Written By:
- Date published:
8:13 am, October 28th, 2025 - 151 comments
Categories: capital gains, election 2026, labour, tax -
Tags:
Labour’s Capital Gains Tax policy has been released in a less than optimal manner.
Details were leaked to Radio New Zealand and rather than have RNZ broadcast the details a hurried press release was issued. And Chris Hipkins cancelled his morning interview with Radio New Zealand which allowed Nicola Willis onto Morning Report and to continuously assert that the policy was something that it was not.
The tax itself is somewhat minimalist and not too different from what we had previously with an extended bright line test.
If enacted a targeted capital gains tax will be paid on the profit made after 1 July 2027 when a commercial property or residential property excluding the family home is sold.
The family home, farms, KiwiSaver, shares, business assets, inheritances, and personal items will be exempt.
Nine out of 10 New Zealanders won’t pay tax on the property they own, and everyone will get three free visits a year to the doctor.
I don’t understand why farms should be exempt. They are after all akin to commercial premises and to tax one and not the other will invite distortions.
Public shares should be subject to a capital gains tax. The calculation is easy and the details easily available.
Kiwisaver may be somewhat more complex and probably influenced the decision not to tax shares but the calculation should have been done.
And we need an inheritance tax. Wealth has flown to the top ever since inheritance taxes were abolished back in the 1980s.
Business assets are more difficult to calculate but this was not insurmountable.
And there is no sign of a wealth tax. The effect on the redistribution of wealth will be very modest.
I expect more than a few members will be grumpy. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Gotta wonder whats going on, The last two bits of policy that have come out have left Hipkins high and dry…
Try arguing the policy rather than playing the man Crickle. Ah I forgot that you are a Tory troll.
While I would much have preferred a Wealth Tax, the CGT proposed today is at least narrowly focused and simple, and so is hard to attack. Also, the money raised from CGT has been specifically linked to improved spending on health which is clever.
A tax expert on RadioNZ this morning explained the narrow focus/simplicity of the proposed CGT-link here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019010228/tax-expert-responds-to-labour-s-cgt-tax-policy
Once it has been established. It can be modified, extended, ramped up etc.
Agreed. Maybe in the election campaign for a second term the Labour led coalition govt can look to widen it. This is a bit underwhelming but its a start. Start to add in business assets, art and other collections, shares……
Tell me you are still firmly committed to the single transferable party political consensus, wedded to the disastrous 30/30 rule and neoliberalism without telling me you are till firmly committed to the single transferable party political consensus, wedded to the disastrous 30/30 rule and neoliberalism…
Are you talking about STV rather than MMP? What is the 30/30 rule?
The 2017 agreement between Labour and Green parties to have debt and spending at 30% of GDP.
I made a similar argument on Weka's Open Mike post.
But, my guess is they’ve road-tested this within an inch of its life and have polling suggesting that a full wealth tax would be a bridge too far for most voters. Or that (more likely) the electorate simply wouldn’t trust a Hipkins-led Labour government to deliver it fairly.
In that light, a halfway house that can be framed as cracking down on property speculation without sounding like “class envy” makes a kind of grim political sense. Nothing to stop Labour from going further once the election’s won and we know the makeup of the next government.
I could see a Lab/Green/TPM government being fully on board with that. But if they have to include NZF, it becomes a much dicier proposition.And would require a bribe big enough to make the PGF look like pocket change, wiping out any fiscal gain before it even starts.
Is it bold, or transformative? No. Is it about all we could realistically expect? Probably. Does it still make us feel absolutely meh. Well… yes.
Welcome to politics in 2025. Where the numbers are made up and policies don't matter other than fodder to drive political narratives. Or as hasty responses to an ill-judged leak.
NZF has completely lost the plot this term, especially Peters and Jones. They have little in common with Labour. I think that Hipkins should rule them out now.
I would prefer NZFirst to the Maori Party in a coalition.
The Maori Party are a bunch of corrupt racists.
Whereas NZF are a bunch of corrupt racists, who deliver large-scale policy outcomes that are beneficial for New Zealand.
Not a difficult choice.
We will have to disagree on that one.
Peters and Jones have moved to poltical positions and policies well beyond the pale whereas TPM often talk a lot of sense. Maybe you are still thinking of NZF as the same party that put Jacinda in power-no longer the case.
(I qualify this by saying that TPM must suspend their current renegade MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. The rumour I just heard on RNZ is that this is about to happen)
There are plenty of arguments for and against doing just that.
The biggest factor will probably if a Labour/Green +TPM coalition looks viable in the run up to 2026. Or whether Hipkins needs to leave the door open if the election is tighter than we'd like.
Barring the emergence of some super-awesome new party, the options will boil down to NZF or nothing.
And I'm never going to argue for us taking nothing.
The Greens should say that they will not offer support on supply if Labour joins a coalition with NZF. TPM would not go near NZF.
Under those circumstances Labour would almost certainly not be able to form a government.
Labour must show it has scruples (remember them?) and rule out working with Peters and Jones.
Aotearoa NZ First seem to be intent on chasing the tin foil hat vote, anti vax vote, anti trans vote, conspiracy vote etc
It needed to be meh
Anything else loses the election as it has time and time again.
I'd be wary of assuming that any genuinely progressive or transformative tax policy is automatically politically toxic.
There’s plenty of evidence elsewhere that many voters are losing patience with middle-of-the-road policies — the ones that tweak around the edges but don’t address the underlying drivers of issues like the cost of living.
Look at Zohran Mamdani in the New York mayoral race, or the recent Irish presidential election. In both cases, clear and consistent messengers have been able to articulate reasonably radical policies in ways more established politicians simply can’t.
So we have to assume the problem isn’t the policy; it’s the messenger. The real issue is that nobody seems to believe Labour, in its current form, has the guts to see a proper wealth tax through.
Politically, the best option would be to let the Greens champion it — and then have Labour be oh-so-reluctantly, pearl-clutchingly dragged into it during coalition negotiations.
Everybody wins: Chlöe Swarbrick gets a major policy victory, left-wing voters who support tax reform know where to park their vote, and Labour avoids looking too radical.
The last time Swarbrick tried to launch tax policy she lasted 1 interview. She sure didn't win that one.
Labour does not exist to be like the Greens: Greens are a toxic talkshop of unqualified Wellington-centric weirdos who can't keep a $180k List job or even decent staff.
Labour exists to be in power and change stuff for good. Which is why this is the right policy.
Or we could be strategic and treat the Greens as a slightly embarrassing but occasionally useful ally. One that can believably argue for things we can’t be seen to support with parts of the electorate we can't easily resonate with.
They’re also a convenient place to park (and contain) political risk, much the same way National has outsourced its crazy wing to ACT.
We have to play politics with the tools we have, not the ones we wish we did.
We should also remember that they represent a non-trivial and slowly growing chunk of our fellow New Zealanders.
If we want to legitimately claim to be the senior partner in any left-wing government, we should respect their perspective. And their vote.
Hopefully it won't be too effective in cracking down on property speculation, because then it won't raise enough money for the free doctors.
Unfortunately for those of us that desire a change of government there are two issues with this policy.
The first is that it was leaked. Disunity, ill discipline and selfish. Not a winning combo.
Why are the Left political parties so bereft of unity, the ability to put a bigger cause ahead of themselves?
And how piss weak it is. As eluded to by Res above, this reeks of being polled within an inch of its life. Either that or so compromised it's a shadow of what it could be.
There's still time for a graceful pivot that could at least plausibly sell this as the first step to wider reforms. Wise and calm Labour steadying the ship and all that.
But, yeah, it does feel they're missing the moment a bit.
2017 – 2023 was often explained as small steps towards wider reforms. And the end result was [hard to tell].
No government has the luxury of time to slowly bring about material reforms. Before you know it you are in opposition again.
So just get on and do what needs to be done. Within the first year of power, the big reforms need to be kicked off so by the time the term is up, they are embedded.
I agree. But the time to do that is after you've won an election. Not before.
yeah, but we don't like it when NACTF don't tell us what they're going to do ahead of the election and then make major changes afterwards.
True.
And it's a great narrative to try and push when up against an unpopular government indulging its worst culture war impulses.
But this is politics. Nobody seriously expects election manifestos to last longer than 5 minutes after coalition negotiations start.
So why not capitalise on it?
Besides, Labour can always partly externalise the political risks by blaming any extension on those pesky Greens.
No
IMO that is an out of touch notion Labour will have to snap out of.
People are drowning with the cost of living. Thus, want help now.
If voters vote for a change of government they will be expecting help asap.
And if Labour drag their feet on this, they will be largely disliked within a year
Once in Government, time will not be their friend.
Compared to the government we have the CGT policy feels like a breath of fresh air. A careful common sense policy that will help improve health outcomes paid for by the better off.
Remember there will be other tax policies to come.
Wait- what? We have left wing political parties in Aotearoa-New Zealand? Where?Who?
I thought I would be kind for once and not describe them as 'Left'.
In this case, that kite will fly poorly.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577021/labour-to-campaign-on-narrow-capital-gains-tax-no-wealth-tax
I won't make a fuss about the near in near unanimous.
The disunity I'm referring to is the leak.
Whenever the other team has it happen, I see it as a good omen.
The other side would blame it on an ‘emotional junior staffer’, not disunity. Why do Lefties tend to go for the worst possible explanation, blow it out of proportion, and then divert all attention to what is a minor trivial issue. It’s called losing the plot and gifting the narrative to your opponents begging them to whip you with it more?
Are you saying the leaking of a major tax policy is no big deal?
I don't see leaking as a minor trivial issue.
It's not losing the plot it is a criticism of competence.
Before, you perceived it as disunity, but now, it’s a matter of incompetence!?
Anyhow, it’s a side issue that shouldn’t steal the limelight and become a spotlight in a witch hunt with all the negative narrative that comes with that. Of course, the Coalition and MSM would love that!
C'mon the leak is far from a "side issue". This is a major policy plank that Labour have faffed about with for ages.
This is the second time Hipkins/Labour have had a far from competent performance around policy.
I don't want a witch hunt nor scape goat. Just for them to get their shit correct.
MS, a brief, succinct and very relevant question, which,maybe sadly, kinda sums Labour (for many and varied reasons).
I did also wonder at…
I suspect it could be the power of IMO NZ's most militant (and powerful) Union. Of course I am talking about FedFarm.
