IRD minister says we're not measuring all wealth & not measuring the overall progressiveness of our tax system; He also proposes outlawing unfair tax changes, but doesn't propose a wealth tax. Yet.
This all sounds very promising, although collecting info to inform the future shape of the tax system is not going to bring any immediate relief to those suffering hardship. It really beggars belief that we haven't kept a closer eye on the super wealthy to date. I was chosen for the Household Economic Survey 4 years ago. It was eye opening! We live a pretty simple financial existence with a mortgage but no other debt. Most of my answers were no, as in no hire purchase, no credit card debt, no personal loans etc. It became clear to me how many people come unstuck. I asked the surveyor for any general comments on our situation compared to others (seeing we finished the survey in half an hour with an hour and a half to spare). She said we were unusual in that we knew the state of our finances, had everything organized (most of the time is apparently taken by people rummaging through drawers for their credit card statement) and didn't have any financial complexity. A lot of people it seems would prefer not to think about this stuff, but it has such a huge impact on your wellbeing that it seems crazy not too.
Interesting point. Something like a third of households have no cash reserves for any sort of income or cost hiccup. I remember a bank IT guy telling me about five years ago that their biggest server loads were caused by people checking their bank accounts dozens of times a day online to see they had enough cash to buy lunch or a coffee etc.
Obviously, Labour is well on its way to pushing a bigger culture war which sounds good but will become bad news for the working class. A wealth tax means it will become law and at some point, everyone will be subject to it. If Labour is serious about taxation they would follow Adam Smith's principle to tax land and rents. But we know that is not going to happen. The people running the government are big property owners themselves so they are not going to harm themselves. When we need a boogeyman why not blame the uber-rich for our problems rather than bad government policy? Oh, yeah, the sheepish media and poorly educated economists will play their role in spewing 'tax the rich' gibberish we see from the USA. If anyone cares to see how a wealth tax functions in real life they should migrate to The Netherlands. Those making over 25K euros pay it.... and it is onerous. It started as taxing the rich but now the poor Dutch are hit. Welcome to dystopia.
So whats your solution then? Leave the tax structure as is? Follow ACT's guidance?
The super rich in NZ wealth seems to snowball every years with the current tax regime and the poor get a smaller and smaller slice of NZs wealth so our tax structure clearly isnt working as designed i.e being fair to all. Massive inequality in a society never leads to anything good you just need to travel to rich cities in the US like San Francisco to see the results. David Seymour etc can call any increases in tax an envy tax all he likes but things do need to change unless we want the likes of more crime, more prisons etc etc
Fair point. David Parker addressed this a bit in a part of the speech I didn’t have room to highlight.
“Voters overwhelmingly believe everyone is better off with an educated and healthy population, and they know both cost money. It’s about more than altruism. They accept the whole community is worse off economically and socially if education or health services cannot be provided to those who need them.
Taxes fund the justice system, including the police and the courts, needed to protect people and to uphold property rights.
Those with lots of wealth obviously want to protect what they have against the huge loss they can incur if society becomes so unequal and unfair that those left out rise up and refuse to recognise their property rights.
Short of that extreme, we prefer taxes to the crime and discontent which can fester when other people can’t get by.” Parker
This is all valid, but a lot of the wealthy feel they shift wealth offshore to avoid the revolting masses and then build high walls and have security guards the rest of the time. It’s one reason there’s a particular brand of libertarians who like the idea of ‘seasteading’ and carving out ‘tax-free’ and deregulated territories.
"Voters overwhelmingly believe everyone is better off with an educated and healthy population, and they know both cost money."
I think this bit is true, however, there does seem to be a strong NIMBY analogy (maybe it should be Not impacting my back pocket?) that would add something along the lines of "and that cost should be borne by someone else.."
That is an interesting angle you have taken from todays Kākā. I thought the whole thing was explicitly about not suggesting a wealth tax, but about ensuring the right analysis is done to make sure that our overall tax system is (or can become) vertically and horizontally equitable (aka fair).
I'm pretty sure that most studies show that social harmony (i.e. the opposite to culture wars) is a result of equitable and fair political/economic environments.
