Do We Need to Make Some Moral Judgements About the Way Money Gets Made?

 A very good article about tax on Interest.co.nz has made me thing about the need for some moral judgements about the way money is made.

For a start, it would be great if the parties' tax policies were to the same level of comprehensible detail as to which this article has been written. 

Tax is becoming increasingly important as governments become ever more desperate for cash, but the government's side of the deal, making sure said money is spent effectively and efficiently to meet clearly articulated policy, seems to not be part of the discussion.

And is seems that Capital Gains and Wealth Tax discussions aren't going away and are likely going to be the most controversial parts of any discussion about tax.

Personal take: a wealth tax with a low threshold (a la the Greens) would likely reduce property prices - possibly crashing them if people panic. Given the amount of our economic activity we have tied up in property, that could be a huge problem for the country as a whole. Things like questionable bank solvency in the face of everyone's mortgage being under water does bad things to national credit ratings.

Another unintended-but-clearly-foreseeable effect may well be a hemorrhage of the most enterprising overseas, as private businesses that do real things like employ people to make products we need can have a significant value for the beneficial owners. Why would you attempt to create a startup here that does something useful if your reward for success was to be singled out for penalisation? Beyond the money, it's kind of insulting and would create all sorts of incentives for accounting and legal creativity.

However: making some value judgements about the way money is made might be an idea. It would underpin an argument for a capital gains tax and a reassessment of charities' activities. 

Buying and selling houses has less real value to the country than running a business, so why should the capital gains from flipping houses you don't live in be treated preferentially to running a business? 

And why should some organisations be able to claim charitable status while their operating expenses are 90% or more of income - and they are aggregating significant assets while paying private sector executive management level salaries to senior staff?