With all their associates ..Groundswill, TPU (another militant Union) et al..IMO they seem to have a massive political power out of all proportion to their actual number.
And..as you say Ol' No boats Nicky was in frantically diverting from the actual shit NZ is in now.
Anyway..lets hope for more Positive news for we at the lower end from Labour.
If I was a Labour strategist I wouldn't worry too much about pissing off the Feds. They're unlikely to be left voters anyway and given the progressive urbanisation as we continue to shift from an agricultural to a service economy, are becoming electorally marginal anyway. Labour’s available voters are much more likely to be in Ōtara or Ōtautahi, rather than Ōhakune or Central Otago.
Besides, they're the whiniest, most entitled special pleaders in the country. And for all their braggadocio, tend to put people off with their hysterics. It's an easy narrative to counter.
"The tax itself is somewhat minimalist and not too different from what we had previously with an extended bright line test."
This is one of the biggest reasons to really like this policy.
The Bright Line Test was brought in by National in 2015, and the amazing Ministers Little and Parker strengthened it.
This makes it likely that this tax will endure when Labour are out of government again.
We have had a decade of investment decisions already to guide us away from short term real estate investment, so most of us are used to it already.
And if we don't want to be taxed like this, we go find some shares in a business, ideally a local one. That's exactly the tilt this economy needs.
This is really good policy. Soft. Enduring. Potentially bipartisan. Not scary.
But they will still tilt the policy to suit themselves and their mates. Don't forget that National reduced the bright line test period to two years and made it retrospective and then Luxon was able to sell most of his properties without paying tax.In 2021 he had interests in seven properties now he has interest in only three.
Yes – I'm not sure that the 'bipartisan' claim is really valid for a policy instrument that is easily recalibrated in order to destroy the original intent. Real victories come from getting public support for policy instruments that the Right are fundamentally opposed to as instruments in themselves – such as employer contributions to employee Kiwisaver accounts.
Willing bipartisan support counts for little. What matters is unwilling bipartisan support granted through clenched teeth because of the weight of public opinion. It is a power contest in the end.
You can see in the wreckage of this government what is and isn't too hard, and endures:
ACC and NZSuper endures. Housing development policy and planning endures. Much of water governance policy endures, and all of water quality. Retirement age endures. And so does the Bright Line test.
Some entities are stripped back to near-functionless nothings, like MFE, or RNZ, or Waitangi Tribunal, or regional government. Others like the RBNZ have been turned into domesticated pets.
Bipartisan tax policy is currently enduring, and with a 3 year cycle and a high chance National are toast, real people need to live with in them and make actual decisions about their lives. Check out the massive funding IRD has got to scour through the family trusts and tap recalcitrant taxpayers.
Both sides need to clench their teeth on tax, and honestly it looks like Labour have.
But National kept the policy, rather than killing it off. There's very, very little attack-room for National in this in the 2026 election.
Luxon is an asshole. I'm sure he'll retire to Sydney once he's rolled or defeated. But that's got nothing to do with Labour policy.
This is tax policy preparing for a further but gradual real estate recovery without going into another binge-purge cycle.
I'm the measure you want Mickey. Haute-bourgeoise aspirant filth who got out of Auckland but chose to stay in New Zealand and ready to shift what I've saved out of property and into business. Not even Luke Malpass can angle this one badly.
GST off fruit and vegetables anyone? NZ needs serious reform of taxation to make it fairer and we'll get three free GP visits instead.
Here's hoping the Greens and TPM will play hard ball post the next election and get Labour to turn left out of the middle of the road.
Really not a fan of messing with gst its simplicity makes it very effective. A better option would be a tax free threshold paid for by an increase in the upper tax bands.
Sorry, it was a bit cryptic. I was alluding to the Labour 2023 election policy and likening this one to it. A good move but not far enough.
Don't really understand why they've tied it to such a specific health policy.
Free gp visits could stand alone on the basis it will save a fortune in that it should reduce the number of people turning up in ED in a very bad way.
Theres also a good chance a cgt doesnt raise anything for considerable periods if you look at the last few years property prices have declined significantly from the post covid peak so making promises about where you'll spend the money is daft.
And technically, practices are already funded (via capitation) to the tune of an average of three visits per patient per year anyway.
Rather than fussing around at the margins, I think it would make more sense to nationalise the primary health sector entirely and fund it properly. Too much of the current funding simply disappears into margins and profit, rather than into care itself. GPs will no doubt moan, but the current system just isn't delivering.
The PHO model has actually become part of the problem.
It’s turned into a postcode lottery: some PHOs have succeeded wildly, building integrated networks that genuinely reduced ED demand (especially those tied into iwi or community health trusts). But others have struggled, becoming little more than administrative layers with minimal accountability, siphoning money into overhead and governance rather than frontline care.
The ROI on primary care spending is multiple times that of secondary or tertiary services. If we actually invested at that level, we’d reduce downstream demand dramatically. And with it, the crisis-level pressure on hospitals.
Why would destroying Southern Cross and Aetna resolve regional health inequality?
PHOs are a different thing entirely from insurance companies, though.
Seriously? We have an entire massive fund and independent tax system devoted to targeted health outcomes already: ACC. Again this is solid multi-generational multi-Party policy that is very hard to angle against.
