Opinion: Gareth Morgan on why a capital tax is the key to meaningful reform

Opinion: Gareth Morgan on why a capital tax is the key to meaningful reform

Gareth Morgan presented this idea in December 2009 and is now writing a book on it as Labour presents its big tax plan, including a Capital Gains Tax.

By Gareth Morgan*

The selective income tax system that New Zealand operates results in a number of inequitable and economically inefficient outcomes. People shelter income in non taxable forms, the common one being in assets which deliver a substantial portion of their return in capital gain or imputed rent.

Capital that is accumulated simply for tax sheltering doesn't make much contribution to economic growth. The distribution of capital is skewed towards those assets attractive for their low-taxation, rather than their economic return. This sees capital productivity lower than it would be otherwise, with the accompanying deleterious effects on employment and incomes.

There is also little alignment of tax rates so taxpayers can benefit from choosing to direct taxable income through one legal entity rather another. Such "tax planning" is wasteful.

Finally we operate a complex set of welfare benefits across a suite of eligibility criteria -- illness, pensions, unemployment, and compensation for families that, via high effective marginal tax rates, present substantial disincentives for people to move off benefits. It is not far-fetched to claim the tax system is "broke" in the sense of being devoid of consistency, neutrality and equity. The challenge facing tax system designers is how can the system be reengineered to address these issues.

The key to any meaningful solution is to extend the tax base and facilitate lower rates as well as changes that eliminate these problems. But most importantly tax and benefit reform must not aggravate the issue of equity between rich and poor.

Comprehensive Tax Reform

A core issue is how to tax the effective income from capital rather than being selective, and creating boundary problems between cash income from capital which is taxable, and other forms of return"“ imputed rent and capital gain "“ which are not. The concomitant efforts by taxpayers to move taxable cash income into non-taxable forms are a dead loss, and the resultant impacts of inefficiency of capital are a drag on economic performance.

Taxing the capital stock (land, plant and equipment, buildings) is equivalent to deeming that all capital furnishes a rate of return. This Comprehensive Capital Tax (CCT) would not be instead of taxing profits but in addition to.

Such an expansion of the tax base would enable a major revision of the income tax schedule, namely to facilitate an alignment of tax rates to say 25% flat (the single personal rate, the company rate, the trust rate) and the achievement of meaningful welfare benefit reform in the form of the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) wherein every adult receives $10,000 pa whether or not they earn any income.

The GMI implies that every earned dollar is taxed at 25% and that nobody would effectively pay tax until they earned their first dollar over $40,000. This is integration of the tax and benefit system, so you would get rid of most if not all benefits and eliminate high effective marginal tax rates that people currently incur as their benefits abate in line with the income they earn (known as poverty traps).

Assuming 3 million taxpayers, the net annual cost of this initiative would be $30bn less the cost of welfare benefits, $16bn, so $14bn. In addition the flattening of the income tax schedule to 25% (and aligning with company and trust tax rates) would cost another $3bn say so all up we need to extend the tax base by $19bn to fund this. In order to put the size of this reform in perspective, the personal income tax collect currently is $27bn.

To invoke an effective reform of the taxation and welfare system (which I hear every informed commentator saying "is broke") we need to find a tax source of this magnitude. Our capital stock is about $1,500bn, including all land, buildings, plant and equipment. A 1.25% tax on capital would provide about $19bn, sufficient to effect the reform. This tax would be in addition to income tax on profits (albeit at the lower rate of 25%).

I have made no allowance whatsoever for efficiency gains from owners now incentivised to make their capital work, from the reduction of the size of the government benefit machinery, from the reduction of effort to circumvent tax rules, or from the lower tax rates rewarding effort. In the event that the CCT didn't raise sufficient revenue there is always GST to bridge the gap. By facing an annual charge on capital, an owner is more likely to use that capital to generate income, as there is an increased cost in leaving it idle.

This would see more capital brought into the production process. An offset would be that the cost of capital versus labour would rise and so producers would prefer labour over capital. A risk of full employment might ensue!

Which is the greater effect "“ greater use of capital because of the higher cost of leaving it idle, or the switch from capital-intensive to labour intensive production?

The first effect is unambiguously positive in terms of lifting economic performance, the second effect could be positive or negative. There is no magic capital/labour ratio, indeed increasingly the value-add in businesses comes from intellectual property so my "guess" would be that efficiency gains (the income effect) would substantially outweigh relative price (substitution) effects. Family Homes & Chattels As with GST there is no case to provide exemptions to the CCT if boundary problems are to be avoided.

However if the world of realpolitik so dictates, then my suggestion on the grounds of both efficiency and being equitable would be that the exemption on the family home must be limited to the value of the average New Zealand home rather than the more populist notion that the family home should be exempt, regardless of its value.

To exempt the family home irrespective of value would lead to "˜mansion tax shelters'. With respect to chattels, again it is simplest to include everything but government may decide to publish a list of consumable personal assets that can be ignored in the case of personal tax payers.

Personally I'd like my six motorcycles to be exempt. Impact on Capital Returns, Pricing One of the trends under our selective tax on capital income has been the emergence of some asset classes that furnish very low cash income or earnings yield, instead providing investors with the bulk of their return through "permanent"capital value increments. Such a distortion makes it very difficult for investors to accurately allocate funds across asset classes because of the "noise" from "permanent" capital gains on some asset classes.

An efficient allocation of capital across asset classes is unlikely "“ so income and employment generation are unlikely to be maximised. Farm enterprises would be a case in point. The CCT would remove the distortion that has led to pricing of tax-favoured assets as there would no longer be the incentive to arbitrage the capital/income boundary and in consequence drive the price of some assets to a level unrelated to their income return.

Double taxation

The idea is to both ensure a fair and equitable tax distribution, and to enhance allocative and productive efficiency of capital. It is true that the CCT applied in conjunction with an income tax on profits does, in effect, double-tax cash income from capital. As discussed earlier there are benefits that flow from encouraging idle capital to earn an income. But the extent of the additional tax on capital is significant even though it is mitigated by the reduction in income tax rates on profits (from 30% to 25%) that the package would imply.

A 30% tax on profits of say 10% of capital value, can be alternatively expressed as a 3% tax on capital. So reducing that tax to 25% would be equivalent to imposing a 2.5% tax on capital. In conjunction with a 1.25% CCT that would amount to a 3.75% tax on capital, compared to the current tax of 3%.

Mechanics of Application

There are two considerations relevant to applying the CCT on an accruals basis.

(a) Cash flow "“ the tax is accruals based but some taxpayers may consider it suboptimal to pay the charge each year, and prefer instead to pay less often, or even on realisation. Such an option might be considered although on equity grounds the taxpayer would need to pay use-of-money interest. For the classic case of a widow left in a large home, the option would be to delay the tax and have it paid, along with use-of-money, by her estate.

(b) Valuation "“ an oft-heard objection to taxing capital values is the compliance costs of annual valuations. This can be avoided if the taxpayer can assess the capital charge based on purchase price or opening value and then either adjust that when realisation occurs, or index the nominal value of the asset according to the movement in the relevant published market benchmark price index. Such a benchmark would provide the time profile of any appreciation so that use-of-money interest could be appropriately calculated for tax payment delaying.

Some forms of capital depreciate of course, so the normal rates of economic depreciation can be used in capital value assessment. Alternatives Instead of a CCT the issue of capital gains could of course be addressed by an accruals-based capital gains tax (CGT).

But this addresses only one of the many issues CCT addresses. It does not facilitate meaningful tax and benefit reform. In the main, the CCT is about a major expansion of the tax base facilitating a fall and alignment of tax rates as well as integration of the personal tax and benefit system.

It is a quantum step in enhancing the neutrality and simplicity of the tax system. A CGT alone addresses only one part of that challenge, namely the diversion of taxable cash income to non-taxable capital return.

An RFRM (Risk Free Return Method).

This is a curious concept insofar as it was proposed as a way of taxing only the risk free component of the return to capital. Its rationale isn't strong. The FDR (Fair Dividend Rate).

This tax which applies currently to non-Australasian shares is about taxing a deemed dividend. In large part it was introduced in recognition that the bulk of return in these shares comes from capital growth and as New Zealand doesn't have a capital gains tax that was a loophole.

So in terms of being comparable with a CCT it is very piecemeal in its approach, and selective in terms of deeming all shares have the same income from capital gain to tax. It's rough.

A land tax.

This proposal is closest to a CCT and in essence isolates land as the only form of capital that has untaxed return. That's fine as far as it goes, but by leaving out buildings or assets whose depreciation is way lower than its replacement value, leaves holes in the tax base.

(This article was first published in December 2009 after Gareth Morgan detailed his 'Big Kahuna' idea at the Tax Working Group conference. He is now writing a book on this idea)Gareth Morgan TWG - Tweaked

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.

17 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Hey Mark, I am with you on the nanny state thing.

The Big Kahuna thing is very efficient tax architecture. 

Left or right leaning governments can easily adjust the guaranteed minimum income and the flat tax rate as appropriate to meet their orientation with a simple threshold /rate adjustment. 

It also have a linier incentive to work harder, i.e. not penalized for working a few hours whilst on a benefit.

I am sure this would mean we could seriously slash the need for a whole pile of penpushers from IRD and WINZ.

We could slash the bean counter and advisor budgets, needed to help fight red tape.

It would bring house prices back down out of the stratosphere; make house ownership achievable for young people.

I like it. 

Most of the time she is in agreement with right wingers! at times her colums read like she is lobbying for a National ticket!

Hey Matt, I guess you had high hopes then hey. My hope is that maybe people in Nz this time will start to look deeper into the system & understand why not one single vote cast will make a difference currently.
Fran does write some good ones from time to time for sure.

 "Capital that is accumulated simply for tax sheltering doesn't make much contribution to economic growth".

Let's think about this statement before rushing to grab Gareth's big Kahuna.

If I save my capital in shares in a company...does that mean my capital is not contributing to economic growth?....no it bloody doesn't.

