sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

A capital gains tax would be almost ‘irrelevant’ with house price growth unlikely to continue at pre-pandemic pace, former finance minister Bill English says

Public Policy / news
A capital gains tax would be almost ‘irrelevant’ with house price growth unlikely to continue at pre-pandemic pace, former finance minister Bill English says
Bill English

Former finance minister Bill English says there would be little point in expanding New Zealand’s capital gains tax as the era of fast house price growth has ended.

During an NZ Initiative webinar on Kāinga Ora, English revealed he had “seriously considered” a capital gains tax as part of National’s 2010 reforms but it didn’t find favour with his colleagues. 

“I think every finance minister has a look at it, and they seem to come up with the same answer. In fact, Michael Cullen told me that at the time, he said, I'd go through it and then IRD will tell me that it's actually not that worth it,” he said. 

“So no, there was no constituency for it in the cabinet, that's for sure”. 

In 2010, the National Government raised GST from 12.5% to 15% and cut personal and company income tax rates, including lowering the top rate from 38% to 33%. The package was designed to be broadly revenue-neutral, with higher benefits and tax credits to offset the GST rise.

The Labour Party is preparing to announce a tax policy before the end of the year, which some have speculated will be a minor expansion of capital gains tax aimed at property investors. However, it could be a wealth tax or something else entirely. 

English said there would be little point in taxes targeting property today as house price growth had slowed and was unlikely to resume the steady increase from the early 1990s until the pandemic peak in 2021.

“I now think capital gains tax is not quite irrelevant, but it would be a complexity that doesn't collect much revenue because the days of guaranteed capital gains in the housing market are over,” he said. 

Investors will now have to be much smarter at adding value by choosing quality houses in good locations that provide for the right part of the market. They cannot just expect any given house to significantly increase in value over time. 

He gave an example of a conversation he’d had with an owner who hadn’t been able to sell his property. Sales were happening in the first-home buyer market and on the high-end market, where cashed up buyers aren’t going into retirement villages.

But there was nothing happening and no interest in the mid-market, which in this case was somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million, English said.  

“And they were scratching their head, asking, Okay, so what's actually going to happen with this? Is it automatically going to go up in value? To which I said, Well, I don't think so. You might have to rent it out, and that's one reason rents are going down in some of our urban areas”. 

NZ’s biggest land banker

The webinar was to discuss NZ Initiative's new report which argues Kāinga Ora had over-extended itself trying to own, develop, and manage social housing nationwide. It recommended selling more state-homes to community providers and freeing up undeveloped land for the private sector to build on. 

English said Kāinga Ora was the “largest and worst” land banker in the country with more land underutilised than any other entity. 

“If you want to build a new supermarket in any urban area in New Zealand, there is one owner who's got enough land for you to do it, and that's Kāinga Ora,” he said. 

English said New Zealand would soon start to see the benefits of government reforms to make it easier and cheaper to build homes. This included relaxed restrictions on which building products could be imported and “radical zoning decisions”. 

“It’s not all perfect, but at least the large political parties are behind it. So I think there's a sort of semi-bipartisan support that no one's promising to unwind it.”

Younger people might start to see owning housing as affordable again, the government would benefit through less fiscal exposure to the property market, which costs the Crown $4 billion a year in housing costs. 

Having large amounts of property on the balance sheet also exposed taxpayers to falls in market value, with many housing assets yet to be re-valued after the pandemic crash. Which would have a significant impact on the government's net worth soon. 

“So, the zoning thing works politically, it works for the economy, and it works for the government's books,” he said. 

“And if they could combine that with freeing up the latent value, all this under-utilised and land-banked land in every single urban community [it could have] a significant positive impact on the economy and, more importantly, on households' ability to service their housing costs.”

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.

40 Comments

 

To which I said, Well, I don't think so

Words which English might rue... You just have to look across the Tasman for an answer to the question 

I like the point about KO land holdings

"Edited"

Up
2

WOW Bill English says the quiet bit out loud.

That no one can afford to move up a ladder, it's just people wanting their first place to live and people who are about to stop living wanting out, so they can go be looked after in a village.

Up
3

He can say it as he;s rich and sorted XD

Up
0

There will be a lot of exploding zombies if property flatlines (or worse).... and not just taxpayers (unless Bill is advocating tax payers foot the bill yet again)...which given its an NZI address he probably is.

Up
2

English said there would be little point in taxes targeting property today as house price growth had slowed and was unlikely to resume the steady increase from the early 1990s until the pandemic peak in 2021.

Nek minut....

Up
4

Regular land tax solves all issues. Price independant and regular and unavoidable.

Up
8

Unless you are retired. Save up all your life to own your home for retirement, then have to sell it and get a rental because the land tax costs too much. 