Even if it's not properly hypothecated to doctor visits like petrol tax to roading or levies to ACC, it's a tax allocation that people will feel like there's a concrete benefit for the tax they are paying.
Making the logic of tax clear and simple is again good policy.
Fully with Labour on this announcement.
It certainly feels like an odd tie-up, and in practice taxes are seldom ring-fenced like this for a specific purpose. And in reality it probably won't be ring-fenced – this is just two separate policies announced together to create the illusion of a relationship. I'd guess they're thinking of a couple of things:
Given that there are a current (and projected increased) shortage of GPs in the community – the reality on the ground may also come back and bite them hard.
https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/news/2024/07/eighty-percent-of-gps-closed-their-books-to-new-patients-at-some-point-since-2019heres-why
When people can't get their free visits – because there are no GPs taking new patients, they'll be inclined to blame the government for promising something they can't deliver.
I used to work in the PHO space, and our research into the first few years of free visits for under-13s found that most of the extra consultations came from Pākehā and Asian families. Groups that, on average, don’t face the same equity of access issues.
Cost was only one part of the equation. Our best theory (which we never got the data to test) was that location, opening hours, and employment conditions were also major factors.
We also noted that in our major centre, all of the GP clinics were concentrated in the CBD and in wealthier suburbs. There was a massive medical desert in poorer parts of town.
One of our favourite thought experiments was trying to game out what would happen if we could get funding for a free, 6 pm–6 am clinic right in the middle of our biggest working-class / Kāinga Ora neighbourhood.
We always suspected it would completely change who showed up. People who were effectively locked out of the system finally able to access care on their own terms.
For example, as a white-collar worker, there’s little issue (and no loss of income) if I take time off to look after my sick toddler or take her to an appointment during work hours. I’ll just make up the hours later, or dip into the billion days of sick leave I never really use.
But if I’m a cleaner or a courier who only gets paid when I’m working, or I’m in insecure employment, taking a day off to drive across town and wait four hours at a GP is a much riskier prospect. It might make the difference between me and the kids eating or not this week.
Once again you have touched on another hobby horse, namely the level of
profitprivate enterprise in the primary health area.Neo liberal dictum says the market will sort this lack of GPs out.
Obviously that's all bunkum and it's time for primary care to come back under the state's umbrella.
The GPs aren't sitting twiddling their thumbs, saying 'not gonna work' – there are literally not enough being trained to even replace retirements, let alone increase capacity.
Bringing primary health care back under the state umbrella isn't going to fix that problem. Indeed, it's likely to make it worse.
Private equity moving into primary health care has had the usual predictable result.
Underpaid staff, including Doctors, reduced service and lack of investment.
Privatisation has been creeping into the NZ health system for years: hospitals, pharmacies, diagnostics services (incl. radiology), GP clinics, etc.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/576168/patients-worry-about-rise-of-corporate-owned-gp-clinics-but-they-say-judge-us-on-the-outcomes
And can you point to the public or community funded health services which have spectacularly solved the issues you raise? Do they have well paid staff, increased services and improved investment?
It seems…. unlikely…. to say the least.
Have a look at the issues facing the NHS in Britain – entirely publicly funded – and facing exactly the same issues we have here.
The NAct1 CoC offers tremendous opportunities for private equity to extract profit from Kiwis. Supermarkets, health markets – it's all about the money.
Everything is going to plan.
"..there are literally not enough being trained to even replace retirements, let alone increase capacity."
Yep, and a private provider loves scarcity. Increases the return to shareholders. Which in our local case is the GPs.
Primary health is no place for the beloved market to operate.
While you might be correct in general – in this specific instance you're dead wrong. The scarcity of doctors in NZ is entirely governed by the limited number of places in medical school. Which is *entirely* controlled by the number the government is willing to fund.
So it is a public restriction, rather than a private one.
While I don't think that setting up an entirely new medical school at Waikato Uni is the best solution to the issue (my preference was to substantially increase the intake at the current two med schools) – you have to give this government some credit for doing something (anything) in this space.
The last paragraph of today's press release by the Greens on the Labour tax announcement: “Our plan would see the wealthiest pay their fair share and ensure all New Zealanders had fully free GP visits, free dental care, free early childhood education, affordable renewable electricity and so much more,” says Chlöe Swarbrick.
Brilliant. Let the Greens run with that, then reluctantly be talked into it as part of coalition negotiations.
Those damn Greenies and their policies we want to implement anyway…
I found it odd too, but I suspect it's part of the rushed comms thanks to the leak, and would have made more sense if they’d been able to release the whole policy on their own time.
The medicard idea bothers me. I hard agree with Res that they should just nationalise primary healthcare across the board and then there's no need for these extra layers of bureaucracy and probable privacy erosion.
I don't have any internal knowledge but it is a common attack line that Labour are 'tax and spend' and are just looking to invent taxes. This helps blunt that line of criticism by having a positive vision to point to.
It is tax and spend.
Polls show people want more money spent on health.
Well, quite so.
Some level of state spending is inevitable, and while it could theoretically be entirely fee-funded, in practice, that's politically impossible, so taxation is also inevitable.
