Yep, I agree there is a need to address Maori Trust owned land - that is tricky. And conservation land as well, and I am sure there are others. There would be SOME exemptions. Though I'm not sure how they would be chosen. There are Maori trusts in the North Island who make a lot of money from their land.
But in some ways, it just speaks to the need to be able to accurately value the land (in pakeha economic terms, for this purpose!). If it has very low economic value, the cost of the impost will reflect that.
$350k? Seriously? I would have thought it MUCH lower than that. Would be interested in a reference.
But it also speaks to my concerns - we concentrate all our efforts on income without really trying to identify wealth beyond that.
I also think most of that 25% would be better off under my regime. 2% land tax on a $400,000 plot of land is $8k p.a. (for example). Could easily lower taxes for a lot of people by that much (say introduce a significant chunk of tax free income at the base).
On the other side, Shania Twain and James Cameron would suddenly start paying some NZ tax (in addition to the GST I am sure they already pay).
Here is the Tax Working Group's final report from 2010. They came down favouring land tax though at a lower level than I would aim it. They suggested .5% land tax could raise up to $2.3b. I would aim higher with the intention of lowering other taxes (income or GST) in a really meaningful way.
I recognise there will be adjustment pain for some but there ALWAYS will be when a fundamental shift in economic model occurs. I don't think the current system is fair, and concentrating on the pain felt by those who have a vested interest in the status quo gets us nowhere.
Maybe I live in too simple a world, but I reckon there is a good way to identify the 1%. They own all the land.
Not much. Just more and funds to central govt.
Will have a look when I get home. I think tax working group provided some figures.
I don't think cgt comes close in amount raised and therefore in ability to change model
How much unproductive land does one person need (or should be allowed to monopolise)?
I do feel a little sympathy for those who may struggle to pay a land tax on desirable land through lack of sufficient income or other funds, but I feel more sorry for all those who can't even get a look in on the property ladder because of where it has got to.
In my view a modest but broad land tax would fund sufficient revenue to provide for a meaningful reduction in income taxes and allow an attempt at a 'different way' of chasing economic prosperity (as a nation) than the path we are currently on.
Anything else in my view is tinkering at the edges.
I’ve always thought a land tax would be rated depending on the value of the land so highly productive land would be worth more and would attract a higher level of tax. The counter would be true for marginal land.
All tax systems have winners and losers. The current system’s winners are the rich and the losers those who work for an income.
Which is why land taxes are the answer. Changes economics of what you do with land in favour of capital investment and away from low value use or seeking capital gains.
Land taxes combined with reduced income taxes. Broad based and universally applied (ie few exceptions)
When are they going to announce the real name? IPad is surely just a gag.
I (an unashamed mac fanboy) could hardly sleep last night, such was my excitement. However, I have to say I'm a little disapointed.
I think they could do so much more if they were less focussed on locking users into captive marketplaces and more focussed on functionality.
Wont stop me plumping down the cash.