Greens favour capital gains tax

[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:Me]

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/counterpoin...10/2932279.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/counterpoin...10/2932279.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.