Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[Winston001]

No disagreement in theory, but in principle how? People don't want to pay for water usage, as some nongs believe that that is the first step to "privatisation" (some prats think it's currently "free"). Dog licenses, libraries, no problem. Rubbish collection, doable. Biosecurity (e.g. possum extermination), who pays? Flood protection, who pays? Public transport, who pays? Environmental monitoring, who pays? Economic development, who pays?

I made a submission some years ago to the Invercargill City Council urging uniform annual charges to flatten the rates burden. After all, why should a household of 5 in a low value home pay less than granny whose 40yr home has risen in value simply because of the street it is in. 5 people get a lot more benefit from their rates than 1 person.

In my naivety I then pondered aloud on the equity of a poll tax. Oh dear. You'd think I had released a stink bomb...

Needless to say I wasted my time.

[Ocean1]

If you're not a resident of a flood risk area you don't pay rates for flood protection.

Which is presumably why councils have been officially identifying previously unknown flood, earthquake and slip problems hand over fist.

It'd be interesting to compare the councils charges for protection work for a given zone with private quotes for the same work. When and if that work is ever done.

Friend down Blenheim way had the council there list his property as a bio-hazard site. Apparently some local octogenarian remembered that when he was a teen the farmer on who’s land his house was built had destroyed some cattle in the belief they were diseased and burying them “somewhere over there.”

This, of course affected the value of his house, (other than on his rates demand) and it took three years and several thousand dollars to demonstrate that there was no such burial site in the area.

[rainman]

I honestly think this is an empty debate in NZ. Straw men set up by Labour/Greens etc to draw political support from the bitter and envious.

On what basis? Look at the income stats, even considering that's only declared income.

This e-mail turned up the other day:

Fucken hell you lot are like children.

So the big question is big man, would you cut your own pay so that others could live a better life.

Or are you the equivalent of a Labour Conan behind the keyboard. Words and no walk.
Because fact of the matter is you can do this right now......even without our blessing. CCF etc awaits your call.

Whoosh! That was my point flying past, way up there.

[Oscar]

Fucken hell you lot are like children.

Be careful, you are in danger of confirming the humourless & politically correct left wing stereotype.

[Winston001]

On what basis? Look at the income stats, even considering that's only declared income.

I genuinely do not believe we have obscenely wealthy groups in New Zealand - either in terms of income or assets. Yes, there are some families with hundreds of millions. Yes there are some people who earn $1 million+ per year.

Seriously - good luck to them.

But overall our collective wealth and income is spread in a broad band across most of the 2.3 million who work.

As for the very wealthy - my life experience is they die just like the poor. The next generation aim to conserve the assets. Then the third generation having no understanding of how hard it is to build up - spend it. At which point the assets are redistributed among the rest of the population.

[Ocean1]

As for the very wealthy - my life experience is they die just like the poor. The next generation aim to conserve the assets. Then the third generation having no understanding of how hard it is to build up - spend it. At which point the assets are redistributed among the rest of the population.

Not universally true, but as far as generalisations go pretty close.

I’m deeply miffed that my grandfather wasn’t very wealthy, I’d have been a damn fine wastrel.

I plan on expressing my outrage by spending my last dime, (and anyone else’s I can get my grubby mits on) well before my various offspring get their hands anywhere near it.

[Hitcher]

Governments of any persuasion should have observed from history that all new taxes never work out how they were intended. What should they have learned is simple: No. New. Taxes.

If tax was the answer, then Soviet Russia would now rule the world.

[avgas]

Whoosh! That was my point flying past, way up there.

My bad then. But if you want me to grasp them stop filling the bloody things with hot air.

Still no call to the save the people of NZ foundation then?

[rainman]

I genuinely do not believe we have obscenely wealthy groups in New Zealand - either in terms of income or assets. Yes, there are some families with hundreds of millions. Yes there are some people who earn $1 million+ per year.

Seriously - good luck to them.

But overall our collective wealth and income is spread in a broad band across most of the 2.3 million who work.

Obscene is a relative term.

I don't begrudge the hard-working and talented getting a fair shake, and earn above the median myself (and work bloody hard for it). But let's compare two cases:
1. a good, hardworking, loyal employee, maybe "unskilled" in the sense of not tertiary qualified, some years of experience. Say they earn about $50k per year, doing alright by NZ standards.
2. your suggested $1m+ a year person. Actually let's even wind that back, to "just" $500k. Maybe a high-flying lawyer, or a property developer, an advertising exec, a CEO? Self-employed, maybe, or even an employer.

