Vic Uni academics and government economists to run debate on possible deposit savings tax break, limit on government spending and bigger SOE floats

Vic Uni academics and government economists to run debate on possible deposit savings tax break, limit on government spending and bigger SOE floats

A series of debates is being organised by Victoria University and the Government Economics Network to look at a deposit savings tax cut, limits on government spending and selling all 100% of the shares in the state owned power company floats.

In particular, the debates would look at whether New Zealand should follow a Scandinavian policy to tax income from bank deposits at half the rate of income tax.

The Public Finance Debates series, would also look at the rigour behind the rhetoric in arguments for and against asset sales, limits on government spending and other fiscal policies.

Experienced economists, academics and policy advisors from a range of organisations will debate four propositions at the Victoria Business School between August and November, Victoria’s Chair in Public Finance, Professor Norman Gemmell, and the Head of the Government Economics Network, Dr Girol Karacaoglu announced on Thursday.

The debates were designed to highlight the analytical strengths and weaknesses of opposing perspectives on topical issues, they said.

“The debates tackle the types of real-world policy choices and trade-offs that governments are regularly confronted with," Gemmell said.

The first debate would discuss whether it was sensible to have a limit on government spending, a provision in the ACT party’s confidence and supply agreement with the National party.

“It’s a pretty strong constraint, and one that a left-leaning government might be unlikely to buy into. The debate will highlight how much of this policy is about political preference and how much comes from solid reasoning," Gemmell said.

A later debate would discuss New Zealand’s policy of taxing capital income at 28% and whether the rate should be lower.

“In Scandinavia, for example, interest income on deposits in the bank is taxed at about half the rate of earnings to encourage people to save. The Minister of Finance is seeking advice on whether New Zealand should change its tax rate for investments so it’s timely to discuss the issue," he said.

The third debate would examine views for and against the Crown selling 100 percent, rather than 49 percent, of its shareholding in state owned enterprises.

“These are choices that economists have long examined carefully, independently of the political rhetoric that usually accompanies such discussion," Gemmell said.

The final session would cover whether New Zealand should lower the discount rate for public sector projects, something that played an important role in the cost-benefit analysis of public investment projects to decide which should proceed, he said.

The debates would be modelled on a court of law, with one speaker making the case for the proposition and another opposing it. A commentator would sum up at the end and outline middle ground in the argument.

Gemmell said he expected the debates to attract public and private sector economists and policy makers from government departments and Ministers’ offices.

“It’s important that we talk directly to those people as they have a big influence on policy development. Academics understand the research and the literature that underpins the various perspectives," he said.

The first debate, to be held 28 August, will feature Bryce Wilkinson, director of the economic consultancy Capital Economics Limited, arguing in favour of New Zealand retaining a zero percent cap on real per capita government spending growth.Wilkinson, a former director at the New Zealand Treasury, has a background in public policy analysis, capital market research and microeconomic advisory work, Gemmell said.

The opposing argument would be put forward by Bill Rosenberg, an economist and director of policy for the Combined Trade Unions (CTU). A former deputy director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Canterbury, Rosenberg was widely published on globalisation, trade and e-learning, he said.

The debates would be a-political and speakers had been chosen because of their expertise and their respect for the way in which research could support policy.

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.

14 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Wouldn't it be great if this was on TV - it could replace some of the other crap they have on.

Why not cut halve the PIR rate on all multi-rate PIEs? Then KiwiSaver, other managed funds, term deposits and savings accounts would all have helpful tax treatment.

So who else will pay extra tax to make up the shortfall?
regards

Well I'd hope shares pay more they hold far more risk...plus the capital gain on the shares is tax free....no CGT.
Moving to the future, who hold most deposits? OAPs/BBs, who makes the biggest calls on tax take, OAPs/BBs....who generally has the least debt and most assets, OAPs/BBs......
So no there should be no breaks on deposits, its a profit and should be taxed.
regards
 

Profit out of kiwis from payment by kiwis is a zero-sum game in real terms.
 
You're just advocating that some make the profit at the expense of others.
 
There are bigger processes afoot, ones which spell the end of growth economics, and i suspect spell the need for more altruism if society is to survive the transition.

No ,....no snippy it couldn't be....even if it was.

Noticing the lack of comments on this topic probably indicates how few people have a tax- on- savings  problem . I suspect relatively  few people have much spare cash to save

Boatman
RBNZ figures here http://rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/monfin/c17/data.html  show Household Term Deposits were NZ$108.8 billion at the end of June, up from NZ$44 billion a decade ago...
cheers
Bernard

Thanks for the info Bernard, I should have checked before making assumptions .
 

Ok ....yes I do think they should cut them in half at least...!!!
will that help me any...?
Prolly not..!
So look at other things ...

Much as I am aghast to find myself sounding like a terrible old lefty - the main objection to tax breaks on savings is that most of the benefit goes to rich people. 

I would suggest that the tax laws be changed to remove some of the incentive to speculate in assets with borrowed money and let inflation pay off the loan regardless of the merit of the investment or it,s value to the ecconomy.  I would suggest making interest on cash deposits tax free on the potion below the inflation rate.  I.e you only pay tax on the real income.  For people borrowing money, the potion of the interest paid below the inflation rate would not be tax deductable.  
This would encourage saving and discourage speculation while remaining tax neutral for the government.

If the extra cost of 33% of the inflation component of your buisness borrowings (at most 1% of your borrowings) is going to materially effect you buisness or buisness decisions, then you are in dire straights and have my sympathy.  You should not be making buisness investments where this is a significant factor and I would suggest there are far more significant risks that you are probably unaware of.

Makes sense, after all at present the loss through inflation is now taxed as if it was a profit and visa versa for interest expenses. Not that natural justice figures highly in government thinking.
We are told by Blinglish that we are lacking capital to fund our businesses and, therefore, need to sell our existing businesses and assets (go figure) and have foreigners own the rest. Instead of addressing the basic cause - lack of savings - lets have a fire sale of our assets, businesses and natural resources. Is that supposed to be a strategy for the long term future of our country?