![]() ![]() Is a better question then to focus more on wealth disparity? Globally, capital and labour (often correlated with that small group) have become increasingly mobile with governments competing to attract them given they are net contributors. A large group pay very little and in fact are paid through transfers. A small group pay the vast majority of all income tax. NZ already has a very progressive tax system. "If we continue to outpace forecasts, then taxation may be left off the agenda for a little while yet," says Deloitte NZ chief executive Thomas Pippos. The result? I would say it's between a rock and a hard place. But capital gains tax has been fought and lost many times in New Zealand, and taxing their (and everyone else's) personal income more as a substitute is so untargeted as to be no more than a soundbite. For those whose untaxed capital gains are material, then it's accepted that some of their economic income remains untaxed. Concepts of affordability are raised but it's often heavily predicated on "NIMBY" and "tall poppy" considerations.įor those in that group already paying material personal tax while deriving relatively modest untaxed capital gains, they are already the highest taxed on their economic income. The question again turns to whether this group, or a part thereof, should pay more and why?įor some it's more about symbolism than gathering revenue. What the graph doesn't show is which of those assets are already subject to tax on their gains and how disparate the higher decile groups are with each other including that asset ownership and income derivation isn't necessarily correlated, particularly where there is intergenerational wealth in play.īut even so, what the graph shows is that between them a smaller number of households (but not necessarily the same ones) earn the greatest income, pay the greatest levels of tax and have the greatest share of assets. Unsurprisingly, the following graph suggests that there is a correlation between those households in the higher income deciles and those that hold the greatest level of capital assets (excluding their residential home, cash and deposits).Ī smaller number of households earn the greatest income, pay the greatest levels of tax and have the greatest share of assets. Overlaying this is also the emotive topic of taxing capital gains, how those at the top end of the earning spectrum don't pay tax on their non-taxable capital gains, and whether that should also be factored into the debate around "who pays what" tax. Also unsurprisingly, many in those households likely feel they are paying more than their fair share already particularly those in the highest decile(s). Either because those households can't afford to pay more / receive less, or because of the political difficulty of asking anybody to vote against their own self-interest.Īnd when half of all households are paying nothing or relatively modest amounts, it's not surprising that the target for any additional taxation will be households skewed to the right on the graph. Is this sustainable? Like beauty, the answer is in the eyes of the beholder.Ĭan this be reversed? I would say no. Related Fine Piece in Wired on Gore by Karen Breslau.įor further big-name global warming news, see broadcaster and nature filmmaker Sir David Attenborough column in The Independent (UK).The bottom half of households receive more than they pay in tax. Scott Washington Times op-ed by warming skeptic-in-chief Patrick Michaels Gregg Easterbrook in NY Times and Easterbrook again in Slate Bloomberg Rick Warner New York Observer Joe Conason Boston Globe Rick Klein Newark Star-Ledger Lisa Rose (with a novel ratings note at the end) USA Today Claudia Puig NYTimes columnist John Tierney Newsday Jan Stuart LA Times Kevin Crust Nature Magazine Emma Marris This is but a sampling of the latest in a flood of press interest. Longtime global warming skeptic Gregg Easterbrook takes the movie’s debut as a good time to announce he has changed his mind, pointedly in the NYTimes but also in Slate. Most but definitely not all reviewers are similarly impressed by the film’s effort, powerpoint-laden as it is, to tell the public what most climate scientists are saying. The Tracker has seen that happen a few times in real life, but not in movies either. It is the first movie he’s seen in which the audience gasped in horror when a powerpoint data graph pops up on screen. Gore, he adds, is no bore but is also not the real topic. He then explains all he means is that it should not have been necessary if policy makers had done their jobs for the last 20 years or so. Scott took a look at “An Inconvenient Truth” at the Cannes film festival and says it should not have been made.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |