Important to mention tax credits when discussing the working poor? @JordNZ

image

Data extracted on 08 Apr 2017 01:20 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat.

Advertisements

Which matters more to the incentive effects of income tax? @JordNZ

image

Data extracted on 08 Apr 2017 01:20 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat.

So New Zealanders do not pay much income tax @TaxpayersUnion

image

Data extracted on 08 Apr 2017 01:20 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat

How wasteful is the Oz company tax? @TheAusInstitute @GrattanInst

How wasteful is the Oz company tax? @TheAusInstitute @GrattanInst

Source: The incidence of company tax in Australia, Xavier Rimmer, Jazmine Smith and Sebastian Wende, Australian Treasury working paper.

Rate this:

Morgan’s capital tax forgot 30% retirees move every 5 years @TaxpayersUnion

image

With 30% of retirees changing address every 5 years, they will have to downsize into hovels because they have to pay IRD the great big new tax on their capital championed by Morgan and his Opportunities Party well before they die.

retirees at same residence 5 years ago

Morgan’s 1.8% tax on equity capital is not an inheritance tax for the majority of retirees. It is a nest egg tax as they downsize after the kids fly the nest, grandchildren appear or they move to a more convenient place as they become frail.

Because they will have to pay back taxes of tens of thousands of dollars to IRD every time they sell their house, retirees either will not be able to move closer to family because of grand-children or health issues or they will have difficulty moving into a retirement home of their choice.

This is the first in a series of blogs showing how the Opportunities Party is too clever by half in its manifesto development. By insisting on having different policies to everybody else by a good country mile, it ends up having to take up the policies others rejected because they do not work.

In the case at hand, they put an inheritance tax on ordinary New Zealanders at the same rate as the rich including the founder of the Opportunities Party. This tax will be the only capital tax anywhere that is not progressive.

Over 70% of the retired own their own house mortgage free. The majority of that equity will now go to IRD plus interest by the time both members of the couple die given the average capital tax will be about $10,000 per year in Wellington and twice that in Auckland. They face up to 20 to 25 years of deferred capital taxation that will take half the value of their house easily. It will be hardest if they must cash-out their house to go into retirement home.

The purpose of buying a house is to have a nest egg for retirement. You may draw down that capital because of health issues or pass it on to children if you are luckier than that.

Morgan wants to radically change the way in which retirees go into the evening of their days. People who just managed to save for a house will have nothing to pass on to their children. No more bank of mum and dad either.

Sharp ratios of @NZSuperFund since inception @TaxpayerUnion

The Sharp ratio describes how much excess return you are receiving for the extra volatility that you endure for holding a riskier asset. If manager A generates a return of 15% while manager B generates a return of 12%, it would appear that manager A is a better performer. But if manager A took much larger risks than manager B, manager B may be a better risk-adjusted return.

The Sharpe Ratio such as those below of the NZ Superannuation Fund can be used to compare two funds on how much risk a fund had to bear to earn excess return over the risk-free rate.
image

Source:New Zealand Superannuation Fund response to Official Information Act request.

98% top US economists disagree @NZSuperFund strategy @VernonSmall @JordNZ

image

There is always one. Liran Einav had to be the only economist out of 100 or so top American and European economists who disagreed with the proposition that:

In general, absent any inside information, an equity investor can expect to do better by choosing a well-diversified, low-cost index fund than by picking a few stocks.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s policy of active investing has one supporter out of 100 surveyed by the Initiative for Global Markets. I suppose it is better than none.

The chief executive of the fund quibbles by claiming there is a 3rd way between active and passive investing but there is not as William Sharp explained in his timeless 1991 article, The Arithmetic of Active Management:

    • A passive investor always holds every security from the market, with each represented in the same manner as in the market. Thus if security X represents 3 per cent of the value of the securities in the market, a passive investor’s portfolio will have 3 per cent of its value invested in X. Equivalently, a passive manager will hold the same percentage of the total outstanding amount of each security in the market2.
    • An active investor is one who is not passive. His or her portfolio will differ from that of the passive managers at some or all times. Because active managers usually act on perceptions of mispricing, and because such misperceptions change relatively frequently, such managers tend to trade fairly frequently — hence the term “active.”

An active fund is a fund that is not a passive fund. If you do not own a balanced portfolio of every security in the market, you are an active investor.

The majority of the New Zealand Superannuation fund is passively invested but some of it is not. It is invested in dogs like KiwiBank, in Z service stations and even in some bad Portuguese loans.

It’s "threadbare" to question @NZSuperFund’s investment strategy @TaxpayersUnion

It’s "threadbare" to question @NZSuperFund’s investment strategy @TaxpayersUnion

Letter to @DomPost on @NZSuperfund performance @Taxpayersunion https://t.co/MgUwqwn29I pic.twitter.com/wxo6F1zZn5 — Jim Rose (@JimRose69872629) March 18, 2017 There really is an issue on which economists are unanimous, a big issue to boot. Source: Diversified Investing | IGM Forum. Actively-managed mutual funds … Continue reading

Rate this:

How much is Working for Families per year?

The last Labour Government so hated tax cuts that it would not call its family tax credit a family tax credit. For those on the minimum wage, it could increase your income by 1/3rd. Oddly enough, because of abatement rates of 22.5% after $36,000, two minimum wage earners do not get much at all.

working for families