The wealth tax is the inevitable conclusion if the evidence points in the expected direction. My view is many inside Labour are still in shock over the PM’s ‘never in my lifetime’ comment.
…and transparency is a very important aspect of David Parker’s study - we can get (hopefully) sufficient data to know what is really the case. Sunlight being the best disinfectant.
No matter what tax it is once in place it is subject to politics.
One reason I am opposed to a CGT is it will have it's own rate which will move separately to Income Tax depending on the government of the day's ideology. In the U.S. it is 15% so the wealthy try to report as much as possible of their income as being a capital gain. Realised capital gains should just be part of your income and taxed as such.
Your example of the Netherlands wealth tax kicking in at 25K euros is interesting (and onerous). But say if one was introduced in NZ and was set at $1m you have a problem of 'bracket creep' where someone has wealth of $950k and inflation (most likely house prices) pushes them over the threshold without them realising and having to pay penalties for not paying the tax.
So does everyone have to file an annual wealth return? IRD will hate that unless their budget is massively, massively increased. How does the Netherlands police theirs?
Don't you think the "uber-rich" should pay tax. It sounds as if you think they should be exempt. The thing I found most revealing in Bernard's article was that the maximum figure from surveys was only $20 million. Things have to change, and thank heavens for a deep thinking politician. Whether he will be able to influence the Grant Robertson's of this world is another matter!
The other serious flaw the government is trying to engineer is to present the government's balance sheet as the problem. What government operatives want to avoid discussing is the private sector balance sheet, which is the more serious problem. This means more private income is put into more debt servicing which means there is no money for other areas of the economy. Debt rises faster than income. I've asked several ministers to forgive debt owed to the government like what was done pre-Roman times. They are not interested. The government has its own printing press and can never run out of money. The private sector does not have that capability and in reality, the government does not need our money to keep the government running. But who cares? We have a European centred mindset on debt, income and taxation and as Margret Thatcher stated: There is no alternative.
Right on John. The gov doesn't need our money and so it also doesn't need a revenue minister. It's astounding how most people just don't get government finance. The entire debate around that is based on misperception. We are living the brutal result.
So good Covid is now a non issue we can see a real political contest of ideas. Please can you get Max Rashbrooke on a Friday hoon?
Almost spat out my rooibos when I heard GR talking about the government providing quality public services for the squeezed middle as opposed to tax cuts. He couldn’t have been talking about public safety, school standards or hospital staffing levels in Nz.
Yes. A curious approach. He’s betting that the middle are quite happy to kick down and feel they have a right to climb higher and get the special advantages others up there have. Kick down, kiss up politics.
There seems to be a belief that the vast majority of kiwi voters are opposed to a CGT. I haven't seen research on this, but Jacinda certainly believes this as shown by her ruling out a CGT while she is PM. I believe Luxon would have the same view. Given that New Zealand is one of the few OECD countries not to have a well defined CGT is an oddity driven by politicians view of vote maximisation. We effectively do have a CGT on residential property but the IRD has never had the Guts to implement this. Tax payable being determined on a purchaser intention to hold long term or not was a nonsense. The Brightline test implemented to provide some clarity has almost cemented no CGT after 2, 5 or 10 years. The current 10 year Brightline has the unintended consequence of not freeing land for development given the tax consequence of selling land to a development next door.
It's hard to see how a CGT would be implemented in NZ. Its time for the CGT sacred cow to be put out to pasture. Just look across the Ditch for a fairer more logical system on CGT. It wouldn't be that hard. But lets apply a CGT to all currently held Investment Property, Baches etc. Its is morally hard to argue it is unfair to pay tax on significant gains made over the last couple of decades or recent years.
It has become the third rail of politics. The focus groups suggest that nothing has changed. Median voters are even more in love with the leveraged and tax-free capital gains. They also feel more dependent on it to help their own children up into homes and feel entitled to those gains for their children ‘once they get on the ladder’. Imposing CGT doesn’t take away previous gains. Today’s property owners actually see a CGT as pulling up the ladder on (their) young.