Given that, the government's job is to decide the levels of both within the parameters of electability. Pointing new taxes at new spending is politically smart.
Do polls also show that people want to pay more tax?
Or is it just that they want *other people* to pay more tax?
In other OECD nations, apart from Mexico, CGT is paid on CG (and on more than investment property CG).
And wealth accrued by CG after tax faces an estate tax in 2/3rd of those OECD nations.
I'd put it that a certain few (less than 10% of) New Zealanders want to continue to have a unique exemption from CG tax.
This forgone revenue to our nation state government diminishes the capacity to fund public services that (some) other nations take for granted.
Taxing gains is only half the story. Capital losses must also be brought into account, and with the way the economy is going they will be to the forefront should a CGT be enacted. That means little tax will be raised.
Then we have the issue of when the tax starts. If it applies only to assets that are sold, people will have an incentive to hold property for a long time so as to defer the trigger date. The Aussies had this problem (their CGT started on 20 Sept 1985).
It's good news for tax advisers though.
If a capital gains tax chases ""investors" away from housing into actual business investment, which even the threat of it is doing, the total Government tax income is likely to rise from the increased economic activity.
The right wing looks at things in isolation. Generally if it makes money for a few.
I would like to think that the left is aware that an economy is like an ecosystem.
So, how did it get leaked? Who was responsible? For once, don't pussy foot around Labour and tell us what happened. The facts about these pernicious leaks are invariably kept hidden and that gives NACT room to spread false rumours.
And why did Hipkins cancel his RNZ interview and give Willis open slather to tell her usual porkies?
It is this kind of thing that really annoys me with Labour. They know Nats/ACT and their media enablers will stop at nothing to embarrass them. Start playing them at their own game because you are never going to win if you don't.
Agree totally. Hipkins should have fronted up. There are times when you can't wait for your focus group to report back, and this was one of them.
TBH – I doubt that Labour have any idea (and certainly no proof) over who leaked the policy. And the media certainly aren't saying.
Spot on Anne.
Hipkins could have a two sentence rebuttal for leak questions and focussed on the new policy.
Something like 'the leak is very disappointing and until there is further information I want to concentrate on a policy that will help most NZers…'
Didn't he do that?
Here is the vid with the announcement and summary of his statement to the media. The rest of the standup including qu & a, is not in the vid.
He also is reported to have said:
Ayesha Verrall said:
All well and good, I was referring only to the RNZ cancellation.
Glad to see he is showing back bone on the matter of the leaker. Labour does not intend to conduct a
witchhuntinvestigation which is fair enough. But should the leaker be identified in some other way then… they're gone!https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577060/labour-will-oust-anyone-found-to-have-leaked-capital-gains-tax-policy-chris-hipkins-says
Farms have probably been excluded because when succession kicks in the numbers become problematic ( I know because our family are trying to work this out now). Unless it stays in a trust and the ongoing payouts are enough to keep the beneficiaries happy, which is rare, then all is ok, but this is rare because farms of any kind don’t make a lot of profit as a percentage of the inflated capital value caused generally by the only likely buyers being offshore multiple millionaires and billionaires. Labour have actually thought this out and realised that very quickly all farmland in NZwould be owned by the aforesaid or fund managers and corporates to be run into the ground by bad management.it takes a lot of experience to learn how to run a farm properly most of which is earned by being born into it , but the problem comes when one of the heirs wishes to carry on but hits a brick wall when trying to arrange a mortgage to payout the other heirs. In most cases the payout to them plus the 28% to the IRD is completely unsustainable meaning the property inevitably ends up in off-shore ownership, with the bastards clipping the ticket of around 30% for “ management “ fees leaving the property in permanent loss and inevitable tax credits paid for by the rest of the country and I’m pretty sure this is not the way we want to go.
Hoping your family can hold out for the Fonterra 2026 payout of all that massive capital return once the Lactalis sale goes through.
Very sorry to hear your family is in this position rather than having once family of successors who can take on the remainder beneficiary share.
Sometimes dairy success has a set of quandaries just as tricky to navigate as a milk price plunge. This year and 2026 look like just those years.
I wish, but our one is just a small vineyard and we still haven't been fully paid for last years crop, so any sort of payout would be welcome. Thanks for the commiserations but we are pretty lucky, which I tell myself every day as we are surrounded by beauty and good weather,even though it's has cost me two hips and a shoulder rebuild because ag/hort is quite hard. Our problem is that we dont want almost 40 years of hard work to fall into the gaping maw of a corporate. Its not worth a lot of money in vineyard terms , about the same as a medium flash house in Auckland, but for one of the kids to take it over theres no way a bank would lend on the mortgage as it pays an average wage but makes very little as profit. We'll work it out, even if Ive got to work until retirement age which at the moment looks like in ten years time at 85, if I've got any limbs left. Were still bloody lucky though. Cheers, drink more wine! .
As the song goes I'm doing my very best, one bar at a time.
Yip 3 large farms recently got planted up here , rich foriegn owner had know idea , hired unless managers to run as stock farms , so took easy way put and planted for probably easy income from pointless carbon trading.
The estate tax went in 1993. Gift duty in 2013.
It was stamp duty that went in the 1980's, for residential property trades in 1988, and then completely for all property trades in 1999.
