These NISA changes will do just such a thing, I expect.
Conversely, if they were to only lower the tax rate, but not to zero, the incentives to invest will increase, and tax revenues won’t be completely forgone as with the NISA loophole. Indeed if an investing boom of sorts occurs, then that would have a positive effect on tax revenues. And less unfair to the poor who cannot afford to invest and benefit from the tax break.
The NISA changes will lose capital gains revenues for certain, but might lead to knock on effects that boost other revenues though, perhaps…
These NISA changes will primarily benefit the rich, by my definition of rich, at least.How do you propose the government is able to sell this tax break primarily for the rich to its citizens?
Yes! Either way the rich will benefit most, but a simpler system would be better for the economy as a whole; instead of people advising other people how to navigate the tax system to their best advantage, people would focus instead on other aims, and produce more valuable stuff instead."Oh its now more simple"
Well halving or quartering the rate was my personal idea, but yes one does wonder how the NISA tax breaks they have decided on “will be paid for”.They didn't do an analysis because there's no way 2.7 trillion can be made up.
Some more folks were talking on TV more about it this morning - a key thing they were saying is the tax incentive is there, but how can the money be channeled more to Japan’s economy, rather than overseas investments?
They were also talking about this 3000 million yen income person taxation thing. Not such a big deal now, but the commentators skeptically wondered whether it’s not just a first step, with the threshold be gradually lowered over time. Again here, I don’t know if any benefits from that would outweigh the negatives.
