>>>New Zealand has a capital gains tax on property that is easily avoided and in most cases not policed. However, there have been a few cases of the IRD enforcing the law; in 2004 the government gathered $106.6M checking on property sales from Queenstown, Wanaka and some areas of Auckland. [11]
>
>You copied that from wikipedia. ;-) A more relevant explanation would be that NZ only taxes capital gains *if the property was purchased to generate a capital gain". This would include speculative purchases of land that earns little or no income but rises in value because of rezoning, or development of property for resale. Buying and living in a home that doubles in value, or purchasing rental properties that generate a return, is not exposed to any capital gains tax. Yet.
>
>>>Personally, I do not understand what is so fair about taking 39% of what one person has earned so that the government can redistribute it to some deadbeat who feels that he is entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor. This sounds exactly like the plot of Atlas Shrugged and it is pretty freaking scary.
>
>Yes, but you're choosing loaded descriptions that match your own viewpoint. There are many ways to interpret a higher tax rate. In the end, what matters is that if everybody on the same income is treated the same, one's position in relation to the Jonses is unchanged. and it simply doesn't make sense to pay less because you earn more. Which is Buffett's point: if he paid only 17% tax last year then the system cannot be fair, no matter how many times you read Galt's dreadful final diatribe. ;-)

The way Buffett has often put it is that it isn't fair that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. At least he's honest enough to admit it and not just want more, more, more.