Bridges says a capital gains tax would cause people to leave for Australia (where there is a capital gains tax); fails to answer questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system

Bridges says a capital gains tax would cause people to leave for Australia (where there is a capital gains tax); fails to answer questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system
Simon Bridges

National Party Leader Simon Bridges has coined the possible introduction of a capital gains tax in New Zealand a “recipe for more people buggering off to Australia” – where there is a capital gains tax.

Bridges made this remark on his way to a Caucus meeting on Tuesday, ahead of the Tax Working Group on Thursday releasing its recommendations on how to reform the tax system.

He addressed media, ready to attack the notion of a capital gains tax, with National Finance Spokesperson Amy Adams by his side.

Bridges made the argument that not even the Tax Working Group was confident a capital gains tax would do much to improve housing affordability.

Its interim report released in September said: “The Group is of the view that the housing market impacts [of taxing capital income] are unlikely to be large, but it may be expected that rents will rise over time, and house prices will be lower, relative to the status quo.

“However, the Group’s view is that tax has not played a large role in the current state of New Zealand’s housing market, and will be unlikely to play a large role in fixing it.”

The report also said: “The tax system is not responsible for constraints in the supply of housing, but it does influence demand for housing.

“Certain features of the tax system – such as the inconsistent treatment of capital income – have probably exacerbated the house price cycle in New Zealand, even if the tax system is not the primary cause of unaffordable housing.”

Bridges also reiterated the National Party line that the taxes introduced by this government were crippling the economy.

However, he was unable to provide clear answers to two questions interest.co.nz put to him:

  • Putting a capital gains tax and the bright-line test aside, does he believe there is a role for tax to play in keeping house prices at a sustainable level?
  • Does he believe there is an even playing field when it comes to the way the returns from different assets are taxed in New Zealand?

The second question was asked with this graph in mind:

Here is a transcript of the exchange between Bridges and interest.co.nz’s Jenée Tibshraeny:

JT: Do you think the incentives are balanced when it comes to tax - when it comes to investing in property versus other financial assets?

SB: Right now, we’ve got a government yesterday that tells us we have a multinationals tax. They’re going to reel in more money from that. We know households are paying $50,000 each in tax and Michael Cullen, Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson are about to tell us we need yet another tax. What’s the case for it? I don’t see it?

JT: OK, but just answer the question. Is the playing field even between the different types of assets people can invest in?

SB: If you’re getting at houses and what’s going to happen there, the Tax Working Group itself has said it’s not going to have much of an effect, so that argument doesn’t hold water. I come back to it then - why on earth would you have a capital gains tax? I don’t see anyone – not Jacinda Ardern, not Grant Robertson, actually not Sir Michael Cullen making strong arguments. I can give you plenty against it: We pay a lot of tax, they’ve piled on more, the disincentives on hardworking kiwis who play by the rules will be there. Why would we do this?

JT: Why would I invest in a business or buy shares if I can invest in property and the tax incentives are better that way?

SB: How about this – because we’re going to see a capital gains tax on that business. Someone slogs their guts out for years on a retail business – maybe it’s a clothes business. They’re not making much cash at all. They’re paying tax on the people they employ on the small profit that they make, and then they’re going to get socked at the end with a 33% tax on that business, both as assets and any sale they might realise from selling it on to the next person. How is that fair after let’s say 30 years working at it? This is a real disincentive to kiwis to get ahead, who’ve played by the rules. It’s going to ruin the ability for people with farms, with SMEs, with nest-eggs to get ahead. Actually, you know what this is, it’s a recipe for more people buggering off to Australia…

JT: I just want to get some clarity. Does our tax system treat different sorts of investors the same?

SB: Our tax system isn’t perfect – no system is. But what the experts will tell you and have for a long time, is that it’s broad-based, it covers the bases, and it does a good job for the most part. You can always find this, that and the other thing, that in theory could be the right thing to do – sure. But here, now in terms of a capital gains tax, not even the Tax Working Group thinks it will deal to some of the very real property issues we have as a nation…

JT: Putting capital gains tax aside, and also the bright-line test, do you believe there is a role for tax to play in keeping house prices at a sustainable level?

