The 2017 Election Thread

[Honest Andy]

What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

[Ocean1]

Surely gains on other forms of investment will also be included too, not just houses (boats, cars, bikes...)?

The stunning silence on any detail from liarbour is staggering, but not unexpected. What fool would vote for them and then wait to find out "how" a method of taxation would be implemented? That really resembles oppression.

Here's how it works: I happily pay whatever tax is required to provide the infrastructure that allows me this most excellent lifestyle and which helps me to prosper. Plus a fair bit extra, just because.

Once.

If I'm required to pay it again because I choose to spend what's left of my earnings on any given purchase then I'll refrain from spending it there.

If, in spite of my choices they persist on trying to tax the same money multiple times I'll blow the fucking lot on an extended off shore sabbatical, making damned sure there's nothing left for the grasping bastards to take.

And I'll be applying for every benefit I possibly can when I return.

What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

I'll cheerfully pay a capital gains tax.

Just as soon as someone promises to reimburse me for any losses I might make on my investments.

[TheDemonLord]

What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

It's an interesting one.

I think the first issue is simply that people don't have to pay the tax currently, and don't want to pay even more tax.

There are then some additional issues - most people I think don't have a problem with capital gains tax being paid by someone whose has made it their job to buy a house cheaply, invest time, effort and money into it and then sell it at a reasonable profit, all whilst never living in said house (Since this isn't classed as an Income, I think they don't pay income tax on that? I could be wrong).

What they have an issue with is the nice old couple who bought a house in 1955 for cheap, lived in it for their entire life and the house is now hyper-desirable - it seems wrong to Tax these people through the nose.

Then there is the worry from both the Real estate sectors, the banking sectors and the home owner sector that such a tax would massively cool off the Housing Market - whilst that may be a good thing, there is the risk of an entire Strata of people who have only just gotten on the Property ladder, Mortgaged to the hilt, suddenly finding that they have negative Equity in their house (that the Mortgage is higher than the house value)

Personally - I think the way round it would be that you have to pay Capital Gains tax on any property that you own, but not live in yourself and sell within 10 years of owning it or 5 years of owning it if it has been regularly occupied by tenants.

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

[Ocean1]

It's an interesting one.

I think the first issue is simply that people don't have to pay the tax currently, and don't want to pay even more tax.

There are then some additional issues - most people I think don't have a problem with capital gains tax being paid by someone whose has made it their job to buy a house cheaply, invest time, effort and money into it and then sell it at a reasonable profit, all whilst never living in said house (Since this isn't classed as an Income, I think they don't pay income tax on that? I could be wrong).

What they have an issue with is the nice old couple who bought a house in 1955 for cheap, lived in it for their entire life and the house is now hyper-desirable - it seems wrong to Tax these people through the nose.

Then there is the worry from both the Real estate sectors, the banking sectors and the home owner sector that such a tax would massively cool off the Housing Market - whilst that may be a good thing, there is the risk of an entire Strata of people who have only just gotten on the Property ladder, Mortgaged to the hilt, suddenly finding that they have negative Equity in their house (that the Mortgage is higher than the house value)

Personally - I think the way round it would be that you have to pay Capital Gains tax on any property that you own, but not live in yourself and sell within 10 years of owning it or 5 years of owning it if it has been regularly occupied by tenants.

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices.

How long do you suppose prices for existing houses outside central Orks would hold up if there was a brand new build a couple of kilometers away for half the price?

[sidecar bob]

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

And the landlords could hike the fuck outta the rent to cover the tax they will eventually pay, which has to come from the end user, as would be normal. Which im sure some are in the process of doing, pending the tooth fairy gaining power.

[jasonu]

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... gold.

Ever tried being one?

[TheDemonLord]

And the landlords could hike the fuck outta the rent to cover the tax they will eventually pay, which has to come from the end user, as would be normal. Which im sure some are in the process of doing, pending the tooth fairy gaining power.

But if they hike the prices too much, they won't have tenants in them -ergo they have to pay more.

Don't get me wrong, the thought was far from a well rounded idea, addressing and encompassing each and every facet of the issue.

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices.

How long do you suppose prices for existing houses outside central Orks would hold up if there was a brand new build a couple of kilometers away for half the price?

Well, the RMA and Council innefficiency does have a massive hand to play, but Land availability also has to be factored in, as do the Infrastructure capability to handle a Commute - for example going east to west across Central Auckland is an absolute pain as there aren't any high speed aerterial routes (such as Sandringham to Remuera).

I also think that more could be done at a national level to encourage tele-commuting which would free up peoples living choices by removing the need to be within 'reasonable' commuting distance.

[Ocean1]

Well, the RMA and Council innefficiency does have a massive hand to play, but Land availability also has to be factored in, as do the Infrastructure capability to handle a Commute - for example going east to west across Central Auckland is an absolute pain as there aren't any high speed aerterial routes (such as Sandringham to Remuera).

I also think that more could be done at a national level to encourage tele-commuting which would free up peoples living choices by removing the need to be within 'reasonable' commuting distance.

Outside of central Auckland there is no shortage of land.