Up
2

Many councils offer rates postponement with the debt accruing to the house, perhaps we could do similar here. Means less inheritance for the kids of course, but for me that's just a small step towards an equal opportunity society. 

Up
7

Yes, an annual land tax must allow postponement of all payment (with cpi-indexed interest accruing) till title transfer. Tough luck for the kids, but they didn't earn it.

Up
5

Yet the oldies complain constantly about rates, so I can't see them being happy with a land tax on top. Especially if it is significant enough to make a difference to house prices and reduce PAYE. 

So I agree land tax could be a great option, but its politically impossible. 

Up
0

Yes, very difficult politically. My general thesis is that if the 'oldies' don't make some concessions soon to help fund their future costs, much harsher measures will be put in place once they are no longer in control. Some middle-ground steps like means testing Super or increasing/introducing taxes on assets could buy them a little political goodwill, while leaving it all up to the income tax payers of tomorrow is likely to cause a lot of discontent. 

Up
4

 I can't see them being happy with a land tax on top

They get rates rebates based on age alone, not income or wealth so they pay less into current infrastructure that is needed..that they want and expect. They had a good run, now it's time the real cost of everything came into play and they paid into it.

Up
0

Unless you are retired. Save up all your life to own your home for retirement, then have to sell it and get a rental because the land tax costs too much. 

Many retirees already in this position. The solutions:
- Sell and downsize to free up cash to pay lower rates, insurance, and allow a growing family a bigger house. They have the equity to use, why not?
- Reverse mortgage to pay rates insurance etc and free up cash for comfortable retirement. They have the equity, why not?
- Sell a rental you own because many have a spare to sell to free up cash to pay rates, insurance, comfortable returement.

Oh wait.... they don't want to do any of these AND they want house price growth, better yield, better healthcare, better infrastructure (without paying for it)... 

Up
0

So, that would be rates then.

Which "issues" are you attempting to solve?

Up
1

Rates are local body tax. Land tax is central govt and would address the over investment and speculation in housing. And allow reduction in income tax.

But hay, punishing working  and rewarding tax avoiding speculation make so much sence. Tui. Especially with less working (more retired) thus driving more workers to exit stage west. Making that math worse.

Up
7

"And allow reduction in income tax."

🤣🤣🤣

We are now over a decade since successive govts of both Left & Right last adjusted income tax thresholds to reflect wage/salary inflation, bracket creep is currently taking over a billion dollars extra pa.

They can't help themselves & can't say no to any squeaky wheel 

Up
3

The issue that property investors pay almost no tax while hard working people pay lots I guess. 

Up
2

The days of guaranteed capital gains in real estate are over

Replaced by the guaranteed gain in Gold and Silver ?

Up
3

There are no guarantees in life , apart from the likes of Tim Mordaunt deserting Interest.co.nz as soon as the market turns.

Up
1

With population peaking early 2040, and births 25% below replacement, the housing party is over without society changing immigration levels.

“Natural increase is no longer the main driver of New Zealand’s population growth. ...With no migrant arrivals or migrant departures, New Zealand’s population is projected to peak at just under 5.5 million in the early 2040s then slowly decline as deaths outnumber births.”

 

 

Up
7

I am pleased to see the reduced immigration

Up
7

Two immigrants for every baby born must have been some kind of record. Shows how bereft of ideas politicians are - pushing unmandated society changing policies on the demos just to keep their GDP numbers ticking.   

Up
10

One possible advantage of introducing a comprehensive capital gains tax would be to ENSURE the property speculation ponzi stays dead.

Up
5

...because that's worked so well in Australia...oh, wait...

Up
4

Agreed. Your point nively highlights why an unavoidable land tax is necessary dosent it.

Up
1

Negative gearing still incentivised in Aus, can offset rental losses from your income tax bill. 

We fortunately ditched that rort and the charge has even survived the coalition so far

Up
0

Negative gearing still incentivised in Aus, can offset rental losses from your income tax bill. 

We fortunately ditched that rort and the charge has even survived the coalition so far

Up
0

.

Up
0

Where is the debate about governments controlling expenditure ( living within there means ) just like all of us as individuals ?  

Finding ways to increase taxation is just too easy for some financially illiterate politicians. 

Up
8

Exactly Whitney.

Talking local it should be. " This is what we got, so we spend within that".

Because ratepayer cannot just have it keep increasing.

And guess what?  Some things will just have to be done without.

Up
2

"Where is the debate about governments controlling expenditure ( living within there means ) just like all of us as individuals ?"

Where does the financial illiteracy reside?....a currency issuing state is NOT like an individual.

