Cactus Kate’s 10 tax policies for Labour

January 7th, 2011 at 4:53 pm by David Farrar

have only two policies – remove GST off fresh fruit and vegetables, and reintroduce a rich prick .

To help them with their policy development, Cactus Kate has proposed ten tax policies for them:

  1. Reduce GST to 10%
  2. Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries
  3. Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky
  4. Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.
  5. Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.
  6. Reintroduce gift duty
  7. Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.
  8. A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.
  9. Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand
  10. Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.

I’m worried that they may adopt a few of them.

Tags: , ,

74 Responses to “Cactus Kate’s 10 tax policies for Labour”

  1. db.. (87 comments) says:

    CK, Rip tear and bust just like an Actoid. All noise for now and gone by 20 something of November 2011.

    Concentrate on what you are obviously very good at and don’t display the fragmented nature of your world view.

    db..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Db you do realize I have gone to the effort of proposing policy for a political party that actually doesn’t have much in the way of policy? They are not ACT policies. ACT has plenty of policies of their own.

    Fragmented nature of your world view? Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election. You know, as they’re so far behind in the polls and all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Has Cactus O D on the Christmas trifle. Bloody hell the socialists are perfectly capable of fucking us all over without her help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Yes if we don’t debate their potential tax policies they wont think of these measures all by themselves….right…next….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. smttc (767 comments) says:

    You do not need a marshall clause to avoid liability for gift duty on shortfall interest if a loan is also repayable on demand anyway. Marshall clauses and clauses making loans repayable on demand are alternative strategies for avoiding gift duty liability. So I do not understand the rationale for this policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election.

    Yeah right! If they went ahead with 5,6,7,8 & 10 they would be completely un-electable!

    Oh wait ……. carry on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.

    And thus make investment in productive enterprise – from venture capital for start-ups to shares in public companies – more attractive as an investment? Sounds bloody good to me. There are business owners all over NZ with untapped potential who are forced either to take on debt (and contribute to the margins of Australian banks) or raise the equity they need by (ironically) mortgaging their home, if they haven’t already done so to start their business, simply because most of the available “investment” money is sucked into property.

    The rest of the ideas… not so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    You laugh Bevan but I do remind you that Kiwiblog comments contributors are sadly not necessarily a wide ranging selection of the voting public. I think some of those proposals you listed are vote winners given the demographics of the NZ electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    You do realize Kate that right at this moment there is some wet brain in the labour caucus running around shouting “Eureka” we are in two thousand and elevin.(sorry)

    Yep, there’ll be those that think they are all great moves, just don’t put up the price of smokes

    db….you would be the humourless goose that should have had his neck rung on Xmas eve then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. m@tt (636 comments) says:

    “Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election.”
    No.
    What you did was propose a pile of shite, that everyone with a brain cell know’s is shite, in the hope that the collective of blithering idiots that infest the various blogosphere echo chambers will take them for actual or proposed or even remotely possible labour policy and start frothing at the mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    You laugh Bevan but I do remind you that Kiwiblog comments contributors are sadly not necessarily a wide ranging selection of the voting public. I think some of those proposals you listed are vote winners given the demographics of the NZ electorate.

    If that is the case, them I’m glad I left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    I’d be off to Australia if these things happened. As would many of the 20% who pay 80% of the tax in New Zealand.

    Cactus Kate obviously despises the working class of NZ , they’d suffer the most.

    Unintended consequences are a symptom of such policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Ok M@tt how are Labour going to pay for their spending promises that come out this year? Come on….ideas? Because to capture the ground that National now holds they actually have to be different to National this time.

    You say they aren’t Labour policy but what is? Labour has actually only one confirmed tax policy thus far to take GST off fruit and veggies. And that will actually decrease revenue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Wreck see proposal one – exit tax of 45% of your wealth as a deemed disposal on date you became non resident then a 15% reentry tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    It is imperative for any good democracy to have a good opposition. Labour are clearly all over the place so it is incumbent on all lovers of democracy to lend a hand where it is needed.

    Cactus Kate has helped out because clearly Silent T is bereft of his own ideas, and Phil Goff only talks in sound bites coupled with his funny walk….that isn’t going to get them across the line so they need help to at least make it a contest.