Firstly, we need to agree what the problems are and for whom. Is it wealth inequality? The size of the gap between the rich and poor? The squeezed middle? Poverty? Inequity or inequality? Once we’ve answered those questions, then we can consider possible solutions and determine which are the most effective and sustainable real world solutions.
Perhaps the remedies don't lie in taxation reform but in modifying income policies. "Tax the rich" is too simplistic and will create unintended and detrimental consequences such as wealthy people leaving the country or sending their money offshore.
I think the solutions lie in introducing fit for purpose income-related policies such as:
Make the living wage the minimum wage and put the onus on the employer, rather than the employee, to go to Work & Income for a wage subsidy. They would have to make the business case to qualify. If we're honest, Working For Families is a subsidy for employers who know they can pay lower wages because taxpayers will top them up.
Paying less than the living wage is theft. No employee should be expected to subsidise someone else's business plan.
The same argument could be made about the Accommodation Supplement - this is a subsidy that goes to landlords and keeps rents higher than they ought to be.
Introduce wage to salary ratios to prevent the gross imbalance that occurs between the factory floor and management. Perhaps we need to think about maximum work incomes not just minimums.
Worker shareholding is also another way to have the workforce share in profits.
The pandemic caught us all unprepared. The arguably generous wage subsidy was helpful as income support and to tether people to jobs rather than have many more business go under.
Perhaps the time has come for a GMI guaranteed minimum income (a nuanced universal basic income) to be considered for everyone, not just those 65+ as it is now. This could be easily increased as required in times of crisis.
A GMI could be phased in, starting with ALL primary caregivers of dependants e.g children, the aged, disabled and unwell. This is work and, as such, it should be recognised, remunerated and included in GDP. These primary caregivers could decide to subcontract this work.
I would also like to see a GMI paid to everyone who is learning i.e. tertiary students and apprentices. This would encourage a better educated workforce.
We ought to look at how people's net incomes can be increased by saving money e.g. improve the building code to something like the hyper energy efficient Passive House standard and people's power bills will plummet thereby leaving them with more disposable income. We should have a mindset of building up to a standard, not down to a price. The ongoing cost of a home is overlooked when doing the sums. e.g. a heat-pump hot water cylinder costs a little more to buy but you save much more in reduced power costs. No builders considering the bottom line are putting these in as standard. Make them standard, same with thermally-broken double glazed windows.
Individualise the income support and taxation systems. This is fairer and would help address the power imbalances that can accompany relationships which can complicate income support.
We know what it costs to raise a child. This should be the starting point for assessing child support for those in or out of a relationship with the other parent.
Where there are children from a relationship that ends, income sharing ought to continue until the youngest child is 18 or no longer at dependant, whichever comes first. Where additional income support is required, either parent should be able to seek it to help meet their shortfall, not just the primary caregiver, as is currently the case.
Property transaction levy on all property and business sales payable by the vendor at settlement. Make it a small percentage of the sale price - this would be way less than an estate agent's commission.
While we're at it, let's change how we buy and sell real estate - make this a fee for service, like conveyancing, not a % of the sale price which is totally unrelated to the service provided. Keep marketing costs separate, too.
Tax income-earning “charities” like Sanitarium.
Tax income from lotteries. Why aren't these winnings taxed? And why, when the jackpots get so big, don’t they break up the jackpot into increments of a maximum of $1m each e.g. have 5 families and communities benefit from $1m instead of one getting all $5m.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “…in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” What about reintroducing an inheritance tax (a.k.a. death duties) - this would be a tax on money the beneficiaries of a deceased estate didn't earn. It's a windfall, like winning a lottery, and could be an (almost) pain-free source of income for the government to redistribute for the common good.
None of us chose to be born but from that day, we are all focused on having enough to avoid hunger, to be comfortable, to feel joy and avoid pain and discomfort.
Whether it’s to buy a food, clothes, a pint at the pub or a house, an EV or to see us through our dotage, we are in a cycle of earning, spending and, for some, saving to spend later or to leave in our will to others.
There are so many unknown variables and that’s why people fret, even rich people.
For an increasing number of people, stress has become distress and there isn’t nearly enough for the basics — to house, clothe and feed themselves or their family - and not even a Labour government seems to want to address their needs and National seems focused on punishing the poor and further enriching the well-off.