Up
0

...until it's eventually France

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9n6vr2eyo

 

There is no free lunch (& money doesn't grown on magic money trees)

Up
2

Lets wait and see what happens shall we....France has been running fiscal deficits for decades and theyre still (almost) a functioning society.

It wont be the deficit that upsets domestic output, it will be a lack of internal cooperation.

Up
1

Govt is supposed to increase spending into a downturn in the economy to stay the deeper recession. The key is where they spend it.

This govt has:
- Cut useful spending in many areas (healthcare [e.g no antinatal classes funded by govt for anywhere in central or south wellington and everyone has to travel to the hutt or porirua...great for our future parents], police, the list goes on)
- Given tax breaks to landlords while also giving tax breaks to all and now in a fiscal hole leading to excessive borrowing (fools)
- Convoluted the already corrupted childcare sector with claiming back credits for childcare (sort of understand the logic as public funding leads to increased charges by childcare centres)
- Claiming they can make NZ great again while nothing they have done has impacted he economy in any significant way while the eventual easing of the price of debt is working as usual and slowly giving confidence to borrow and thus stimulate the economy.

I feel most NZ'ers just want to see a plan that any govt WILL follow through with as we have had crocodile tears followed by a snake tongue and we need results.

Up
1

Relying on Ponzinomics to create national wealth was never a good idea to start with. The problem with English is that he wants to explain the tinkering, but doesn't want to deconstruct why he never seriously wanted to do anything about it.   

Up
5

Relying on Ponzinomics to create national wealth was never a good idea to start with.

Agreed. At least we could have used our mineral wealth to bolster something for the long term to buffer the inevitable dwindling energy resources like Norway has .

Up
0

Surely now is the time to introduce such a tax when people will be least concerned with one. 

Up
5

Yes

Up
0

Like English and some commentators on this website. CGT for residential housing on additional properties other than the one you live in is not about raising additional revenue. That's a byproduct of the top level premise that CGT is there to level the investment playing field as far as possible. I'm open to a land tax but not while I can't subdivide my 660m2 section into two ~300m2 sections. Oh yes and a requirement a few years back by NPDC for a driveway to a rear section to be 3.6m wide. That's nonsense 2.8m wide driveway is quite adequate and don't lecture me on fire engine and ambulance access as the NPDC official did. That's nonsense. I never checked to see if that was a council regulation or just made up by the council official.

English probably has a few rental properties that he bought 10-20 years ago. Of course he doesn't think CGT is is any good for people who bought in the last five years or so. Once a politician, always a politician.

Up
2

A lot to unpick.  Firstly, the playing field is (sort of) level with other investment. You don't pay CGT on your shares going up in value, and you don't currently pay CGT on housing going up.  The inequities are: you can't claim depreciation on a house as an asset, you get taxed if you sell within a timeframe (could be argued that also applies to shares), but importantly banks won't lend against a share portfolio.

I think English is exactly right - the focus should be on making sure houses doesn't go up in price faster than inflation.  And if they are going up at the rate of inflation (after maintenance) you aren't going to be borrowing cheaper than inflation. 

Up
0

"You don't pay CGT on your shares going up in value" Wrong in certain cases. Also you get CGT or Fair dividend on unrealised gains on certain shares. You don't get taxed on unrealised gains in residential investment property. I don't know the current rulings on residential property as an investment but you used to be able to claim depreciation. Maybe that disappeared under Labour. Of course you can't claim depreciation in the house you live in. The way tax is currently structured on investment residential housing is that it benefits those who bought around 10(maybe 5) -20 or even longer years ago.

"the focus should be on making sure houses doesn't go up in price faster than inflation" Not incorrect but unlikely to be achievable in practice. It should not be on a wing and a prayer that houses don't go up in price faster than inflation as a reason not to introduce CGT on investment properties. If you don't want CGT on residential investment properties then remove that from certain class of shares as well. Hint. It won't happen as the govt collect a considerable amount of tax on unrealised CG on certain class of shares. I don't have the figures but it would be at least 5% of total tax revenue.

Up
0

FFS - get over it already. We have to broaden the tax base for so many sound economic reasons.

Up
2

In amongst all the discussion of raising more taxes, there isn't any mention of the part of the bargain where governments undertake to spend the money gathered wisely - aka fiscal policy.

There might be a bit more appetite for new taxes if the public had some - any - reassurance that their money was going to be spent transparently and for some good reason.

 

Up
3

"In amongst all the discussion of raising more taxes, there isn't any mention of the part of the bargain where governments undertake to spend the money gathered wisely - aka fiscal policy."

Again ...the government do not 'gather' money...why would they need to when they create it?

There is an occasional quote at the bottom of these pages which reflects reality....its not your money.

Up
2