders blinkered to what's really holding us back http://t.co/m327APkE
17/02/2012 11:54 a.m.
MED report highlights problems for high value exporters http://t.co/VoLBDWMv
3/02/2012 12:37 p.m.
Sales bounce at year end http://t.co/VtI5uuSq
3/02/2012 9:56 a.m.
Monetary policy matters http://t.co/45wTSnWd
2/02/2012 1:25 p.m.






07/07

Capital Gains Tax objections and the answers
Print-friendly 6 comment(s) Posted in: Blog only

With Labour proposing a Capital GainsTax it is worth looking at some some of the arguments against it. 

Arguments from those who opposed to taxing capital gains and the answers:

  • 'Rental incomes will rise' - rental incomes are governed by supply and demand and the tenants ability to pay whether or not the landlord is paying more or less tax is irrelevant.
  • 'It is too complex' - if the tax is collected on realised capital gains it is simple to collect at the time of sale. Also, most of the developed world collects capital gains taxes without any trouble.
  • 'We will pay more tax' - a Capital Gains Tax means less tax in other areas or lower borrowing for the same amount of government spending. This means more disposable income for the average person.
  • 'Property values will fall' – the anti Capital Gains Tax lobby have argued property values will fall and rise, there is much more to property price than a CGT.
  • 'Capital Gains Taxes in the UK, US and Australia made no difference to the affordability of houses there' - affordability is not the same issue as economic distortions and poor allocation of resources in the economy.  In any case New Zealand's latest property boom was the largest in the world as a proportion of income growth over the same period.
  • 'Property investors usually borrow most of the money for their investment. Banks won't lend cash to buy shares in businesses unless it's secured against their own properties' - borrowing offshore at negative gearing pushes up the dollar, widens the current account deficit and robs the real economy of margin to invest – quite apart from the inequity of tax harbours, reducing borrowing is a good thing.

A series of articles in the Herald provide a good assessment of the pros and cons of a Capital Gains Tax:

http://www.realeconomy.co.nz/144-capital_gains_tax_pros_and_con.aspx



tags: capital gains tax
comments

3 Comment(s)



carl - 25 January at 14:43 p.m.
"a Capital Gains Tax means less tax in other areas or lower borrowing for the same amount of government spending. "

Only in your wildest dreams, mate.
a drip or a bucketful does not change an infinite hole.
The only reduction in tax you would see is short-term, and done to create a perception. Once the elephant was sold it'll be put back up, often with extra claw-back clauses to catch more cash.

And Banks do lend for shares - but at lower rates of coverage. 50% for business assets is rule of thumb, 80% for first mortgages, 20-25% for basic unencumbered share parcels. with additional security and reasonable ability to cover debt servicing compliance.

That's the ball.

So why's the man (original poster) running with such blatantly obvious fouls????
John Walley - 26 January at 13:42 p.m.
I think we agree on the lending without security issue.

It might well be that the intent to change the source of tax and not increase government spending is fictitious, however given the provision that government spending does not change the statement that tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct.

The broader point is demonstrated by the Romney situation where he pays tax at half the rate of his salaried staff - and in the USA capital gains carry a 15% tax rate - it will be interesting to see how that one pans out.

For New Zealand the economic distortions supported by the complete absence of capital gains tax are clear from our abysmal productivity record.

Why save, why invest in production (taxed interest paid or via the income statement) when money can be made without tax from passive asset appreciation.
mist - 26 January at 20:15 p.m.
" tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct"

it can only be correct if it is true. Observation and repeated sampling has proven that the hypothesis is faulty. Tax increases in one area are not causally linked to decreases elsewhere - not "possibly", not "it adds up".
"Philosophically" it _might_ but testing proves it does not. One could even say "it should" but we both know an equivalent term for "it should" is "doesn't"

What drives taxes down is political advantage. If a political party has an agenda they don't want the public to look at too closely, then sweeters (aka "bait") is put forwards. Tax decreases is a classic.

This can be achieved because the tax increases and tax decreases are not linked. They're not zero sum nor do they have causal or proportional connection. This is because the "buffer solution" in the middle is that endless hole. tax increase means more spending. tax decrease means more government borrowing.
The in/out relationship is decoupled, through size and power in the marketplace (financial economy).

The abysmal productivity is because of the massive overheads from doing business in NZ. personal taxes double the rates of the US, huge taxes on goods and services, massive levies on critical imports, price gouging in the energy and communications markets, interest rates 300 to 500 times that of the US!, and not nearly the number of cost writeoffs either (subscriptions, training, vehicle rebates). Nor would get the 401k option either, of rebuying into the same market and not having to pay CGT. Oh and horrendous ever inflating local rates, again much much higher, for less, than our foreign counterparts (excepting Scandinavian countries).
Our "abysmal production" is a result of this overtaxation being sand in the gears of the economy, wearing it down and rubbing out real growth. Putting CGT makes that problem worse!!

And to sum up... your last comment.... O.M.G.
You think that improving our situation, of people not wanting to save or invest in government buggered industry is to bugger up the ability to accumulate equity in useful assets???????


Where do you think people are going to get savings or capital to do anything??? (including retiring when their earning ability is severely reduced!) Put it in finance companies???????????? Buy the oh-so-excellently-performing NZX? In the few companies squeaking by?

Name:
Email:
Website URL:
Comment:
Remember Me:
Email Replies:
Please play the ball not the man.