Home > Dollars & Sense, The Body Politic > When the Rich Whinge about paying tax

When the Rich Whinge about paying tax

.

I can't afford this and pay my tax

.

It seems that after seven tax cuts since 1986, the rich still aren’t satisfied;

.

taxation rich poor

.

The matriarch of the Horton family – the 41st richest family in New Zealand according to the 2012 NBR Rich List and worth an estimated $220 million – Dame Rosie Horton, is complaining that “increasing the rate on the wealthy to provide services for lower income New Zealanders would just discourage hard work” and claims that “the country is already overtaxed and demanding an even greater take from the wealthy would only put people off working hard“.

New Zealand?! “Over-taxed”?!

After two tax cuts (2009 and 2010) which saw the wealthiest and top income earners benefit the most, Horton is still insisting that New Zealand is “over-taxed”?

Well, let’s put that to the test and compare New Zealand to Australia, via the KMPG on-line tax rates indicator;

.

KPMG - individual tax rates

.

Verdict: New Zealand’s highest individual tax rate (33%) is lower than Australia’s (45%) and lower than the Oceania average (37.75%).

.

KPMG - corporate tax rates

Verdict: New Zealand’s corporate tax rate (28%) is lower than Australia’s (30%) – though marginally higher than the Oceania average (27%).

.

KPMG - indirect tax rates

Verdict: New Zealand’s indirect tax rates, GST, is higher (15%)  than the Australian rate (10%) or the Oceania average (12.92%).

.

The only tax rate higher than Australia or the Oceania average is GST. That tax is recoverable by companies (through their GST Return), and does not impact on rich families (who can also avoid it with some skillful accounting) unlike poorer or middle class families.

So let’s compare New Zealand globally. Where do we stand on taxation rankings? In 2006 the US-based Tax Foundation positioned New Zealand at number 22 out of 30,  in terms of high-to-low taxation ranking;

.

Tax Foundation: Top Marginal Combined Individual Income Tax Rates in the OECD
2000 and 2006

Country

Top Combined Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate in 2000a

Rank

Top Combined Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate in 2006a

Rank

Percentage Reduction in Marginal Rate
(2000-2006)

Denmark

59.70%

3

59.74%

1

0.06%

Sweden

55.38%

4

56.60%

2

2.20%

France

53.25%

6

55.85%

3

4.88%

Belgium

63.90%

1

53.50%

4

-16.27%

Netherlands

60.00%

2

52.00%

5

-13.33%

Finland

48.67%

8

50.90%

6

4.58%

Austria

45.00%

17

50.00%

7

11.11%

Japan

50.00%

7

50.00%

7

0.00%

Australia

48.50%

9

48.50%

9

0.00%

Canada

46.41%

13

46.41%

10

0.00%

Germany

53.81%

5

45.37%

11

-15.67%

Spain

48.00%

10

45.00%

12

-6.25%

Italy

46.40%

14

44.10%

13

-4.96%

Switzerland

43.23%

21

42.06%

14

-2.71%

Portugal

35.00%

28

42.00%

15

20.00%

Ireland

44.00%

20

42.00%

16

-4.55%

Poland

40.00%

23

40.00%

17

0.00%

Greece

45.00%

18

40.00%

18

-11.11%

United Kingdom

40.00%

24

40.00%

19

0.00%

Norway

47.50%

11

40.00%

20

-15.79%

United States

46.09%

15

39.76%

21

-13.74%

New Zealand

39.00%

26

39.00%

22

0.00%

Luxembourg

47.15%

12

38.95%

23

-17.39%

Korea

44.00%

19

38.50%

24

-12.50%

Iceland

45.37%

16

36.72%

25

-19.07%

Hungary

40.00%

25

36.00%

26

-10.00%

Turkey

35.60%

27

35.60%

27

0.00%

Czech Republic

32.00%

30

32.00%

28

0.00%

Mexico

40.00%

22

29.00%

29

-27.50%

Slovak Republic

35.00%

29

19.00%

30

-45.71%

Average

45.93%

  

42.95%

  

-6.46%

.

Note that the Ranking chart above is dated 2006 – three years before National’s tax cut in 2009, and a further year before the 2010 tax cut.  Our marginal tax rate is now at 33%, putting us even further down the Chart, just above the Czech Republic. That would put New Zealand at number 28 out of 30.

The following chart is a comparison of corporate tax rates;

.