One is clearly more educated, more entrepreneurial, might take higher risks, might employ some people... so deserves more reward. But ten times as much? On what basis?
Most of the people I have met that earn $300k or more are useless fools with big personalities and credentials in the old boys club, not Randian Atlases that labour hard to hold the place up for the rest of us. Some exceptions, but few and far between.

With regard to the last line of yours that I quoted, I'm afraid the facts are really not on your side. Of course it is spread - but highly unevenly and in a way that cannot account for simple hard work and application. I've quoted our parlous income distribution here before many times, and the data are available on the Stats and IRD sites for you to cross-check if you like. I sense that you're a bit bound to your worldview to let facts get in the way though, so if that's the case, good luck to you.

No. New. Taxes.

I'd be in favour of capping government spending based on sensible metrics (healthcare spend scaled with population growth etc, super on demographcs, and the like), but the problem you have is that won't work in a open globalised economy like we have (thanks to that vandal Douglas and his friends). If you can't control unemployment and need to be globally competitive, then you'll end up with lots of unemployed during recessions, and they either need support or it will get messy. Liberalised economies increase inequality, and that increases the stuff you need to spend tax on, like health, police, justice... and the stuff you should spend tax on, like education, welfare etc.

Can't have it both ways.

My bad then. But if you want me to grasp them stop filling the bloody things with hot air.

Still no call to the save the people of NZ foundation then?

Sorry, I'll try to use smaller words for you in future. How's this: rich people destroy wealth by wasting it on shiny shit, and we would all generally be better off by redistributing it. Libertarian capitalism is a failure and won't continue indefinitely. We First beats Me First, although many of us are still too immature to get that.

And I'm quite happy about how much of my life and money I give, thanks.

[Ocean1]

How's this: rich people destroy wealth by wasting it on shiny shit, and we would all generally be better off by redistributing it.

So... exactly who's money is it?

And why on earth shouldn' they spend it however they fucking like?

And who's this "we" outfit?

And laet be clear, here; by "redistribute" you mean steal it.

[rainman]

And laet be clear, here; by "redistribute" you mean steal it.

If that's the only option. Just like many of them did to get it in the first place.

"We" might be a bit of a big concept for you, but keep trying, you'll get there.

[Ocean1]

If that's the only option.

But it isn't.

You could get a fucking job you lazy bastard!





And a haircut, you look fucking ridiculous.

[Winston001]

One is clearly more educated, more entrepreneurial, might take higher risks, might employ some people... so deserves more reward. But ten times as much? On what basis?

Let me surprise you by saying I agree. You'll be aware there is an activist movement in the United States to curb CEO bonuses after the GFC exposed many of them to be incompetent. As to how much? Dunno. There is historical data suggesting 9x the average employees salary in a business is acceptable.

I sense that you're a bit bound to your worldview to let facts get in the way though, so if that's the case, good luck to you.

I do hope not. One of the signatures of wisdom is to change your mind as you learn more. For example, until recently I was opposed to CGT etc. I still think Labour's plan is deeply flawed because of the exemptions but that aside, maybe its time to try it.

However if we want a tax system which forces people to make their wealth work - or maybe sell it - then an annual 0.5% tax on all assets (no exemptions) is far more logical.

Sorry, I'll try to use smaller words for you in future.

You post good arguments and many more read this stuff than actually post. I suggest you avoid emotive taunts except in jest. You may feel they are deserved - fair enough - but the reader is immediately drawn away from valid points and instead focuses on the personal.

FWIW I struggle on KB to argue dispassionately. A bit of good humoured abuse can be fun.

[JimO]

If that's the only option. Just like many of them did to get it in the first place.

steal it from who??

[rainman]

But it isn't.

You could get a fucking job you lazy bastard!

And a haircut, you look fucking ridiculous.

Funny! Doubly funny, in fact - except for those poor bastards who can't find employment, of course.

However if we want a tax system which forces people to make their wealth work - or maybe sell it - then an annual 0.5% tax on all assets (no exemptions) is far more logical.

Problem is that would force little old ladies with no income and high property values to sell up and move, so would really be the "third rail" and nuke any party that proposed it.

You post good arguments and many more read this stuff than actually post. I suggest you avoid emotive taunts except in jest.

But Mum... he started it!

Seriously, I post polite and reasonable responses to intelligent and reasonable people. 'Nuff said.

steal it from who??

Do you mean, who did they steal it from, or who would I steal it from?