The Times Australia
Business and Money
The Times Real Estate

.

With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand's tax system

  • Written by Jonathan Barrett, Senior Lecturer in Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand's tax system

Ability to pay is the basic principle of tax fairness: people in a similar financial position should pay similar amounts of tax; people who can afford to pay more tax than others ought to pay more tax.

The first proposition is about horizontal equity[1] (similar treatment of similarly placed people). The second relates to vertical equity[2] (different treatment of differently placed people). But identifying what constitutes “similar” and “different” is not science, it’s a matter of social or political judgment.

For example, someone who earns NZ$200,000 a year faces a higher marginal tax rate than someone who earns $20,000 because their situations are different. But someone who earns income from employment is taxed in the same way as someone who earns the same amount from investment because their situations are considered the same.

So, how do the political parties’ proposals measure up from the perspectives of horizontal and vertical equity?

The Greens[3] and TOP[4] both propose expanding the (horizontal) tax base, as Labour did three years ago with its now abandoned capital gains tax (CGT) proposal. This is a basic form of horizontal equity.

ACT proposes broad cuts[5] to income tax and GST. But since none of the minor party policies seem likely to be adopted in their raw form by the next government, for now we must focus on the Labour and National proposals.

A dubious revenue-raising exercise

By focusing on income tax rates, both major parties ignore horizontal equity and focus on vertical equity.

In his speech[6] announcing a new highest marginal rate of 39% for annual incomes over $180,000, finance minister and Labour finance spokesperson Grant Robertson argued the additional revenue (a predicted $550 million) will support COVID-19 recovery.

Robertson did mention fairness in his speech – in relation to multinational corporations not paying their fair share (by reporting profits in low-tax jurisdictions rather than the country they were earned). But despite huge amounts of work by the OECD, we still don’t really know what a fair share means.

Read more: Forget a capital gains tax – what New Zealand needs is a tax on inherited wealth[7]

Besides, the equity issue that really matters is fair treatment of individuals.

As a pure revenue-raising exercise, the marginal rate increase is dubious. There is ample evidence[8] from Australia that “bunching” of incomes occurs when marginal tax rates increase: while high-salary earners have little option but to pay at the highest rate, we are likely to see many self-employed earners with incomes capped around $180,000.

Similarly, while Inland Revenue has had some success in combating the manipulation of trusts[9], the opaque nature of such arrangements facilitates tax planning.

Locking in existing unfairness

So, a higher top marginal rate is a gesture of vertical equity. But it does nothing to address the implausible assumption that an extra dollar in the hands of someone earning $70,000 a year is the same as an extra dollar in the hands of someone earning $179,000.

National also proposes improving vertical equity by combating bracket creep[10]. This occurs when tax bands are not adjusted for inflation. While not inherently unfair, bracket creep is somewhat underhanded because it draws more taxpayers into higher tax brackets when the real value of their income hasn’t increased.

Under National’s proposal, the current thresholds would be index-linked and automatically increase. At the current annual inflation rate of 1.5%, then, the threshold for the highest marginal rate would increase next year to $71,050.

Read more: New Zealand is violating the rights of its children. Is it time to change the legal definition of age discrimination?[11]

This is a modest increase, but over years indexing could be significant. Even so, the change would do little to promote fair treatment between earners at the bottom of the threshold and a person earning $500,000 a year.

Labour argues that its proposal will affect only 2% of people. National says the vast majority of taxpayers would gain some benefit under its policy. The problem is, while both proposals promote modest vertical equity, they lock in existing unfairness in the tax system.

A narrow tax base is the real problem

It may seem intuitively unfair that the current highest marginal tax rate applies at a relatively low level of income, but there is no science to setting tax rates. Economists might argue over whether higher tax rates are disincentives to work or enterprise, but ultimately tax laws are a matter of political judgment.

The real unfairness in New Zealand lies in its narrow tax base. The absence of taxes on general capital gains, capital transfers and wealth all benefit the wealthy[12], whereas GST disproportionately affects the poor[13].

If we had an appropriately broad tax base, we could lower income tax rates – the 33% rate on income above $70,000 could be reduced, as could the 15% of GST.

