6 ms·

Guardian, December 2023: > The wealth tax contemplated by New Zealand Labour would have required couples to pay an annual levy of 1.5% on any assets they held

by quink 3y ago

Guardian, December 2023: > The wealth tax contemplated by New Zealand Labour would have required couples to pay an annual levy of 1.5% on any assets they held over a $10m threshold. The estimated $3.8bn in revenue would have funded income-tax cuts for the vast majority of Kiwis. Labour’s potential coalition partners, the Greens and the indigenous-led Te Pāti Māori, ran on similar platforms. > Plus the relentless attack on my hard earned savings by a grifter government. $150,000 a year if you own $20 million, $0 if they somehow attacked you all the way to a pitiful $10 million, and in return tax cuts for those doing worse than you, and they did not get elected. I’m not seeing the problem.

christkv 3y ago
What leads to is no willingness to invest in anything other than bonds to ensure you have enough money to pay the tax.
- xcrunner529 3y ago
  150k from 20m of assets? Really? Lmao
  - robocat 3y ago
    Every bugger sees a number like 2% and then says '$150000' whoop-de-shit like its some trivial amount. $150k is a lot of money. Its easy to tell other peoples what to do with their money huh? You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? Major assets are usually tied up in long term investments with breaking costs due to illiquidity or taxation (e.g. sell a house before the bright-line period is up and you may pay a lot extra tax). You are showing your ignorance of the issues. Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders? Good luck to you. Paying the tax bill can mean selling an investment at a loss or borrowing. Not much different from someone poorer pawning what they own or selling their car because they need the money. It costs me 8.8% at present to borrow on my mortgage - (due to bank conditions I can't borrow cheaper). The same thing can easily occur to wealthy people (managing investment risks sucks). Many people have already paid tax - their savings are what they have left over after tax. A wealth tax can be a double taxation - another taxes on top of money that was already taxed. Plus the wealthy still often get to pay income tax on any dividends or other gains. There's a lot of people out there that blow all their money on shit and then put their hand out to the government. I watch friends on low incomes absolutely waste money and don't give a shit about saving. Not all of them, but enough. I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing. Or inheritances and lose it all. Luckily they live in New Zealand where they can get money from family or get some living expenses from other NZers (the government). Certainly not flash living, but better than most places in the world. Some of those millions come from my tough job earning export income. I get fuck all of the money I bring into the country (after expenses, salaries risk and taxes). I bet if we met you would have a lot of complaints about how hard done you have been with taxation. It's the same issue.
    - xcrunner529 3y ago
      150k out of 20m. Cry me a river.
    - quink 3y ago
      > I get fuck all of the money I bring into the country (after expenses, salaries risk and taxes). So why argue this passionately against a non-existent tax that failed at the ballot box on A. assets that doesn't kick in until above $10 million by citing B. an income of near enough $0? > You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? [...] Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders? I'm pretty sure that in either of those scenarios, there is no practical difference between having twenty million and twenty million minus $150,000 a year, reducing to zero by ten million, in assets. > I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing. Hmmm, sounds like they irresponsibly spent it somewhere in the economy. My guess is that they might have enriched people who have invested in medium to large businesses in the consumer discretionary sector, the sort of people who would have a net wealth north of $10 million. But since they were provided with, and I quote, "nothing" goods, the owners of the businesses providing those goods should have relatively no problem dealing with high taxation. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, you might want to revisit your investments before complaining about hypothetical tax policy.
robocat 3y ago
> I’m not seeing the problem. The problem is what is the incentive to keep working once you've earned a house and bach? Why bother save for retirement if your savings are to be taken from you at a significant percentage per year? A few percent is a huge penalty (see index funds versus mutual funds), and the wealth tax is on top of taxation of salary and dividends. assets over $1m - a threshold the party thought would hit the wealthiest 6 per cent of New Zealanders. The higher [$2m] threshold means only the wealthiest 0.7 per cent of households will be targeted. The $2m threshold is a net figure, meaning people with mortgages and other debts would need $2m of equity before they began paying the tax. I'm not talking about Labour, I'm talking about the Green's 2.5% wealth tax 2023: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/wealth-tax-hikes-will-pay-for-income-tax-cuts-and-welfare-overhaul-greens/FCRYI5THFVECPNUS2IB2N7REWA/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/wealth-tax-hikes-will... And incentive is to borrow money on property which is whacko, and then next thing CGT will also be added. Houses should be for living in, not financial instruments.
- xcrunner529 3y ago
  lol what? That’s the same old tax argument over again. I thought you all were motivated by things other than money? You know, that entrepreneurial spirit? The incentive is it’s still a fuckton more money. You’re not taxed at 100% and in turn you live in a country with better services. The amount of money wasted by the rich is hilarious when combined with this take.
  - robocat 3y ago
    The whole point of a business is to make a profit: I worked hard because I am middle aged and had no retirement savings - my other choice was FIRE or to suck on the government's teat. Running a "business" for status is defined as a hobby. 1 in 10 businesses survive. Why bother starting one if you don't get your 10x return? If you've got one, why bother trying to be a serial entrepreneur if it's all gonna be taxed? Do you think New Zealand should leave the entrepreneurship to the USA and we can just buy what we need from US multinationals? > The incentive is it’s still a fuckton more money. It just isn't. The people I know earning way more than I don't have anything significantly better. Mostly a nice house and a nice car and if they're lucky a bach. Marginal incentives matter. Over 50% of my personal income goes on taxes including GST. My life is similar to most any professional worker. I have never owned a new car. I know solo-mums that didn't work for over a decade with more equity in their home than me. My biggest expense is tax, my second biggest is my mortgage. > The amount of money wasted by the rich Just the rich eh? Everybody else is so much more careful! Watch out with your stereotypes - I'm guessing you don't like them applied to yourself?

by quink 3y ago

christkv 3y ago

What leads to is no willingness to invest in anything other than bonds to ensure you have enough money to pay the tax.

xcrunner529 3y ago
150k from 20m of assets? Really? Lmao
- robocat 3y ago
  Every bugger sees a number like 2% and then says '$150000' whoop-de-shit like its some trivial amount. $150k is a lot of money. Its easy to tell other peoples what to do with their money huh? You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? Major assets are usually tied up in long term investments with breaking costs due to illiquidity or taxation (e.g. sell a house before the bright-line period is up and you may pay a lot extra tax). You are showing your ignorance of the issues. Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders? Good luck to you. Paying the tax bill can mean selling an investment at a loss or borrowing. Not much different from someone poorer pawning what they own or selling their car because they need the money. It costs me 8.8% at present to borrow on my mortgage - (due to bank conditions I can't borrow cheaper). The same thing can easily occur to wealthy people (managing investment risks sucks). Many people have already paid tax - their savings are what they have left over after tax. A wealth tax can be a double taxation - another taxes on top of money that was already taxed. Plus the wealthy still often get to pay income tax on any dividends or other gains. There's a lot of people out there that blow all their money on shit and then put their hand out to the government. I watch friends on low incomes absolutely waste money and don't give a shit about saving. Not all of them, but enough. I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing. Or inheritances and lose it all. Luckily they live in New Zealand where they can get money from family or get some living expenses from other NZers (the government). Certainly not flash living, but better than most places in the world. Some of those millions come from my tough job earning export income. I get fuck all of the money I bring into the country (after expenses, salaries risk and taxes). I bet if we met you would have a lot of complaints about how hard done you have been with taxation. It's the same issue.
  - xcrunner529 3y ago
    150k out of 20m. Cry me a river.
  - quink 3y ago
    > I get fuck all of the money I bring into the country (after expenses, salaries risk and taxes). So why argue this passionately against a non-existent tax that failed at the ballot box on A. assets that doesn't kick in until above $10 million by citing B. an income of near enough $0? > You've never had a bill you couldn't pay? [...] Have you saved enough for your retirement or are you going to live off the backs of other New Zealanders? I'm pretty sure that in either of those scenarios, there is no practical difference between having twenty million and twenty million minus $150,000 a year, reducing to zero by ten million, in assets. > I've seen friends get big ACC payouts - and a few weeks later its all burnt on nothing. Hmmm, sounds like they irresponsibly spent it somewhere in the economy. My guess is that they might have enriched people who have invested in medium to large businesses in the consumer discretionary sector, the sort of people who would have a net wealth north of $10 million. But since they were provided with, and I quote, "nothing" goods, the owners of the businesses providing those goods should have relatively no problem dealing with high taxation. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, you might want to revisit your investments before complaining about hypothetical tax policy.

robocat 3y ago

> I’m not seeing the problem. The problem is what is the incentive to keep working once you've earned a house and bach? Why bother save for retirement if your savings are to be taken from you at a significant percentage per year? A few percent is a huge penalty (see index funds versus mutual funds), and the wealth tax is on top of taxation of salary and dividends. assets over $1m - a threshold the party thought would hit the wealthiest 6 per cent of New Zealanders. The higher [$2m] threshold means only the wealthiest 0.7 per cent of households will be targeted. The $2m threshold is a net figure, meaning people with mortgages and other debts would need $2m of equity before they began paying the tax. I'm not talking about Labour, I'm talking about the Green's 2.5% wealth tax 2023: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/wealth-tax-hikes-will-pay-for-income-tax-cuts-and-welfare-overhaul-greens/FCRYI5THFVECPNUS2IB2N7REWA/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/wealth-tax-hikes-will... And incentive is to borrow money on property which is whacko, and then next thing CGT will also be added. Houses should be for living in, not financial instruments.

xcrunner529 3y ago
lol what? That’s the same old tax argument over again. I thought you all were motivated by things other than money? You know, that entrepreneurial spirit? The incentive is it’s still a fuckton more money. You’re not taxed at 100% and in turn you live in a country with better services. The amount of money wasted by the rich is hilarious when combined with this take.
- robocat 3y ago
  The whole point of a business is to make a profit: I worked hard because I am middle aged and had no retirement savings - my other choice was FIRE or to suck on the government's teat. Running a "business" for status is defined as a hobby. 1 in 10 businesses survive. Why bother starting one if you don't get your 10x return? If you've got one, why bother trying to be a serial entrepreneur if it's all gonna be taxed? Do you think New Zealand should leave the entrepreneurship to the USA and we can just buy what we need from US multinationals? > The incentive is it’s still a fuckton more money. It just isn't. The people I know earning way more than I don't have anything significantly better. Mostly a nice house and a nice car and if they're lucky a bach. Marginal incentives matter. Over 50% of my personal income goes on taxes including GST. My life is similar to most any professional worker. I have never owned a new car. I know solo-mums that didn't work for over a decade with more equity in their home than me. My biggest expense is tax, my second biggest is my mortgage. > The amount of money wasted by the rich Just the rich eh? Everybody else is so much more careful! Watch out with your stereotypes - I'm guessing you don't like them applied to yourself?