And why is the fact that Auckland's infrastructure is hugely underfunded a reason to bitch about house prices rather than Auckland's shit infrastructure? If anything I'd suggest that people actually paying the going rate for houses in Auckland in spite of the massive hassle involved is a damned fine argument that house prices are actually lower than they otherwise would be.

Like pretty much everything else the socialists hereabouts believe it's the government's responsibility to supply them with shit they can't otherwise afford. I'd suggest there's other places to look.

[TheDemonLord]

Outside of central Auckland there is no shortage of land.

And why is the fact that Auckland's infrastructure is hugely underfunded a reason to bitch about house prices rather than Auckland's shit infrastructure? If anything I'd suggest that people actually paying the going rate for houses in Auckland in spite of the massive hassle involved is a damned fine argument that house prices are actually lower than they otherwise would be.

Like pretty much everything else the socialists hereabouts believe it's the government's responsibility to supply them with shit they can't otherwise afford. I'd suggest there's other places to look.

I agree outside of Central Auckland there are big tracks of Land, the issue is how to get from these Areas, to the areas where the places of Employment are.

Infrastructure is important - if you can't get from point A to point B in a reasonable time frame, it's relevant. In other parts of the world, this is where mass transit rail systems enable the workforce to live in more affordable housing, in cheaper land.

Is Auckland's housing prices being held back by Infrastructure - possibly? but I would counter that if you increased Supply by opening up blocks of Land AND making them commutable - increase supply, whilst maintaining the same demand = prices fall.

[Honest Andy]

I'll cheerfully pay a capital gains tax.

Just as soon as someone promises to reimburse me for any losses I might make on my investments.

Good. You already get reimbursed for the tax on your losses. That's how tax works. The losses themselves on your investment are your problem, under the title "risk".

The tax is only a percentage of profit. I know I said that before but it's obviously easily missed.
If you don't make a profit then you don't pay tax. Simple really.
And as far as losses are concerned, it's like any other business or investment. You will be able to juggle the books a bit to spread your profit and loss, but in the end you have to wear the risk.
Just like any investment.

And remember also: we're talking about tax, not rates.

Don't start me on rates...

[Ocean1]

Good. You already get reimbursed for the tax on your losses. That's how tax works. The losses themselves on your investment are your problem, under the title "risk".

The tax is only a percentage of profit. I know I said that before but it's obviously easily missed.
If you don't make a profit then you don't pay tax. Simple really.
And as far as losses are concerned, it's like any other business or investment. You will be able to juggle the books a bit to spread your profit and loss, but in the end you have to wear the risk.
Just like any investment.

And remember also: we're talking about tax, not rates.

Don't start me on rates...

Expenses aren't losses, and I don't expect to pay tax on expenses.

And re "gains", as you said it's my risk, a risk I took with money I already paid tax on. If it's OK for the state to tax the difference between what I buy my house for and what I sell it for then it's OK for them to share that risk by reimbursing me if I sell it at a loss.

I'm not sure I understand this "juggling" shit, is that the same as when someone gets taxpayer money on one hand while producing nothing whatsoever on the other? Or is it the other sort of juggling, that socialists like to pretend all those rich pricks do instead of earning their money?

[Ocean1]

I agree outside of Central Auckland there are big tracks of Land, the issue is how to get from these Areas, to the areas where the places of Employment are.

Infrastructure is important - if you can't get from point A to point B in a reasonable time frame, it's relevant. In other parts of the world, this is where mass transit rail systems enable the workforce to live in more affordable housing, in cheaper land.

Is Auckland's housing prices being held back by Infrastructure - possibly? but I would counter that if you increased Supply by opening up blocks of Land AND making them commutable - increase supply, whilst maintaining the same demand = prices fall.

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...titudes-change

Dunno about you but I wouldn't think you'd have too many problems with funding infrastructure if some of that $200k excess pricing per section was funneled into, say a high speed rail link.

Again: remove the monopolies on new house supply and prices plummet.

[jasonu]

What a miserable looking old cunt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11919611

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...titudes-change

Interesting reading - mainly because when we bought our house - the exact quote from my Wife was:

"I'm not getting anything less than a 3 Bedroom as no one buys 2 Bedroom houses"

It seems to be an interesting issue - I would suspect there are several causal factors:

-People renting for longer, getting more stuff, and buying houses later - when it necessitates a bigger house
-People's expectations about what their first house should be - it would seem they want their first house to be a Family home, rather than a glorified flat, that they live in for a couple of years (gaining equity) before upscalling to a bigger house
-If there was significant demand for smaller houses at a profitable price point - we would see them being built
-Assuming a fixed land cost, it makes more sense to build a larger house (with a greater profit margin as it is in a more competitive market space) than it does to build smaller houses

If the article is true - then you could make the argument that we have found ourselves in a feedback loop.

Dunno about you but I wouldn't think you'd have too many problems with funding infrastructure if some of that $200k excess pricing per section was funneled into, say a high speed rail link.

Or just a Rail link in general...

Again: remove the monopolies on new house supply and prices plummet.

Maybe, maybe not.

In this case, I think there are some societal attitudes that are also part of the issue.