Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think it's unfortunate that this has emerged from Labour's really very sensible and long overdue monetary policy proposal. Many of the problems and solutions identified in it have been widely discussed since the 1990s. It's worth quickly reading the thing if you haven't done so already.
I tend to favour low immigration levels on the proviso that those who re-settle here should be treated with more respect than I ever remember them getting. New Zealanders have repeatedly refused to iron out the inequalities arising from historical waves of migration, and I doubt we're capable of the careful planning needed to sensibly manage demographic change and rapid population growth.
Auckland's housing prices and transport concerns - being issues people have identified as problematic for decades - are really a case in point.
-
This is Paul Mason's Guardian piece about the FT's critique of Piketty.
Of course, inequality is just one of the reasons New Zealand's housing market is so pernicious.
-
What, exactly, does an American tax policy paper have to do with New Zealand tax law? [...] If [capital gains] were income, they’d be taxed as income. They’re not, therefore they are not.
I think you may have misunderstood my original point, which was about New Zealand's income distribution rather than the operation of our tax legislation.
The fact that capital gains generally fall outside of the ITA's definition of income means that upper income earners face lower average tax rates than those implied by the IRD figures Keith has used. This is because a proportion of what economists and tax policy experts consider to be income is not treated as income by the IRD and is therefore earned tax free.
You may not be surprised to learn that I also support the introduction of a CGT. One of the key arguments for a CGT is the principle of horizontal equity - the idea that all kinds of income should be subject to tax on a similar basis. Your suggestion that capital gains are not a form of income because they are not taxed as income in New Zealand reduces to circularity, and I referred you to a couple of policy papers to help show you how the point tends to be considered.
-
OnPoint: Why does the top 10% paying…, in reply to Pete George,
There's something insidious about this line of argument.
It's a statistical rendering of Mitt Romney's point about the 47%, and it works in part by ignoring a fair proportion of the taxes the average wage and salary earner pays and by including transfers made to households with children.
The argument needs to be put the other way: how do you fund the things a fair society needs to do?
-
capital gains aren't income. If they were, they'd be taxed.
I'm not sure that's right.
Capital gains are already taxed in a large number of jurisdictions, including the UK, the US and Australia. The US-based Tax Policy Center states that:
Capital gains are generally included in taxable income
There is an interesting IRD paper on the desirability of augmenting our income tax system with a capital gains tax here. The first sentences of chapter two state:
A tax on [capital gains] would be part of a comprehensive economic income tax as capital gains form part of economic income. Such a tax on comprehensive economic income is sometimes referred to a Haig-Simons income tax
-
Do the IRD's figures include capital gains (such as increases in the value of investments) as income?
If they don't (on the basis that many kinds of capital gain aren't taxable income), the figures may understate the share of national income going to the top 10%.
-
Fantastic work Keith - this is a really helpful way to present this information.
Paul Krugman often notes that those at the top end of the income distribution pay more income tax primarily because they receive much more income than everyone else.
If I'm reading you right, you've shown that the top 10% of New Zealand's earners took home 34% of the nation's income in 2012 - and paid 47% of all income tax.
The 13% difference between the two numbers is explained by progressive marginal tax rates.
-
These stories have a "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" quality about them. It's hard to justify criminal convictions with the argument that you're trying to help people live better lives.
People hear the word 'de-criminalisation' and imagine some sort of libertine free-for-all, but there's a case to be made for a confiscation based prohibition of the non-addictive recreational drugs.
-
That Sunday Star Times editorial is self-serving gibberish.
The stakes might seem small (if only because it's not you or I being chased about) but that piece has no business influencing public discussion on privacy rights.
-
I'm going to lay my cards on the table and admit to thinking justice has been done when I read about a paparazzo being punched or having his or her camera broken.
I should re-emphasise that I'm not demanding a change in the law -- the fact that we can photograph events in a public place is an underpinning of a free press. But we sure as hell should be able to discuss the ethics of any particular case.
This behaviour is exploitative and is in the nature of harassment. If journalistic ethics were initially present they have long since been overridden by financial considerations.
New Zealand should introduce French-style restrictions on the sale and publication of photographs taken without consent of the subject. It wouldn't be hard. People shouldn't need to obtain a court order to get a photographer to fuck off.
People in Lorde's position (because this isn't just about Lorde) should have readily understood and easily implemented legal protection.