    I’ve done my bit by simplifying the message down to “Are you any better off after 3 years of National”…it’s simple, so their voteers can grasp it and simple for the middle people to grasp as well…it doesn’t require complex policy and invites a binary response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Labour has rubbished every single one of National’s policies saying that they don’t go far enough or don’t spend enough…viz a viz they want to spend a whole heap of hooter more on bribing the electorate.

    Cactus Kate has shown Labour how to get that loot and the number 1 option is hitting the Eric Watson tax exiles….you know the guy who is mates with public enemy number 1, Mark Hotchin, a man so despised even Clayton Weatherstone hates him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    OK,this is how Labour win and previously managed to hold power for 9 long years:

    1. Voter, nothing is ever your fault ever.
    2. You deserve to be paid for doing fuck all, in fact its better you stay at home and we will tell you how to run your life.
    3. Alcohol and cigarette duty will never be raised, we will just put that tax on businesses.
    4. We will appear to look like we are doing amazing things in the house, but really all we will do is pass some socail engineering bullshit, gay marriage for green whales
    5 We promise to do nothing in regards to stimulating the economy, we will leave it to the private sector and then just tax the be jeezus out of them.
    6 It some of you insist on working for your income we will create a lot more government departments for you to fill in your time sheets.
    7 We will sort out how we pay for most of this after we have bought the election, but basically we willl tax the rich pricks

    Easy, Phil, its there in a nut shell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    P S

    the only way the prime Minister can loose the election this year is to make Clark Governor General

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Or have the Maori Party and Peter Dunne return to Labour, or not have with ACT and Peter Dunne a clear majority, or not achieve a clear majority themselves and so a Labour/Greens/Maori coalition…..and then theres Winston….

    I think who the GG ends up being is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.

    The current top tax rate is not 38 cents. In October it dropped to 33 cents for $75001 and over, inclusive of ACC it is 35.04 cents. Labour have talked about putting it back up to 39 cents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    From an asset protection perspective practitioners are licking their lips over the repeal of gift duty.

    Less fees in the way of filing gift statements, but greatly enhances asset protection that someone can obtain. And it doesn’t even look like any changes are going to be made to compensate, like more protection for creditors or the integrity of rest home subsidies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Tauhei Notts (1,687 comments) says:

    I think Cactus Kate is laughing her tits off about this set of measures.
    It is a huge piss take and too many of you were sucked in by it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    It is a huge piss take and too many of you were sucked in by it.

    No! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.

    Thankfully this is very easy to get around if the commies were ever foolish enough to try and instigate it.

    Before emigrating, buy Oz shares through a NZ broking house, then sell them through an Oz (or other, but not NZ) broking house whilst resident of another country, that is neither Oz or NZ. That way you avoid the commie tax and avoid the Oz capital gains tax, by being resident of neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Sorry Pete that was a typo, should be 33, I shall go back and correct.

    Mattyroo, yeah erg no. At the date of becoming non resident you would have been deemed to have sold the shares at the current valuation, NZ having worldwide reach on source income and all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    Easy for an expat to say.

    How many of these proposals would affect her or does she live under right now? Zeeeerooo! Be like me saying I’m sick of these child abusers, off with their heads. Taggers get the stocks with humiliation, rotten food and the whip. Blah Blah Blah

    If Labour came out with a policy set similar to this then I would liquidate my property investments. If they then looked like they had a shit show of winning then most of it would be popped over to Aus, or Guernsey or the Channel Is, or I’d tap my cousin in Switzerland on the shoulder and have him help me set up an account there and send the majority off overseas before the laws were passed.

    Result? Assuming several thousands of others did the same, then massive loss of revenue. Well that worked then didn’t it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Only if you declare it Cactus, that’s the beauty about some of the online trading platforms…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    I agree with roupee. Piss-taking aside, most of these “policies” would send NZ back to the bottom of the OECD and even further: Third World here we come!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Mattyroo, such sophistication. Don’t declare anything you wont pay any tax…but eventually you will get caught by being a numb nuts so not advisable.

