Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[puddytat]

So just because you happen to disagree with the actions of one of the most popular Governments in a generation, you advocate revolution?

A wee bit patronising of you, no?

No that is not what I was implying at all. What I am advocating is that if people feel strongly about an issue they have as much right as anybody to make themselves heard.
Not only do I think that some of these changes to Laws are un-democratic, so did a whole bunch of lawyers from the Law somethingorother.
As for asset sales ,well we all could potentially invest in shares,but a lot of us will never get around to it or cant afford it.
This left wing loser would simply prefer that our Kiwi Saver be invested in ourselves.
All of it.
Like our power generation for example.

[Winston001]

In truth I'm influenced by the international data on "happiness" surveys. Incidentally I think happiness itself is a momentary experience and prefer "fulfillment" as the real test.

Anyway the research points to happy/fulfilled communities as being in places where the wealth distribution is fairly equal. One of the index factors is relatively high taxation. Denmark from memory leads the list.

Sooo.....people are content when they feel relatively equal with one another and don't mind paying high taxes because the social benefits are worth it.

Doubtless the details and psychology involved are much more complex but its something to think about. Ultimately the surveys suggest redistribution of capital (CGT) is socially beneficial.

[rainman]

Last quarter I earned more for the government than I did for myself.

Unless there's something really special about "last quarter", fire your accountant.

So benefit fraud isn't a problem because it's such a small percentage of GDP, but perfectly legal penny-pinching tax avoidance by a few cockies is economic disaster?

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? And, at the risk of offending every lawyer in sight (oh well, how sad), what's "perfectly legal" got to do with ethics?

Which have what to do with NZ SMEs?

Nothing, directly, but they're indicative of the issue that companies can generally afford better tax advice than wage slaves. Except, clearly, yours.

Anyway the research points to happy/fulfilled communities as being in places where the wealth distribution is fairly equal.
...
Doubtless the details and psychology involved are much more complex but its something to think about. Ultimately the surveys suggest redistribution of capital (CGT) is socially beneficial.

Agreed, once again. Some good talks on this at the RSA and LSE. I may have posted them here before.

[Ocean1]

Denmark from memory leads the list.

The same place that leads the suicide list?

Sooo.....people are content when they feel relatively equal with one another

Well, the useless bastards on the bottom half of the list probably do.

and don't mind paying high taxes because the social benefits are worth it.

Again, I'm sure dole bludgers and the like don't mind that bit at all. Most of the middle-income and higher earners get a tad testy about working all that overtime.

[Winston001]

Again, I'm sure dole bludgers and the like don't mind that bit at all. Most of the middle-income and higher earners get a tad testy about working all that overtime.

Yeah I know. Its all very well talking about an egalitarian society where ownership of assets is similar across the whole population. However the only way to achieve that is to strip wealth from those who rise above the average...which begs the question, why would anyone bother? Where's the incentive to strive for excellence?

Anyway for those interested, here is a site which goes deeply into well-being and has plenty of data.

http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur....nat/nat_fp.php

[Ocean1]

strip wealth from those who rise above the average

Only just. I think you get to the 55th percentile (income) before you're tax negative, (paying more than you cost in benefits / subsidies).

[Winston001]

Good point!

But the argument is broader than that. Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. An average income isn't always a pointer to wealth. For example, owning a rental property which returns 2% after paying the rates, insurance, new toilet, repairing the blocked drains, yadda yadda (not wanting to sound bitter.. ).

Ethically it must be wrong for the majority to forceably take from the minority. Yet that is what graduated taxes and a Capital Gains Tax do. Apparently its the price we pay for living in a civilised society....but if you lived in Bahrain or Alaska, you'd have very little taxation and a good lifestyle.

[Ocean1]

Apparently its the price we pay for living in a civilised society....

Bollox. It's the price we pay for allowing sucessive governments to form tax policy for the sole purpose of buying votes. That 55% isn't 49% because taking money from 51% of the population to buy the votes of 49% wouldn't work, would it?

What do you reckon that sort of performance disincentive is costing the country in lost revenue?

[Winston001]

What do you reckon that sort of performance disincentive is costing the country in lost revenue?

I'm with you but what I can't figure out is how the Scandinavian countries where tax is as high as 80% (at the top end) manage to have strong industrial economies and satisfied citizens?

Possibly its because those countries have homogeneous populations (no ethnic minorities) and agree with each other across the board. By contrast we have lots of arguments and disagreements, moaners and whingers, low levels of economic understanding, and can't agree on much at all.

[Ocean1]

I'm with you but what I can't figure out is how the Scandinavian countries where tax is as high as 80% (at the top end) manage to have strong industrial economies and satisfied citizens?

Possibly its because those countries have homogeneous populations (no ethnic minorities) and agree with each other across the board. By contrast we have lots of arguments and disagreements, moaners and whingers, low levels of economic understanding, and can't agree on much at all.

I suspect the higher taxed are seeing some of that redistribution heading back their way, so they're not getting specifically targeted and hit from both the giving and recieving ends.

I'd be very interested to see what sort of incentives productive industry are offered there, too. That's something we do astoundingly poorly.

[rainman]

why would anyone bother? Where's the incentive to strive for excellence?

A very big question indeed. It would be churlish to pick on the word "excellence" as being extremely value-laden; I'm sure Mother Teresa was't much concerned about whether she was paying more that "her share" of tax...as is the case for many, many truly excellent people.

Or, setting the question in a different context: where is the incentive for an individual bee or ant to "excel", using your mindset? You are part of a society. Aggressive individualism is a mental aberration.

In 50 years or so you'll be dead. In a hundred, forgotten. Who cares how much tax you pay?

[doc]

In 50 years or so you'll be dead. In a hundred, forgotten. Who cares how much tax you pay?

Umm... Those that paid it, at the time of collection

[rainman]

Umm... Those that paid it, at the time of collection

Just a short-term lack of perspective, I assure you. What is your life for? Maximising wealth and minimising tax? I would hope you are made of more than that.

[James Deuce]

A very big question indeed. It would be churlish to pick on the word "excellence" as being extremely value-laden; I'm sure Mother Teresa was't much concerned about whether she was paying more that "her share" of tax...as is the case for many, many truly excellent people.

Or, setting the question in a different context: where is the incentive for an individual bee or ant to "excel", using your mindset? You are part of a society. Aggressive individualism is a mental aberration.

In 50 years or so you'll be dead. In a hundred, forgotten. Who cares how much tax you pay?

Really bad example. Mother Theresa, well known Albanian egomaniac, was a Nun. She paid for her "great" works with the wealth of a church that systematically exploited the poor and established a social strata that denied those same poor any upward mobility at all by promising death and an eternal afterlife of being on fire and sodomised if they dared to think for themselves. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on the other hand exploited a system to earn billions and then pour billions back into the poor without setting anyone on fire or sodomising them.

[Ocean1]

I would hope you are made of more than that.

Well he might be.

If some cunt hadn't stolen most of the building materials.