Kerre Woodham: Times have changed, does our tax system need to as well?

Yesterday we were talking about Chlöe Swarbrick's grand plans for economic reform, and today brings another interesting suggestion for economic reform, this time from Sir Roger Douglas and Professor Robert MacCulloch. I wonder if now is the time to be seriously looking at reforming our taxation system. Over the years, we've experimented with, we’ve dabbled in various taxes on wealth: estate duties, gift duties, stamp duties on property sales, the sort of things that other countries have and have adapted, but most were eventually abolished.  

The absence of a general wealth tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax has been a recurring topic of debate. No New Zealand government has been able to introduce a wealth tax and maintain it, but it's a staple of the Green Party's proposed Green Budget. Chlöe Swarbrick says we've done really big things in the past and there is no reason why we shouldn't again. She says in the 1930s and 40s, after world wars and the Great Depression, we came together as a country and decided to build a nation which looked at the foundations of public health care, public education, and public housing.  

Now, Sir Roger Douglas, former finance minister and the architect of the most sweeping economic reforms since the establishment of cradle to grave social Security and the one who did away with the high taxes, and Professor Robert MacCulloch, who you will have heard from time to time on the show, have released their plan for an economic reform. They first developed the plan for economic reform in 2016 but have updated it for 2025. They point out that by 2060, 26% of New Zealanders will be over 65, up from 16% in 2021. Professor MacCulloch and Sir Roger said that income tax on earnings up to $60,000 a year should be redirected into individual savings accounts to fund each person's health care, pension, and risk cover, and that would replace much of the current public system with private provision. This needs to be done, they say, because Treasury and Inland Revenue have both raised questions in the past year about how the government will be able to collect enough tax to fund the increasing cost of NZ Super and healthcare, the Superfund notwithstanding. People who didn't have enough in their individual accounts could still be helped by the public system, which would be funded on taxes collected on income over $60,000 a year.  

So under $60,000, you pay tax of a sort, but it's for you and it goes into a savings account to fund what you'll need in the future. So this would mean larger numbers of middle and higher income people paying for themselves while the system helped lower income people. MacCulloch said that would mean government costs were reduced, the quality of outcomes would be increased, and the plight of low-income earners would be improved. He says too many low-income people have no savings in KiwiSaver because they're going from paycheck to paycheck, this model would help to address that. And if you look at his model, it shows that an individual could save around $21,000 annually. You'd put $9,450 into a health account, $7,350 for superannuation, and $4,200 for risk cover. And they'd drop the corporate tax rate to help fund employer contributions. 

Robert MacCulloch argues that savings, not taxation reform, offers the ability to gain efficiencies in healthcare. A drop in corporate taxes would help fund employer contributions and rather than the government dictating where to go, people could choose their preferred public or private supplier.  

So bold suggestions. Douglas and MacCulloch’s more bold than Swarbrick. But does Chlöe Swarbrick have a point that we can initiate institutional reform if we want to? It's been done before. It's bold and it's visionary and it's scary. The bigger question though, is: should we? Is the tax system that we have right now working? Chlöe Swarbrick, Sir Roger, and Professor MacCulloch argue it's not. Unlikely bedfellows, but bedfellows they are in terms of saying what we have right now is not fit for purpose and certainly will not be fit for purpose at all in the future. Do we need to make institutional change around our tax system and the way we pay for health care, the way we pay for superannuation as we get older? The cradle to grave Social Security plan, devised in the 1930s is still pretty much around in the year 2025, nearly 100 years later. Times have changed, does our tax system need to change with it?   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.