KiwiSaver

CGT 'could skew investment'

Thursday 4th of September 2014

David Cunliffe told media yesterday that the 15% capital gains tax his party is proposing would not apply to KiwiSaver but would apply to other investments in shares.

New Zealand PIE funds are not taxed on capital gains or losses at present.

Pathfinder’s John Berry said that would create a huge tax advantage for the Government retirement savings scheme. "As I understand it the point of Labour's CGT policy is to discourage investment in housing and redirect investment into more productive areas of the economy.  However I'm not sure putting the same tax on housing and shares does much to drive investors out of housing and into shares - on a relative basis you haven't changed anything."

The CGT under Labour would apply to net gains. The only exemptions are for the family home, personal assets, collectables, small business assets and payouts from retirement savings schemes.

It will be apply to gains accrued after the tax is implemented and tax will be applied on realisation. Capital losses will be able to be carried forward and offset against future capital gains.

Share traders will continue to be taxed at a marginal or business tax rate.

Berry said the proposal created a risk that investor funds would move from liquid investments, such as PIE funds, to KiwiSaver funds, which are locked up until retirement.

“I think it would be really unhelpful if there was asymmetry between managed funds and KiwiSaver. That would encourage people, because it would be tax-advantaged effectively, to take their money out of managed funds and put it into KiwiSaver.”

He said PIE funds worked well as they were. “When you’re investing in New Zealand shares, there’s no CGT. Traders outside PIEs do pay capital gains tax. That’s a helpful structure. We invest in international shares and I don’t know what this would mean for the FDR. Would they keep the FDR and not apply a capital gains tax, or apply a capital gains tax?”

Comments (7)
Clayton Coplestone
I don't think so John - at least: it hasn't been a trend in jurisdictions where capital gains is / has been present Where emotion appears to overwhelm facts is that CGT is applied to gains only.... meaning that you pay tax on your gains. To put this another way: if you earn money, you'll share some of this with the taxman - if not, there will be nothing to share. Whilst it's not desirable to have another tax, CGT doesn't appear to have distorted markets (property included) in places where it exists
0 0
10 years ago

alan milton
The thing that interests me about Labour's plan for CGT is: who is going to appoint this "expert panel" which Labour will rely on to detail the tax? And who will set the brief? You can just imagine what the panel will comprise and likely lacking much understanding of tax or economics. Can't imagine a panel coming back and saying they don't believe it will work.
0 0
10 years ago

John Berry
Pragmatic - thanks - I think you'll find the UK experience (shares & property suffer CGT outside pension funds but not inside pension funds) in fact has skewed investment decisions by investors. The incentive is no different to high rate tax payers using cash PIEs instead of cash deposits. (see also Chris' example above). The point of my comments is not to argue whether CGT is right or wrong for the country but rather to point out that PIEs and kiwisaver should be taxed the same - or you risk investors basing investment decisions around tax. With any tax fewer exemptions (distortions) is better.
0 0
10 years ago

Wayne Ross
Absolutely it is a bad idea to try and manipulate individual investment decisions using tax. There are already enough anomolies between PIE, FDR and direct investment tax outcomes. I cant think why Labour believes individuals who are already prepared to back NZ companies by investing in them be penalised over investing via a (likely) higher cost managed fund structure.
0 0
10 years ago

Handhi Gandhi
Hi, there are a couple of key things to bear in mind about the UK system. Firstly, all individuals get a CGT free allowance of GBP11,000 each year, so the first 11,000 of any gain each year is tax free. Secondly, the UK has Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) which enable individuals to invest a significant sum each year completely tax free (currently GBP 15,000). Since 1999/2000 when this was introduced the total amount an individual could have invested in ISAs is nearly GBP90,000. These two combined mean that in reality very few UK taxpayers (as a percentage) pay CGT.
0 0
10 years ago

AFA Muggins
I'm beginning to wonder, if Government should simply work out what a subsistence budget would be for survival at an individual and household level, then simply tax all income at 100% above that rate. Income tax /household local body rating / GST / GST on tax (petrol) / tax on investment realised and unrealised / capital gains tax / etc etc New Zealand must surely be one of the most expensive places on earth to live. I have done a direct comparison on living and business costs with a friend in California and FX adjusted the figures. He is stunned at the outcomes. So am I. Perhaps we need to look at and address the root cause of the supposed need for the massive tax take at various levels.
0 0
10 years ago

Steve Wright
My concern with CGT, exemptions for GST etc is that no one seems to consider the massive administration requirements and cost, all of which is borne by taxpayers and businesses and none of which is productive, it does not make NZ wealthier.
0 0
10 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.