This is why we need to address these matters with an urgency this Labour Government hasn’t grasped and, I strongly suspect, a National led Government won’t either.
Nothing changes if nothing changes. We shouldn't wait until the majority is at crisis point and are ram-raiding grocery stores before we address these underlying systemic issues. Good governments have foresight and plan for longer than the next electoral cycle. They make choices for those in crisis today and to rectify systems so they are sustainable for generations to come.
The living wage should be the minimum wage. I was just thinking about that recently. Is the living wage that of a single person without dependents?
The Accommodation Supplement. How about the supplement only being able to be paid out to a maximum limit? I.e. it will top up the rent to, say, $500 per week. That's effectively a rent freeze if the tenant has low income, and may have the consequence of the poor being discriminated against when the landlord is deciding who to rent the house to. Maybe just to be used as a short term attempt to put a brake on opportunistic rent increases.
A GMI, or UBI, I feel is going to happen one day. Make it the same amount as Super. How would you tie it in with the living wage? If the two were equal there is the economic risk of some workers just dropping out. Not because they are "lazy slackers" but because of the costs they would avoid by staying at home including travel costs and child-care fees.
I would suggest if there is a GMI then there not be a living wage. Instead we revert back to a minimum wage so that workers are encouraged to work. Maybe not as high as it currently is but more than enough to recompense workers for their employment costs.
How do short term migrant workers fit into this? Maybe they get the equivalent amount as the GMI. Which in effect would make them more expansive to the employer than a kiwi. Which is a good thing as too many employers go for the lazy approach of not training up locals.
I've said before that too many builders treat the Building Code as a maximum requirement, not a minimum. So boost the Building Code to a new minimum including solar panels, double/triple glazing, a high Home Star rating, etc. Yes, they would be more expansive to build but far cheaper to run.
A property transaction levy, or as Bernard called it in last week's Hoon; a Stamp Duty. Yeah, it would basically be a tax in lieu of a CGT except it's payable on the full sale price even if the vendor is making a loss.
Yes to businesses claiming to be charities to be taxed. But that can be got around by a business paying it's profit as a donation to a charity and having no taxable income. A donation can only be claimed in the year in which it is paid so the business would have to be on the ball and know pretty well what their profit was going to be. Not something that creative accountants wouldn't be able to fix.
I would add that charities MUST distribute a proportion of their income every year. Each charity could set their own minimum distribution percentage but that percentage must be publicly disclosed.
Lotteries (well, Lotto) are taxed on income received, just like the racing industry. Prizes are made up what's left over after also deducting running costs. The local rugby/netball club also runs a lottery but doesn't pay any tax. Nor does it have much in the way of prizes as it's purpose to raise funds for the club.
Re-introducing an Inheritance Tax would also require the return of gift duties.
I would add to your ideas the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) to replace GST. Every time you 'spend' money you are taxed. Spend is loosely described as when the money leaves your bank account/control. So buying shares, currency trading, investing in bonds, an overseas holiday, buying a house, repaying your mortgage to name a few would all now be taxable. The big weakness with GST is it exempts the financial industry.
Good one Dara, but be careful here: "an (almost) pain-free source of income for the government to redistribute for the common good."
The government doesn't need a source of income. The government has its own sovereign money and it funds all its spending from that, it doesn't need "tax revenue". But there is an erroneous perception that it does, and this is what allows for this horrendous system of finance and the tyrannical underfunding of social supports. It's all a crock. There is no shortage of money, and our intellectual challenge is to realise that.
Thanks for the excellent summary, Bernard. I have to say this is one of the more encouraging speeches I've heard from an NZ politician in a long time. How can we develop a sustainable solution without truly understanding what problem we are trying to solve so I whole-heartedly support this data-driven analysis approach to understand where efforts need to be focused on we can really tackle this issue. I only hope it doesn't take too long and we can get started on solutions before too long.