Having CGT resolves the issue of the adjustment of the bright-line test 2 years to 5 years, then back to 2 years.
It is sort of consistent with Treasury advice to have it for 20 years – which was really advice to make it a CGT.
They might have said 3 free visits to either a dentist or GP. They could have added more funding for primary care (to improve access etc).
I don't have a major issue with the policy – as pointed out above, it's pretty much the bright line test – with a targeted disposal of funds.
I do have a few issues about how practical it actually is:
2 issues: Number of GPs; how much revenue will actually be gained.
While we would all love to have free GP visits – the reality is that there are not, currently, enough spaces in GP practices in many areas for new clients to be enrolled.
In our local area (inner suburb Auckland) – we regularly have people posting on the local FB group page – looking for a GP practice to enroll (often families with children – who already get free visits). Newsflash. There aren't any. All of the local practices have closed their rolls.
So, if you're not currently enrolled in a practice (and these are the people who really need this policy) you're probably not going to benefit.
Second, in order for this to be an effective funding source, we're positing that property prices are going to rise substantially from 2027 onwards. Otherwise, there's nothing to tax.
An awful lot of the informed commentary is that much of the heat has come out of the market – and that the time of double digit percentage price rises are over for the next decade or so. Of course, informed commentary has been wrong in the past. But, actually, as a country, we *want* property prices to be stagnant, or trending slightly downwards, for at least a decade – to let wages catch up.
If, property prices continue the way they are – there will be little in the kitty for GP funding.
In addition, if it's going to apply from 2027 – if there is a left government elected in 2026, anyone affected, who sees a potential need to sell off in the next 6 years or so – is going to sell before the tax comes into effect. Leaving very little revenue stream to tax for at least the first few years
Where is the back up funding coming from?
The bright-line test currently applies for up to 2 years from purchase.
The government could keep it intact to as late as July 2029 (for purchases before July 1 2027)
The CGT itself only applies to CG from July 1 2027.
Yes, indeed. However, anyone who bought in 2024 or earlier – would be in a position to sell (without being impacted by the bright line test) in 2026.
They would have to be fairly confident that they would, in fact, not want to sell until at least the mid 2030s – in order to retain the property without worrying about the CGT.
Allowing time for a couple of left administrations – and the potential for a right government to reverse the tax.
As I pointed out, leaving little to tax in the first few years.
The radical option, given we don’t as a rule back-date taxation, would be to assess a value to investment properties owned before then, as at July 1 2027, for future CGT purposes.
Highly unlikely to happen. Especially as this is anything but a radical tax policy.
It does come with a July 1 2027 valuation day.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360867391/how-labours-proposed-capital-gains-tax-would-work
By which time, anyone not committed to retaining for the next 10 years, will have divested. You'll only be catching (in the first few years) – those people who have to sell for entirely unexpected reasons.
It will be a good time for first home buyers.
Probably not. Rental properties are more often sold to new landlords, than to first home buyers.
Those 'new' landlords will be planning to retain the property for 10+ years.
Possibly a good thing for renters (less likely to be turfed out because the property has been sold to owner-occupiers). But possibly not, since landlords will be more focused on rental return than capital growth.
Historic.
Not after the upgrades to comply with new rules.
There will also be older women and couples (who raised up children in a family home rental) looking to use Kiwi Saver money to buy a rental unit.
Well, let’s wait and see, shall we.
I'm betting on no change to buying/holding patterns (with substantial historical backing).
You're backing on a massive sea change in landlord behaviour (with zero evidence, although lots of feelz)
You might note that the implementation, by the previous government, of changes to the bright line test and interest deductibility didn't make significant changes to landlord ownership, either.
It's not IT Micky and you know it. After all your time in Labour you should know by now how it works. Annual Conference in November, where policies are signed off, manifesto next year, policy council still beavering away. And actually I like it ; putting the money into a specific area like GP visits makes sense to me. Yes it got leaked, and that's the only thing I don't like about it.
Thank you Darien.
Exactly!
I think there are a number of issues with this policy.
Firstly, any capital gains policy is premissed on the assumption there will be continuing net capital gains. Whereas that is not always the case, as the Japanese found out.|
And, secondly, the concept of providing three free doctors visits per year appears not to have been well thought out:
Why should people who are better off be getting free doctors visits? Why not confine it to, say, those who have community service cards.
And, what will that do to the demand on an already stretched health system where many already struggle to get doctor's appointments in a timely fashion.
Finally, I can imagine a scenario where patients will be given the option of getting their free visit in say three months, or pay for an immediate appointment.
It seems to me this is a very half-baked CGT designed to offend as few as possible while trying to throw out a few free doctors visits, that in reality, may be very difficult to deliver on.
IMO if there is to be a CGT then it should be as pure as possible. Making it narrow in scope leaves too much room for avoidance. Under this proposal, the wealthy will be incentivised start investing in shares and farms which would undermine any capital gain on rental properties.
Improvements
An option was funding more access to primary care/GP and otherwise cheap access for those with CSC to dentists.
They want more savings capital into the local economy.
They could bring in a CGT on foreign shares. But there are special rules applying in this area already.
Pretty simple answer is that it's not just poor people that get sick and need a doctor.
The solidly rich go to Mercy anyway rather than hanging with the smelly proles.
It's the New Zealand way. Farmers are engaged in a profit-making business when it's in the farmer's interest to be treated as a profit-making business, and are engaged in a selfless family-based project to deliver public good to the people of New Zealand when it's in the farmer's interest to be treated as a public good. When it comes to taxation, the farmers will be completely in "family-based selfless public good" mode.
That's easily solved you could just have it so farms under say 8000 sheep and beef stock units or 300 cows are exempt as they probably are just family farms.
In the case of a farm the land may be being thought of as a productive asset in much the the same way that plant and machinery is a productive asset, rather than just a site where productive activity takes place, though this is not a completely valid reason since land is not depreciated.
AI Overview
A "Medicard" for use on your phone in NZ is a proposed health identification system, not a current official app. While the proposed app would integrate with GP and community health systems, it is not yet available for public use.
https://tinyurl.com/4786nxra
RNZ Coverage
Every New Zealander would receive a Medicard at birth or upon gaining residency or citizenship. It would be integrated with existing GP systems and track entitlements and usage.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577021/labour-to-campaign-on-narrow-capital-gains-tax-no-wealth-tax
My Questions
Why do Labour want to fund free visits for the wealthy?
And what's with this Medicard?
What if you don’t want the free visits, do you still need to have the card?
Do they? Where do they say that?
It’s like the Supergold Card but for accessing the public health system – I’m confident that you’re familiar with that.
“Labour has paired the tax announcement with a new healthcare initiative, showing how the revenue could fund three free GP visits a year for everyone via a "Medicard" scheme.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577021/labour-to-campaign-on-narrow-capital-gains-tax-no-wealth-tax
???
Universal systems are considered less complex and cheaper to run. Also, this from political commentator Liquid Times,
I asked why it's difficult to undo
https://x.com/Liquid_Times/status/1982911263496908926
While I understand the benefits of universal systems, I'd like you to consider these points below.
This will be duplicating (to some extent) an already funded system. Free child health care, community card discount etc
Moreover, funding is tight. Doctors are scarce. Therefore, why not make the community card discount free and use the funding that was going to fund the wealthy along with the setup and running of Medicard on hiring more doctors?
As for universal entitlement being difficult to undo. In this case I can see the linking of it to the Medicard becoming a point of contention that could potentially lead for calls to undo it.
Additionally, Labour is proposing an independent pricing system for general practices
Verrall wrote (see link below) that the current funding system “is built around controlling costs – for government and patients.
Suggesting to me that despite the first 3 free visits, an independent pricing system will lead to higher costs for patients.
https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/politics/360861338/labour-leader-caught-guard-health-policy-funding-drop
It's just a move to funding based on what the PHO is doing in their “practice”.
It's more than just a move to funding based on what the PHO is doing in their “practice”.
Verrall, says the initiative (funding the first 3 free visits) responds to rising healthcare costs. See link below.
https://www.times.co.nz/news/labour-offers-new-medicard-funded-by-new-tax/
No talk (AFAIA) of reducing patient's cost as a response.
Moreover, Verrall also highlighted current annual fee guidance limit practice income in ways that now threaten practice sustainability.
https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/politics/360861338/labour-leader-caught-guard-health-policy-funding-drop
Once again, suggesting to me that despite the first 3 free visits, an independent pricing system will lead to higher costs for patients.
The first 3 free visits is their response to that
Good move, imho, and please reinstate Labour's zero prescription charges.
I average maybe two GP visits per year, so how about nine free GP visits per three year term of government, to allow for a year where I might make five appointments, and another year when I need only one – or none.
To some extent it is a good move.
But not so good for those that are ill (and require far more than 3 visits) having to pay higher costs.
'Everyday Kiwis' who need at least three GP visits a year are paying more than me now. If they have to pay even more (above cost of living increases) when the free visits kick in, then that would be Halloween scary.
And, for all the efforts to drum up concerns about free this and that, when everyday Kiwis are healthier overall I'm happy. It's a shame that some will have their capital gains taxed to fund free GP visits, but money doesn't grow on trees. It's about values – For the Many, Not the Sorted!
Once again, you’re wrong and obviously haven’t read the Policy document. If you had, then you would know that it specifically aims to stop practices passing on (rising) costs to patients or absorb them themselves. The document mentions several times the need to reduce the cost of living, you’ll be pleased to know.
I've looked through this thread and can't find the policy document where the safeguards you elude to are mentioned.
Could you pop a link up please?
During COVID our "National Health ID" was used in relation to vaccination. It is also used when enrolling with a GP.
This number would now come with a card.
The card might be a work around for those without a current PHO enrolment (changing locations etc).
The card might be "modern" (have to have the capacity to identify information useful to the PHO) or just be a card with a number on it (the PHO could access information about the person by using this to access the national data base).
why not just use people's NHI number? What's the point of the card?
I've had a CSC for a long as they've existed and I haven't had to use the physical card in nearly as long.
It's first use (with a provider) evidence of having a card.
I don’t even need to do that now, I just need the number.
they still insist on sending me a new card every year. So wasteful.
Of a 20th C design before nationwide information system tech – which would show if card eligibility had been continued.
Marc Daalder at Newsroom has done a reasonable summary.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/28/long-live-the-tax-working-group/
I think this Medicard will add heat to the issue.
