Economists analysing National's foreign buyers tax have found it would likely raise $210 million a year - falling well short of the $740m a year National expects to rake in.

When the details of this policy were released, it really didn’t pass the sniff test. It seemed to rely on a huge increase in foreign buyers, above pre-ban levels, and ignored any potential reduction in sales due to the tax itself.

  • RangelusOP
    4·
    1 year ago

    Right? Such great choices.

    Weirdly, the most sound looking policy to me (admittedly not an economist) is the Green’s. And that’s not something I thought I’d ever say.

      • RangelusOP
        4·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, 2.5% on property and shares worth more than $2M, minus mortgage and other debt, one new tax bracket above $180k, 1.5% trust tax and a new 33% corperate tax. All of which is to pay for a lot of tax relief for normal Kiwis.

        But regardless of the actual policies, what I was really referring to is the fact that their policy hasn’t been discredited by groups of economists as not being fundable. It seems, regardless of what you think of the actual policies, to be the most financially sound tax plan out there (perhaps TOPs too, I haven’t looked into it that in-depth yet).

        Which is actually pretty funny really. 🤣

        • Xcf456
          41·
          1 year ago

          Just to add to this, the 2.5% applies to wealth after the first $2 million, and at $4 million for couples.

          • RangelusOP
            5·
            1 year ago

            Thanks, I thought that was the case but couldn’t find it mentioned so left it out.

            Honestly such a great policy…

        • Ilovethebomb
          3·
          1 year ago

          There’s something really icky to me about drawing a line in the sand, and saying “this is enough to own, but no more”. It’s something that has led bad places when it’s been tried elsewhere.

          I also feel tax should be paid on earnings, not what you own, but at least the start point means most retirees won’t pay it.

          • RangelusOP
            2·
            1 year ago

            I actually hear you on both points. Here are my counter arguments:

            • It isn’t a “you can’t have any more” situation, because they do not take 100% of everything above the threshold. A better way to think of it is “you have so much we ask you to contribute a bit more to society to help everyone”. Or perhaps “you are so privalaged you can afford a little extra to improve the society you benefitted from”. Remember it’s 2.5% on assets above the threshold only.
            • I actually agree with you, I prefer a CGT for this reason. Capital gains are a form of income, and the fact they aren’t taxed like regular income is, in my opinion, criminally unfair. However, it is not because of some fundamental philosophical position that only income can be taxed, it’s more practical. I can imagine a situation where someone loses their income, but has inherited an expensive house. In this case they may not be able to pay the tax. But the Green’s proposal is better than nothing for now.

            Most people will be better off under the Green’s proposal. Only the top 0.1% will be affected, and I think we can all agree they can afford it.