SB: I think there’s a role for tax of course. We need taxes to pay for public services. And you could make your case for all matter of taxes. But ultimately here, you’ve got a government that’s got a very well-worn, well-run tax system that pulls in some – what is it – $77 billion a year. They’re doing a new one in multinationals – fair enough, although they don’t seem to know the detail. Why on earth would you slug New Zealanders with another one? What’s the purpose? They’ve already accepted it doesn’t go towards what you’re talking about. It’s not going to have a material effect on properties, so what the hell is the point?

JT: Ok, you’re not answering the question. Is there a role for tax to play, other than the bright-line test and capital gains tax [in keeping house prices at a sustainable level]?

SB: Look in theory, you can have a role for tax serving all sorts of purposes, but I come back to it, right here, right now in New Zealand, Sir Michael Cullen’s Tax Working Group has made it abundantly clear throughout that document, it’s not going to have a significant effect on those very issues you’re raising.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

141 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).
17
up

National introduced the 2 year bright line capital gains tax. A bit rich to now poo poo the idea.

lets not distort the facts to create a false narrative

The 2 year Bright Line test was to stop rampant speculation

I heard WP three weeks ago adamantly telling Jamie Mackay on The Country that we already have a CGT. Not sure whether he was referring to brightline or existing trading laws.
It seems there is a storm brewing between WP and the green party leader, james someone over the cgt debate.

25
up

Love the effort by Jenée in trying to get a straight answer from this cherub.

19
up

Honestly, to have a gauche and maladroit individual such as this to lead our country? Well it would be an international embarrassment! This, in my opinion, is not a statement from a statesman. It is a mumble from a bumble. Previously I considered Andrew Little, as a potential PM , to have these same sort of shortcomings, but if so, then much less so, than this one.

Better than the witch we already have masquerading as our supreme leader

15
up

as a non Labour-supporter, I'd suggest that's unfair. She obviously has a conscience. Gotta be a plus, sadly lacking in many Pollies

Who's Simon Bridges? "If it torks like a cloun, warks like a cloun, and thunks all keewee's are stoopid flightless clouns, must be a......" Let's have a vury suriose referendum about it - I wanna draw stoopid no fly keewee clouns :) Bwahahahaaa.....

Am looking forward to reading your non sensible gibberish later when SB is pm

You are in for a long wait, a very long wait. SB will almost certainly fail this election, he will then get knifed in the back by JC who will lurch National to the hard right and that will be them done for 1 or even 2 more elections. Pollies never learn, or few do anyway.

That's a sad comment Batman...thought you were above name calling,

That's rubbish, to swap in this drongo is plain stupidity.

Who in turn is a billion times better than a smiley, wavy do nothing imposter

Agreed, she should have a crack at asking Jacinda why Winston still thinks 1,000 houses by July is still doable. Or does scrutiny only apply to the National Party?

Why would we ask JA what WP thinks and why? She might be the PM but WP is his own man, and he doesn't suck up to anyone!

Winnie is right. All Jacinda has to do is buy another 1000 pairs of shoes and there you go ... 1000 kiwibuild boxes.

22
up

It’s answers like this that make Simon Bridges the 5%-6% leader that he is.

It is so disingenuous to say ‘it’s another tax’. The labour government have a revenue to GDP target in their fiscal plan. So I’m expecting any capital gains tax proposal to be paired with a tax cut for wage and salary earners.

The news broadcast needs to breakdown how many nzers don’t own a house - 34% net winners. How many only own their own house - ? Also net winners. The majority of this country will win from a capital gains proposal but the media and Bridges present it as if this is a tax on your average mum and dad.

12
up

A good politician can answer a question, without answering the question, and yet leave you thinking he did.
Simon Bridges may be all sorts of good things, but a good politician isn't one of them.

A 'good' politician would actually just answer the question in an informative manner.

10
up

I think he has decided to leave NZ when CG Will be introduced accompanied by Marc Richardson :)

You can 'expect it', but if a large portion of Govt revenue is contingent on asset prices rising continuously then you better believe we're either going to need house prices to rise for ever or imputed rents to be applied. Slashing personal tax rants for a tax that requires ongoing house prices is jeopardizing a huge amount of $$$ or spitting in the face of their 'unaffordable housing' campaign promises. It can one or the other but it can't be both.

@gv27 ................ If this CGT ever gets past Winnie Peters , the Government is in for the shock of its life when they realize the mechanics of how complex this tax is , and esp when 2 things happen

1) it collects way more tax than expected
and
2) Taxpayers who lose money on an investment claim a deduction for Capital Losses

(1) Then tax rates could be decreased across the board assisting both wage earners and asset owners;

(2) Losses will likely be ring fenced so capital losses will have no effect on the rest of the tax base.

2) Labour assuming they carry on from the last CGT said quite clearly CGT at 15% and no deductions for losses. So no there will be no losses for the tax payer to suck up.........

Boatman: Again, for a CGT to collect any revenue, asset prices have to keep rising, forever. How does that fit with a Govt saying houses are "overpriced" or "unaffordable"?

It doesn't, and if asset prices drop and people hold onto their houses, it will mean the only effective function of the CGT is as a death duty.

12
up

That was painful to read.

Only if you were considering voting National this time around....

Stopped voting National after 2 terms of Key.

10
up

To avoid CGT in Australia you have to live in the house you buy for at least 6 months at some time during the first 5 years of ownership. It's not that hard to avoid the tax. It allows the government to clip the ticket of property investors making quick cash on a booming market.
Simon Bridges needs to realise that people "bugger off" to Australia because they get paid twice as much to do the same job, and can use that extra income to buy a nicer house and live with financial security.

Simon Bridges needs to realise that people "bugger off" to Australia because they get paid twice as much to do the same job

I wish it was twice as much. Salaries for people in software are not much higher than in NZ.

But even just the cheaper food and cheaper housing would put me ahead. That and it's generally a richer place, good news if I want to go into business for myself.

Hes planting seeds, as we all know what direction immigration is going regardless of a CGT. Could make for good ammunition for those that are easily convinced come next years election campaign.

More and more people are heading to Australia, yet my McDonalds just upped their prices on hamburgers. Can I connect the two to put forwards a more convincing argument?

10
up

CG is more for fairness in Tax system than reducing high house price.

Interest.co.nz did ask right question and answere are in questions itself.

Time has come for CG and kiwis are ready for fair tax system irrespective of what the rich and vested people may think as Will hurt them the most.

The "time" for a Capital Gains Tax was back in 2000 or 2006 when the Income Tax Act was being updated and property prices were shooting up. Adding a Capital Gains Tax in at the height of a cycle is a great way to make sure it doesn't collect any revenue, unless you want house prices to keep rising forever?

@stuart 786 YOU ARE DELUSIONAL just wait until someone dies in your family and leaves anything to you , and you have to pay tax on the gain of the asset you inherited , or you are forced to sell Nanna's home after the funeral to pay the tax

Yeah, where is Nana going to live then?

The TWG has indicated roll over relief may be an option that will allow for the tax event to be delayed until the asset is sold by the grand kids. I think you are freaking out a bit Boatman, how about waiting for the report.

It's much easier to fill the vacuum with strawmen so you can look clever when you slash them down.

The poll results on TV3 are out tonight, Kiwi's don't want it. Its just yet another Tax. How on earth do you think its going to benefit you ? just more money in the trough that disappears.

Exactly Carlos67, a CGT is just another attack on the hard working middle class. Another nail in the coffin.

16
up

Hardly. most hard working middle class don’t make a taxable capital gain.

Chances are they'll draw down on a Kiwisaver or inherit something in their lifetimes. A Capital Gains Tax doesn't just apply to property and it won't just catch the landed gentry.

Meanwhile, the corresponding reduction in other taxes that will balance out any new CGT will definitely benefit the average person. What makes you think they will be worse off overall?

Are prices expected to rise forever? Is the Govt really going to make a large percentage of tax revenue contingent on constantly-appreciating assets? Unless it's not really about revenue at all, and it's actually just about taxing people for having stuff.

