Whether income-splitting is introduced or not, something has to be done to tackle high marginal tax rates, according to KPMG tax partner Paul Dunne.
KPMG has released issue two of its publication taxmail, which this time looked at the issues paper on income splitting for couples with children that was released last week.
It followed the income splitting discussion document issued by the previous government last year and was part of the confidence and supply agreement between National and United Future.
Under the proposed income splitting tax credit a couple’s combined income would be split on a 50/50 basis and personal tax rates would be applied to each income.
This would mean that, for example, a family with one parent earning $80,000 a year and the other earning $20,000 a year would pay a lot less tax because of the difference in marginal tax rates.
According to taxmail, “The government will need to consider the impact income splitting may have on overall equity in the tax system and what the appropriate definition of “fairness” needs to be.
“It is important, for the overall coherence of the tax system, that any changes are consistent.
“In particular, how does income splitting fit with the government’s broader alignment objectives and how will this additional support (expected to cost around $450 million per annum) be funded?”
Mr Dunne told NBR that there are two ways of looking at the issue of “fairness” in the tax system.
“Should people with the same income be treated in the same way, or should the tax treatment take account of their overall circumstances?”
The income-splitting proposal comes at a time when the Tax Working Group, which Mr Dunne is a part of, is set to report to the government on a range of options for tax reform.
And while he wouldn’t comment on the likelihood of the income-splitting proposal being implemented, he said it was a function of New Zealand’s progressive income tax system.
“Something needs to happen around marginal tax rates- whether this is implemented or not is a moot point.”
Comments
Is marginal tax high?
When you've paid 60% tax in the 1970's and 1980's, 39% in the 2000's is not high.
If you're on Working for
If you're on Working for Families the marginal tax rate can head up towards 60% very easily.
Ummm...
I'd always thought that income splitting meant that second earners faced a much higher marginal tax rate: the second earner's first dollar is taxed at the marginal rate of the first earner's last dollar. Doesn't that make the problem of high marginal tax rates...ummm...worse?
One would almost think that Peter Dunne's objective were to send women back to the kitchen.
Marginal tax rates
Eric you are right, the second earner does face a higher marginal tax rate, particularly if there's a big income gap between them. I won't comment on Peter Dunne's motivation but I think the outcome could be what you describe, it almost wouldn't be worth the effort to go out and work if you're the second earner on relatively low income.
It would be interesting to see how income-splitting interacted with paid parental leave, subsidised childcare and, of course, Working for Families.
Reason for income splitting
"One would almost think that Peter Dunne's objective were to send women back to the kitchen".
Actually, a principal reason for the proposal must be to enable one of the 2 to remain at home and care for children. This is a good thing. In the same way that WFF has increased the birth rate by enabling more mothers not to go out to work, income splitting may well improve children's lives in the same way. You might be surprised how many mothers would rather not be out working but instead be caring for their children. I think a society that makes that outcome easier is going the right way.
Fairness
Of course fairness is in the eye of the earner! It makes some sense if household income for family A) is $100K $50K x2 compared to B) with $100K household by one earner. This would hopefully give B) a tax break especially as they are not eligible for working for families.
Sigh ...
Every time I read about some new handout or tax proposal all I see is income transfer from me (single no kids) to other people. Sure this income splitting sounds like a great idea. From a purely selfish perspective just once I'd love to see something where I didn't think "well there go some more of my hard earned dollars winging off into someone elses wallet"!
Someone has to pay for all this largesse I suppose.
Post new comment