Tax Expert marks Labour's tax plan

John Shewan from Price Waterhouse Coopers marks Labour’s tax grab plan:

He said Labour seems to have ignored most of the advice it was given by the Tax Working Group and believes its strategy would get a mark of “three out of 10″ if it was to be reviewed by the OECD.

Bummer. Labour have been talking up the OECD all week.

The Chairman of Accountants Price Waterhouse Coopers, John Shewan told AMP Business the plan unfairly targets the better off.

“To me this package sends a signal that if you’re in the top 10% don’t hang around,” he said.

“We talk about fairness, it’s probably not well known that half of New Zealand households pay no net tax at all, the top 10% pay about 60% – 65% of net tax and the top 2% pay over 20%. In terms of fairness we’re saying that very top group needs to pay more? To me that sends some very perverse signals.”

“Three out of ten” and “perverse signals”…doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement does it. But then again what can you expect when Labour hasn’t done any work instead preferring to leave that an amorphous “Expert Panel”.

I’m not at all confident of Cunliffe’s promises either:

“We think we’ve hit a fair balance here. Most people won’t pay the (capital gains) tax, probably only 8% of New Zealanders in a given year. There’s no retrospective component, the family home is exempt and personal property is exempt. We’ve even got Canterbury out of the net for the next five years after the election.”

and

“Only about 1.7% people will be in the top tax rate, most people will get an improvement in their tax position,” he said.

Last time Labour promised only a certain percentage would be affected was the last time they put their envy tax in place. They promised the electorate that only 5% of income earners would pay their taxes, it ended up being closer to 15%. We can’t believe Labour when they talk about their taxes only affecting a small percentage. Their track record proves otherwise.

As I said before, the devil is in the detail and Labour don’t want to talk about the detail.

  • peterwn

    In 1999 various over $65k (or whatever the figure was) were suckered into Labour’s then tax plan on the basis that their money was gong to provide more health, education and welfare. The money instead went on pen-pushers and to help try and keep Labour in power.

287%