This all sounds very promising, although collecting info to inform the future shape of the tax system is not going to bring any immediate relief to those suffering hardship. It really beggars belief that we haven't kept a closer eye on the super wealthy to date. I was chosen for the Household Economic Survey 4 years ago. It was eye opening! We live a pretty simple financial existence with a mortgage but no other debt. Most of my answers were no, as in no hire purchase, no credit card debt, no personal loans etc. It became clear to me how many people come unstuck. I asked the surveyor for any general comments on our situation compared to others (seeing we finished the survey in half an hour with an hour and a half to spare). She said we were unusual in that we knew the state of our finances, had everything organized (most of the time is apparently taken by people rummaging through drawers for their credit card statement) and didn't have any financial complexity. A lot of people it seems would prefer not to think about this stuff, but it has such a huge impact on your wellbeing that it seems crazy not too.
Interesting point. Something like a third of households have no cash reserves for any sort of income or cost hiccup. I remember a bank IT guy telling me about five years ago that their biggest server loads were caused by people checking their bank accounts dozens of times a day online to see they had enough cash to buy lunch or a coffee etc.
Obviously, Labour is well on its way to pushing a bigger culture war which sounds good but will become bad news for the working class. A wealth tax means it will become law and at some point, everyone will be subject to it. If Labour is serious about taxation they would follow Adam Smith's principle to tax land and rents. But we know that is not going to happen. The people running the government are big property owners themselves so they are not going to harm themselves. When we need a boogeyman why not blame the uber-rich for our problems rather than bad government policy? Oh, yeah, the sheepish media and poorly educated economists will play their role in spewing 'tax the rich' gibberish we see from the USA. If anyone cares to see how a wealth tax functions in real life they should migrate to The Netherlands. Those making over 25K euros pay it.... and it is onerous. It started as taxing the rich but now the poor Dutch are hit. Welcome to dystopia.
So whats your solution then? Leave the tax structure as is? Follow ACT's guidance?
The super rich in NZ wealth seems to snowball every years with the current tax regime and the poor get a smaller and smaller slice of NZs wealth so our tax structure clearly isnt working as designed i.e being fair to all. Massive inequality in a society never leads to anything good you just need to travel to rich cities in the US like San Francisco to see the results. David Seymour etc can call any increases in tax an envy tax all he likes but things do need to change unless we want the likes of more crime, more prisons etc etc
Fair point. David Parker addressed this a bit in a part of the speech I didn’t have room to highlight.
“Voters overwhelmingly believe everyone is better off with an educated and healthy population, and they know both cost money. It’s about more than altruism. They accept the whole community is worse off economically and socially if education or health services cannot be provided to those who need them.
Taxes fund the justice system, including the police and the courts, needed to protect people and to uphold property rights.
Those with lots of wealth obviously want to protect what they have against the huge loss they can incur if society becomes so unequal and unfair that those left out rise up and refuse to recognise their property rights.
Short of that extreme, we prefer taxes to the crime and discontent which can fester when other people can’t get by.” Parker
This is all valid, but a lot of the wealthy feel they shift wealth offshore to avoid the revolting masses and then build high walls and have security guards the rest of the time. It’s one reason there’s a particular brand of libertarians who like the idea of ‘seasteading’ and carving out ‘tax-free’ and deregulated territories.
"Voters overwhelmingly believe everyone is better off with an educated and healthy population, and they know both cost money."
I think this bit is true, however, there does seem to be a strong NIMBY analogy (maybe it should be Not impacting my back pocket?) that would add something along the lines of "and that cost should be borne by someone else.."
That is an interesting angle you have taken from todays Kākā. I thought the whole thing was explicitly about not suggesting a wealth tax, but about ensuring the right analysis is done to make sure that our overall tax system is (or can become) vertically and horizontally equitable (aka fair).
I'm pretty sure that most studies show that social harmony (i.e. the opposite to culture wars) is a result of equitable and fair political/economic environments.
The wealth tax is the inevitable conclusion if the evidence points in the expected direction. My view is many inside Labour are still in shock over the PM’s ‘never in my lifetime’ comment.
…and transparency is a very important aspect of David Parker’s study - we can get (hopefully) sufficient data to know what is really the case. Sunlight being the best disinfectant.
Hi John
No matter what tax it is once in place it is subject to politics.
One reason I am opposed to a CGT is it will have it's own rate which will move separately to Income Tax depending on the government of the day's ideology. In the U.S. it is 15% so the wealthy try to report as much as possible of their income as being a capital gain. Realised capital gains should just be part of your income and taxed as such.
Your example of the Netherlands wealth tax kicking in at 25K euros is interesting (and onerous). But say if one was introduced in NZ and was set at $1m you have a problem of 'bracket creep' where someone has wealth of $950k and inflation (most likely house prices) pushes them over the threshold without them realising and having to pay penalties for not paying the tax.
So does everyone have to file an annual wealth return? IRD will hate that unless their budget is massively, massively increased. How does the Netherlands police theirs?
I’m also no fan of a CGT. Complicated and boundary issues galore. A simple, low-rate and broad-based land tax is what’s needed.
Don't you think the "uber-rich" should pay tax. It sounds as if you think they should be exempt. The thing I found most revealing in Bernard's article was that the maximum figure from surveys was only $20 million. Things have to change, and thank heavens for a deep thinking politician. Whether he will be able to influence the Grant Robertson's of this world is another matter!
Yes. The lack of data is extraordinary, especially given we’ve had two full-service Tax Working Groups over the last 15 years or so.
Thanks John. It all depends on the structure and type of cash. I favour a broad based and low tax on residential zoned land.
The other serious flaw the government is trying to engineer is to present the government's balance sheet as the problem. What government operatives want to avoid discussing is the private sector balance sheet, which is the more serious problem. This means more private income is put into more debt servicing which means there is no money for other areas of the economy. Debt rises faster than income. I've asked several ministers to forgive debt owed to the government like what was done pre-Roman times. They are not interested. The government has its own printing press and can never run out of money. The private sector does not have that capability and in reality, the government does not need our money to keep the government running. But who cares? We have a European centred mindset on debt, income and taxation and as Margret Thatcher stated: There is no alternative.
You’re right John that TINA dominates for now. But there are other voices breaking through, especially overseas. Doing our bit here.
Right on John. The gov doesn't need our money and so it also doesn't need a revenue minister. It's astounding how most people just don't get government finance. The entire debate around that is based on misperception. We are living the brutal result.
So good Covid is now a non issue we can see a real political contest of ideas. Please can you get Max Rashbrooke on a Friday hoon?
Almost spat out my rooibos when I heard GR talking about the government providing quality public services for the squeezed middle as opposed to tax cuts. He couldn’t have been talking about public safety, school standards or hospital staffing levels in Nz.
Yes. A curious approach. He’s betting that the middle are quite happy to kick down and feel they have a right to climb higher and get the special advantages others up there have. Kick down, kiss up politics.
There seems to be a belief that the vast majority of kiwi voters are opposed to a CGT. I haven't seen research on this, but Jacinda certainly believes this as shown by her ruling out a CGT while she is PM. I believe Luxon would have the same view. Given that New Zealand is one of the few OECD countries not to have a well defined CGT is an oddity driven by politicians view of vote maximisation. We effectively do have a CGT on residential property but the IRD has never had the Guts to implement this. Tax payable being determined on a purchaser intention to hold long term or not was a nonsense. The Brightline test implemented to provide some clarity has almost cemented no CGT after 2, 5 or 10 years. The current 10 year Brightline has the unintended consequence of not freeing land for development given the tax consequence of selling land to a development next door.
It's hard to see how a CGT would be implemented in NZ. Its time for the CGT sacred cow to be put out to pasture. Just look across the Ditch for a fairer more logical system on CGT. It wouldn't be that hard. But lets apply a CGT to all currently held Investment Property, Baches etc. Its is morally hard to argue it is unfair to pay tax on significant gains made over the last couple of decades or recent years.
It has become the third rail of politics. The focus groups suggest that nothing has changed. Median voters are even more in love with the leveraged and tax-free capital gains. They also feel more dependent on it to help their own children up into homes and feel entitled to those gains for their children ‘once they get on the ladder’. Imposing CGT doesn’t take away previous gains. Today’s property owners actually see a CGT as pulling up the ladder on (their) young.