10:1 we end up with both a CGT and less-than-proportional reductions in tax rates to ensure revenue integrity.

11
up

You are the worst spin merchant ever ZS, I've seen clear glass windows less transparent than your attempt to frame this as a problem for the hard working middle class.

Why stop at CGT? Let’s charge the middle class homeowners rent to live in their own houses like you and the TOP party want.

Nah, one or the other is fine, both would be a bit overkill.

One is an extreme, anti-capitalism, impractical, unfair reformation of NZ’s tax system that would put it at odds with the systems of every other fist world country (including some that have tried and abandoned such taxes). The other is a fairly rational and defensible extension of NZ’s existing tax provisions that would bring it in-line with most other first world countries. But meh, either or.

The infant in this picture likely knows more about TOPs tax policy than you do, despite that you voted for them.

Ironic seeing as you just implied that an imputed system is 'anti-capitalist', but then argue for a flat CGT.

You know what capitalism is, right?
As an experiment, try and recite a definition to yourself (without Wikipedia cheating) and then think about that in the context of your comment.

I’m against the CGT, but a reasonable argument can be made for it, and it is defensible, unlike TOP’s wealth tax. The wealth tax is far more anti-capitalism than CGT. For a start, it taxes capital, not the income earned from capital or capital gains. The state charging you “rent” to live in your own home or use your own machinery is very anti-capitalism. This is fundamentally different to CGT.

There is nothing wrong with taxing assets in a capitalist system. The govt. isn't trying to take away your ownership rights that allow the mechanism of profit.

Arguably, taxing those assets period on period is much more conducive to an efficient capitalist system as it doesn't distort the incentives of efficiency/investment/production like a CGT would.

The state doesn't own my house or machinery, they just charge me rent to possess and use it, regardless of whether I'm earning income from it - capitalism at its finest! You are poorly informed, and likely on the spectrum.

It's not a rent. You can't be charged 'rent' for something you own.
A rent and a tax are very different things.

Here lies your problem; you can't articulate what your point is.

The government would charge you a fee to live in the house that you own. Rent is an entirely appropriate analogy. Calling it a tax makes little difference to what it is. Get back to me when you can cobble together a half descent argument, you are boring.

Hahaha.
Right. Okay. So the reason you are always wrong is because you prefer analogy over correct terms.

Let's appropriate this. As mentioned by another poster - currently you are renting from the council?
That must really annoy you.

It annoys me a little, but for most property I own the rates are ultimately passed on to the tenants through marginally higher rent, which makes me feel a bit better.

Okay. Glad we cleared this up.
You actually think rents are analogous to taxes.
I think we can safely say you are in no capacity to comment on tax policy, be it Labour, National, or TOP's.

The government charging you money to live in your house is analogous to them charging you rent, yes. Now that we have "cleared this up" you can stop with the tedious, boring replies.

Would you also advocate for a poll tax rather than rates as the latter is a "rent" on your property?

Also, that bastion of capitalism, the USA, charges "rent" on residential houses - they call it property tax.

Poll tax could be preferable to rates, haven't given it much thought. Would need to vary between districts/cities though, and could be said to be regressive given implications for the poor. In the US, property tax is charged at the local level and is equivalent to our council rating system. You'd no doubt agree that the US is not a perfect bastion of capitalism.

Importantly, the wealth tax would apply to almost everything (recreational boats, cars, machinery), not just houses, so the problems are far broader than just how to go about finding a fair way to pay for local services and infrastructure that council's deliver.

It would apply to all assets over a certain value (I think someone mentioned $50k). If that asset was used productively (like machinery) then you have it will probably cost you less than now. If you are hoarding unproductive assets then the tax is effectively an opportunity cost made real.

It would apply to all assets over a certain value (I think someone mentioned $50k). If that asset was used productively (like machinery) then you have it will probably cost you less than now.

Evidence? Why do I get the impression you've pulled this out of thin air.

So a 50K diamond would be subject to the wealth tax, but two 49K diamonds wouldn't?

