Stupid World

[Ocean1]

So capital gains isn't income. Gotcha.

A capital gains tax is required because common business practice is to deduct costs. So the govt gets less funding and has to borrow/levy to make up the shortfall blah blah blah. My understanding is that capital gains only comes into play when the property is sold and when money is made on the sale. Tax loopholes/exemptions are bizarre concepts.

You implied that deducting costs was bad, "Coz everyone tries to limit their tax liability" wasn't it?

And some capital gains tax might be income, but some of its going to be inflation, who gets to define what's what?

In that case I require huge tax rebates, 'cause the govt taxes me therefor I get less funding and have to borrow to make up the shortfall.

[Ocean1]

The point would seem to be that these people are part of the property investors group .. and therefore have vested interests .. they are completely biased towards having an increasing property market as the benefit personally and directly ..

If National increases the supply of houses, then prices will not increase as fast, maybe even drop, directly impacting on these MPs ability to make money ..

Anywhere else this would be called a "conflict of interest" and they would be disqualified from making decisions on the housing market ..

And the fact that the cost of all those new houses required to drag the market price down would bankrupt the country is beside the point eh?


Oh, and the only governments that fuck with markets to make shit cheaper for people who can't afford it are socialist states. Long since failed and dead ones.

[Woodman]

And the fact that the cost of all those new houses required to drag the market price down would bankrupt the country is beside the point eh?


Oh, and the only governments that fuck with markets to make shit cheaper for people who can't afford it are socialist states. Long since failed and dead ones.

Well said that man.

[mashman]

You implied that deducting costs was bad, "Coz everyone tries to limit their tax liability" wasn't it?

And some capital gains tax might be income, but some of its going to be inflation, who gets to define what's what?

In that case I require huge tax rebates, 'cause the govt taxes me therefor I get less funding and have to borrow to make up the shortfall.

Ahhhh the catch-22 of it all.

[avgas]

Do you think that if the same information was available for Doctors, Lawyers, Airline Pilots & Dentists that it would read much differently?

Nah. But if I ever get tooth ache, need to go over seas, get sued or get sick I might need them.

When do I need a politician? In case ISIS invade?
Oh I know. For that one time I forget my motorbike helmet, crash, get brain damage - and no longer can operate my own decision process.
But if that was the only case I get a politician, I might ask for DNR.

Sadly the reality is that I will always get one. If I need it or not.
Imagine always paying for the doctor, the lawyer, the airline pilot the dentist. Even if you never used them.

[avgas]

I tried telling inland revenue I was poor ..

They showed me a neat trick with a stone

sent for a divine source

How was the soup?

[avgas]

Yeah, I was a bit crushed that Winnie doesn't own any property in Tauranga, he lived there once & it would be providing a tidy return now if he had hung in there.
But I'm trying to work out how them investing in property is noteworthy.
They are helping to ease the rental shortage by providing rental housing & seriously, short of gambling on the sharemarkets, what else is left for the sensible investor?
They're probably a bit too smart to get duped by this kind of shit http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-ple...ectid=11008524 although I knew a couple of stoners that lost their inheritance in that one.

He still has 2 or 3 properties down there. They just probably don't appear under his name anymore...... because he is smart.

[Brian d marge]

How was the soup?

Hahaha your mother tried that old trick as well
I knew it wouldnt add flavour...

sent for a divine source

[Brian d marge]

He still has 2 or 3 properties down there. They just probably don't appear under his name anymore...... because he is smart.

I have done the same
I have 2 properties in remuera under 2 different names
Unfortunately they have been squatted by some rich fkers . But come the revolution .....

sent for a divine source

[sidecar bob]

Nah. But if I ever get tooth ache, need to go over seas, get sued or get sick I might need them.

When do I need a politician? In case ISIS invade?
Oh I know. For that one time I forget my motorbike helmet, crash, get brain damage - and no longer can operate my own decision process.
But if that was the only case I get a politician, I might ask for DNR.

Sadly the reality is that I will always get one. If I need it or not.
Imagine always paying for the doctor, the lawyer, the airline pilot the dentist. Even if you never used them.

Or for the time you need ACC, free healthcare, free education, state housing, a maintained roading network, huge payouts for Iwi, a defence force to protect your country, a police force to protect your neighbourhood. But I'm no expert.

[Banditbandit]

And the fact that the cost of all those new houses required to drag the market price down would bankrupt the country is beside the point eh?

How do you figure that?

The Government is not requiring HNZ to pay the $92million dividend over the next two years, but put it back into housing.

At a modest $400,000 to build a small home, that 92million will build 230 homes ... sell them to people and use that money to build more ... sell them, put the money into more new houses ...

With this kind of approach the houses could be sold at cost price - no profit - thus reducing the price on the market of these particular homes. The buiolders all get paid (people earn money), new owners get homes at affordable prices ... reducing homelessness ... the Government look like the good guys ... a win all round

The investment money remains in the system, not requiring any new money at all ... I agree that dumping enough new homes on the market to drag down the market price would bankrupt the country - no-one has ever suggested that was the approach.

Oh, and the only governments that fuck with markets to make shit cheaper for people who can't afford it are socialist states. Long since failed and dead ones.

So you are happy to be a "free market" state with the consequence of having homeless people in Godzone?

And isn't keeping prices of consumable goods what the current Government claims it is doing? Ensuring that consumers have access to cheaper goods?

[bogan]

How do you figure that?

The Government is not requiring HNZ to pay the $92million dividend over the next two years, but put it back into housing.

At a modest $400,000 to build a small home, that 92million will build 230 homes ... sell them to people and use that money to build more ... sell them, put the money into more new houses ...

With this kind of approach the houses could be sold at cost price - no profit - thus reducing the price on the market of these particular homes. The buiolders all get paid (people earn money), new owners get homes at affordable prices ... reducing homelessness ... the Government look like the good guys ... a win all round

The investment money remains in the system, not requiring any new money at all ... I agree that dumping enough new homes on the market to drag down the market price would bankrupt the country - no-one has ever suggested that was the approach.




So you are happy to be a "free market" state with the consequence of having homeless people in Godzone?

And isn't keeping prices of consumable goods what the current Government claims it is doing? Ensuring that consumers have access to cheaper goods?

New owners getting homes at affordable prices isn't going to reduce homelessness. Since homeless people don't have enough cash to rent, how the fuck are they going to buy?

Selling at cost will just end up with some private investment company getting fucking cheap houses.

Oh, and it's homeless in Auckland; hardly Godzone.

Houses aren't consumable goods, rent arguably is though.

[Woodman]

New owners getting homes at affordable prices isn't going to reduce homelessness. Since homeless people don't have enough cash to rent, how the fuck are they going to buy?

Selling at cost will just end up with some private investment company getting fucking cheap houses.

Oh, and it's homeless in Auckland; hardly Godzone.

Houses aren't consumable goods, rent arguably is though.

Yeah and putting more cheap houses out there will reduce what landlords/investors can charge for rental. Will the gummint reimburse somehow the landlords for their losses due to their meddling in the housing market?

[Ocean1]

How do you figure that?

The Government is not requiring HNZ to pay the $92million dividend over the next two years, but put it back into housing.

At a modest $400,000 to build a small home, that 92million will build 230 homes ... sell them to people and use that money to build more ... sell them, put the money into more new houses ...

With this kind of approach the houses could be sold at cost price - no profit - thus reducing the price on the market of these particular homes. The buiolders all get paid (people earn money), new owners get homes at affordable prices ... reducing homelessness ... the Government look like the good guys ... a win all round

The investment money remains in the system, not requiring any new money at all ... I agree that dumping enough new homes on the market to drag down the market price would bankrupt the country - no-one has ever suggested that was the approach.

I'm afraid this:

If National increases the supply of houses, then prices will not increase as fast, maybe even drop, directly impacting on these MPs ability to make money ..

Is very much suggesting dumping enough now homes on the market to bankrupt the country.

So you are happy to be a "free market" state with the consequence of having homeless people in Godzone?

First: there's no such thing as a functional market that doesn't allow buyers and sellers to agree prices without someone else taking an unearned cut.

Secondly a free market in no way disallows charity. Which is what someone else paying for homes for those that can't afford them actually is. So the event of homeless has nothing to do with a free market.

Thirdly, if you want the only marginally homeless people to buy their own homes then you might look at making them more affordable. This is the opposite of what's been happening for several decades now, with protected materials suppliers, (just dying for a dose of free market here), bleeding heart fuckwits demanding increasingly unaffordable standards compliance costs and protected developers and monopoly regional councils punching the ticket way, way beyond the real cost of supply. Make 90sq meter houses on sections priced at maybe only twice the cost to supply and I promise you house prices would halve overnight.

The terminable, irrevocably homeless you'll never tempt into working hard enough to own much of anything, they're a lost cause.

And isn't keeping prices of consumable goods what the current Government claims it is doing? Ensuring that consumers have access to cheaper goods?

Examples?

[Brian d marge]

I'm afraid this:



Is very much suggesting dumping enough now homes on the market to bankrupt the country.




First: there's no such thing as a functional market that doesn't allow buyers and sellers to agree prices without someone else taking an unearned cut.

Secondly a free market in no way disallows charity. Which is what someone else paying for homes for those that can't afford them actually is. So the event of homeless has nothing to do with a free market.

Thirdly, if you want the only marginally homeless people to buy their own homes then you might look at making them more affordable. This is the opposite of what's been happening for several decades now, with protected materials suppliers, (just dying for a dose of free market here), bleeding heart fuckwits demanding increasingly unaffordable standards compliance costs and protected developers and monopoly regional councils punching the ticket way, way beyond the real cost of supply. Make 90sq meter houses on sections priced at maybe only twice the cost to supply and I promise you house prices would halve overnight.

The terminable, irrevocably homeless you'll never tempt into working hard enough to own much of anything, they're a lost cause.



Examples?

U make my twaddle look positively poetic
So in a free market cashed up Chinese and poms oozing with zero interest monies and baby boomers with a few houses and liquidity egged on by the banks
Is all good then

One hope you don't have children or a stake in the future

Oh btw we went down the big house route a year back and as usual you were wrong

I'm amazed at how deep you actually have your head in the sand , you must be able to SEE china from there..

sent for a divine source