Firstly, we need to agree what the problems are and for whom. Is it wealth inequality? The size of the gap between the rich and poor? The squeezed middle? Poverty? Inequity or inequality? Once we’ve answered those questions, then we can consider possible solutions and determine which are the most effective and sustainable real world solutions.
Perhaps the remedies don't lie in taxation reform but in modifying income policies. "Tax the rich" is too simplistic and will create unintended and detrimental consequences such as wealthy people leaving the country or sending their money offshore.
I think the solutions lie in introducing fit for purpose income-related policies such as:
Make the living wage the minimum wage and put the onus on the employer, rather than the employee, to go to Work & Income for a wage subsidy. They would have to make the business case to qualify. If we're honest, Working For Families is a subsidy for employers who know they can pay lower wages because taxpayers will top them up.
Paying less than the living wage is theft. No employee should be expected to subsidise someone else's business plan.
The same argument could be made about the Accommodation Supplement - this is a subsidy that goes to landlords and keeps rents higher than they ought to be.
Introduce wage to salary ratios to prevent the gross imbalance that occurs between the factory floor and management. Perhaps we need to think about maximum work incomes not just minimums.
Worker shareholding is also another way to have the workforce share in profits.
The pandemic caught us all unprepared. The arguably generous wage subsidy was helpful as income support and to tether people to jobs rather than have many more business go under.
Perhaps the time has come for a GMI guaranteed minimum income (a nuanced universal basic income) to be considered for everyone, not just those 65+ as it is now. This could be easily increased as required in times of crisis.
A GMI could be phased in, starting with ALL primary caregivers of dependants e.g children, the aged, disabled and unwell. This is work and, as such, it should be recognised, remunerated and included in GDP. These primary caregivers could decide to subcontract this work.
I would also like to see a GMI paid to everyone who is learning i.e. tertiary students and apprentices. This would encourage a better educated workforce.
We ought to look at how people's net incomes can be increased by saving money e.g. improve the building code to something like the hyper energy efficient Passive House standard and people's power bills will plummet thereby leaving them with more disposable income. We should have a mindset of building up to a standard, not down to a price. The ongoing cost of a home is overlooked when doing the sums. e.g. a heat-pump hot water cylinder costs a little more to buy but you save much more in reduced power costs. No builders considering the bottom line are putting these in as standard. Make them standard, same with thermally-broken double glazed windows.
Individualise the income support and taxation systems. This is fairer and would help address the power imbalances that can accompany relationships which can complicate income support.
We know what it costs to raise a child. This should be the starting point for assessing child support for those in or out of a relationship with the other parent.
Where there are children from a relationship that ends, income sharing ought to continue until the youngest child is 18 or no longer at dependant, whichever comes first. Where additional income support is required, either parent should be able to seek it to help meet their shortfall, not just the primary caregiver, as is currently the case.
Property transaction levy on all property and business sales payable by the vendor at settlement. Make it a small percentage of the sale price - this would be way less than an estate agent's commission.
While we're at it, let's change how we buy and sell real estate - make this a fee for service, like conveyancing, not a % of the sale price which is totally unrelated to the service provided. Keep marketing costs separate, too.
Tax income-earning “charities” like Sanitarium.
Tax income from lotteries. Why aren't these winnings taxed? And why, when the jackpots get so big, don’t they break up the jackpot into increments of a maximum of $1m each e.g. have 5 families and communities benefit from $1m instead of one getting all $5m.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “…in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” What about reintroducing an inheritance tax (a.k.a. death duties) - this would be a tax on money the beneficiaries of a deceased estate didn't earn. It's a windfall, like winning a lottery, and could be an (almost) pain-free source of income for the government to redistribute for the common good.
None of us chose to be born but from that day, we are all focused on having enough to avoid hunger, to be comfortable, to feel joy and avoid pain and discomfort.
Whether it’s to buy a food, clothes, a pint at the pub or a house, an EV or to see us through our dotage, we are in a cycle of earning, spending and, for some, saving to spend later or to leave in our will to others.
There are so many unknown variables and that’s why people fret, even rich people.
