This is edition 2025/197 of the Ten@10 newsletter.
Hi all,
This is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.
Enjoy!
1. Labour Announces a New Tax
Christine de Lee
- 🏠 Labour’s new proposal: Labour has announced a “Capital Gains Tax” (CGT) to start in 2027, but it only applies to profits from investment and commercial properties — the family home, farms, businesses, shares, and Kiwisaver are all exempt.
- 💸 Misleading terminology: The tax is essentially a Property Tax, not a true CGT, since most capital gains (like on shares or funds) remain untaxed.
- 🧾 Existing system: New Zealand already has a property-focused tax — the Bright Line Test — which taxes quick property sales. Labour’s new plan removes time limits entirely.
- 🎯 Targeting landlords: The proposal disproportionately affects landlords, reinforcing the left’s perceived hostility toward them, and risks shrinking the rental market further.
- 🩺 Unrealistic promises: Labour’s pledge to fund three free doctor’s visits per person from CGT revenue is unfounded — the tax won’t yield much income for years, as shown by Australia’s 15-year revenue delay.
- 🕰️ Not retrospective: Existing capital gains before the CGT’s introduction will remain untaxed; only gains made after implementation will count.
- 📉 Economic mismatch: Labour’s flat 28% CGT rate contrasts sharply with the U.S. tiered rates of 0%, 15%, and 20%, which encourage long-term investment and fairness.
- 🏦 Administrative chaos: “Free” doctor visits will increase bureaucracy and costs for medical practices already strained by reimbursement paperwork.
- 😤 Political envy: The author argues that the tax is driven by envy and populism rather than sound tax policy, punishing a misunderstood group of ordinary landlords.
- ⚖️ Call for fairness: A proper CGT should apply broadly, include inflation adjustments, and use a lower, consistent rate to be equitable and effective.
- 👩💼 Expert opinion: The author, a Chartered Accountant, insists that tax policy should be designed by tax professionals — not politicians seeking votes.
