<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>David Whitburn &#187; Tax Working Group summary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davidwhitburn.com/tag/tax-working-group-summary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davidwhitburn.com</link>
	<description>New Zealand Property Investment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:41:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pricing the &#8216;savings&#8217; of the Tax Working Group&#8217;s Proposals</title>
		<link>http://www.davidwhitburn.com/2010/02/335/</link>
		<comments>http://www.davidwhitburn.com/2010/02/335/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Whitburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Working Group summary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TWG report summary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidwhitburn.com/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group&#8217;s (&#8220;TWG&#8221;) Report has got much media attention, whether on Television, newspaper, radio or the internet.  The report is interesting and whilst I admire the aims of striving to provide a &#8220;fairer&#8221; tax system, with a consistent top tax rate amongst companies, trusts, PIEs and individuals, there are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group&#8217;s (&#8220;TWG&#8221;) Report has got much media attention, whether on Television, newspaper, radio or the internet.  The report is interesting and whilst I admire the aims of striving to provide a &#8220;fairer&#8221; tax system, with a consistent top tax rate amongst companies, trusts, PIEs and individuals, there are some gaping holes in it.</p>
<p>Firstly here are the estimated costings of what the TWG has proposed:</p>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top"><strong><em>Option</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em> </em></strong></td>
<td width="123" valign="top"><strong><em>Indicative   annual</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>revenue</em></strong><em> </em>($ billion in</p>
<p>2009/10   prices)<em> </em></td>
<td width="307" valign="top"><strong><em>Notes</em></strong></p>
<p><em> </em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Raising GST</p>
<ul>
<li>to 15%</li>
<li>to 17.5%</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to $1.9</p>
<p>Up to $3.9</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">These estimates   include automatic adjustments to benefit levels and superannuation payments.   Substantially less revenue if there is other compensation for lower income   groups.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Imposing a Capital Gains Tax –</p>
<ul>
<li>(1) Comprehensive</li>
<li>(2) Excluding owner occupied housing</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">(1) Up to $9.0</p>
<p>(2) Up to $4.5</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Estimates are based   on full implementation, accrual basis and 2% rate of real property inflation.   Lower revenue would be expected with a realisation-based tax, particularly   during implementation. Revenue generated will also depend on the particular   design of the CGT.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Land Tax</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to $2.3 (for 0.5%   tax rate)</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Based on an assumed   limited fall in land prices due to tax; revenue reduced by about $0.6bn if   land tax is deductible against taxable income for businesses.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">RFRM on residential</p>
<p>investment property</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to $0.7</p>
<p>(plus up to $150   million in tax saved on loss offsets from rental properties)</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Based on 6%   (nominal) risk-free</p>
<p>return; rental   property only.  This</p>
<p>estimate excludes   other residential investment property (e.g. second homes).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Remove depreciation   on</p>
<p>buildings</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to   $1.3</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Based on no loss   offset if buildings sold at a loss; estimated cost of allowing offset = $300   to 600 million.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Remove 20%   depreciation</p>
<p>loading on new   assets</p>
<p>(excl. buildings)</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to $0.3</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Lower   revenue gain if loading reduced rather than eliminated.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187" valign="top">Changes to thin</p>
<p>capitalisation rules</td>
<td width="123" valign="top">Up to   $0.2</td>
<td width="307" valign="top">Changes   thin cap ‘safe harbour’ from 75% to 60%.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><em>Source: PriceWaterhouse Coopers Tax Tips 20 January 2010, Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group Report.</em></div>
<div></div>
<div>On Tuesday 9th February our Prime Minister will announce his thoughts on this.</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.davidwhitburn.com/2010/02/335/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1151</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

