Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[Spearfish]

I know a few guys that fit "A" they have worked so hard that two now have rentals the third has sorta spoiled his kids a bit.(read- a lot) all on "warehouse" incomes.
Ask them if CGT is the best way to raise the down trodden and fiscally illiterate. Size twelve boot prints on backsides is part of their answer.

[mashman]

It ain't the money, dude, it's the man behind it. And "redistributing" it is just treating the symptom.

It's the money. no money, no dudes doing the things they do. And redistributing it

[rainman]

I don't doubt it, but that doesn't make them typical.

You're failing to follow the point of this exercise. They don't have to be typical, they just have to be feasible to show your original point is a load of crap.

Rather than hold the simplistic view that all you have to do to be successful (/wealthy) is work hard and spend less than you earn, perhaps you should contemplate the concept of karma, which I'll phrase as: (good) consequences tend to follow (good) actions, but not always.

It ain't the money, dude, it's the man behind it. And "redistributing" it is just treating the symptom.

Well, you clearly don't have any better ideas. Maybe we should try mine and see how we go. Besides, if it ain't the money, then why object so reflexively to paying a teensy bit more tax? The man behind it would be much improved by the addition of a greater degree of compassion and care for his fellows, I'm sure.

[Winston001]

...perhaps you should contemplate the concept of karma, which I'll phrase as: (good) consequences tend to follow (good) actions, but not always.



Well, you clearly don't have any better ideas. Maybe we should try mine and see how we go. Besides, if it ain't the money, then why object so reflexively to paying a teensy bit more tax? The man behind it would be much improved by the addition of a greater degree of compassion and care for his fellows, I'm sure.

The objection is that "capital" (savings) arise originally from tax-paid money. Now the government wants a second bite. CGT looks like an attack on being provident.

But ok, leave that aside. I could live with a 15% CGT if income taxes remain flat. My objections are:

1. It is an idea which comes too late. The property boom is over. The time to introduce CGT was in 2000.

2. Tax yield from CGT takes a long long time to become a decent amount of money because only a small proportion of property is sold each year. About 15 years to reach fruition.

3. CGT will make no difference to property prices - other nations with this tax experienced the same and even greater property booms as NZ.

4. CGT will have exemptions which immediately introduces tax-dodging behaviour. Plenty of work for lawyers and accountants. Mmm...ok, so it isn't all bad.

[Ocean1]

You're failing to follow the point of this exercise. They don't have to be typical, they just have to be feasible to show your original point is a load of crap.

Yes, yes I get it, your aim isn’t to improve anyone’s lot, it’s to penalise success like the largely socialist governments of this country have been doing for decades. You’re correct, I don’t follow that at all.

You go on using fairytale characters to justify doing what you desperately want to. I’ll be over here with all the real people.

Rather than hold the simplistic view that all you have to do to be successful (/wealthy) is work hard and spend less than you earn, perhaps you should contemplate the concept of karma, which I'll phrase as: (good) consequences tend to follow (good) actions, but not always.

I never said it was a panacea, it’s simply the single most effective behaviour to achievement, and that’s not limited to making money.

And I’m acquainted with the concept of karma. Reckon I’m well in credit, but cheers for asking. In fact, although I don’t consider myself particularly well off, successful people are invariably not only in a better position to distribute largesse but they generally do it more often. And with better effect.

As for the consequences of such charity? You’re correct, they’re often not encouraging, especially when the recipients consider it their due.

Well, you clearly don't have any better ideas. Maybe we should try mine and see how we go. Besides, if it ain't the money, then why object so reflexively to paying a teensy bit more tax? The man behind it would be much improved by the addition of a greater degree of compassion and care for his fellows, I'm sure.

No thanks. We’ve tried your way, all it does is create dependence, resentment and a huge disincentive to success. It’s time to ask those who’s karma is in deficit to step up and help out.

[avgas]

Arrrggh too much reading.
Will check back here after work. When i have time to actually read what people have said before responding.

[avgas]

With regard to China or India, are you saying their high levels of inequality would not contribute to higher levels of the social ills that Wilkinson and Pickett describe? Of course there are multiple factors that drive societies and their performance, but ceteris paribus their argument seems to be quite sound. The correlations are robust for the nations under study. I'm sure they aren't claiming a universal truth, but for the countries under study, higher inequality correlates well with higher levels of social ills. If you think other factors would negate their thesis, feel free to research and publish a counter. You'd be famous.