Opportunity cost is real regardless. It is not currently a figment of one's imagination. The wealth tax would just be an additional cost on top of the already existing opportunity cost.

Did you know that a wealth tax has been tried in Scandinavian countries, but abandoned due to adverse economic consequences?

This amount would align it with NZ's existing wealth tax, FIF. Also like FIF, it counts per asset class - so total value of diamonds. You can't avoid FIF by holding shares that are each less than $50k.

So your claim that "It would apply to all assets over a certain value (I think someone mentioned $50k)" is based on nothing more than speculation. Regarding the diamonds - wealth taxes are notoriously difficult to enforce.

If you think a wealth tax is difficult - wait until you see a CGT

I'm not seeing you disagree with my point that a wealth tax is difficult to enforce.

FIF was chosen primarily due to its ease of compliance and enforcement

There is some commonality between the FIF and a wealth tax. But they obviously are not the same thing - if they were, TOP wouldn't be advocating for a wealth tax as they would be happy with the status quo. I didn't ask you about the FIF. I asked you whether you thought that a comprehensive wealth tax like the one proposed by the TOP Party would be easy to enforce. Why don't you just give me a yes or no answer? There is only enough space in this thread for a yes or no answer, so just man up and do it.

We have a property tax too; it's called 'rates'. That's quite different to an imputed rent.

Not according to BLSH.
The two are analogous, apparently.

Geoff Simmons has stated that a land tax is analogous paying the government for a lease. Not too different from what I’m saying. Paying the government a fee to live in your house is analogous to paying them rent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gHzIUYRvN4&t=34m25s

Sure, whatever.

Imitation is the best form of flattery. https://www.interest.co.nz/property/95752/bayleys-sold-50-their-latest-a...

Now you just need to imitate me by getting into the housing market.

Huh? Why would I want to do that? You've got a screw loose.

As for imitating you, no, its not like you did anything original.. this stuff has been going on for years in forums. So yeah, might pay to deflate that ego.

Why is it you dont want a level playing field for tax? that is charge them tax as its a gain/profit. Oh wait because you have an interest in not having a CGT as then you would actually have to pay tax.

So goes the line we spin to get everyday working folk to pay the taxes while our moneymaking is tax-free.

We don’t know what the counter offer is yet though to make it revenue neutral. If it was say a 3% drop in income tax I’m sure it would be more popular!

If I recall correctly TOPs proposal was by introducing tax on property that income tax would drop 30% odd and not 3%! and 80% of the PAYErs would be significantly better off.

Yes, a 30% drop so the top rate goes from 33% to 23.1%. I worked it out at the time that you would need to have own properties that are worth more than 9x your income to be worse off.

Way to go Simon, people need a leader like you. Elections are coming up in Ethiopia

PropertyPrices2Fall alt account?

Does Bridges think it’s fair that someone who “slugs their guts out” owning a clothing business should pay no tax while someone who “slugs their guts out” for an employer pays up to 33%?

Someone 'slogging their guts out' and paying 33% is making at least 70K a year.

Running a business often means forgoing drawings to make sure your business survives, let alone grows.

So if you can sell the business for a profit, what is wrong with paying tax on it?

@Jimojones , dont be silly now ........... we reinvest money in our small businesses , and if you tax the gains on small businesses, then you must also tax reinvested interest earned

Cool, so you'll be happy to work for a dollar an hour then? I mean, as long as you're getting *some* money, who cares how much you're actually getting, right?

If I approach my employer and ask them to just pay me minimum wage and accrue the balance until I leave the company, why should I be taxed on my lump sum earnings? I’ve forgone drawings, I’ve done this to ensure the business I work for survives.

Then you've still earned the income; how you could possibly think that relates to drawings by a business owner I have no idea.

Dan's not very good at maths. I think we've established that several times.

Actually its worse. Both the "someone who “slugs their guts out” owning a [real] clothing business" producing a good and someone who “slugs their guts out” for that employer pays up to 33%. Meanwhile the housing gambler pays 0% for little effort except owning the asset.

Hence a CGT will reduce the tax burden on both of the first pair and significantly.

I think that we'll realise that having expensive houses will cripple the economy, not the introduction of a capital gains tax.