    Rouppe you really are quite simple aren’t you. Number 1 would actually affect me. A few of the others would affect me as well but I’m not going to put my entire financial affairs on the net am I? All your avoidance measures you have mentioned there you can do right now. But it would be illegal and stupid with it. If you send liquidated funds offshore then you still have to declare them under NZs tax on worldwide income. Your cousin in Switzerland wouldn’t be much bloody use either particularly if s/he ran off with all your coin.

    Fact of matter is that NZers aren’t particularly mobile. Most NZers do return from OE, I am in a minority. When they have kids it is even harder to pack up and move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Who would ever take economic advice from a self-confessed boozing slut living in HK and paying close to zero tax?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    No call for that sort of abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Swiftman I have my own post on Kiwiblog and you’ve still got a very small penis that a woman sluttier than the sluttiest woman in the world won’t blow. So who is the winner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    I’ve had better arguments with whores in Bangkok.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    I’m with Rex, although 20% is too low to set interest deductibility – maybe 60%. High leverage to buy property is what caused a lot of our problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Whores who still won’t blow you even for money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    You are right Cactus Slut. But I wasn’t after a ‘blow’. And I won the intellectual argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Was that before or after they imposed a search fee surcharge?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    I’d take Cactus’ advice…invariably it is right…one reason she makes a whole heap of hooter from people with even more hooter.

    As for Swiftman…you pay whores to fuck off afterwards not for arguing…if they are arguing it must be over the tip you gave them that was he size of your cock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    I was there to study Buddhism. I subsequently traveled to India to go on the Buddhist pilgrimage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_pilgrimage

    Please have some respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Only on Kiwiblog can you meet online men who admit to rooting prostitutes (probably while still in a relationship) and then call a woman the slut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Worse he argued with the same prostitutes and all while on a Buddhist pilgrimage…as my 14yo old son would say…EPIC FAIL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Totally unfair.
    You people are nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    You won an intellectual argument with a Bangkok whore?

    Wow, a right f*cking Einstein you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. infused (583 comments) says:

    This is funny as. Keep posting Swiftman!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    ‘You won an intellectual argument with a Bangkok whore?

    Wow, a right f*cking Einstein you are.’

    No wanker-boy. I was at Donmuang Airport on my way to Calcutta Airport.

    Geez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Hang on you’re the one saying you had better arguments, and won them, with Bangkok whores? Now you are recanting?

    Get your story straight.

    Either way it is looking pretty bad for you where I am looking at it from….tiny cock, can’t get a hooker to blow you, but won an intellectual argument with them in Bangkok…way to go lil fella…keep that up and you might make the Elmwood Junior Mass debating team.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    From Bangkok to Calcutta by Singapore Airlines.
    From Calcutta to Patna by train.
    From Patna to Gaya by train.
    By Richshaw from Gaya to Bodh Gaya – Site of the Enlightenment of the historical Buddha circa 480 BC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Whaleoil = fat ugly bully boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    I recommend Wankoil that you read the Dhammapada, which is the major text of the Hinayana Buddhists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Now I’m off to bed.

    Fuck you.

    good night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Swiftman, if you can reconcile your spiritual pilgrimage with the sort of filth you post here, then good luck to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Uhmm Slowman….you are the one who mentioned hookers in Thailand and sluts in Hong kong, no one else…we just followed your lead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I am I mistaken???…………….. or has this thread deteriorated somewhat

    usually it takes the muslims lynchers or the climate change defenders to utterly munt it this badly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. peterwn (3,335 comments) says:

    Re 2 – I am surprised CK seems to be unaware that trusts already do register with IRD, otherwise trustees would be personally liable as a ‘partnership’. They do annual tax returns (IR6) and disclose to IRD trust income distributions made to beneficiaries. Presumably CK has in mind greater disclosure as a precursor for her other items.

    Re 4 – a $500,000 asset limit for national super would hit a wide range of people including core Labour supporters because their houses would often be worth more than that. The newspapers would be full of gut-wrenching stories of pensioners forced to sell their homes and rent since they are often asset rich (their mortgage free homes) and income poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Peterwn…the bills must be paid somehow…Labour has promised and will promise to spend massively…they already think National are too tight, so as I said the bills must be paid.

    Helpfully Cactus has shown Labour some interesting ways to get the cash.

    As for the “poor” pensioners…i would extend her policy further and say that at 65 people should be made to cash up, irrespective of the current economic conditions and then live off their cash until its all gone and then they can claim super….would solve the cash poor/asset rich trap.

    Oh and diddums to the greedy old people…they are just beneficiaries with a fancy name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Jesus Whale, become a government control freak over night………………should be made etc… thats shit

    Not withstanding any pensioner with an asset will have paid tax their entire natural and lot more of them would have more cash if they hadn’t had the tax fucked out of them by successive labour governments having to supply money to all sorts of beneficaries that are of a working age.

    Thinking like that would do wonders for the economy, everyone that turns 65 has to put their home on the market and sell their shares, fucking genius.. that won’t depress any markets . Why the fuck would you save and own anything?

    Much easier to take the “Logans Run” solution and after you top the old, the infirm, the medically dysfunctional, the state just seize the assets ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    Cactus, so quick to reach for the nasty pill…

    Yes I can liquidate now. However at the moment I quite like living here and intend to continue to do so. However I have no intention of funding a government that will rip ever-increasing amounts of my income and assets to fund a socialist programme that at the same time I am prevented from accessing.

    If I send most or all the money offshore, I would be likely to leave shortly afterwards. It would be sent before the avaricious penalties for voting with my feet that you propose (advocate?) come into force.
    I would no longer be NZ tax resident, so the IRD’s world-wide reach would not apply.
    Where-ever I chose to move to, I would arrive with little declared assets, so would start with a clean slate.

    Don’t see much problem with that strategy. There are plenty of examples that seem to contradict your assertions. Such as Hotchin whose NZ assets are frozen, is overseas pleading poverty, but still seems to have enough for a beach-side resort lifestyle. Sam Morgan has publicly said he pays no tax.

    Evidence suggests there are ways…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Clint Heine (1,495 comments) says:

    Good grief, for something that was obvious satire – but yet policies that had more “meat” on them than what the current opposition have, some people really do have no sense of humour whatsoever.

    Swiftman surely jests; no Bangkok street walker would be caught dead going all the way to the old international terminal out at Don Muang, it would cost far too many baht unless they were generously compensated by a obliging benefactor. I suspect this was a long time ago too, going by the outdated Asian terminology. Given your visit to Thailand was only to the airport, I suspect your grip of the Thai language can’t be that good – meaning not only would you have lost any imaginary arguments you had in Bangkok, you also are losing this one in English too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    Peterwn – where??

    The IR462 settlor disclosure only applies when there’s no trustee NZ resident, a NZ resident trustee becomes non-resident or when the settlement is made for another person. That is, it doesn’t catch all. That form catches very few of trusts I was referring to.

    The IR607 only applies to foreign trusts and in any case is a very minimal disclosure form. Ditto the IR307.

    And beneficiaries in any instance don’t return anything until they’ve received a distribution.

    The Law Commission currently has proposals for stricter regulation of trusts. One proposal is for a central register, which means there isn’t one presently. My proposal expands on this to what this register should contain. There is currently not enough data on a register at the IRD to means test in the way I’ve described effective to catch those avoiding the system.

    Pensioners sell their homes frequently when they move to rest homes. Asset rich/cash poor hello? The best argument for liquidating assets. They can’t take assets with them can they? Why does the taxpayer have to give them all sorts of relief when they are sitting on a large asset such as a home too big for them?

    What the current system says is you can sit on a million dollar home and you won’t be means tested even though its more money at age 65 than most 65 year olds will spend in the rest of their life…an average lifespan in NZ is only around 12 more years to 77. I see nothing wrong with expecting them to spend their own money before turning to welfare, which is what super really is considering it hasn’t been paid for in full by its current recipients.

    Rouppe – you aren’t understanding much are you?

    If for example let’s assume you act legally and declare everything you have to and you cashed up everything (property sales with 20% duty attached) and sent the cash off to offshore bank accounts, well done, to the moment you are about to leave NZ or are judge to be non-resident from the IRD you would need to return (ie declare) in your last tax return the cash in overseas bank accounts (including gains/losses on foreign exchange in those accounts) and that would be deemed disposed of at that date you leave with 45% rate attached. You are still judged on worldwide source for assets and income up to and including that last return.

    If you “gave” the cash to someone else before you left NZ to keep for you when you went overseas would fall under the gift duty rules. Smash, there’s around 25% duty.

    If you “loaned” it to yourself or others for zero or low interest you would fall under the Marshall clause repeal. In any instance that final return has to declare it as an arrangement.

    Here’s a useful release http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/media-centre/media-releases/2010/media-release-2010-07-01.html.

    Hasten to add many New Zealanders should read it. Those foreign bank accounts are all declarable. The existence of them and the income gained from them.

    Right…any more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. MrTips (103 comments) says:

    Actually, I’m surprised about Cactus Kates version in No 2 as well.

    The IRD requires new trusts to register and get a number. If you gift more than $12,000 in any FY then you have to fill out an IR196 (this is for family trusts) and send it to the IRD – this contains all the info they need.

    I seem to remember this requirement for the info came in around 2005-2006 and it has certainly applied to all trusts I have set up or maintained since then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    Cactus….

    If I exited the country while the regime you propose were in force, then of course I would be hit with the penalties.

    It’s a shame I’m typing otherwise I’d speak slower for you…

    Your proposals are currently only that – proposals. If Labour declared those proposals as its economic manifesto, then I would liquidate to enable rapid movement of my economic base. Remember, your 20% duty doesn’t apply yet. It’s just a proposal.

    Then if it’s looking like Labour would win, I would ship it offshore. No punitive costs for that yet, remember. They are just proposals….

    If I stayed in NZ, then yes IRD has worldwide reach. Your link is targeting NZ tax residents. But if Labour wins, then off I go. No 45% exit tax because there’s no way they could pass legislation 12 hours from the election. No longer a NZ tax resident so IRD can go whistle.

    I know its frustrating to only be getting 1 and 2 comments on your blog. Maybe it’s because you insist on being haughty, snarky and bitchy Cactus. That’s certainly why I stopped reading you, along with your “look at me, I’m having another glass of Verve dahling” attitude.

    Not everyone’s impressed with the amount of money you make. Think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    I reckon is a case of too many bottles of La Grande Dame imbibed in one session (time to change to Comptes de Champagne) . Sober up, Cactus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. MosesNZ (37 comments) says:

    So taking this little list point by point:

    *Reduce GST to 10%

    Increases consumption, potentially at the expense of savings. Would obviously require offsetting revenue increase.

    *Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries

    Agree.

    *Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky

    I would question the need to contribute to the invisible pie in the first place.

    *Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.

    Perhaps (means-testing, how delightfully un-Labour!), but the threshold should be higher and the family home would have to be excluded.

    *Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.

    Question the impact on the broader economy of this change, which seems more moralistic than well thought out.

    *Reintroduce gift duty

    A lot of work for almost no return. Again for show.

    *Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.

    Even property not purchased for investment purposes? If so, an awful idea.

    *A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.

    NZ pays peanut wages (Auckland, on NZ wages, being one of the most expensive cities in the world) and if you want those currently overseas to stay there, do this.

    *Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand

    Hardly a tentpoll policy for election year.

    *Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.

    How delightfully Zimbabwean. Aside from being a concerted attack on individual liberty, a few other consequences – dual citizens, especially Australians, would renounce their NZ citizenship, avoidance would be rampant, and the 15% tax on repatriation would simply discourage many of our best from coming home. What a brilliant idea!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. badmac (136 comments) says:

    Just to be serious for one moment.
    Labour strategy team just cut and paste from here.