It sounds like the vaccine passport rebranded
We don't have enough detail yet to know if and how it might be tied to medical records. From NZH,
Hard to tell if that's simply an admin thing, or more.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-unveils-targeted-capital-gains-tax-to-fund-free-doctor-visits/644ZQX6QDFGFXAPO2O4FDSKELE/
Hipkins/Verrall mentioned the info would be on My Health Record, which is already in use and started with Covid vaccines, i think. There would be Apps for it, plus an analogue card for those not digitally connected.
I use it for the record on my Covid and flu vaccinations.
the issue is whether the personal health records are shared between different parts of the health system as default. At the moment, people have more control over who sees what. I'm not familiar with My Health Records though.
Looking at the privacy statement, it looks like the information is not kept on the Health NZ site, but is shared with people related to their role with vaccine immunisation. You can request a restriction of your Health NZ info.
Information held on the site includes
I suggest you’ll get your hearing tested as soon as you get the card or you might be hearing things – there’s no compulsion mentioned in Labour’s announcement AFAIK.
AI
that doesn't explain about personal information sharing.
I'd like to point t out that you actually need doctors before you can have free visits, !!
Does it cover virtual dr consults?
Yes. If I correctly heard the details spelt out at the media conference this morning.
where did you see that Anne?
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/10/28/live-stream-hipkins-fronts-media-on-labours-capital-gains-tax-policy/
Starts around 6 mins in to live broadcast.
The video of part of the launch is available here.
The full 50+ minutes of it is here.
See https://thestandard.nz/is-that-it/#comment-2048190.
Take heart, the national parties attack page on fb shows up in my feed, national are getting slaughtered in the comments on their own page!! Priceless
Let's go crush this government!
https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-targeted-tax-to-grow-the-economy-and-fund-free-doctor-s-visits/
What's the point of tying it directly to health? Is that tory-proofing? Makes health budgeting easier?
May be more a message to non-wealthy NZers that they would benefit from the tax? An election thing?
Let's see:
– highest public policy priority consistently
– fastest growing budget item
– clear benefit from a new tax to taxed citizens
– familiar Australian precedent
– familiar Gold Card and CS Card precedent
– familiar hypothecated precedent on multiple areas
– hundreds of thousands of people need it
– virtuous taxing makes centrist rich feel good
Am also looking to see if Labour comes up with a policy to split up supermarkets. Either politicians admit supermarket duopoly is too difficult to address, or they get serious. Nicola Willis has done sf nothing in this area, there is a gap for some serious policy. Legislate to force supermarket chains to sell so many premises, eg new worlds or 4 squares, fresh choices etc. The likes of the warehouse come to mind as potential interested buyer. Innoculate voters that it will not be an easy straight forward thing, there will be opposition, the 2 supermarket chains will oppose it, National and ACT will oppose it. Sell and honest message and it might turn out to be a big vote winner. Implementing the policy put someone very competent in charge, eg not a melissa lee/majority of NACT mp type, so it does not become another kiwi build
I'd definitely agree that the current duopoly is effectively a monopoly – with the two parties using price matching to retain higher prices. It's not illegal …. quite….
I'd like to see them broken up – into at least the 4 chains there were before the mergers – and possibly more.
NZ legislated to break up Telecom (due to the overwhelming market superiority) – so there is history, here.
There could also be legislation around it being illegal to lock in NZ suppliers (don't care about importing Italian pasta sauces) – so that our Kiwi producers can have flexibility about where they sell.
Mini-Hoon: Shamubeel Eaqub on CGT-lite
Some good points (in my view) about this being a step in the right direction while acknowledging that ideally, it would have gone further, and this is probably all that can be sold politically currently.
It's not the thin end of the wedge.
It's a very thick sharp wedge already.
On RNZ this morning Nicola Willis was almost incoherent in her attack on Labour's CGT policy. She seemed enraged and talked incessantly over Carmel Sepuloni, including falsely implying that the CGT will include the family home and that most people will pay more taxes.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019010394/weekly-political-panel-nicola-willis-and-carmel-sepuloni
According to Emile Donovan on RNZ last night, about 80% of the texts he received on the CGT policy supported it.
Prior to the 2023 election "about 63 percent more Labour posts included positive self-presentation than negative attacks. In comparison, when we do the same for National, it had a net positivity score of just 5.5 percent". https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/news/2023/10/negative-campaiging-in-the-2023-new-zealand-election
Clearly National are panicking about the popularity of Labour's plan, so are again resorting to their online attacks, to distract from the socioeconomic damage the Coalition's policies have done to most NZers.
"…National has been poised to jump on Labour's long-awaited tax policy and has already pushed out a series of attack ads on social media.
Asked about those ads, Hipkins said he was more than happy to debate Christopher Luxon about his personal finances…
Pushed on how open he was to changing Labour's tax policy, in light of the Greens advocating to go further, Hipkins said he would not be budging on it.
"Labour will vote in favour of the policy that we are campaigning on and we will not go beyond that," he said"…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577207/bring-it-on-hipkins-targets-luxon-in-capital-gains-tax-debate
A minority government it is then.
So refreshing to see Labour leading from the front.
Keep going team.