This has lingered in the headlines so I am curious to know how many in
this ng have paid attention to the actual IRD report on this. It can
be downloaded from here:

https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/final-report-april-2023/report-high-wealth-individuals-research-project.pdf?modified=20230423203807

The key measure of Income is defined as 'Economic Income'. Note that
there is a summary report but this does not include definition of
'Economic Income' - found on page 42 (6.2 to 6.6). There are a number
of components specified but one stood out - accrued (ie unrealised)
capital gains. So Economic Income is supposed to include how much
your assets that were never sold, appreciated over a tax year. This
can only be calculated by annual valuations (by a registered valuer)
and would have been substantial for every real-estate property owner.

When looking at the tax paid, they seem to equate it as a percentage
of Economic Income. It is disingenuous in the extreme to publish this percentage as it is likely that a large proportion of the population
might have a similar low number if an assessment of their Economic
Income was done. This would blow away the notion that only the very
wealthy pay such a low percentage of Economic Income as tax.



--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)