Taxing times
There is much discussion about whether the Government should raise money by either sale of assets or a capital gains tax.
The sale of four power companies would bring in about $6 billion, which at the present rate of borrowing $380 million dollars a week would last 16 weeks and
of course it is a once-only payment.
The National Government plans to sell shares to "mums and dads" but as Bill English says, they may have lost $6 billion in failed finance companies, and if they can't find the funds to take up shares the Government will offer them to overseas buyers. Six billion dollars is petty cash to the Chinese, who have $800 billion in cash reserves.
Frankly, I think the plan to sell the power companies is bordering on criminal and John Key should for a change listen to the feelings of ordinary people. It would be interesting to know the views of Tremain and Foss.
The other way of raising funds is to tax capital gains at a relatively low rate of 15 per cent. This tax on house, farms and shares would repeat every year, unlike the sale of power companies which is a oncer.
All in all as the money has to be found I suggest the capital gains tax is preferable and would not affect too many people harshly.
Pete Carver, Havelock North
Support for CGT
I can understand how somebody who invested a large amount of money in property or shares, looking to benefit from tax-free capital gains in future, may be disappointed at having to pay a tax of 15c in the dollar on these gains.
But most people cannot at present avoid paying tax on every new dollar they earn. Even family trusts pay tax on their earnings. So why should capital gains be tax-exempt? In Australia, Europe, the United States, and China, capital gains are already taxed.
The gutless approach of successive New Zealand governments, refusing to tax capital gains, and thereby creating a huge tax loophole, has benefited a minority of our people at the expense of everyone else.
In the process it has caused a huge mis-allocation of investment, one of the major causes of our low productivity compared to Australia.
It is only vested interests, and those who haven't yet thought it through, and realised it means a lower rate of income tax in future, who are squealing about it.
Bill Sutton, Greenmeadows
Change system
The transferable vote system, proportional representation system and FPP can all deliver a democratically elected government. MMP can't; it's as simple as that.
In Hawke's Bay we have the classic example of why MMP doesn't work. In the Tukituki electorate Rick Barker has twice been defeated as the electorate candidate, yet he is still in parliament, despite the electors in Tukituki making it quite clear that he is not wanted. This is totally undemocratic as the electors' views have been totally ignored by a political party.
Richard Edmunds, Napier
MMP not only option
John Warren of Taradale is another that seems to think that MMP is the only alternative to first past the post and that to get an improved electoral system all we can do is to tinker with MMP.
This is not so. The best option is to adopt the STV system which gives a superior proportional representation and completely does away with the wasted vote problem of both FPP and MMP.
I strongly urge everyone to read up on STV and to vote for STV in the referendum.
Sid McCann, Napier
Taxing times
There is much discussion about whether the Government should raise money by either sale of assets or a capital gains tax.
The sale of four power companies would bring in about $6 billion, which at the present rate of borrowing $380 million dollars a week would last 16 weeks and
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.