Candidates Auckland Central | Tuariki Delamere Banks Peninsula | Ben Atkinson Bay of Plenty | Chris Jenkins Coromandel | Rob Hunter Dunedin | Ben Peters Epsom | Adriana Christie Hamilton East | Naomi Pocock Hamilton West | Hayden Cargo Hutt South | Ben Wylie-van Eerd Mount Albert | Cameron Lord Nelson | Mathew Pottinger New Plymouth | Dan Thurston-Crow North Shore | Shai Navot Northland | Helen Jeremiah Ōhāriu | Jessica Hammond Rongotai | Geoff Simmons Southland | Joel Rowlands Tauranga | Andrew Caie Te Atatū | Brendon Monk Wellington Central | Abe Gray Whangārei | Ciara Swords
- Comms & Events
Ask a question about policy #1
We are going to do our best to get back to as many questions about our tax policy as possible. If there is something you don't understand, ask question below and we will get back to you. Before posting a question please make sure you have read the FAQ's
Read other people's questions below before posting, someone may have already asked your question
Or did you just pull everything out of thin air? I have read your FAQ and your policies, but found it hard to find literature of precedent and proof. How do you know they will work? Has this been done before in any other countries? Have you done any economic modelling? Have you consulted with economic experts or do you have a 'screw the experts' mentality?
Official response from completed
Wouldn't the housing bubble and malinvestment (away from productive assets as you say) be cooled off more effectively - getting to the root - if you stopped central banks artificially suppressing interest rates. (Keynsian economics). If the interest rate were allowed to rise closer to the market value it would be harder to justify taking a large loan for speculative purposes and only entrepreneurs with plans to invest that money in the most productive (income producing) uses would be able to justify this. This would lower housing prices in a superior way to hour proposed tax policy which, in my opinion would be a cost that just get passed on to the "consumer" which in this case would be people who pay rent... By reducing this harmful, fixing of interest rated, it would free up capital for productive use while encouraging people to save more and consume less on frivilous things --> this is how you create long term prosperity for all, especially the everyday, hard working New Zealanders - If interest rates go down, it should be due to an oversupply of willing lenders (savers), NOT because a central bank mandated that this is the new interest rate! HOWEVER, I do also agree that taxation should be as equal as possible across the board for all asset classes in order to prevent unequal allocation - but imo this would be addressed just fine with a standardised rate of tax across the board for all income e.g capital gains. Thoughts? In general you should try to find the hidden DE-regulation that fixes the problem. Thanks.
In your policy, TOP says: "Our proposal is to deem a minimum rate of return on all productive assets, including housing and land", and that "All productive assets […] produce income each and every year, not cash necessarily but income nevertheless." 1) How is the 'annual productive asset tax' any different to taxing an unrealised capital gain? 2) Wouldn't taxing all capital gains be a more efficient, determinable and transparent tax policy? 3)You say capital gains taxes don't work toward the goals TOP wants to achieve, why so? 4) How does your policy propose to determine the value of return on a productive asset with no cashflow or assessable income related to it? 5) What if the asset actually made a loss that year? 6) How will this policy avoid the chances of double taxation for people who intend to accept a capital gains tax on sale of their property? 7) Have you purposely avoided the 'elephant' of capital gains tax because of its hot political nature, or because you really don't believe it would be effective?
Like this page to spread the word
Do you like this page?