Decision 11: Asset sales vs Capital Gains Tax

Print

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 7:55a.m.

There are two bold policies on offer from each of the major parties

There are two bold policies on offer from each of the major parties

By Kim Choe

With the election campaign now in its finals days, 3 News is taking a look at some of the main policies that may influence your voting decision.

The cornerstone economic policies of the two main parties: the sale of state assets versus capital gains tax are the latest to go under the microscope.

There's no doubting the economy needs a helping hand, but just what that hand should be has been a contentious point all year.

At the last election, National promised it wouldn't sell any state assets in its first term. Now that it's facing a second - its intentions are clear.

“We said we wouldn't sell assets in the first term - we didn't. We said we'd like to move on these assets between 2011 and 2014 - we will,” says Prime Minister John Key.

National plans to extend mixed ownership to four state-owned energy companies:

  • Genesis
  • Mighty River
  • Meridian
  • Solid Energy

It'll sell up to 49 percent of each, and will also reduce its 75 percent stake in Air New Zealand.

National knows the word "privatisation", however partial, is unpalatable to many voters. So to sweeten the deal, it says it will channel all sale proceeds into a fund solely for capital investment.

“The new projects I'm talking about here are things like major hospital redevelopments, new schools and transport projects,” says Mr Key.

The party says it will prioritise share sales to New Zealanders and no one shareholder will be able to own more than 10 percent of a company, but Labour still says the policy is short-sighted.

“You can only sell your assets once and then they're gone forever and with it, the profits that you used to return every year to the taxpayer,” says opposition leader Phil Goff.

So Labour’s plan to improve the Government's books is to introduce a Capital Gains Tax. Set at 15 percent, it will apply to the sale of all investment houses, baches, land, farms, shares and most businesses from 2013.

“The Capital Gains Tax enables us to pay down our debt, keep our assets, and give tax cuts to the overwhelming majority of people,” says Mr Goff.

The policy has even found favour with some of those who'll end up having to pay the most - such as IT entrepreneur Selwyn Pellett who has made more than $8m selling shares in his business but hasn't paid a cent in tax.

“Clearly if you go to Otara or Otangarei in Whangarei, or any poorly serviced communities with no income, that looks really bad. So I think its time people like me stepped up to the plate and paid more tax,” he says.

Financial commentator Bernard Hickey says voters shouldn't consider either the Capital Gains Tax or asset sales as a fix-all for the economy.

“The two parties are both missing the point on the real issue for the NZ electorate and the NZ economy. And that is borrowing. Both of them are going to continue borrowing heavily for the next 2-3 years. And that borrowing is being used to pay for consumption spending,” says interest.co.nz’s Bernard Hickey.

Two bold policies on offer from each of the major parties - but they're only part of the solution.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

23 Nov 2011 01:09p.m.

anne wrote:

Keith you are right with all of your information and key has been ankle deep in alot of leveraged derivitive deals over the years one that proctor gamble had bought off the bankers trust,but just before P&G took it over money was siphoned off,exposing serious fraud and corruption,there is serious consequences for our economy should key get elected again,it will put our economy in an even more serious postition,3 downgrades dont bode well for any govt and enforce the handling of the economy is negligent and going in the wrong direction.
The raising of gst and ets,when advised not to,shows the arrogance of key,he knew and had advice it would stall the economy,which he totaly ignored,because he wanted carbon trading for his mates and the raise in gst to pay for his increase in incomes for the top
earners in the country,key's smile and wave style of politics are so false and cover up his real intentions,his statement is he expects to get 'unbridled power' at this election,god save nz,if that happens i am also gone to aussie.

23 Nov 2011 08:18a.m.

Its da truth wrote:

@ Peter. As one of those no children, high income earners I am happy to pay more in tax to help others get ahead as we all know that's what will ultimately benefit NZ. Those tax cuts did nothing to retain high income people looking to head overseas. I want a govt. with a social conscience, who doesn't sell the family silver, not to mention has honesty at the helm. That's not National and if they get in for another term I'm gone. Catch 22 for them really.