No doubt National can’t risk looking reckless by promising tax cuts during the COVID-19 crisis and recovery, and Labour can’t risk jeopardising its current broad popularity by offering more radical ideas.

But the result of these conservative proposals, even if they are tempered by gestures of vertical equity, is to entrench the horizontal inequity that bedevils the New Zealand tax system.

References

  1. ^ horizontal equity (www.oecd.org)
  2. ^ vertical equity (www.oecd.org)
  3. ^ Greens (www.greens.org.nz)
  4. ^ TOP (www.top.org.nz)
  5. ^ broad cuts (www.act.org.nz)
  6. ^ speech (www.labour.org.nz)
  7. ^ Forget a capital gains tax – what New Zealand needs is a tax on inherited wealth (theconversation.com)
  8. ^ ample evidence (www.business.uwa.edu.au)
  9. ^ manipulation of trusts (www.nzlii.org)
  10. ^ combating bracket creep (www.stuff.co.nz)
  11. ^ New Zealand is violating the rights of its children. Is it time to change the legal definition of age discrimination? (theconversation.com)
  12. ^ benefit the wealthy (morganfoundation.org.nz)
  13. ^ affects the poor (www.taxresearch.org.uk)

Authors: Jonathan Barrett, Senior Lecturer in Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Read more https://theconversation.com/with-their-conservative-promises-labour-and-national-lock-in-existing-unfairness-in-new-zealands-tax-system-145916

SME Business News

Brand Storytelling: How Video Marketing Can Enhance Your Brand Identity

In the competitive landscape of 2025, building a strong and recognisable brand identity is crucial for standing out in the marketplace. One of the most effective ways to shape and communicate y...

Future-Proofing Your Business with Strategic Defence Insight

In an era marked by rapid technological change, global uncertainty, and evolving security risks, the need for long-term resilience in business has never been greater. Organisations across indu...

Maximise Your Amazon Profits with These 5 Simple Seller Strategies

Selling on Amazon offers countless opportunities for individuals and businesses to grow their income. But with so many sellers joining the platform every day, it’s not enough to just list your ...

Why Professional Mining Electricians Are Critical for Mine Safety and Operations

The mining industry, with its complex and hazardous environments, demands high standards of safety and efficiency. One pivotal role in ensuring these standards is that of professional mining el...

The Times Features

Why Regional Small Businesses in Bendigo Deserve Better Access to Finance in 2025

In the heart of regional Victoria, Bendigo has long stood as a beacon of innovation, resilience and community spirit. As we step further into 2025, the importance of nurturing sm...

Is It Time for a Deep Cleaning? Signs You Shouldn’t Ignore

Most people know they should visit the dentist for a regular check-up and cleaning every six months. But sometimes, a standard cleaning isn’t enough. When plaque and tartar build...

The Hidden Meaning Behind Popular Engagement Ring Cuts

When it comes to engagement rings, the cut of the diamond is not just about aesthetics. Each shape carries its own symbolism and significance, making it an important decision for...

Annual Health Exams in the Office: How They Can Reduce Sick Days and Healthcare Costs

Regular health check-ups, especially annual health exams in the office, can significantly impact the overall well-being of your workforce. A proactive approach to employee health...

Best Deals on Home Furniture Online

Key Highlights Discover the best deals on high-quality outdoor furniture online. Transform your outdoor space into a stylish and comfortable oasis. Explore a wide range of d...

Discover the Best Women's Jumpers for Every Season

Key Highlights Explore lightweight jumpers for spring and summer, ensuring breathability and ease. Wrap up warm with cozy wool jumpers for the chilly autumn and winter season...

Business Times

Brand Storytelling: How Video Marketing Can Enhance Your Brand Id…

In the competitive landscape of 2025, building a strong and recognisable brand identity is crucial for standing out in the ...

Future-Proofing Your Business with Strategic Defence Insight

In an era marked by rapid technological change, global uncertainty, and evolving security risks, the need for long-term res...

Maximise Your Amazon Profits with These 5 Simple Seller Strategie…

Selling on Amazon offers countless opportunities for individuals and businesses to grow their income. But with so many sell...

LayBy Shopping