Labour to campaign on narrow capital gains tax, no wealth tax | RNZ News
www.rnz.co.nz
Labour has agreed to campaign on a tax covering just some property to help fund a limited number of free GP visits.

Glad they are finally doing it and this should hopefully get much needed funding for our healthcare system. Whats shocking to me is that even with all the controversial bits taken out its still unpopular. I swear nz has the most hardheaded people out there.

RNZ-Reid Research poll last month found 43 percent in support of a CGT on investment properties

What is left for people to whine about?

  • Dave@lemmy.nzM
    1·
    25 days ago

    So does property.

    When we are talking about a change in value, I’m going to have to disagree with you. A house doesn’t have more value over time, unless you change the house.

    House prices go up because the value goes up too. The value is the neighbourhood, the schools in the area, proximity to public transport or shopping etc. Shops could be built someplace and the value might go up. A highway could be built nearby and the value would go down.

    I disagree. House values go up over time because we incentivise people to buy rentals but have a lack of supply, leading to people borrowing as much money as they can to be able to get a house at all. House prices are tied to how much people are able to borrow, more than they are tied to anything of value.

    But if I had my way I would scrap all those taxes and replace with a financial transaction tax. This would be simply done by adopting a digital currency and taking a tiny cut on every transaction automatically. No muss, no fuss, no IRD, no nothing. Just a premined currency that the government controls the supply of.

    I’m curious about the details of this. Most importantly, is it regressive? People hoarding wealth probably don’t make a lot of transactions with that wealth, it’s just shares sitting there being worth a lot. Where as people without much wealth have to spend all their money so end up paying more tax as a proportion of their wealth.

    • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
      2·
      25 days ago

      When we are talking about a change in value, I’m going to have to disagree with you. A house doesn’t have more value over time, unless you change the house.

      Value has a different meaning economically and it’s pretty vague. Economically the only way to measure value is via the price of things. If you value a thing more you will pay more for it.

      I disagree. House values go up over time because we incentivise people to buy rentals but have a lack of supply, leading to people borrowing as much money as they can to be able to get a house at all. House prices are tied to how much people are able to borrow, more than they are tied to anything of value.

      It’s a complicated formula but in the end it’s supply and demand curves. What is the supply of housing in a place you want to live in? What’s the supply of money and credit available for you to buy it.

      I’m curious about the details of this. Most importantly, is it regressive?

      Theoretically yes but in practice no. The fact is most people don’t conduct repeated transactions. They earn money and then spend almost all of it. They don’t shuttle money back and forth, do high frequency trading or anything like that. The bulk of the taxes will be paid by sophisticated actors with excess money to move around.

      People hoarding wealth probably don’t make a lot of transactions with that wealth, it’s just shares sitting there being worth a lot.

      True but it’s rare when that property is not leveraged. You buy some land and you pay a transaction tax. Then you borrow against that land and you pay a transaction tax, you spend that money and you pay a transaction tax etc.

      Where as people without much wealth have to spend all their money so end up paying more tax as a proportion of their wealth.

      Wealthy people are constantly moving money around. They are constantly buying and selling shares, businesses, assets etc. They are also constantly borrowing money and paying it back. Also high frequency traders may make thousands of transactions every second.

      • Dave@lemmy.nzM
        1·
        24 days ago

        I guess my concern with one tax that covers everything, is that weathly people will just change what they do. And in butterfly effect style, we probably can’t predict the true impact. My suspicion would be wealthy people pay accountants lots of money to work out how to collect wealth with fewer transactions, and continue paying minimal tax compared to their wealth.

        • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
          2·
          24 days ago

          I guess my concern with one tax that covers everything, is that weathly people will just change what they do.

          I don’t think they are going to stop moving money around. In any case I don’t thing “they might do such and such” is a good excuse to not do something. If they do something we’ll so something too.

          My suspicion would be wealthy people pay accountants lots of money to work out how to collect wealth with fewer transactions, and continue paying minimal tax compared to their wealth.

          tax evasion is technically a crime but the tax is based on a percentage so it doesn’t matter if you do ten transactions or one, if it’s the amount of money.