23 Nov 2011 07:22a.m.

Keith wrote:

Neil you are right to a degree. Yes we are in a world recession at the moment, bought about by corupt practices by bankers currency traders and share traders. Theses banksters have been nothing but dishonest. Lets start with the sub prime mortgage scandal. Goldman Sachs let out these mortgages knowing full well that they were going to fail and they insured themselves against this loss. In this crisis the banks failed and the tax payer was called on to bail all the banks out who had been involved in this corupt game. This cost the American tax payer trillions of dollars. While this was going on these bailed out firms were giving out large amounts of tax payer money in bonuses to themselves. Mean while firms such as J.P. Morgan were admitting to fraud of $360billion and coping fines of $160 million. At the moment their is a firm called MS Global going through a collapse once again costing trillions. By the time this organisation is finished it has the potential to be bigger than the Lehman brothers collapse. In England Northern Rock has been sold to Richard Branson for $1billion the bad part of northern rock has debts of $21 billion. In Italy they have just elected bankers to run the country.The very same people who contributed to the collapse of Italy. At MSGlobal they notified the Koch brothers over a month ago that they were in trouble giving the Koch brothers time to withdraw there billions. Its a pity they didnt notify the smaller investors who are now left holding the baby. So with all this money disappearing into the hands of the so called 1%i its no wonder we have a recession. Its interesting that all these people involved in this situation are on the right of the political spectrum. Interestingly John Key worked for Meril Lynch who were involved in these scandals.

22 Nov 2011 07:38p.m.

Neil wrote:

NO MORE DEBT from the RBNZ
Reserve Bank of New Zealand: Financial Stability Report, November 2011
3 Financial risks to the New Zealand economy
New Zealand’s fiscal position has deteriorated significantly, with a widening in the primary budget deficit, driven in part from costs associated with the Canterbury earthquakes. Recent downgrades to the New Zealand sovereign credit rating are likely to reduce the country’s borrowing capacity at the margin.
Emerging weakness in the global economy and upheaval in the global financial system pose some risks to the New Zealand economy. Reductions in export incomes and a possible increase in offshore funding costs are two key risks. A decline in export cash flows could trigger a further decline in rural property prices and intensified financial stress in the sector.
The Canterbury earthquakes have been extremely disruptive for households and businesses. The prevalence of property insurance cover is playing a key role in mitigating the disruption, but the period ahead will remain challenging. With continued seismic instability, insurers remain very cautious about writing new cover in the region.
Fiscal consolidation will help moderate New Zealand’s external vulnerabilities.
The Crown’s financial position has deteriorated in recent years reflecting higher levels of expenditure and a reduced tax take. Along with additional fiscal costs associated with the earthquakes, this has led to a substantial widening in the operating balance in the year to June 2011. In light of the elevated risks of further disruption to global financial markets, the Reserve Bank is supportive of the Government’s stated intention to return the fiscal position to surplus in coming years. A stabilisation of government debt levels would help to further moderate New Zealand’s external vulnerabilities, providing some offset if the private sector’s current cautious attitude to debt accumulation turns out to be temporary.

22 Nov 2011 07:07p.m.

Neil wrote:

I see from below comments that you are all only interested in the Left Side of politics. It seems that you have forgotten the world has and is still going through a Global Financial Crisis. I really hope your party gets in and when Europe and America go through their next crisis as below from another respected economist we will see how good your Party Leader and Finance Spokesman Cunliffe will manage with adding more debt to our country.
• The world is in a balance sheet depression which will make a second and perhaps more dangerous credit crisis almost inevitable. That should break out next year or in 2013.
• The three global pillars of the world economy, the USA, Europe and China each have their own problems, but their impact is global because of the feedback loops from the financial sector to the economy.
• The USA has a debt and deficit profile which is unsustainable; the Euro Zone has to decide whether it can forge a fully fiscal union or whether the costs are too great in which event membership will be restructured; and China is trying to put its economy on a more sustainable growth path at a time of leadership change.
• Debt and demographics will be the determining forces to global growth.
Markets will no longer countenance indecision and pushing debt problems under the table by lending more funds to indebted governments. Politicians want to postpone what they know is inevitable: debts must be repaid.
•European banks are under duress; government debt represents a large proportion of their asset base. They are also the largest lender to all the major regions of the world. To shore up their own balance sheets they will be cutting credits etc.
• The world will suffer from rolling recessions starting either next year or in 2013 lasting to about 2018. Global industrial production should fall by an average of 0.25% a year during this period.
Simon Hunt Economic and Copper Advisory Services, November/December Economic Report
NO MORE DEBT

22 Nov 2011 02:07p.m.

Peter wrote:

The Tax cuts were not targeted at the rich - they were targeted at the high income earners. Having a high income and being rich are not necessarily the same thing. I know many people who for income only have the super pension, but have property in the 1 to 5 million dollars. Several of those just have the one house so that wouldn't even be a capital gains issue. I also know people who earn $100K plus but have no house and a net worth of zero or below - this is because though they have done the work and have the skills to get a good pay - they have not had that for long enough to overcome student debt etc. It's an inconvenient truth that the Tax cuts by National were not targeted at the rich or the wealthy as people say but were targeted at those in society that we absolutely need to provide key requirements in society. These include Doctors, Engineers, Scientists , specialists in various fields, They include single people - or people without children, who are highly skilled - mobile and in demand. We were loosing these people hand over fist and it was killing the country. It was only a token effort - but necessary - even now these sorts of people are still paying most of the tax but are paying it here rather than overseas. That is the third vote many have - where to pay your tax. Right now we are loosing the low paid and financially that is helpful rather than hurting - though I admit it does impact socially - change that and when you again start loosing even more of the skilled you loose twice - the large amount of tax they pay and the leverage that they give to society. - I am not talking about the 1000 or so who earn over 1 million (they did benefit I know) - I am talking about the quite large numbers earning between 100K and 250K. Loose 12,500 people earning 150K and you loose a min of $1 billion in tax revenue directly - not to mention other taxes from profits on services they use.

22 Nov 2011 01:40p.m.

Melody wrote:

Being from Iran, I have seen what selling strategic assets does to the native people of a country. In NZ you won’t see the speed, or the severity of the situation in Iran, but it will happen the same way, just more subtly, and quietly. When foreign countries buy into your country’s strategic asset ( In Iran case, China and Russia have bought the rights to oil and gas, mining heavy and precious metals, manufacturing and steel industries, power and electricity ), the native people will not have the same rights and power to control the politics and economy of their own country, the same way they had, before foreign ownership. China and Russia, are actively supplying the Islamic dictatorship with weapons and spying devices, hardware and software, to control and keep the regime in charge, and protect their own massive profitable investments. Any attempt by other western countries to put serious sanctions on the Islamic Republic will hit the break wall, as China and Russia will immediately veto all. Politicians will be selected behind the closed doors, and people vote based on what the powers and the media want ( of course those are also controlled by friendly hands, if you know what I mean ). Iranian people are currently struggling to survive, and Iran is a naturally blessed country. You go figure. This asset sale is a very bad idea, and good luck keeping it at 49% ! Once this genie is out of the bottle, NZers will slowly but surely Lose.

22 Nov 2011 01:40p.m.

Melody wrote:

Being from Iran, I have seen what selling strategic assets does to the native people of a country. In NZ you won’t see the speed, or the severity of the situation in Iran, but it will happen the same way, just more subtly, and quietly. When foreign countries buy into your country’s strategic asset ( In Iran case, China and Russia have bought the rights to oil and gas, mining heavy and precious metals, manufacturing and steel industries, power and electricity ), the native people will not have the same rights and power to control the politics and economy of their own country, the same way they had, before foreign ownership. China and Russia, are actively supplying the Islamic dictatorship with weapons and spying devices, hardware and software, to control and keep the regime in charge, and protect their own massive profitable investments. Any attempt by other western countries to put serious sanctions on the Islamic Republic will hit the break wall, as China and Russia will immediately veto all. Politicians will be selected behind the closed doors, and people vote based on what the powers and the media want ( of course those are also controlled by friendly hands, if you know what I mean ). Iranian people are currently struggling to survive, and Iran is a naturally blessed country. You go figure. This asset sale is a very bad idea, and good luck keeping it at 49% ! Once this genie is out of the bottle, NZers will slowly but surely Lose.

22 Nov 2011 01:26p.m.

Neil Solomon wrote:

I just can't figure out why the point is missed. Surely what the money is tagged to be used for is not material as it is but part of the total Govt. expenditure - it is the ongoing tax take that needs to be increased. Second, selling established businesses does not increase the number of jobs, just allows those with money to make a secure investment with less risk than investing in a new company. Mums and dads have little spare money to invest and rich people tend to sit on good shares rather than sell them. Get a grip Nats and Act - surely as a country we deserve a better solution of our collective futures.

22 Nov 2011 12:09p.m.

G.N. wrote:

Why this outmoded term "sale of assets" is used in our country beats me. Across the world, new developing economies, especially the ones doing well, with high GDP growths, invite foreign capital, under economic terms "foreign investment," "foreign collaboration" "foreign participation." In most countries where governments from the left had taken over and nationalised various industries, and made a mess, privatisation is a welcome word. These countries that look for foreign investments and knowhow, have not gone ahead and sold off their assets, rather large multi nationals are asked to open house in their country along with a local group, so you would have Siemens NZ Ltd, or McDonalds Hell NZ Ltd, or Nestle Fonterra NZ Ltd! Most countries with now high GDP growth have legislation in place, so if "foreigners" behave outside their countries' interests, they can be "thrown out!" I am saying, adopt a center of economic ideology approach. Outright sales of companies to foreigners (that is sale of assets) should be a firm no no, but minority participation in our companies, foreign companies linking up with local companies/businesses will boost our economy, bringing in cash and know how.