Ok let me go though this bit by bit (I hate multiquote)
1) Nope. I am saying that if I was measuring something I have a tendency to take a sample of as many parts of the whole as possible. So if that sampling is for a WORLD scale, you generally have to measure the whole world.........not just the nice fluffy stuff.
If you fail to account for China or India in World calculations, it makes you look bad. Miss out on both - basically makes all your stats void.

2) Certus Paribus no longer exists. If it did:
- The nation with the least population per $ would hold the wealth. That got killed in 2008.
- The youth would outnumber the elderly. Clearly not the case in NZ.
- The richest nation in the world would have the highest valued $......
I could go on but I must allow time for sleep.

3) Correlation does not imply Causation. However this is irrelevant considering it was a world study missing 3/4 of the world.

4) Good point. However I would feel better finding ways to actually help mankind rather than finger pointing. I would rather win the peace prize for actually finding a way to help the poor, rather than addressing they are poor. I am yet to see these 2 even contemplate that. Frankly Stanley Milgram has done more - and he psychologically-mind-fucked-people. I am not saying these 2 don't have a point and a place. Far from it - we need to find what their point is, and where they place themselves.

[rainman]

The objection is that "capital" (savings) arise originally from tax-paid money. Now the government wants a second bite.

Many of your criticisms are quite valid (but the perfect is the enemy of the good, remember). This comment, though, I have issues with. The tax is on the capital GAIN, not the capital. It's the same as any investment: I pay my student fees with after tax money, but when the extra income I gain as a result of being qualified is taxed, that isn't double dipping.

Yes, yes I get it, your aim isn’t to improve anyone’s lot, it’s to penalise success like the largely socialist governments of this country have been doing for decades.

Au contraire, I'd like to improve the lot of many. Just not those whose lot doesn't need improving, because they already have what they need. They can step to the back of the queue, thankyouverymuch. Once we have basic needs met, a growing standard of living across the board, and have built a society where everyone can contribute, then they're welcome to get even richer, if they really really need to. Think of it as "trickle up", although my motive isn't moving benefits to the wealthy, per se.

Here's a clever bugger you may benefit from the reading of (or listening to some of the many and varied talks on their site). The report he quotes says this:

The share of national income going to the bottom half of earners in Britain has fallen dramatically over the last 30 years…..These ordinary workers have seen their share of GDP fall by a quarter, at the same time as the share going to the top 1% of earners increased by half.

Same story stateside, and there won't be much difference here either, I'll bet.

And I’m acquainted with the concept of karma. Reckon I’m well in credit, but cheers for asking. In fact, although I don’t consider myself particularly well off, successful people are invariably not only in a better position to distribute largesse but they generally do it more often. And with better effect.

People often think they understand karma but think it's some kind of good deeds banking system, that you can be "in credit". This is unfortunate, because:
a) it's complete rubbish (who are you "in credit" with? who dispenses the consequences?), and
b) the real concept of karma is much more instructive.You'd probably like it if you thought about it a bit, it's all about action and consequences, that should be right up your street.

(Skillful) consequences arise from (skillful) actions, but not always.

The "successful" people you refer to (I assume you mean wealthy; do you know, they aren't the same thing?) might "invariably" be in a better position to distribute largesse but they bloody don't "invariably" do so, as evidenced by the quote above. Gates and Buffett and the like aside, the rich aren't getting richer by giving it away, they're hanging on to their wealth with both hands.

Arrrggh too much reading.
Will check back here after work. When i have time to actually read what people have said before responding.

Not missing much. It's like arguing with a rubber band

Just seen your other post. It's a strawman: their study isn't a world study, but doesn't have to be in order to be correct. And what do you mean by "ceteris paribus" no longer exists? It's a concept, not a thing. Are you saying the world's so fucked up that all logical conclusions reached by studying it are invalid?

[Oblivion]

Ok let me go though this bit by bit (I hate multiquote)
1) Nope. I am saying that if I was measuring something I have a tendency to take a sample of as many parts of the whole as possible. So if that sampling is for a WORLD scale, you generally have to measure the whole world.........not just the nice fluffy stuff.
If you fail to account for China or India in World calculations, it makes you look bad. Miss out on both - basically makes all your stats void.

2) Certus Paribus no longer exists. If it did:
- The nation with the least population per $ would hold the wealth. That got killed in 2008.
- The youth would outnumber the elderly. Clearly not the case in NZ.
- The richest nation in the world would have the highest valued $......
I could go on but I must allow time for sleep.

3) Correlation does not imply Causation. However this is irrelevant considering it was a world study missing 3/4 of the world.

4) Good point. However I would feel better finding ways to actually help mankind rather than finger pointing. I would rather win the peace prize for actually finding a way to help the poor, rather than addressing they are poor. I am yet to see these 2 even contemplate that. Frankly Stanley Milgram has done more - and he psychologically-mind-fucked-people. I am not saying these 2 don't have a point and a place. Far from it - we need to find what their point is, and where they place themselves.

Ceteris Paribus has been long gone as far as I'm aware. People who think it exist the world over are quit frankly, dreaming. Quite alot of rich people try their very hardest to maximise the amount of money they have. This means the classic things like putting money into family trusts and what not, writing of things as tax deductible. Currently, money is what makes the world go round. And it will continue that way for a while to come. There is too much money in the hands of too few people. That gap is increasing at a disproportionally large rate.

An completely outrageous idea that came to mind while my family and I were watching Fair go last week, was a G.E.R. (Global Economic reset). What this does is pretty much erase all the debt that all countries have. The economic system that is in place now is failing. Wipe the slate clean and start again. This time base things off Ceteris Paribus.

But to most people that idea would be fecking stupid wouldn't it?

[avgas]

perhaps you should contemplate the concept of karma

What makes you think it isn't already at work?
Perhaps Person A's Grandad was a Person B before karma kicked in?

I know from personal experience, it takes generations of hard work to get up there in the first place........I am hedging in fact that Person A's Grand kids will be B's.

Likewise I am hedging a bet that Person B suffers a good amount of hardship if Karma knocks on the door.
$20 says its going to be a horrible divorce. Because women who meet you with money will leave with it all. May be after all the money is gone B's life expectancy is a lot less than A's. Dependancy is a bitch, so strong dependency is a killer. Where as B has been "on a diet" for his whole life.

Think about it. Its very rarely the bum who jumps off a building.

Now if we were talking any other country but NZ I might have another point of view. But here it is either hard street or easy street. Whether you rich or poor doesn't matter. We all set different benchmarks to fail.

[avgas]

But to most people that idea would be fecking stupid wouldn't it?

I used to think that. And I am still all for it.
I have built my skills around what people will need.

So if that is the case, and we wipe the slate clean. Perhaps we should remove currency too? I mean I would still get food for my family because people will need my simple skills to continue to live their lives.

I however think that once again - those that were poor before the wipe. Would become poor again. Why? Well I have to work to get my food so that wouldn't change. However clear the slate and remove currency - If I don't work, I die.
Cold simple fact if we wiped the slate clean and removed currency.

I actually live my life on the principle that if I don't work I die. I figure its the safest bet no matter what the circumstance. Clear the slate, take away all my money.....whatever. Survival really.

Why have they lost this skill? Should we blame the rich?

[avgas]

Not missing much. It's like arguing with a rubber band

Just seen your other post. It's a strawman: their study isn't a world study, but doesn't have to be in order to be correct. And what do you mean by "ceteris paribus" no longer exists? It's a concept, not a thing. Are you saying the world's so fucked up that all logical conclusions reached by studying it are invalid?

All things can no longer be considered equal. We have researched differences. To ignore them is to ignore the research really.

Logical? Define logical?
Is taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not logical?
In some instances yes. But on the same side of the coin you have to respect the fact that people might say decreasing the population is logical also.
We have excess of Money, Consumption and Population.
3 separate problems that are all interlinked.
As I stated in a previous post. Remove the money. This will sort both consumption (the pre-doom-rich will consume less or die) and population (the poor will die).
But that sounds illogical doesn't it.

[Oblivion]

I used to think that. And I am still all for it.
I have built my skills around what people will need.

So if that is the case, and we wipe the slate clean. Perhaps we should remove currency too? I mean I would still get food for my family because people will need my simple skills to continue to live their lives.

