Greens favour capital gains tax

[mashman]

Finally, a decent idea... (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8739266/greens-favour-capital-gains-tax/)

Finally an answer to the LAQC rort... and a political party showing balls for a change, bravo the Greens

[Jantar]

I thought the idea was to reduce debt. Any new tax, or increasing existing taxs is just going to increase debt. Look back to when NZ's debt was increasing the fastest, it was when we had the highest overall tax take. Look back to when NZs debt was decreasing the fastest, it was when we had the lowest overall tax take.

To reduce debt we need to reduce non productive expediture. Ie the dole, the dPB, and some of the sickness benefit. I'm not saying eliminate these, just turn them from non productive to productive expenditure.

[mashman]

I thought the idea was to reduce debt. Any new tax, or increasing existing taxs is just going to increase debt. Look back to when NZ's debt was increasing the fastest, it was when we had the highest overall tax take. Look back to when NZs debt was decreasing the fastest, it was when we had the lowest overall tax take.

To reduce debt we need to reduce non productive expediture. Ie the dole, the dPB, and some of the sickness benefit. I'm not saying eliminate these, just turn them from non productive to productive expenditure.

How can generating 4 billion in tax increase public borrowing?

You can't force people to work.

[Jantar]

How can generating 4 billion in tax increase public borrowing? ....
In order for there to be a capital gain to tax, there has to a profitable incentive for private investors to purchase that item that will gain gain in capital. Taxing the gains has just made that less profitable and hence de-incentivised such investment. Hence housing market etc slows down, more unemployment and well I'm sure you can see the result, but I'm also sure you don't want to.

[mashman]

In order for there to be a capital gain to tax, there has to a profitable incentive for private investors to purchase that item that will gain gain in capital. Taxing the gains has just made that less profitable and hence de-incentivised such investment. Hence housing market etc slows down, more unemployment and well I'm sure you can see the result, but I'm also sure you don't want to.

I don't buy the de-incentivising argument, as the private investor invests their money where they want... they may see less of a return, but they'll still be making a profit. The housing market isn't exactly booming at the moment and the financial gurus always seem to be encouraging "us" to move away from property. Sounds like a win win to me...

At the end of the day there's a profit being made. Is there a capital gains tax on sold shares and dividends (doesn't seem to be a deterrent)? Is there capital gains tax on your savings? T'would seem odd not to charge tax on every profit making "mode"... It would also seem strange that the property market would be so adversely affected, it's not like there isn't money to be made. It seems to work for plenty of other countries around the world too. So why not NZ?

[Mental Trousers]

Capital Gains Tax is a load of arse. The only time I can see it being a good thing is if it applies to foreigners and not kiwis to encourage ownership to stay in New Zealand. But of course that discourages foreign investment.

[Virago]

It always amuses me that those who obsess about a moneyless society, are invariably more obsessed with controlling (and grabbing) everyone else's money.

[Mully]

Is there capital gains tax on your savings? T'would seem odd not to charge tax on every profit making "mode"...

There's tax on the interest of your savings - which I think is a bad idea anyway. In real terms, there's no capital gain in saving cash cos inflation usually kills that stone dead.

NZ doesn't NEED CGT - if you buy anything with the main intent of making a profit when you sell it, then that profit is taxable (whether or not that tax is paid is another matter. My understanding is that IRD are throwing resource at this issue).

If you buy a rental and claim losses against your income for, say, 10 years, it's pretty difficult to claim when you sell it that your intent from the start wasn't profit.

There is of course an argument that making NZ's love affair with property (above all other investment types) less attractive is a good thing as people will invest in companies and whatnot (which is something I think NZ needs - we aren't going to get anywhere on the back of agriculture, we need to be smarter).

My $0.02

[mashman]

It always amuses me that those who obsess about a moneyless society, are invariably more obsessed with controlling (and grabbing) everyone else's money.

:rofl: yeah, I wouldn't be affected :blink:. Well said Cyclops.

[mashman]

NZ doesn't NEED CGT - if you buy anything with the main intent of making a profit when you sell it, then that profit is taxable (whether or not that tax is paid is another matter. My understanding is that IRD are throwing resource at this issue).


I wish they'd hurry up :), then I can get back to my moneyless society :girlfight:

[Mully]

I wish they'd hurry up :), then I can get back to my moneyless society :girlfight:

You should get married - I've been a moneyless society since i got married.

[davereid]

There's tax on the interest of your savings - which I think is a bad idea anyway. In real terms, there's no capital gain in saving cash cos inflation usually kills that stone dead.

NZ doesn't NEED CGT - if you buy anything with the main intent of making a profit when you sell it, then that profit is taxable (whether or not that tax is paid is another matter. My understanding is that IRD are throwing resource at this issue).

If you buy a rental and claim losses against your income for, say, 10 years, it's pretty difficult to claim when you sell it that your intent from the start wasn't profit.