United States 39.10%
Japan 37.00%
France 34.40%
Belgium 34.00%
Weighted Average (by GDP) 32.50%
Portugal 31.50%
Germany 30.20%
Spain 30.00%
Mexico 30.00%
Australia 30.00%
Luxembourg 29.20%
New Zealand 28.00%
Norway 28.00%
Italy 27.50%
Canada 26.10%
Greece 26.00%
Simple Average 25.50%
Denmark 25.00%
Austria 25.00%
Netherlands 25.00%
Israel 25.00%
Finland 24.50%
Korea 24.20%
United Kingdom 23.00%
Slovak Republic 23.00%
Sweden 22.00%
Switzerland 21.10%
Estonia 21.00%
Chile 20.00%
Turkey 20.00%
Iceland 20.00%
Czech Republic 19.00%
Hungary 19.00%
Poland 19.00%
Slovenia 17.00%
Ireland 12.50%

Source: OECD Tax Database
PART II. Taxation of Corporate and Capital Income. Table II.1. Corporate income tax rate: Combined Central and Subcentral (column 4):
http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxpolicyanalysis/oecdtaxdatabase.htm

(Via The Tax Foundation – http://taxfoundation.org/article/oecd-corporate-income-tax-rates-1981-2013)

Whilst New Zealand ranks above the Simple Average, at number 11 (equal with Norway) we are still considerably below the Weighted Average (by GDP) and well below our major trading partners, Australia and the United States (figures not shown for China).

Another ranking is the Marginal Effective Tax Rate on Capital Investment, OECD Countries, 2005-2013. On this scale, New Zealand ranks 13th out of 34 nations. At a rate of 21.6%, we are well under the weighted average of 28.5%, though marginally above the unweighted figure of 19.6%. Australia, Japan, and the US rank well above us in higher marginal effective tax rates on capital investment.

So is New Zealand “over-taxed”?

Or are we hearing the remonstrations of a woman with considerable wealth, enjoying a life of luxury and privilege that 99% of New Zealanders could only imagine.

That’s 99% of us.

Horton belongs to the remaining 1%.

Which, in that context explains why she is bleating about having to pay anything resembling her fair share of taxation.

This blogger acknowledges that Horton may well contribute to charities. If so, good for her.

But contributing to charities is no substitution for taxation which ensures that State resources are fairly shared out, according to need, priorities, and maximising benefit for the country as a whole.

However Horton decides to prioritise her philantropy is her choice. But left to the random vaguaries of personal  philantropy, some will always miss out. Goodwill is important, but is no substitute for ensuring the widest, and optimally organised  distribution of resources to health, education, roading, public transport, the justice system, environmental conservation, etc, etc, etc, etc – all the things which New Zealanders enjoy and take for granted every day of their lives.

Why is it that with all their considerable wealth, the rich still feel the need to complain? With a dollar value of $220 million, Horton and her family will never have to worry about paying the mortgage of rent on time; whether their power bill will be higher yet again this winter; if they can afford to pay their children’s uniforms and “voluntary” school fees; and how much they’ll be able to afford to spend on groceries.

The infra-structure of this country did not materialise out of thin air; built up over-night by pixies. It was built by people paying taxes, and the State (the people’s collective will)  building everything from scratch.

When Horton switches on her light-switch tonight, I hope she spares a thought for the tax-dollars that went to pay for the dams; the access roads; the transmission lines; and the workers’ wages who built this incredible asset.

Rather than complain about taxation, Horton should count herself lucky, and give thanks to whatever deity she worships, that she was born in New Zealand.

It could easily have been Somalia.

They have little or no taxation.

.

*

.

References

Radio NZ:  Philanthropist dismisses ‘rich tax’

NBR: The Rich List at a Glance (Wealth order)

NBR: HORTON family

Tax Foundation: Top Marginal Combined Individual Income Tax Rates in the OECD 2000 and 2006

Tax Foundation: Marginal Effective Tax Rate on Capital Investment, OECD Countries, 2005-2013

News.Com: Tax collecting a deadly job in Somalia, five taxmen killed this year

Previous related blogpost

Greed is good? (28 August 2011)

.

*

.

election 2014

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 February 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements
  1. Priss
    17 February 2014 at 5:42 pm

    Well, I guess this is further proof (if we needed any) that the rich are self-obsessed to the point of utter selfishness. How much money is not enough?

  2. Stephen
    20 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

    If she doesn’t want to pay tax she should piss off to a Third World country. No tax, and she can grub around in the dirt trying to find food. Idiot woman.

  1. 8 May 2015 at 8:01 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: