Let’s start with the good stuff, and there is a bit of that, mainly around the environmental tax proposals. The Tax
Working Group has acknowledged that the notion of a ‘circular economy’ has informed their recommendations.
The proposed changes to the Waste Levy (to reduce waste), Emissions Trading Scheme (to reduce carbon emissions) and
congestion charging all seem positive. If done well they could help shift us to a sustainable economy by making
polluters pay, and rewarding sustainable businesses. However, the devil will be in the detail.
Congestion charging hasn’t been used yet, but is a much better alternative to petrol taxes to raise the money required
for transport projects. By charging for congestion we can ensure that those using infrastructure under pressure pay
more, encouraging people to change where and when they drive and help raise money for that infrastructure to be
upgraded.
The concept of putting a price (not a tax) on water use and pollution is sound but has been previously ruled out by NZ
First. This is bizarre when we are looking for funding to clean up our waterways. Surely water bottling companies,
irrigators and electricity companies should be paying for the water they use. Similarly, polluters should be paying for
the pollution they cause.
The one exception to the generally good environmental tax package is the proposal of a fertiliser tax. This is a blunt
tool. The issue of nitrogen is vastly different in different catchments. As the report notes, instruments based on
outcomes are a superior approach.
The Bad
With that comes a lot of bad stuff, particularly around the Capital Gains Tax. Top of that list has to be the impact on
business. Apart from inequality and rising house prices, the key problem with our economy is that there is a strong
incentive to invest in property speculation rather than productive businesses that create jobs and grow our incomes.
Unfortunately this proposed Capital Gains Tax will apply to business as well as property. The extra tax burden and
compliance costs for business means that there is no more incentive to invest in business over housing. If anything
there will be an increased incentive to invest in owner occupied housing (the "Mansion Effect", which we have seen in
Australia).
Given these downsides to business, the least damaging option would be to apply this Capital Gains Tax (CGT) only to the
treatment of land based assets.
Some other problems from the CGT are likely to include:
1. Exemptions for the family home, the family farm, rollover relief, reliance on valuations and deductions for
improvements make for a complex system that will be costly to administer and provide gainful employment for accountants
and lawyers.
2. The revenue for government will be unpredictable, and could even turn negative in a downturn.
3. Taxing on realisation (sale of the asset) provides an incentive to not sell the asset (business or house) which
is bad for the economy. The concerns around cashflow motivating this approach are not consistent with other parts of the
tax system (e.g. foreign shares and rates). We will talk more about this in coming blogs.
The Predictable
The Achilles Heel of this review has always been the Terms of Reference with the Labour led Government excluding the
family home. Ultimately that will hamstring the effectiveness of any change.
Excluding the family home excludes 3/4 of the value of the housing stock. A 33% tax on 24% of the market is an 8% tax.
This may slow the rise in property prices slightly, but certainly not stop it.
As a result a Capital Gains Tax may slow the increase in inequality (depending on what happens with rents), but
certainly won't stop it. Remember that housing - house price and rent rises - is the main driver of increased inequality
in the last 20 years.
We can see the likely effect of this tax overseas. Australia is second to last ahead of New Zealand in terms of housing
affordability. Australia has a CGT excluding the family home. This is not even a second best policy, it is a second to
last policy.
The Opportunities Party Fair Tax Reform provides an alternative that would reduce income taxes substantially (making 80%
of people better off), kill off property speculation and encourage Kiwis to invest in businesses that actually grow our
incomes. The key to achieving that is to tax all assets equally – including the family home.
We don’t need to tax capital gain, we need to end it.