blogging on the new zealand economy, manufacturing, productivity, business | real economy blog

mist Posted:
Perhaps IMF formulas are not accurate for this area.

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?

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.

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????

DGS Posted:
SEE ABOVE