Herald Maths
January 30th, 2010 at 12:18 pm by David FarrarSome weird maths in the Herald:
Aucklanders would be hammered by a proposed land tax, with households facing an annual bill running into thousands of dollars.
According to conservative estimates, owners of the region’s 443,200 homes alone would have to give the Treasury an extra $443 million if they were subject to a 0.5 per cent levy.
Umm, if 443,000 homes will pay $443 million in a 0.5% land tax, then that is an annual bill of $1,000 on average – not “thousands of dollars”.
Remuera households could be paying $6500 each and those on the North Shore $1300-$4000 a year. Financier Mark Hotchin of Hanover could be paying almost $100,000 a year for his three-section block in Paritai Drive, Orakei, and Prime Minister John Key would be up for much the same on his slice of St Stephens Ave in Parnell.
Umm, The Herald itself in 2008 said that the St Stephens Ave house was valued at $6.8 million. Now not all of that will be land, but even if it is that would be $34,000 a year in land tax – not the $100,000 the Herald claims.
Tags: land tax, NZ Herald
January 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I don’t want a land tax until we know where we are ultimately going on this issue.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
We already pay a “land tax” It’s called rates. Is this proposed neo-cullenesque envy tax meant to do some good, or simply to line the govt coffers when no profit has been taken? Don’t think the horses will like this one, David.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
The cheapest sections in Auckland go for $250,000. 0.5% is $1200 dollars . Easily that would be the minimum.
So the 000′s per house would achieved easily. More likely the average would be $2000+
see trademe for the cheapest section in Auckland . Mangere 438m2 flat section $250,000
So you rely on the $443million number which has no basis . And then say it doesnt add up .
You are a smart guy but you havent checked your sources in the Herald . Big stuff up Farrar
[DPF: You really are a moron. I am pointing out the Herald contradicts itself. Did you even read what I said - I am criticising the Herald. Also the article is about what every household will pay and in case you had not noticed many households often share a section. Ever heard of apartments or sub-divisions?]
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I can’t wait till next election when we can elect a National Government that will repeal these Labour socialist tax rorts inflicted on Kiwis
Oh…. wait….
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Countess and Herald obviously use the same abacus as Winston Peters auditors.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I oppose a land tax. As proposed it’s just an increase in rates which will adversly affect those on fixed incomes,pensioners ,retired …..
A CGT on the sale of a second property is a tax on money made when it’s earned. What’s hard about that, everywhere else does it!!!!!!
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Countess, however you dice it, their maths is screwy. But don’t let that stop you from taking a cheap shot at DPF.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Well, National were put into power by the pensioners & hard working Mums & Dads. Thanks very much National!
The housing market is sorting itself out nicely without introducing greedy ineffectual socialist taxes. Even Cullen didn’t come up with such a sleazy tout for more tax.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Checking the valuations of the properties on line and using the photos to show the correct house
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/AucklandRegionViewer/#
Hotchkiss Property at 56-58 Paritai Dr is land value $13.5 million. land tax is $67,000 or so a year
For Key at xx St Stephens Ave the capital value is $7.2 mill, and the land is $3.5 million. So the tax would be $17,000 or so per year
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
OK, on top of your $2000 rates bill (say), you pay an extra $1000 for land tax.
Now look at those land prices in the Herald.. straight away you can see that greedy and rapacious local authorities have ratcheted up land prices through the RMA by way of scarcity. Now add a greedy and rapacious Govt to the land cost bill and watch the land price double again, in double quick time!
Once again too many are missing the entire point that our Govt is too big, too costly and needs to be trimmed by 40%, then we don’t need additional taxes and income tax reductions can proceed without any concerns about remaining (core) Govt services.
JC
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
DPF: Umm, if 443,000 homes will pay $443 million in a 0.5% land tax, then that is an annual bill of $1,000 on average – not “thousands of dollars”.
The Herald say says they face bills “runnning into the thousands” not averaging. They are clearly talking about the upper levels, confirmed by the examples they give of those who will face such bills.
[DPF: If they had said "some" Aucklanders that would make it better. But their opening statement is very misleading]
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
But they also pointed out that Billy boys mob in southland would pay $30.00
Now that seems like a fair way to collect tax, might even cause Aucklanders to move to Southland or God forbid into Invergiggle. Now that seems like justice. All the westies move to Invagiggle and rejoin Tim for Mayor. Call Paula quick they will need to expand the Social Dept. down there.
Might ebven create competition for Mayor, rumour has it the current westie mayor is out of a job come election time.
Fuck these academics have shit brains.
Reserve Bank chairman Arthur Grimes, an economist, has been advocating a tax on all land for some years. He suggested at a tax conference last month that a threshold could be set where land worth less than $50,000 a hectare was exempt – which would include most farm land.
But it would make little difference in the suburbs, where land values per hectare typically run into millions.
No wonder our country is stuffed. No tax on farmers and Forrester nor Maori in the country but stick it to the Labour voters in town.
And Bollard is another to think this is oK.
Gees, DPF, apart from the heralds obviously bad maths how could you support such a discriminatory tax?
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Isn’t it concerning that the quality of arugbly NZ’s premier News Paper is so very low in quality, that the journalism is so poor that simple maths is lacking?
As for land tax, I support it providing my overall tax payment doesn’t increase compared to doing nothing. However I still believe national need to cut some significant government spending. The below article (I know its in the herald but its not by a herald journalist) highlights how damaged NZ’s tax system is. It also illustrates how unequal and unequitable it is, how with all the middle-class benefits we have, many people have effective marginal tax rates of over 53%.
NZ needs to cut government spending urgently, National has the numbers to do this. This national government is proving to be labour in drag.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10622873
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
So Charlie Brown fairness is $30 in Southland and $3000 in Auckland is it? Apparently the wise academics think so.
We all use Govt. services so we (like with rates) should all pay equally for what we use.
More user pays and a lot less tax would be the right thing to do.
Talking about Invercargill, Bob Harvey would still have one hurdle to conquer to be elligible to stand for Mayor there.
Tim has a qualification that Harvey has either yet to admit to or yet to fulfill.
Seems to be Mayor of a small town one needs to know the constituents quite intimately.
http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://static.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/477/659477.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/659476&usg=__JzVufmQ6H9b6bMjxbJDTBV7CIWM=&h=360&w=300&sz=44&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=HHQHDTZ1eWhVZM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsue%2Bkedgeley%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23420&page=19
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Superficial, puerile, ignorant. The Herald AND most of the comments. These are the same epople who day after day after day seriously brought you the po faced predictions of destruction and mayhem guaranteed to arise from Global Warming. Not a question asked. Just reprinted the crap put up by the Independent and the Guardian.
Why don’t you all wait to see what recommendations are picked up in the budget before you start howling at the moon?
BTW David, what’s happened to your little karma thingies?
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Sounds like the National Party. All appeasement, compromise and no principle. Still that’s what Adolf supports.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
My research on the price of sections shows that the lowest price of bare land is $250,000 which is the minimum.( This about right anecdotally as well).
The check of Trademe confirms this. If you dont agree prove with an urban area section for sale for much less than this
And that is Mangere so is amoung the cheapest areas. The section size given here is about 440m2. Which is also about the minimum, Auckland city I think allows 350m2 minimum size. But their prices are higher up to $350,000 per section for the land between 350-400m2.
So DPF you are spouting nonsense about ‘smaller sections’ . These are the smaller sections. 350-450m2. This is FACT
This research PROVES the minimum land tax bill is ‘in the thousands’ as the herald says. ( but they got there by the wrong starting point).
Apartments ? Doent really count as the numbers are so small in comparison the total homes (430,000 +) Most likely less than 20,000 in total ie 5%
So all the others are wrong , the Herald is right that the average bill approaches the$ 000′s. ( but not with their figures)
Wake up . John Keys land tax WILL cost the average homeowner in Auckland $000s. With a significant number closer to $2000 pa
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Not necessarily and almost certainly not for some, depends on the rest of the tax package, if they have a land tax it will be balanced by other taxes.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
It is still wrong. The problem with the tax system is that it taxes production (read income and company tax) more than consumption (GST). If that were reversed we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Vote:I still ask, what about pensioners and those on a low income? Nobody will be happy when they have to have their pensions/tax concessions increased by over $1000 per year so that they are no worse off.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Will the tax apply for commercial enterprises? What about SOEs, private schools, churches, home offices etc.
Vote:. I like the idea as it encourages investment in the tradable economy, though I do hope they don’t cave in to special interest groups who will be whining for exemptions.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
I wonder what people here would say to a tax system that had no income tax, but the equivalent amount taken as a land tax. With no income tax, most IRD bureaucrats would be gone; accountants and lawyers would be out of a job. The beauty of rates, from a bureaucrats perspective, is it is so easy to administer. If land appreciated, as it does, the land tax would NOT go up, forcing governments to reduce spending.
Just thinking. It’s practically what Gareth Morgan advocated isn’t it?
But I still maintain, although we do have a tax problem in this country, most of all we have a spending problem. We urgently need to control government spending and need ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill passed.
Vote:January 31st, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“So Charlie Brown fairness is $30 in Southland and $3000 in Auckland is it? Apparently the wise academics think so.”
I wouldn’t trust the heralds maths. But what I do believe that its fairer than having effective marginal tax rates well above 50%… some going as high as 80%. The current tax system is shit, with the government tax take way too high, the idea of a land tax is shit, but it is still less shittier than what we have now.
Vote: