What is it?
A small annual levy, of around 1-2%, on all wealth above a relatively high threshold, perhaps $2 million or $5 million, so that only the wealthiest few percent of the population are taxed.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
Wealth inequality is significant: the wealthiest 1% of New Zealanders hold 26% of all assets. Inland Revenue research shows New Zealand’s wealthiest people pay very low rates of income tax (partly because much of their income is capital gains), and a wealth tax could help ensure they contribute more.
What are the advantages?
A wealth tax would reduce wealth inequalities more directly than any other tax. It would help address the fact that accumulated wealth typically grows passively at 4-5% a year, widening the gap with non-wealth-owners.
What are the disadvantages?
People who are asset rich but cash poor may struggle to pay the tax (although they can defer it). It also requires an annual valuation of assets, which can be especially difficult for family assets with no obvious value, creating room for evasion.

What is it?
A tax on the income people make from selling assets. If, for instance, someone buys a house for $500,000 and sells it for $600,000 (without having made any improvements to it), their profit is $100,000. Under a capital gains tax, they would, once the sale has gone through, pay tax on that $100,000, at standard income tax rates.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
Selling assets in this way generates income, just like wages and salaries are income, but it is not taxed (except in rare circumstances, for instance under the brightline test). This creates a fundamental unfairness, and deprives the government of revenue it would otherwise enjoy.
What are the advantages?
It taxes people when they have the resources to pay, and it is conceptually simple to explain – effectively, an extension of the current tax system. Every other developed country has a capital gains tax in some form.
What are the disadvantages?
Because the tax applies only on assets bought after the tax comes into effect (or, alternatively, only the increases in an asset’s value registered after a special ‘valuation day’), it takes a long time to generate its full revenue.

What is it?
A small annual tax, perhaps in the region of 0.5% or 1%, on the value of privately owned land. This can be all such land, or certain types of it: urban residential land, for instance (which would exclude commercial and farm land).
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
A land tax can address a perceived overinvestment in land/property, and capture some of the “unearned increment” – the increase in the value of land that an owner enjoys without having done anything to deserve it – which would otherwise remain with the owner.
What are the advantages?
A land tax may create good incentives, if it encourages people to use land more productively and shift investment away from property. It is easy to administer, because land is very hard to hide from the tax authorities.
What are the disadvantages?
It discriminates against people who hold their wealth in a certain form; it taxes the most equally distributed major form of asset, while leaving untaxed the most unequally distributed forms (including many financial investments); and it may be politically difficult to tax the land under people’s homes.

What is it?
A special one-off levy on firms or industries deemed to be generating excess profits. Generally these firms are seen to be profiteering – that is, taking advantage of crises or unusual circumstances to generate more revenue than would be possible in a competitive market.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
Markets are not working as they should and are allowing excess profits for certain firms at the expense of consumers, who can be compensated in some way via a one-off tax.
What are the advantages?
As a one-off, retrospective tax on specific firms or industries, it is relatively simple to administer, and will not affect firms’ investment decisions or profit margins in future.
What are the disadvantages?
It can be difficult to determine what exactly counts as an “excess” profit, and as a one-off source of revenue, the tax cannot be used to fund ongoing public programmes.

What is it?
A tax on all the inheritances and gifts, above a certain threshold, that are received during an individual’s lifetime.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
An unfairness is created if some people enjoy greater wealth and opportunities than others not through their own efforts but thanks to unearned gifts. A wealth transfer tax can ensure that small gifts and inheritances go untaxed (below a certain threshold) but larger ones are taxed, and the revenues redistributed to those not fortunate enough to inherit money.
What are the advantages?
Since it taxes unearned income, a wealth transfer tax is arguably the most just or fair of all taxes.
What are the disadvantages?
It can be politically difficult, because many people quite reasonably want to pass on some wealth to their children, and wrongly believe that a wealth transfer tax would prevent this.

What is it?
A very small levy on high-frequency financial transactions such as share-trading and currency speculation.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
Globally, an enormous number of financial transactions are unproductive or indeed harmful, as became clear during the GFC. A financial transaction tax would “throw sand” in the wheels of global finance, deliberately slowing it down and – it is hoped – reducing the number of unnecessary or harmful transactions, while generating revenue for the public good.
What are the advantages?
As above, it could help limit speculation and other undesirable practices. It would largely affect those most directly involved in financial transactions, who are disproportionately well-off.
What are the disadvantages?
Financial activities of this sort are very fluid, and if a tax were imposed on such transactions in one country, it would be easy for those transactions to be “routed” through another. A financial transactions tax is very difficult to impose without global coordination.

What is it?
Instead of requiring people to pay tax on every cent they earn, the first portion of their earnings – say, $5000 or $10,000 – would not be taxed. This is the case in countries like the UK and Australia.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
New Zealand’s tax system asks a lot of its poorest earners, by taxing every cent of income and by GST. In contrast, the absence of a capital gains tax or wealth taxes means relatively little is asked of the highest earners. A tax-free band would help rebalance this situation.
What are the advantages?
The tax contribution required from the poorest New Zealanders would be diminished. This would probably be politically popular and administratively simple.
What are the disadvantages?
It is very expensive: just making the first $5000 of income tax free, for instance, has been estimated to cost $1.7 billion. In addition, the tax break goes to all earners, including those at the top. Increasing benefits would be a more targeted way to help the poorest New Zealanders.

What is it?
The reduction in the rate of GST, or its elimination entirely.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
Because GST is a flat rate tax, it takes the biggest chunk out of the lowest incomes, and is therefore regressive. Reducing or removing it would make the system more progressive.
What are the advantages?
As above, it would make the system more progressive.
What are the disadvantages?
GST makes up a very large part of New Zealand’s tax revenues: around $37 billion, or 30% of the total, in 2022. Removing or reducing it to any substantial degree would be very expensive.

What is it?
All property, above a certain threshold, is deemed to be earning an income equivalent to the standard return on assets. For instance, a $1 million property would be assumed to be earning 5% a year (roughly the current rate on bank deposits), which works out at $50,000. That “imputed” income would be taxed at the individual’s standard tax rates.
What is the problem that this change would seek to address?
New Zealand is over invested in property, but any tax that could fall on middle earners may be politically difficult. The fair economic return tax would therefore seek to tax high-end property only.
What are the advantages?
Unlike a capital gains tax, which is only levied on profits made after the tax is introduced, this tax would be on the current value of property, allowing it to effectively capture past housing- market gains. And it could help shift investment away from property.
What are the disadvantages?
It is complicated to explain and assumes an income that may not in fact exist.