There is of course an argument that making NZ's love affair with property (above all other investment types) less attractive is a good thing as people will invest in companies and whatnot (which is something I think NZ needs - we aren't going to get anywhere on the back of agriculture, we need to be smarter).

My $0.02

Good post, but I have to make a couple of calls.

We all have to live somewhere. So buying the first house for you and your family to live in has benefits other than the financial. It allows you to plant a tree, buy a dog, and scratch the kids growth on the wall if you so wish.

An investment property attracts for similar reasons. We know that everyone has to live somewhere, so its a safe bet that we will be able to find a tenant. Even if inflation is rocking, and banked dollars fall through the floor, new houses will always be built with new timber. They will always cost more. So the investment in my house will be safe unless of course I paid a foolish amount for it in the first place.

And agriculture ? I think quality agriculture is New Zealands future. We have amazing luck. A climate warm enough to grow most everything, and cool enough to set fruit. Sunny enough to grow grapes, and wet enough to grow everything else. On top of these natural advantages, we have built a pretty stunning agricultural system.

We might drive past old fred the cocky in his tractor, thinking all the countries wealth is made in Auckland.

But in reality, Fred is likely in charge of a multi million dollar business.

And its a wealth creating business. Freds not counting money made by someone else.

He is turning land into food, and food into money.

While the world suffers a recession, some will chose not to update the PC, keep the toyota another year, and suffer with the old 42" plasma as money is tight.
Growth stalls for manufacturers as customers defer buying.

But no one will defer food purchases. They will be back in the market, every day, with whatever cash they have.

[mashman]

You should get married - I've been a moneyless society since i got married.

:killingme, perhaps that's wher my deep seated hatred for money comes from... that you Bush Psychologist (tm)

[Mully]

We all have to live somewhere. So buying the first house for you and your family to live in has benefits other than the financial. It allows you to plant a tree, buy a dog, and scratch the kids growth on the wall if you so wish.

An investment property attracts for similar reasons. We know that everyone has to live smewhere, so its a safe bet that we will be able to find a tenant. Even if inflation is rocking, and banked dollars fall through the floor, new houses will always be built with new timber. They will always cost more. So the investment in my house will be safe unless of course I paid a foolish amount for it in the first place.

I think we're on a similar page - my point was if your main (or sole) intent on buying a house (usually a rental) is monetary gain, then that gain, under current rules, is taxable. Family homes are seldom (if ever) bought with the sole intent of profit making and so are (and bloody well should be) exempt from tax.

If you buy a rental and claim losses against your income, your intent must be to make money somewhere along the line (usually capital gain when you sell) - unless you're unusually altruistic. This gain is taxable. We don't need to put a whole system in place for capturing CGT was most of my point.


An agriculture ? I think quality agriculture is New Zealands future. We have amazing luck. A climate warm enough to grow most everything, and cool enough to set fruit. Sunny enough to grow grapes, and wet enough to grow everything. On top of these natural advantages, we have built a pretty stunning agricultural system.

We might drive past old fred the cocky in his tractor, thinking all the countries wealth is made in Auckland. But in reality, Fred is likely in charge of a multi million dollar business. And its a wealth creating business. Fred not counting money made by someone else. He is turning land into food, and food into money.

I agree, but I think we need to get smarter about it. Simply bunging more cows on a dairy farm will help short term, but look what the runoff does to the streams, etc.

If you do the same as you've always done, you'll get the same as you've always got. NZ (when we're not fighting amongst ourselves) are ingenius at doing things smarter. I think that's something we need to encourage.

IMHO, removing the tax credit for R&D was not a smart move on National's part.


While the world suffers a recession, some will chose not to update the PC, keep the toyota another year, and suffer with the old 42" plasma as money is tight. Growth salls for manufacturers as customers defer buying.

But no one will defer food purchases. They will be back in the market, every day, with whatever cash they have.

Yep - agreed again. But we can't compete as simply a bulk supplier to the world, we're just not big enough. We need to get smarter, and have a quality product that we can sell. Trade on the "NZ Made" brand.

BTW - sorry for the OT, OP.

[shrub]

I've been listening to what people say on here and on the National party and right wing blogs, and it got me thinking about tax cuts. I've realised that they’re kind of the economic version of antibiotics. If your business is struggling, you need a tax cut; if you want to take advantage of global opportunities, first you need a tax cut and if you want to start a business you need a tax cut first. If you’re earning $150,000 a year and struggle to make ends meet, then of course you need a tax cut and the best way to motivate and inspire people to do better is to give them a tax cut. And most importantly, rich and successful people deserve tax cuts and it is our obligation as a society to give it to them.


So if our government gives us tax cuts, New Zealand businesses will succeed like never before and we will probably catch up with Australia – hell, we’ll probably even pass them if the tax cuts are big enough! People will do better in their careers and be inspired to gain skills, improve themselves and work harder. Everyone, especially those on higher incomes, will finally be able to make ends meet and Jesus might even come back.

I wish I’d listened to the propaganda sooner!

[JimO]

we dont need any more taxes we need more taxpayers, anything the greens want will be bad for the rest of us

[shrub]

we dont need any more taxes we need more taxpayers, anything the greens want will be bad for the rest of us

I see. How are we going to get more tax payers? And did you know 1% growth in population results in a need for a 3% growth in GDP? You haven't really thought that through, have you?

And having read th policies of all the major parties, and comparing what Norman, Goff and Key have said, I think the Green's policies are going to be the least bad for us. I'm interested in where you formed that opinion. Have you spent time reading and analysing what the parties stand for and looking at the future economic, social and environmental issues facing New Zealand?

Do you have any arguments that support that proposition? I'd be very keen to hear them.

[JimO]

I see. How are we going to get more tax payers? And did you know 1% growth in population results in a need for a 3% growth in GDP? You haven't really thought that through, have you?

.

why do we need a growth in population?? there are enough people on the receiving end of the tax dollar that contribute fuck all, encouraging them to work and pay tax would be a good start, mind you most of the bludgers are probably the sort that vote green, why further tax the people who work hard and own several propertys and already pay more than enough tax. your move

[Mully]

And having read th policies of all the major parties, and comparing what Norman, Goff and Key have said, I think the Green's policies are going to be the least bad for us. .

You know, it's funny, but I've been reading some of the Green's policies and there are a few that I think are great

That being said, until they stop all the PC bollocks (must have opposite sex co-leaders, every damn policy saying they must honour Maori and "Te Tiriti o Waitangi", etc) and presenting themselves as single-issue lunatics (yes, there's probably some media spin in there, too), I'm unlikely to vote for them.

[phill-k]

I thought the idea was to reduce debt. Any new tax, or increasing existing taxs is just going to increase debt. Look back to when NZ's debt was increasing the fastest, it was when we had the highest overall tax take. Look back to when NZs debt was decreasing the fastest, it was when we had the lowest overall tax take.

To reduce debt we need to reduce non productive expediture. Ie the dole, the dPB, and some of the sickness benefit. I'm not saying eliminate these, just turn them from non productive to productive expenditure.

Ask the Irish about reducing taxation, remember them the round table was promoting Ireland in 2005 and more recently Key said we needed to take a leaf out of the Celtic tigers book, reduce our taxes and follow their lead, funny all the rich pricks who promoted Ireland as a country we should emulate have gone quite on that now. Roll on asset sales, the greens are the ones on the right track wonder if we have the balls to start really dealing to our issues.

I love the way all you right wing pricks start your trawl with the social welfare system wanting to eliminate benefits and blame all our problems on bludgers, have a look at yourselves and the wroughts you all are involved in and perhaps learn a little empathy for your fellow man who is not so well off.

some of the very best countries to live in today are the scandinavian ones, they care for all their peoples rich and poor, have the lowest crime rates, the highest rates of satisfaction within their peoples and also the highest tax rates supporting their lifestyles. It is these countries we need to model our country on, hopefully at the same time the rest of the rich pricks who have destroyed our country and haven't already fucked off will.

[Hitcher]

This is all a bit pointless really. The Greens are never going to be in a position to form a government, and there's no way any of the major parties with whom they may coalesce after the next election will have a bar of a capital gains tax.

[shrub]

why do we need a growth in population?? there are enough people on the receiving end of the tax dollar that contribute fuck all, encouraging them to work and pay tax would be a good start, mind you most of the bludgers are probably the sort that vote green, why further tax the people who work hard and own several propertys and already pay more than enough tax. your move

Ah, so the problem is that there aren't enough people working. Did you know we're in the middle of a bit of an employment crisis? What that means is that there are more people than jobs, so until the economy starts growing and jobs get created there will be no increase in the number of taxpayers.

Why is this so? A lot of reasons, but arguably the biggest problem NZ businesses face is that private investors in NZ place all their money into residential rental properties. OK, what's wrong with that you ask? Simple, it artificially inflates the value of residential properties by creating a greed driven demand and worst of all it diverts savings from productive investments (meaning money invested in investments that actually produce something, usually businesses) into rental houses that add nothing to the economy.

And guess what, those pesky greens want to put capital gains tax on investment properties. That will make rental houses less atttractive which means the money will go where it will serve NZ best - into businesses. Bloody Greens, what right have they to come up with ideas that are good for business?

[BMWST?]

I don't buy the de-incentivising argument, as the private investor invests their money where they want... they may see less of a return, but they'll still be making a profit. The housing market isn't exactly booming at the moment and the financial gurus always seem to be encouraging "us" to move away from property. Sounds like a win win to me...

At the end of the day there's a profit being made. Is there a capital gains tax on sold shares and dividends (doesn't seem to be a deterrent)? Is there capital gains tax on your savings? T'would seem odd not to charge tax on every profit making "mode"... It would also seem strange that the property market would be so adversely affected, it's not like there isn't money to be made. It seems to work for plenty of other countries around the world too. So why not NZ?
last time i checked you were taxed on interest from even the most paltry savings ammount..

[supa.m]

[QUOTE=shrub;1129971219]I see. How are we going to get more tax payers? And did you know 1% growth in population results in a need for a 3% growth in GDP? You haven't really thought that through, have you?

What does a reduction in population do?

[Jantar]

....And guess what, those pesky greens want to put capital gains tax on investment properties. ....
Actually they want to tax All capital gains except the family home. That includes capital gains on shares, so making it less likely people will invest in business.

[puddytat]

Just seen something on the Telly saying that the Treasury favours Tax reform over asset sales:yes:



Jimo...
[QUOTE]why do we need a growth in population?? there are enough people on the receiving end of the tax dollar that contribute fuck all, encouraging them to work and pay tax would be a good start, mind you most of the bludgers are probably the sort that vote green, why further tax the people who work hard and own several propertys and already pay more than enough tax. your move /QUOTE]

Comrade Jim, relax man & get over the fact that most Greens are better educated than the average redneck & may have a higher moral & ethical view .They may have also possibly left the country & seen some off the outside world, not just the suburbs of Sydney.
Im sure most of them would have a lower cost of living, & less of a mortgage too.Of course I cant prove it, but I know more of them that are in a better financial position than a lot due mainly to an inbuilt frugality...& funnily enough seem to suffer less from anxiety attacks due to thier financial situation than most.
How could 5% of the voting population be the majority bludgers? Way more likely to be Labour or Nats....

[shrub]

Actually they want to tax All capital gains except the family home. That includes capital gains on shares, so making it less likely people will invest in business.

Not necessarily. A good share portfolio will generate income as well as capital gain, and income is taxed, yet people still invest in income investments. The biggest benefit to residential property is the untaxed capital gain - if you look at the typical yields on rental properties they look downright stupid as an investment.

[Flip]

LAQC status on rental properties went on 20+ years ago when there was no rental properties available and the govt didnt have the money to make a whole pile new state houses. They needed ma and pa investers to invest in rentals, but because the market was dispressed because of the low rental state properties......

Yea right tax capital gain and charge folks in rental properties the real value?

Go and do somthing usefull like play on the motorway Greens.

[Wannabiker]

Go and do somthing usefull like play on the motorway Greens.[/QUOTE]


and if the greens have their way, the best you will be able to do is get hit by a bicycle...

Best get used to taking the bus if the greens get their way.

[puddytat]

Go and do somthing usefull like play on the motorway Greens.


and if the greens have their way, the best you will be able to do is get hit by a bicycle...

Best get used to taking the bus if the greens get their way.[/QUOTE]

Yeah 'cause it'll get you used to it in time for when fuel hits $3/ltr....:laugh:

[scracha]

Capital Gains Tax is a load of arse. The only time I can see it being a good thing is if it applies to foreigners and not kiwis to encourage ownership to stay in New Zealand. But of course that discourages foreign investment.

1st: Foreign countries would surely reciprocate.
2nd: CGT ENCOURAGES investment in other more productive areas (i.e. things that actually create jobs).
3rd: Major factor in the kiwi brain drain is unaffordable price of housing. Economics 101, having no CGT artificially bumps up house prices.

While they're at it, a 5% inheritance tax after the first million would put a dent in the budget deficit.

[JimO]

I love the way all you right wing pricks start your trawl with the social welfare system wanting to eliminate benefits and blame all our problems on bludgers, have a look at yourselves and the wroughts you all are involved in and perhaps learn a little empathy for your fellow man who is not so well off.

some of the very best countries to live in today are the scandinavian ones, they care for all their peoples rich and poor, have the lowest crime rates, the highest rates of satisfaction within their peoples and also the highest tax rates supporting their lifestyles. It is these countries we need to model our country on, hopefully at the same time the rest of the rich pricks who have destroyed our country and haven't already fucked off will.

fuck yea the ones with the skills to make a decent living can fuck off and leave NZ to the bottom dwellers, that will work

[NighthawkNZ]

I thought the idea was to reduce debt. Any new tax, or increasing existing taxs is just going to increase debt. Look back to when NZ's debt was increasing the fastest, it was when we had the highest overall tax take. Look back to when NZs debt was decreasing the fastest, it was when we had the lowest overall tax take.

To reduce debt we need to reduce non productive expediture. Ie the dole, the dPB, and some of the sickness benefit. I'm not saying eliminate these, just turn them from non productive to productive expenditure.

true... but this time the gooberment want their pie and eat it as well... ;)

[shrub]

I guess I can see the value of it because I come from a business background and most of my university study has been in business and economics, whereas the current crop of idiots running this country seem to be either career politicians or forex traders (gamblers).

I pay for my motorcycle addiction as a management consultant. When a business wants to improve what they're doing, make more money and improve their long term viability they call me in and I spend time working with them to achieve agreed goals and they pay me money for the time I spend. I am able to do this because I have invested a lot of money and a huge amount of study building skills and gaining knowledge. My clients pay me money for what they get from me and I then chop off a bit to pay for the benefits of living in a secure civil society and keep the rest. That's fair and i am quite happy about it.

John the manufacturer makes stuff and sells it to Pierre in France and Xuan in China. He has spent a lot of money and many years building his business, and now it pays a generous income because Pierre and Xuan pay him for his stuff. He keeps most of the profit and contributes a percentage to running the country he lives and works in, which is fair.

Mike the landlord owns an asset. That asset is increasing in value and unlike John and I, Mike doesn't have to pay tax on the money that he is accruing. Mike is pretty smart, so he buys more and more assets that increase in value - some of which only increase in value because they exist, and while John and I pay for the services all three of us enjoy, Mike is getting a free ride.

Which isn't fair. In essence, there is no difference between Mike and Paul the sickness beneficiary because neither of them are contributing their fair share to the costs of running NZ.

[shrub]

fuck yea the ones with the skills to make a decent living can fuck off and leave NZ to the bottom dwellers, that will work

Yes, I have considered leaving NZ to you. I can earn a hell of a lot more overseas than I can in NZ and if the current crop of idiots running NZ get voted back in for another 3 years by the bottom dwellers I may well do that.

One more highly educated and skilled professional leaving NZ in the hands of the bottom dwellers. Please don't screw it up completely, I would like to come back in a few years because the riding here is the best in the universe.

[Jantar]

I....
Mike the landlord owns an asset. That asset is increasing in value and unlike John and I, Mike doesn't have to pay tax on the money that he is accruing. Mike is pretty smart, so he buys more and more assets that increase in value - some of which only increase in value because they exist, and while John and I pay for the services all three of us enjoy, Mike is getting a free ride.

Which isn't fair. In essence, there is no difference between Mike and Paul the sickness beneficiary because neither of them are contributing their fair share to the costs of running NZ.

Mike the landlord receives rent on that property, and after making a small deduction for rates, insurance, interest and maintenence, pays tax on his profit. Just like John the manufacturer does.

Now here's the intesting part. If Mike the landlord sells that investment property and makes a capital gain on it that gain may be tax free. But as a few property investors in the Central lakes district found to their horror, if they bought the property with the intention of making a capital gain, then they are deemed to be property developers, not property renters, and that capital gain is already taxable. Hence no law change is needed.

[shrub]

Mike the landlord receives rent on that property, and after making a small deduction for rates, insurance, interest and maintenence, pays tax on his profit. Just like John the manufacturer does.

Now here's the intesting part. If Mike the landlord sells that investment property and makes a capital gain on it that gain may be tax free. But as a few property investors in the Central lakes district found to their horror, if they bought the property with the intention of making a capital gain, then they are deemed to be property developers, not property renters, and that capital gain is already taxable. Hence no law change is needed.

In a previous life (when I still had hair and could see my feet when I looked down) I was a portfolio manager for a large financial services company and looked after the portfolios of high net worth clients. While I no longer work in that field, I still have a good understanding of investment principles.

Yes, a rental property generates an income, but a great many of the so-called investment properties out there not only generate an appalling yield but even run at a loss. That has historically been not just acceptable, but attractive because through the use of LAQCs the "investor" has been able to offset losses against other income (usually wages and salaries). The goal has been to eventually sell the properties and realise a very generous capital gain, which is tax free. In my previous role I used to tel clients to focus on yield because that was the only thing you could bank. Capital gain is nebulous and pretty much amounts to gambling that one day someone will pay more for your asset than you did.

Some property investors have come unstuck by being deemed to be traders, but the threshold by which the IRD deem the person to be a trader and therefore subject to CGT is very nebulous and clever ownership structures and asset management mean most people are able to claim their tax free income and enjoy the benefits of living in a civil society - which I pay for.

Building and developing an asset so that it becomes worth more money is no different to getting out there and building houses, fixing cars, doing accounting or healing the sick - it's a method of gaining income (albeit an income that isn't spent), so should be taxed.

[shrub]

Go and do somthing usefull like play on the motorway Greens.


and if the greens have their way, the best you will be able to do is get hit by a bicycle...

Best get used to taking the bus if the greens get their way.[/QUOTE]

Actually, encouraging Mike and Mary to take the bus into work instead of driving their Pajero is a bloody good idea - petrol is too precious a resource to waste on driving shitbox cars and suburban tractors. Plus I'd rather share the road with one bus than 20 cars.

[Mully]

Now here's the intesting part. If Mike the landlord sells that investment property and makes a capital gain on it that gain may be tax free. But as a few property investors in the Central lakes district found to their horror, if they bought the property with the intention of making a capital gain, then they are deemed to be property developers, not property renters, and that capital gain is already taxable. Hence no law change is needed.

Bingo.

That gain is almost certainly taxable. IRD just need to enforce the tax system we have - adding another unrequired tax adds a layer of complexity that isn't needed.

If you've claimed losses against your income for a property for some period of time, your goal must have been to make money when it came to selling the place.

[JimO]

Yes, I have considered leaving NZ to you. I can earn a hell of a lot more overseas than I can in NZ and if the current crop of idiots running NZ get voted back in for another 3 years by the bottom dwellers I may well do that.

One more highly educated and skilled professional leaving NZ in the hands of the bottom dwellers. Please don't screw it up completely, I would like to come back in a few years because the riding here is the best in the universe.

dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out

[Flip]

Well at the moment you can't get a decent rental property for love or money.

The experts here have forgotten to tell you that the losses the owners can apply because of the LAQC status slowly diminish over time, ie you can not readjust the capital value as rent and value of the property goes up over time. If the landlord has claimed any depreciation this has to be paid back when the property is sold also.

I have one in Mt Cook Wellington. I get very good rent for it. When I put it on Trade me recently I posted the advert then went back to double check it, before the page had loaded the cell phone was ringing. I took 200 phone calls, probably 200 emails and txts in the next 12 hours before I pulled the add and after that the phone was still ringing.

I had 2 ladies in tears when I said I could not even show them the property because they were so desperate for a place to live. I had several offer me more money.

All that CGT will do is pull 50% of the rentals out of the market and add 50% to the remaining rental price. These ex rental houses will easily disappear into the general housing market at the moment, as very few new houses are being built and the population of NZ is still on the rise.

The CGT would be a fair tax if the rental market prices were at a fair market rate. But they are not, they have been negatively weighted by the effects of both state housing and the availability of the LAQC tax status.

The funny thing is a lot of Green supporters live in lots of rental houses.

[shrub]

The funny thing is a lot of Green supporters live in lots of rental houses.

I could say the same about labour or National supporters, except I wouldn't try and suggest that they live in lots of houses - most people, regardless of political affiliation, live in one house, although I do know a couple of Greens who own baches as well as primary residences and I know one who has an inner city appartment which he uses when he's in town, the rest of the time he lives on his farm.

It's one of those myths = Green supporters have a low income. The reality is far from that, and the profile of a Green member has them as the second highest income behind Act supporters and ahead of National supporters. They also have the highest education of any of the major parties and are most likely to be professionals. BTW, in Australia in 2007 the Green supporters were the richest! http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2932279.htm

but hey, why spoil a good stereotype with boring old facts?

[JimO]

I could say the same about labour or National supporters, except I wouldn't try and suggest that they live in lots of houses - most people, regardless of political affiliation, live in one house, although I do know a couple of Greens who own baches as well as primary residences and I know one who has an inner city appartment which he uses when he's in town, the rest of the time he lives on his farm.

It's one of those myths = Green supporters have a low income. The reality is far from that, and the profile of a Green member has them as the second highest income behind Act supporters and ahead of National supporters. They also have the highest education of any of the major parties and are most likely to be professionals. BTW, in Australia in 2007 the Green supporters were the richest! http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2932279.htm

but hey, why spoil a good stereotype with boring old facts?

you still here, thought you were leaving???

[shrub]

you still here, thought you were leaving???

Yeah, I can imagine you're probably praying I'll go. You must get sick of being outwitted.

[JimO]

Yeah, I can imagine you're probably praying I'll go. You must get sick of being outwitted.

well i didnt go to university like you did so im sure you will have no trouble outwitting me.




http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x67/jim157/Unknown-10.jpg

[Flip]

They also have the highest education of any of the major parties and are most likely to be professionals.

I guess all Green supporters lived with Mummy and Daddy while they were studying? But seriously while I was studying you could not get a flat for love nor money. The rents then used to be about $100 a room which was the rate they stayed at for about 15 years.

I for one welcome a CGT, the number of rentals will decrease and the rents will go up.

[Milts]

Just seen something on the Telly saying that the Treasury favours Tax reform over asset sales:yes:

CBF'd reading the entire thread and responding, other than to say that my flatmate works at Treasury and they're all praying like hell that by some miracle labour wins the next election by a landslide.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a fan of labour in general and particularly not in the current form, but I'm even less of a Nat fan, so...

[Jantar]

...my flatmate works at Treasury and they're all praying like hell that by some miracle labour wins the next election by a landslide.......


That alone is reason enough to vote anything but Liabore.

[Milts]

That alone is reason enough to vote anything but Liabore.

I would dearly hope that those working at the treasury know more than the average new zealander about what would be better for the economy. Especially if it's a consensus accross the entire organisation.

[Flip]

Just a thought, would a CGT allow me to claim a loss as a LAQC in a market where inflation is greater than capital gains?

[Jantar]

I would dearly hope that those working at the treasury know more than the average new zealander about what would be better for the economy.....
I would hope so too. But remember the $500m mistake (in the wrong direction) in calculating a simple thing like the value of carbon credits under the Kyoto agreement?

[Mully]

CBF'd reading the entire thread and responding, other than to say that my flatmate works at Treasury and they're all praying like hell that by some miracle labour wins the next election by a landslide.

Although that could be because National are reducing the number of civil servants.......

[Milts]

I would hope so too. But remember the $500m mistake (in the wrong direction) in calculating a simple thing like the value of carbon credits under the Kyoto agreement?

Yes. I'm hoping that was either a one-person-error or politically motivated.

Hah and while I somewhat agree Mully I think there's more to it than that.

[puddytat]

Comrades, we dont need to worry as there's rumours of a new lefter wing party possibility, so those who are struggling with the enviromental side of the Geens will still be able to vote for a party that will stand for the social agenda that founded Labour but which they only pay lip service to now.....:bleh:
A political marriage made in Heaven between Honi & Sue:yes:
(I see people choking everywhere as they read this):rofl:

But please dont get sidetracked,sorry if I take this off topic.:innocent:

[Hitcher]

A political marriage made in Heaven between Honi & Sue

Shortly before the political divorce made in heaven, one suspects. It's not going to happen.

[puddytat]

I agree really Hitcher, I think you'd see a "Grand Coalition" between the Nats & Labour before they'd allow the minor parties to band together...

[Winston001]

Ask the Irish about reducing taxation, remember them the round table was promoting Ireland in 2005 and more recently Key said we needed to take a leaf out of the Celtic tigers book, reduce our taxes and follow their lead, funny all the rich pricks who promoted Ireland as a country we should emulate have gone quite on that now....

I love the way all you right wing pricks start......

.....the rest of the rich pricks who have destroyed our country.....

Why are you so angry? :blink: If you want to get your point of view across, avoid emotive terms which add nothing to the argument.


Ireland: like it or not, Key is correct. The background is in 1987 the Irish government took a punt on economic development. They offered tax incentives and low tax rates to new businesses. Their hope was that new plants and factories would be built, more employment gained, and - crucially - knowledge.

The risk was that ordinary people had to pay for the lost tax and the new businesses could up-stakes at any time and move to another tax haven.

It worked.

Ireland grew from a middling agricultural backwater to a high-tech economy ranked 8th in the OECD. We are 24th. Furthermore even though Intel etc could move their plant elsewhere, the skilled Irish workers kept their knowledge and applied it to their own start-up businesses.

The economic problems faced by Ireland arise from the property bubble, not from having high-tech jobs. Same bubble as hit Iceland, Greece, Spain, USA, etc etc

[phill-k]

The economic problems faced by Ireland arise from the property bubble, not from having high-tech jobs. Same bubble as hit Iceland, Greece, Spain, USA, etc etc

Not angry but don't want some upstart selling my family silver, hasn't worked before and won't now. Key when he loses interest playing with NZ will fuck off and live elsewhere just like the lot that made all the money out of nationals fiddling in the 80's and 90's.

Note the bubble that burst didn't here just leaked a little air hence we are in a lot better position than those you mention.

Ireland attempted to follow a right wing philosophy, and when things got tough went belly up, we have followed a more centralist / socialist philosophy and have survived.

[Indiana_Jones]

These would be the same Greens that want to ban all semi-autos?.....they can go kiss a shotgun.

-Indy

[shrub]

These would be the same Greens that want to ban all semi-autos?.....they can go kiss a shotgun.

-Indy

Nice. :facepalm:As seems to be consistent with people opposed to the Greens you have a very poor understanding of the facts. E Endorsement Military Style Semi Automatics were banned from private ownership after the Aramoana massacre in 1990, and as you might recall National were in power and the Green party had only been in existence a few months and had 0 (zero) seats in parliament. In 2009 the Police tried to extend controls on semi-automatic rifles and failed. Incidentally, the police are not controlled by the Greens.

And why would you want a semi-auto? It's been 15 or so years since i hunted, but I used a bolt action Winchester Model 88 very effectively and never wanted for more. If you're a hunter and you can't kill with one shot, then you either need to spend time on the range or get off your arse and get a better shot.

Thank you, please come again.:yes:

[Indiana_Jones]

Nice. :facepalm:As seems to be consistent with people opposed to the Greens you have a very poor understanding of the facts. E Endorsement Military Style Semi Automatics were banned from private ownership after the Aramoana massacre in 1990, and as you might recall National were in power and the Green party had only been in existence a few months and had 0 (zero) seats in parliament. In 2009 the Police tried to extend controls on semi-automatic rifles and failed. Incidentally, the police are not controlled by the Greens.

And why would you want a semi-auto? It's been 15 or so years since i hunted, but I used a bolt action Winchester Model 88 very effectively and never wanted for more. If you're a hunter and you can't kill with one shot, then you either need to spend time on the range or get off your arse and get a better shot.

Thank you, please come again.:yes:

I never said the greens implemented the MSSA policy, that was typical knee-jerk reaction stuff to the Aramoana shootings.

As for the pigs trying to change the grip law, again never said the greens suggested it, but I dare say they didn't complain about it lol

The greens on their website state:

"Green Party will:

1. Support making private ownership of fully functional semi-automatic weapons illegal."

As for why you would want to own a semi-auto, you don't need one really, but quite simply people want them.

Going by that logic we should all be on 100cc scooters and 1L cars as we don't need anything bigger really.

-Indy

[shrub]

As for why you would want to own a semi-auto, you don't need one really, but quite simply people want them.

Some people want to own handguns and machine guns - should they be allowed to own them? And I'd quite like to own some snakes - should I be allowed to own some? Or what about owning a P lab?

[MisterD]

Some people want to own handguns and machine guns - should they be allowed to own them? And I'd quite like to own some snakes - should I be allowed to own some? Or what about owning a P lab?

Yes, yes and now you're being silly.

[Indiana_Jones]

Some people want to own handguns and machine guns - should they be allowed to own them? And I'd quite like to own some snakes - should I be allowed to own some? Or what about owning a P lab?

You can own a pistol if you want. Machine gun also.

I personally feel that if you have a licence you should be allowed to own any firearm, save explosives (Eg RPGs etc, not that you can't make your own lol) and should be allowed to carry a concealed pistol on your body if you wish.

-Indy

[JimO]

Or what about owning a P lab?

what!! you dont already??, still here thought you were leaving??

[shrub]

Yes, yes and now you're being silly.

So owning a weapon that is of limited use outside of a combat situation is not silly whereas wanting to own a very interesting and visually attractive animal is?

[shrub]

You can own a pistol if you want. Machine gun also.

I personally feel that if you have a licence you should be allowed to own any firearm, save explosives (Eg RPGs etc, not that you can't make your own lol) and should be allowed to carry a concealed pistol on your body if you wish.

-Indy

Why not be allowed to own RPGs? You can use it to shoot the enemy.

As for carrying a concealed pistol - what the fuck would you want to do something so stupid? What are you going to do with it? Impress your mates at the local internet cafe? Fight off bandits? Protect yourself against snakes?

Why not carry a flick knife instead? At least you can use it to peel your lunch apple. Or a snake - you can throw it at the bandits and scare them. Or you could tie explosives to you and really fuck them bandits up when they attack you.

[Indiana_Jones]

I'd own a switch blade actually if I could.

As well as an RPG.

And have a mountain of coke on my desk to stick my face into.

Good times!

-Indy

[Pussy]

I know a bloke who owns a P-51 Mustang.
As far as I'm aware, he didn't buy it to shoot other aeroplanes out of the sky, or escort bombers to Berlin....

[MisterD]

So owning a weapon that is of limited use outside of a combat situation is not silly whereas wanting to own a very interesting and visually attractive animal is?

There were three question marks in your post so there's a "yes" for the guns, a "yes" for the snakes and a "now you're being silly" for the P-lab.

(Not that I don't think there's something a bit weird about people that want to own machine guns or snakes but we need NZ to remain competitive in the lucrative Bikini-Girls-with-snakes-and-machine-guns video industry)

[shrub]

There were three question marks in your post so there's a "yes" for the guns, a "yes" for the snakes and a "now you're being silly" for the P-lab.

(Not that I don't think there's something a bit weird about people that want to own machine guns or snakes but we need NZ to remain competitive in the lucrative Bikini-Girls-with-snakes-and-machine-guns video industry)

P labs are bloody profitable. The risks are high, but seriously good money and no worrying about tax cuts.

Dirty girls and snakes are a great combination, especially if you add whips.

[Winston001]

So owning a weapon that is of limited use outside of a combat situation is not silly whereas wanting to own a very interesting and visually attractive animal is?

Stop that Stop that! That's just silly.

Snakes are not attractive. Machine guns are. Enough said. :yes:

[Mully]

P labs are bloody profitable.

Especially if you do it in a rental property

Capital Gain that, then.

[Swoop]

Actually, encouraging Mike and Mary to take the bus into work instead of driving their Pajero is a bloody good idea
Stopping parents from driving little Jonny to school in a vehicle and making them walk would help the traffic, petrol and obesity problems all at once.

Although that could be because National are reducing the number of civil servants.......
Good. They are neither "civil" nor serve!

E Endorsement Military Style Semi Automatics were banned from private ownership
Uh, not quite. You can go out and buy one today if you like.