I however think that once again - those that were poor before the wipe. Would become poor again. Why? Well I have to work to get my food so that wouldn't change. However clear the slate and remove currency - If I don't work, I die.
Cold simple fact if we wiped the slate clean and removed currency.

I actually live my life on the principle that if I don't work I die. I figure its the safest bet no matter what the circumstance. Clear the slate, take away all my money.....whatever. Survival really.

Why have they lost this skill? Should we blame the rich?

Why have we lost this skill? Because society has deemed it that to undertake work, you need experience. But unless you have some of this "money" you cannot get this experience. People who have "money" are at school, getting experience.

People cannot afford to go out and get experience. Nowadays you can't go down to the local pub and ask for a job because society has deemed that it is too risky to work there if you are <18. And when you go to the supermarket to get a job, there are too many people and not enough jobs. The whole problem of people being poor, is because they do not have the necessary skills that society requires at that point in time. Demand vs. Supply. Like David, off Campbell Live tonight. (If you watched it that is) .THE BASIS OF AN ECONOMY. If we managed to educate everyone and put them in a position that was always required, E.g If we gave all the people of Africa a job of growing food for themselves and supplying the rest of the world, Then we could solve all of this shit that is happening. But too much money is being hoarded, by the corporations, making all this harder to accomplish.

[Winston001]

An completely outrageous idea that came to mind while my family and I were watching Fair go last week, was a G.E.R. (Global Economic reset). What this does is pretty much erase all the debt that all countries have. The economic system that is in place now is failing. Wipe the slate clean and start again. This time base things off Ceteris Paribus.

I'm not sure what you guys are getting at. Ceteris paribus is Latin for "all things being equal" and means discussing a hypothesis without outside influences or irrelevancies.

Anyway, so far as wiping the debt slate clean, we can't do that. The money borrowed comes from somebody - not a bank (they merely gather up the funds) - but actual people's savings. Chinese, Japanese, Arab, European - all sorts. If loans are wiped you also wipe out the life savings of other people.

Those people will never deal with you again.

[avgas]

Why have we lost this skill? Because society has deemed it that to undertake work, you need experience. But unless you have some of this "money" you cannot get this experience. People who have "money" are at school, getting experience.

People cannot afford to go out and get experience. Nowadays you can't go down to the local pub and ask for a job because society has deemed that it is too risky to work there if you are <18. And when you go to the supermarket to get a job, there are too many people and not enough jobs. The whole problem of people being poor, is because they do not have the necessary skills that society requires at that point in time. Demand vs. Supply. Like David, off Campbell Live tonight. (If you watched it that is) .THE BASIS OF AN ECONOMY. If we managed to educate everyone and put them in a position that was always required, E.g If we gave all the people of Africa a job of growing food for themselves and supplying the rest of the world, Then we could solve all of this shit that is happening. But too much money is being hoarded, by the corporations, making all this harder to accomplish.

First reaction: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha oh lord hahahahahahahahaha your making me cry its so funny

Second reaction:

Why have we lost this skill?.......


If we gave all the people of Africa a job of growing food for themselves and supplying the rest of the world, Then we could solve all of this shit that is happening.

Hmmmmmm you concern me a little. I don't even want to argue with a man who argues with himself.

Third Reaction:

Because society has deemed it that to undertake work, you need experience. But unless you have some of this "money" you cannot get this experience. People who have "money" are at school, getting experience.

Ok if your talking NZ. Your a complete nutbar. Plenty of work out there for those who want to work. Right now I my dad is begging for people to work underground in Chch with him. No experience required. Likewise I know of people who pick fruits, pump gas etc and there are ALWAYS jobs in these areas. We have plenty of jobs for those who want them. The problem is they don't want them.

However lets talk internationally.
- China : Govt pays for you to get trained
- India : Most get trained, even the poor. Only the poorest of the poor don't get trained. Ironically though - a small percentage of those become millionaires???
- Africa : Now here there is a big problem. No only do people not get trained. There is no where to train them, and there is very little to train them on. Therefore would you not say that investment in Business and Industry in Africa is a wise investment. Simply passing handouts to these people will not fix the problem.
And don't say the whole "teach a man to fish" BS. Yes that will help him survive, but teach a man how to build a business that supports a village (aka Kaikoura's Whale watch) and you will see significant benefits.