Tax has been front of mind for the general population since the release of Inland Revenue’s High-Wealth Research Project (the Report) and the companion piece prepared by The Treasury looking at Tax and Transfer Progressivity in New Zealand. Given the size of the work produced and the speed with which the media cycle works, the attention inevitably goes towards the numbers conveniently included within the 2 page press release or highlighted by the Minister of Revenue Hon David Parker in a speech, and those become the commonly accepted ‘facts’ – “the ‘rich’ 311 family units surveyed only pay 8.9% tax”, “only 7% of their income is personal income”, “their average wealth is $276 million and have total wealth of $85 billion”, “the ‘average New Zealander’ pays 20.2% tax”.
Reading the headlines, and then reading the report, can leave an ‘average New Zealander’ desperately trying to recall high school statistics lessons and thinking of that famous quote ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’. So let me put this on the table, I am not a statistician, but I am someone who likes cold-hard facts and being able to analyse data, and to use another statistics idiom, ‘compare apples to apples’.
With that in mind, this article is a presentation of some of the information from the Report. But first, a statistics refresher:
The ‘mean’ is the average when the sum of a collection of numbers is divided by the count of numbers in the collection.
The ‘median’ is the middle result when all pieces of data are placed in order from smallest to largest.
Which is better, well it depends on context, but comparing a median result to a mean result is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, or to use another fruit analogy, cherry picking. The ability to misuse the mean when the median may be more appropriate is helpfully illustrated by the joke “Bill Gates walks into a bar, and everyone inside becomes a millionaire, on average” – here the use of the mean artificially inflates the wealth of the population in the bar.
Before getting into the detail, it’s worth noting upfront that frustratingly the Report does not clearly present data to allow readers to form opinions. Some data is only provided for certain years, some data has absolute numbers, some only has percentages, some have a mean but not the median, some has the median but not the mean, and some of the data has been presented only in bar graph format without totals (Inland Revenue have subsequently supplied me with some of this data) – it’s a fruit salad of approaches. Ultimately the presentation of the Report means that it is necessary to read the narrative to get the fullest possible picture rather than just looking at a series of numbers in a table and jumping to conclusions - possibly a good thing, provided you're not time poor.
What statistics are missing
The Report was designed with a specific purpose in mind, being to understand the wealth of a population of families. While it aims to be objective, the objectivity of the report may have been better served by clearer data and less “sound bite” selections of data. This would have reduced the risk of the Report being seen as directed towards a particular outcome and avoided any question about the political neutrality of the Inland Revenue.
While not called out, the Report indirectly highlights some of the key issues that a capital gains tax design would need to address (if one was to be progressed as some commentators are now calling for): critically the subjectivity of valuations, the volatility in economic cycles and the treatment of unrealised gains and losses.
As a snapshot, while it is undeniable that the survey population has a lot of wealth (which, in reality, may actually bear little resemblance to the data in the report), that is just one side of the story. The volatility of the business income also serves to highlight the personal risk-taking of these individuals, with history showing us that fortunes can be lost a lot easier than they are made.
The research also didn’t extend as far as to understand the impact of these hard-working individuals on New Zealand; for example, the value that those businesses bring to the economy and society through building infrastructure or creating the goods and services we need and want, the number of employees working in their businesses (and the tax paid by those employees), the philanthropic activities and charitable donations made – often in a modest way.
So, what is next? Now it’s down to politics.