The point not made is that if I have to pay this Kahuna Tax on my savings (capital) all that happens is the govt steals the capital and the govt invests or wastes it. To assume that the govt would use that capital more wisely then me is complete bollocks.

To argue that I will pay less paye...25% flat...assumes I have a job and income..what if my only 'income' is from my savings!...I would lose not only the thieving debasement going on 24/7 but also the Kahuna theft....and the tax rate would be 25%....which is a higher rate than I pay now...get the picture...those on low incomes with savings get screwed by this CGT madness.

Let's extend that thought and make me a pensioner in a nice property that I save for over 50 years...now I find this bloody Kahuna tax is to demand I pay CGT on my bloody property and on my savings....while having a piss poor income and paying higher paye.

Gareth can afford his dreams because he has a stonking pile of loot. The rest of us will have his Kahuna Tax stuffed down our throats while Gareth F$#@! off on a motorbike laughing like hell.

I see mentioned above the suggestion that we get charities to expand their roles somewhat. Is that similar to the way StJohn's are now the default ambulance provider in NZ. I understand that they only get 40% of their funding from govt. 

Does anybody know anything more about these guys and whether this might be a good model?

From a mate that is a station manager 'St John are loaded'. Hope that helps.

 

NZ Sallies got a balanced portfolio worth about $240 mil.....

no links sorry, a mate is in the industry

I remember it well - the first of the working group diversions that have largely been ignored. See my previous comment  03 Dec 09, 12:19pm.

What's happened to Roger Thompson?

I still think playing with tax is a waste of time when the real problem is the fautly money supply.

The current one is centrally planned through the Reserve Bank creating severe distortions in the capital structure and triggering vicious boom and bust cycles.

It also, through inflation of the money supply, makes people poorer while transferring wealth to those who get first access to the newly-created money.

The market should be allowed to decide what form of money people prefer and what the interest rate should be, based on the pool of real savings.

You the man Mr. Morgan! Lets use the best of socialist and capitalist policies. Lets have a flat tax along with universal healthcare, no gst of petrol, fruit and veges, higher gst on liqour and tabacco! keep a close eye on all those takeways and food joints who show losses and make big fat profits.. let capital gains tax apply however, let there be an interim time window for people who sell one family home only to buy another family home. This is the only way to create an equitable society!!

Theres certainly some good points made on the existing system and much better prosals than some. Graduated income tax is clearly counter productive.

Timing and peoples attitudes. If it were put into place now with the rap going on it could finish many good businesses off and we need them. I would like to see the numbers work.

Again as with other suggestions they should have been in place in the past. If they are put in place now they may cause the opposiate efect to what they could achieve

You wonder if we all paid our taxes the way we should whether we would ever have a tax problem?

In laws own a $3 mil farm, sold a quarter to pay mortgage, have 2 flash cars, motorbikes and guns for the kids, a boat, and just come back from the States and just got an $18k payout from Familiy tax credits!!!!

I assume that was because they had a hard year where they earned little income!?!? How does that work? Work the system I guess?

There seem to be a lot of intelligent people in these posts that whinge and fly academic waffle instead of coming up with a way to make it work for everyone, not just the guy that is worried about his savings because he doesnt have to work anymore!

Oh well.....

Apologies...It's a retrospecive from 2009 ! :)

Supported it then and still support it now.

Can't stress more the need to address both sides of the ledger - tax and welfare reform.

As Gareth suggested initially - more work needs to be done around what the actual amount of the GMI and the CCT would be - but the strategy is sound:

Develop a system so simple that it foils all incentives to either minimise tax or maximise benefits (depending on which side of the ledger you are on).

What disappoints me - is that this overall strategy/ambition for our nation has been around since December 2009.  What an absolute waste of precious time.

I have been thinking along theese lines for some time , its almost the same as what i was thinking of a flat 20 % tax rate for almost all taxes, except that you rebate GST at 10 % and effevctively make it a turnover tax. 

GST rebate rates could then be increased for companies that are doing things that are wanted to be encouraged in our economy or society . Dont you think Fletcher Challenge might go for a zero waste to landfill if it meant getting an extra 1.0 % gst rebate rating or zero pollution output for another 2 % GSt rebate, or 100 new apprientiships if it got them another 1.5 % GSt rebate, 

Social & environmental good needs to be encouraged in the way that we tax and support people. Also HONESTY needs to be encouraged by the structure and design of the taxation system. 

Get back to the days where people were proud to pay there share of tax and encouraged others to think similarly instead of Tax avoidance schemes and 'family trusts' and crap like that that are just an encouragement to dishonest and corrupt behavior.

If all NZ citizens over 18 yrs old got $10,400 per year eq Tax rebate then the value of unpaid work would be honored equally and it would compensate for the slightly higher cost of goods  from the GSt change.

CapGainsTx is taxed as 20 % of the actual capital gain, it is in effect an income tax. How hard is that to work out.

Keep it simple an straight forward and it becomes so easy to police and figure out . Most important keep it a simple number to work with for anyone of moderate mathematical ability,  no 22.275 % rubbish. 20 % is easy easy easy. $200 / week is easy easy easy, to figure out.