    1/ reinstate top tier – RP tax 40% applies from $100k (MP’s salaries and perks to become tax free, applied retrospectively back to 1990).
    2/ trusts abolished and all assets nationalized. New office of trust settlements (OTS) established for those disenfranchised to make claim for compensation. Capped at $1 billion. Finite life of 20 years. Led by ex Labour politicians automatic right of entitlement for card carrying labour members.
    3/ entrenchment of Maori seats (that should buy the Maori vote for no real money)
    4/ SOE act change to allow 49% privatization, program of sales announced over next 9 years to “keep NZ” public onside. Shares only to be sold to NZ citizens, investment companies must ensure only NZ ownership. (announce this policy immediately to trump Nationals upcoming one) this will provide all the extra money for the next 9 years to fund perks and overseas trips.
    5/ trucks banned from trips over 100kms, all long distance haulage to be on rail, new tracks to be built to ensure rail spurs are within 100km’s of everybody) trains will use cycle way corridor as nobody wants to bike when they can use public transport.
    6/ seabed act repealed and all foreshore to 100 inland given to Treaty Settlements for redistribution
    7/ dole increased to average wage, nobody should have to live on less than 50k per year. all musos, artists and drug takers can live on dole no work tests.
    8/ working for families extended into new working for state program. Everybody now pays all wages to state and gets back enough to live (based on the Cullen principles).
    9/ treaty of waitangi to become the new constitution, no need to waste money on consulting, this one has stood the test of time.
    10/ parliament to be moved from Wellington to the old MT Eden. MT eden to be renamed Mount St Helensville (if the pope wont annoint her, we will just have to do it ourselves). Helensville to be renamed as Klarkville to remove confusion.

    There 10 policies for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nigel (493 comments) says:

    Interesting list, I am not keen on 1/3/8 and 10 is to harsh I believe, but the rest are good policies, nz’s obsession with real estate investment over productive investment is frustrating.
    Unfortunately from a getting elected perspective 1/3/8 are winners, but I would not be around to see the result if implemented, I’d leave NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Tauhei Notts (1,687 comments) says:

    I thought this was all a piss take, but judging from the comments here it is for real.
    Cactus, I learn more from your comments than I learn at any number of expensive Continuing Education courses run by the N.Z. Institute of Chartered Accountants. Thank you.
    I have the right hire and fire trustees in an inter vivos trust with assets in excess of $1.2mil. If the trust resettled upon another trust with all present and past Labour Party politicians listed as discretionary beneficiaries this is what would happen. If any of those troughers got any dough from the Trust the trustees would be replaced. It would also follow that as the troughers are all beneficiaries (discretionary!) of a Trust that none of them would be eligible for N.Z. Superannuation.
    Your idea to remove the Marshall clause from contracts freely entered into reminds me of an American politician who remarked that;
    “the government that is big enough to give you everything you want will also be big enough to take away everything you have.”
    Or, to rephase that in a way that Labour Party people will comprehend;
    to remove Marshall clauses freely entered into would be like legislating to make homosexuality compulsory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Tauhei

    You cannot be serious

    BTW # 2 exists and Gift Duty hasnt been abolished yet. Mark Hotchin will be very pissed off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    also BTW #2

    Did Whale and Kate have a bit of an evening on Yahoo webcam last night ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    DPF, I think you need to remind CK that the next election isn’t until November…we are in January. Do I have to point out the obvious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    Whaleoil wrote “Labour has promised and will promise to spend massively”. Tell me again, how much is National currently borrowing each week? Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    Ah Ross still plugging away at that, huh?

    If Labour were still in power, do you think they’d be borrowing less? They’d still have had to:
    1) Bail out SCF. It was their legislation after all
    2) Front up for the Canterbury earthquake
    3) Continue to pay for WFF, interest free student loans, and rail spending since they bought the bloody thing at the wrong time fr the wrong price anyway
    4) Continue to spend more and more on Health since they wouldn’t do a review
    5) Pay into the Cullen Fund
    I could go on.

    Do you really think that Labour would be borrowing less? Unlikely

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Clint Heine (1,495 comments) says:

    Oh FFS, have all the people that can take a joke all left Kiwiblog and replaced with angry humourless old men?

    I guess CK will need to type “satire” in big letters under anything she writes like this again. Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RobbieBlack (146 comments) says:

    How you doin, Kate?

    DPF, have you been at the Cactus juice again, shame on you.

    Holiday retreat my ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote