"Bold steps" by the g'ment - changes announced at 2pm today

[rainman]

in red baby 10 chars

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail, if needed. But they are by far the exception, rather than the rule. It's not smart to base policy mainly on exceptions.
And yes, some people do need a rocket - but if you generalise that into believing most beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers you're an idiot.
If you're really rich, congrats. Hope you didn't screw over too many people and destroy too many irreplaceable resources to get there. And, since your moral compass seems stuck on "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest" I assume you gained no benefit from government or anyone else in your rise to the top?

[Tank]

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail, if needed. But they are by far the exception, rather than the rule. It's not smart to base policy mainly on exceptions.
And yes, some people do need a rocket - but if you generalise that into believing most beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers you're an idiot.

Im not saying that the majority are by any means - Im saying that there are thousands of them that are - and that is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you're really rich, congrats. Hope you didn't screw over too many people and destroy too many irreplaceable resources to get there. And, since your moral compass seems stuck on "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest" I assume you gained no benefit from government or anyone else in your rise to the top?

Not really rich - but not doing too bad by a lot of standards. I love it when prety much every leftie thinbks just because you have done well that you had to screw over lots of people and damage resources to get there. Seems that they are the ones with the fucked up view of the world.

and no - never had any money from the g'ment. no benefits, no business loans - nothing.

in red again - cos its pretty

[Tank]

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail,

And yet you are against it when the government start cracking down on people like that?

[Mully]

Seriously, don't give up your day, which appears to be talking shit from the looks of it I may add. It's not up to the ird to prove anything. They need only level a charge and it is up to you to prove otherwise. Under tax law you are guilty until proven innocent.
However you are still wrong on your original point anyway.
Sure you "may" be liable for tax on the sale of a house, in certain specific circumstances as I outlined.

Boody bush lawyers.

LOL

You haven't outlined anything yet

Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'm always happy to learn something new. Especially if I can make tax gains out of it.

EDIT: actually, wouldn't I be a bloody bush accountant rather than a bush lawyer. Both maybe.

[Headbanger]

And in conclusion, No bold steps were taken, Mr Mouse merely gave flight to a couple of kites.

[Miscreant]

LOL

You haven't outlined anything yet

Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'm always happy to learn something new. Especially if I can make tax gains out of it.

EDIT: actually, wouldn't I be a bloody bush accountant rather than a bush lawyer. Both maybe.

Now I'm sure you're fucking with me. My post 33 outlines (be it breif) where you may and may not be liable for tax on the sale of a property.
I know I'd want my lawyer advising me on matters of law. But hey up to you, after all, you're the expert right.

[rainman]

869][/COLOR]Im saying that there are thousands of them that are

You should check the actual figures for long term beneficiaries, they are lower than you might think.

I love it when prety much every leftie thinbks just because you have done well that you had to screw over lots of people and damage resources to get there. Seems that they are the ones with the fucked up view of the world.

and no - never had any money from the g'ment. no benefits, no business loans - nothing.

Actually I didn't say you had, just that that is the traditional capitalist way. Plenty of evidence of this if y ou look around, and through history.
And you've received no benefit at all, including indirect, from living in a civilised society? You must be one of those Randian supermen I keep hearing about. (Sorry, I do realise sarcasm is a low form of wit).

And yet you are against it when the government start cracking down on people like that?

What on earth gave you that idea? I firmly think that true bludgers, both those exploiting the welfare system, and those exploiting the tax system, should be nailed. Note the difference between this and simplistic generalised one-sided bennie bashing.

And in conclusion, No bold steps were taken, Mr Mouse merely gave flight to a couple of kites.

Indeed. David Slack nails it: http://publicaddress.net/default,6460.sm#post6460
"It's possibly a step, it's possibly a change, but if this were the movies, I'd be rubbing my 3D glasses and trying to work out if I had the angle wrong."

[Mully]

Now I'm sure you're fucking with me. My post 33 outlines (be it breif) where you may and may not be liable for tax on the sale of a property.
I know I'd want my lawyer advising me on matters of law. But hey up to you, after all, you're the expert right.

I did manage to get under your skin remarkably easily.

Proof is not you saying it. That's you saying it.

I see you've used the "7-year-old child" argument - "I'm right, you're wrong. I can't hear you. Lalalalala"

Welcome to my ignore list, muppet.

Only thing worse than a bush lawyer is a fucktard.

[SPman]

(Sorry, I do realise sarcasm is a low form of wit).

The lowest, in fact, Oscar.............

[Miscreant]

I did manage to get under your skin remarkably easily.

Proof is not you saying it. That's you saying it.

I see you've used the "7-year-old child" argument - "I'm right, you're wrong. I can't hear you. Lalalalala"

Welcome to my ignore list, muppet.

Only thing worse than a bush lawyer is a fucktard.

Who is under who's skin, mr I'm putting you on ignore?
Fucktards may be worse than bush lawyers but you being both is worse again.
Loser.

[Winston001]

CGT wasn't required really - if you buy a house with the intention of making money, you should be paying tax on it when you sell. IRD have never really chased that.

Mmmmm......yes and no. Miscreant has already commented so I don't know if this helps.

The usual reason for buying a house is to provide shelter and security - for yourself and your family. Renting by comparison, is insecure. IRD know this and do not investigate the ordinary person who upgrades their home every 5 - 7 years. Underlying home ownership is the hope/belief it's value will rise. However the value of the replacement property also rises so it's a zero sum game.

If instead you bought property with the intention of capturing a gain in value and kept a record of that decision - IRD would very easily assess the gain as taxable. Unfortunately for the Commissioner most people are very lax about such records.....

So what IRD look for is patterns of quick sales and purchases. The information on property transfers is easy to get these days. Then as Miscreant correctly says, you are on the back foot. If the Commissioner assesses you as liable for tax then the law says you have to pay - unless you can convince a judge the Commissioner is wrong. It's Guilty until proven Innocent.

I can think of people who bought and sold over a short period for legitimate reasons but IRD aren't wearing that. The tax isn't a lot so it will probably be paid rather than a year of stress etc. There are other cases though where tens of millions of dollars are being assessed and recovered from property speculators - which is as it should be.

So be assured, IRD are finding tax evaders and computers are making it faster and easier.

[Brian d marge]

Call me old fashioned

but i would like a house i can afford and still see my family on the odd day away from Albion's satanic mill

Stephen


found a house in south bridge , near ch-ch 149 000 ( full mortgage say 300 over 25 years ) thats a weekly income required of 1000 dollars a week if the the weekly repayments are 30 % of your income

F$#$%&

sod that ( I am only paying 25 % of me salary here )

[golfmade]

Call me old fashioned

but i would like a house i can afford and still see my family on the odd day away from Albion's satanic mill

Stephen


found a house in south bridge , near ch-ch 149 000 ( full mortgage say 300 over 25 years ) thats a weekly income required of 1000 dollars a week if the the weekly repayments are 30 % of your income

F$#$%&

sod that ( I am only paying 25 % of me salary here )

That says something, thought Tokyo would be a lot more expensive than most places in NZ.

[Mully]

The usual reason for buying a house is to provide shelter and security - for yourself and your family. Renting by comparison, is insecure. IRD know this and do not investigate the ordinary person who upgrades their home every 5 - 7 years. Underlying home ownership is the hope/belief it's value will rise. However the value of the replacement property also rises so it's a zero sum game.

If instead you bought property with the intention of capturing a gain in value and kept a record of that decision - IRD would very easily assess the gain as taxable. Unfortunately for the Commissioner most people are very lax about such records.....

So what IRD look for is patterns of quick sales and purchases. The information on property transfers is easy to get these days. Then as Miscreant correctly says, you are on the back foot. If the Commissioner assesses you as liable for tax then the law says you have to pay - unless you can convince a judge the Commissioner is wrong. It's Guilty until proven Innocent.

I can think of people who bought and sold over a short period for legitimate reasons but IRD aren't wearing that. The tax isn't a lot so it will probably be paid rather than a year of stress etc. There are other cases though where tens of millions of dollars are being assessed and recovered from property speculators - which is as it should be.

So be assured, IRD are finding tax evaders and computers are making it faster and easier.

Sorry, I meant rental property - if you are buying a family home there isn't tax on the gain on that of course.

My point was if you buy a rental and claim "losses" against your income, it's pretty hard to claim that your intention wasn't making a profit come sale time.

Generally, no-one buys their family home soley with the intent on making money (if they add value, that's usually secondary to "security", as you said).

Agree with what you say with regard to quick buying and selling. I got some information from my accountant (not a bush accountant, unfortunately) who was with IRD for several years.

His opinion was that IRD have historically not caught this potential revenue stream (for whatever reason). I understand IRD added some resource to police this more lately.

[Jez]

How does one feel about being lied to? ... i know it pisses me off (voted national here)

Now you can say that the governments lie to us all the time to secure our vote, but isn't it time they are held accountable for such blatant lies as this one?

As far as the whole raising of GST goes ... really ... what's the point? They give with one hand, and take with the other making a gain of zero to joe normal, meanwhile those at the very top and very bottom of the ladder will see some benefit at least, its the majority in the middle that are getting railed here.

Bold steps by the government, my ass ... Same old shit different day, more like it