@independant _observer .............our houses , even in Auckland are NOT expensive , have you looked at Hong Kong , Tokyo or Taipei ?

Or even Singapore ?

Not to mention Vancouver , Geneva or Berlin ( in the case of Berlin about 70% of residents do not own their own home )

Whats your point?

Agreed i o.

What a bunch of fools ........... just in case you all did not realize it , when Nanna dies , it is a Capital gains tax event .

Anything left behind is transferred to the new owners under her will and new ownership = taxable event

So anyone naive enough to think they will inherit anything had best think again

11
up

Your current society, Boatman, is far from paying it's way, particularly vis-a-vis future generations.

Get a hold of Stephen Emmott's '10 Billion'
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228144/ten-billion-by-stephen-e...

Then wonder if much of this discussion is relevant, relatively-speaking

And that where you are wrong , we are paying way more than we should be to the Fiscus at our age

Nana's residential home would be exempt. In respect of Nana's rentals the draft working group paper provided for roll over relief whereby the tax event was delayed until realisation of the asset by the kids.

Nice scaremongering though.

Spin - how is delaying a tax event classified as exempt from Tax?

Try reading again.

Nana's RESIDENTIAL home is exempt.

Her RENTALS would be taxable to her on sale but if passed to her grand kids taxing will be delayed until actual sale so there are funds to pay the tax. This alleviates the problem of getting cash to pay the tax when the rentals may not yet be sold.

IMHO make them pay tax and if you have to sell a rental to get it so be it. It was not your nana's home so all good.

Ah got it. My bad.

What happens to Nana's home? Does it continue to count as owner occupied? If not, when does it become subject to CGT?

I don't intend to pay CGT, so will structure my finances to avoid it (Kiwisaver seems to be the only gotcha) but am mindful that passing on the family home to my children needs to be structured to avoid this tax as well. A simple probate can take months to obtain, and you can't sell a property prior to getting that. All very messy, like reliving the '80s tax schemes. In the meantime the investments all going into enhancing the family home.

Nanna dies, you find out she's given the savings to Heartland Bank, P&O cruises and Ryman healthcare.

This lot always want to tax tax tax!
They always say that they want everyone to pay their fair share!
So is is fair that that many people get benefits all their lives off the NZ taxpayer, and the Labour Party say that this is FAIR?
Property Investors contribute so much to the economy that this lot just do not get!
Apart from the shelter to people that the Government can not provide, they spend plenty buying goods and paying tradesmen for repairs etc.
We will continue to improve our properties because we are positively geared and it just makes sense to.
Reality is that the negatively geared investors will not be spending any extra money to improve their property and make the grants standard of living better, as kt will just increase their amount of loss each year!
Many tradesmen will get reduced work and will put many businesss in financial trouble.

13
up

Sounds like you TM2. All you want to do is bludge, bludge, bludge more money from hard working Kiwis in the form of your 10% rental price rises every six months. Gosh, do you not get the irony of your comments?

Meanie, vary rarely lift rents over the past few years, let alone 10%

12
up

'Property investors' are actually just parasitic. They live off tenant's incomes, which may be parasitic also. It all relates to an energy stream. If you didn't exist, there would be more first-home owners, probably proud enough to do the same amount of maintenance - I suspect even more.

You have to put up smarter arguments, sorry.

I prefer to call them darklords

Actually if my viewing of "ex-rentals" is any indication landlords typically buy a good house and do as little as possible for 10~15 years and watch it run down, at that point sell it to a FHB as a doer-upper needing serious work.

Parasitic in every way really.

PDK I notice you peddle this out constantly. So if Property Investors are just parasitic. Have considered. An investors property with no mortgage and deductions for rates insurance and maintenance. Which aren't fully deductible to inform the financially challenged only a third is actually deductible. Then. because I pay 33% on income from rentals my tenants with tax deductions for me mentioned above taken out effectively pay 25% of there rent indirectly to the Govt. When I explain this to them and they understand it they are gob smacked. Any rent rise, I point out 25% is indirectly going to the Govt. I just collect it for the Govt. If you take a conservative stab at the percentage of rentals. I put to you that the bigger parasite is the Govt. A non researched number to put out there. Approx 500,000 private rentals .over 43% is mortgage free(based on the figure43% of houses are mortgage free). For the sake of creating a number to discuss. 40% of rentals equals 200,000 x a conservative $400 per week x 25% equals.
$1,040,000,000. Happy to have better than my back of envelope numbers corrected. But $1b+ min collected in tax from rent.
For you to enjoy the benefits of with all the Govt provided infrastructure. So indirectly that also makes you a rental parasite.

What would this rent money be doing otherwise? Paying off a mortgage so going to a bank which makes a profit and pays 28% tax on it. And all those rental houses not needed means the equity would be invested elsewhere, generating a return that would be taxed at upto 33%.

" So is is fair that that many people get benefits all their lives off the NZ taxpayer "

No it's not fair that boomer super annuitants receive super even though the trough wasn't filled up properly by said boomers. It's also not fair that landlords receive the accommodation supplement on their damp sh*^box rentals. Biggest bludgers in NZ are these two groups. Followed closely by Debbie on the DPB who has 6 kids sired by 6 different fathers.

TM2,

Always good for a giggle. Are you saying that nobody was 'living on benefits' during the tenure of the National government?

Even funnier is 'Property investors contribute so much to the economy'. As I slowly recover from a ruptured disc,I need something to laugh at.

I don't think the cgt will have much of an impact, hopefully it will mean soymun and paula move to oz....

Why is it necessarily extra tax? Maybe they will reduce income tax , and keep the overall tax take the same . In fact , I would say they wil have to do that to sell it to the electorate .

TOPs proposal was just that, bring in property tax(es) and income tax would drop 30% for 80% of the people paying tax. Of course if you are not paying any tax you dont get any NET benefit, but now you actually have to pay tax and not ponce off the rest of the country.

They neglect to mention that with their UBI, TOP would need to increase tax revenue significantly.

I left for Australia (Melbourne from Auckland). I left for:
- Higher wages
- Better career opportunities
- Lower cost of rent, and much better value for the rent I was paying
- Lower cost of food, fresher veggies
- Public Transport system that is good enough that I don't have a car
- Better social events

CGT wasn't one of the reasons. If anything, if CGT was in place in NZ (which would be bring down the unhinged property prices), it would have contributed to me staying. And no, CGT won't increase the rents.

https://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-house-rents-drop-annually-for-firs...

Except it won't, and it didn't in Australia either, where property prices still got stupidly high and the correction can't be attributed to a CGT either.

Whether it does or not is immaterial. It's still more fair for unearned income and earned income to be taxed more evenly. No need for free rides.

Equivalent property is much cheaper in Australia, I've demonstrated this over and over again. You're full of shit.

15% CGT is like taxing a thief. It's better than nothing but the thief is still going to continue. It doesn't get to the root of the problem;
1) the extremely low cost of hoarding bare land and
2) red tape around every stage of construction

To be fair, NZ already has a CGT that isn't much different than the AU CGT. NZ has the 5 year bright line test. AU, as long as you have lived in the house 2 of the past five years, no CGT.

The sad part is that the current suggestions for a CGT exempt the family home.

More like maintaining stupid rents and prices to protect banks and speculators is sending people to Australia.
Especially our educated youth/aka future taxpayers who we can least afford to loose.

This kind of public stupidity will keep National in opposition. Simply out of touch.

except Labour are little better. Labour knows full well that there are so many of the middle swing voters owning rentals that if they try and tax them its oblivion at the polls.

Same with NZF and even the Green's, none of them are willing to address the issues as its too costly in votes.

People have seen greater opportunity in Australia for 40 years that I know of especially trade skilled people. A key reason you cant find a middle aged tradesman in NZ now. As fast as we could train apprentices in the 90s and 2000s, they would leave even faster many on the day they completed there apprenticeship for OZ.. Nothing new or different better off then in OZ if you are skilled better off now.
Housing costs through those in charge allowing the unforeseen consequences of massive immigration is just another reason to go.

if they tax CG at 33% (ignoring property) for my argument then it will impact enormously on both SMEs and farms. Particularly, if it is recognised on "unrealised gains". Then, yss Bridges has it right. Kiwis will sell up and move to Australia. Drop the rate to 10% or 15% which is more fathomable, and I suspect it will get some traction. I can see is a lot of lawyers, and accountants, and tax advisors doing very nicely out of this. Those with huge wealth will be able to structure their affairs to avoid CGT. My pick is that bulk of any CGT will be levied on middle NZ.

Many says that NZ already has CGT in the form of brightline test than let it come why be afraid.

CGT tax is not only to reduce house price it should be to curb speculation and no investment / profit should be Tax free like Income Tax.

Should have CGT but does not have to be very high can have 10% to 20% to make tax system more fair to all making money and does not have to be 33% or 40%.

Many who have been reaping the benefit of Tax free Profit are bound to resist and vested people along with media will go out to try and stop CG but just like Ban on Foreigners (Which as per National and many in media suggested is not possible), if Labour can pull it, will be good for the country in the long run.

We left for Australia (Sydney) also. We’re both proud Kiwis and I’d like to return one day but for people if our generation there’s no comparison as it’s just simply too hard to get ahead and things are grossly skewed all in the baby boomers favour and always have been. Started with Free education, dirt cheap housing, jobs galore with no degree required, huge tax fee capital gains on property and now gold cards and pensions at 65 regardless of whether they are still working or their assets status. The difference is preposterous.

I left for Brisbane 7 years ago. I am earning roughly the same as I was in Auckland (same $x salary without exchange rate factor).
We went from double incomes down to one and we seems to get by here in Brisbane, we still get a yearly overseas holiday and bought a new car recently. I don't think we can do the same if we were back in Auckland. We sold our house near Auckland Domain and bought one here even closer to the city. Apart from the heat in summer, it's a right move. So I didn't come to Australia because of CGT - In fact they have CGT here, so not sure what that Simon was on about!

I have an investment portfolio that includes some residential property. Whilst no one wants to pay more tax tomorrow than we would pay today I can’t deny that the market here in NZ is artificially skewed in favour of property as an investment compared to other options.

If the proposed CGT is introduced as a method to improve fairness then it’s hard to argue with. Inequality is a serious issue that impacts us all, our friends, family and future generations.

However I completely fail to see how the proposal to exclude the family home is fair. Take someone who lives in Auckland in an average home valued at approx $1M. They also have a couple of rental properties that are also valued around $1M. They don’t pay any CGT on a third of there property assets.

A second investor who lives in Invercargil who also has a total of $3M in properties, all of which are valued at the average price of say $300,000, would be paying CGT on gains on $2,700,000.

How is that fair? More property and all the headaches that come with them and more CGT on the same overall investment value.

All this achieves in one skewed system replacing another.

Will be interesting to see what detail is in final report.

Maybe I should sell my investment property now and buy a big expensive beach house. When it’s time to retire sell my home and move to beach. Both would be family homes and not subject to CGT.

If they use same rule as Australia's CGT. You can only have 1 primary resident as in family home.

What I am suggesting is if I retire and sell my primary home that would be free from CGT. Then move to live in beach home and that would then become primary home.

What a stupid article. Should every politician have to recuse themselves if they are remotely affected by proposed legislation? Actually, it would be good to get declarations on who smokes cannabis and/or has annoying older relatives they might want to finish off.

One reason why proper and fair Tax system is not introuduced is vested interest. Many who are enjoying are bound to make noise.

Looking at buying a small business in the S.I,but retaining my house in the Waikato for 2 of my kids to live in.They won't be paying rent,just the rates,insurance etc.My wife will be returning home on a regular basis due to her elderly family.
The proposal at the moment is to buy a home in the S.I so how will a CGT affect me?

As long as it comes with a decrease in income tax to promote productivity go for it. Only people crying will be multi propert specudebt junkies who just farm debt at the expense of the whole economy (stupid prices and rents).

Asset reset coming. I wonder if the foreign owners realise what is about to happen?