For an increasing number of people, stress has become distress and there isn’t nearly enough for the basics — to house, clothe and feed themselves or their family - and not even a Labour government seems to want to address their needs and National seems focused on punishing the poor and further enriching the well-off.
This is why we need to address these matters with an urgency this Labour Government hasn’t grasped and, I strongly suspect, a National led Government won’t either.
Nothing changes if nothing changes. We shouldn't wait until the majority is at crisis point and are ram-raiding grocery stores before we address these underlying systemic issues. Good governments have foresight and plan for longer than the next electoral cycle. They make choices for those in crisis today and to rectify systems so they are sustainable for generations to come.
Hi Dara
Five gold stars for your suggestions.
The living wage should be the minimum wage. I was just thinking about that recently. Is the living wage that of a single person without dependents?
The Accommodation Supplement. How about the supplement only being able to be paid out to a maximum limit? I.e. it will top up the rent to, say, $500 per week. That's effectively a rent freeze if the tenant has low income, and may have the consequence of the poor being discriminated against when the landlord is deciding who to rent the house to. Maybe just to be used as a short term attempt to put a brake on opportunistic rent increases.
A GMI, or UBI, I feel is going to happen one day. Make it the same amount as Super. How would you tie it in with the living wage? If the two were equal there is the economic risk of some workers just dropping out. Not because they are "lazy slackers" but because of the costs they would avoid by staying at home including travel costs and child-care fees.
I would suggest if there is a GMI then there not be a living wage. Instead we revert back to a minimum wage so that workers are encouraged to work. Maybe not as high as it currently is but more than enough to recompense workers for their employment costs.
How do short term migrant workers fit into this? Maybe they get the equivalent amount as the GMI. Which in effect would make them more expansive to the employer than a kiwi. Which is a good thing as too many employers go for the lazy approach of not training up locals.
I've said before that too many builders treat the Building Code as a maximum requirement, not a minimum. So boost the Building Code to a new minimum including solar panels, double/triple glazing, a high Home Star rating, etc. Yes, they would be more expansive to build but far cheaper to run.
A property transaction levy, or as Bernard called it in last week's Hoon; a Stamp Duty. Yeah, it would basically be a tax in lieu of a CGT except it's payable on the full sale price even if the vendor is making a loss.
Yes to businesses claiming to be charities to be taxed. But that can be got around by a business paying it's profit as a donation to a charity and having no taxable income. A donation can only be claimed in the year in which it is paid so the business would have to be on the ball and know pretty well what their profit was going to be. Not something that creative accountants wouldn't be able to fix.
I would add that charities MUST distribute a proportion of their income every year. Each charity could set their own minimum distribution percentage but that percentage must be publicly disclosed.
Lotteries (well, Lotto) are taxed on income received, just like the racing industry. Prizes are made up what's left over after also deducting running costs. The local rugby/netball club also runs a lottery but doesn't pay any tax. Nor does it have much in the way of prizes as it's purpose to raise funds for the club.
Re-introducing an Inheritance Tax would also require the return of gift duties.
I would add to your ideas the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) to replace GST. Every time you 'spend' money you are taxed. Spend is loosely described as when the money leaves your bank account/control. So buying shares, currency trading, investing in bonds, an overseas holiday, buying a house, repaying your mortgage to name a few would all now be taxable. The big weakness with GST is it exempts the financial industry.
Oh, and Bernard's land tax idea as well.
Good one Dara, but be careful here: "an (almost) pain-free source of income for the government to redistribute for the common good."
The government doesn't need a source of income. The government has its own sovereign money and it funds all its spending from that, it doesn't need "tax revenue". But there is an erroneous perception that it does, and this is what allows for this horrendous system of finance and the tyrannical underfunding of social supports. It's all a crock. There is no shortage of money, and our intellectual challenge is to realise that.
Thanks for the excellent summary, Bernard. I have to say this is one of the more encouraging speeches I've heard from an NZ politician in a long time. How can we develop a sustainable solution without truly understanding what problem we are trying to solve so I whole-heartedly support this data-driven analysis approach to understand where efforts need to be focused on we can really tackle this issue. I only hope it doesn't take too long and we can get started on solutions before too long.