YELLOW PERIL YELLOW PERIL
 

Oh fuck there's so much fail coming out of Labour one does not know where to start.

It is definitely a ploy to gain the racist vote but at the same time, restricting home ownership to people living in NZ is surely going to *help* the housing market bullshit that is currently reality. It just won't help all that much.

CGT will have a greater effect and I'm all for that (on 2nd+ houses).

It's a good thing you live in a country where they'd never implement such a silly scheme eh?

its a policy that as usual appears to have been announced based on no actual research and with no thought given to how it will be perceived. It's almost like David Shearer just woke up one morning and decided "ooh we'd better announce something to get the support of NZ First voters".

When a policy ad leads in with a statement like OVERSEAS SPECULATORS ARE DRIVING UP HOUSE PRICES the first thing you should say is "are they? prove it".

As far as I am aware, most NZ residential property owned by non-residents is purchased by Australians in the process of moving to NZ or by Kiwis living overseas. So, Labour: show me some fucking numbers.

i don't get how cgt would help, wouldn't it either decrease supply; investment mofos less keen to sell or increase cost; buyer pays (like gst).

i can see how it'd make money for the govt, but not how it'll make houses cheaper? (i still laugh at Aucklanders wanting 'the kiwi dream'. seriously?)

Labour just said to every baby boomer in Auckland "the value of your investment properties just dropped. You're welcome."

CGT has proven to do very little to prevent the increase of house prices in other countries...

Obviously they've not set the CGT rate high enough then.

Australia doesn't have a Free Trade Agreement with China under which Australia agrees to make no commercial distinction between local and Chinese investors.

The 11,000 figure came from the number of non-resident tax payers who declared a taxable profit on their rental properties according to the IRD (Including commercial property).


Highly accurate. No really, Mr Shearer thinks so.

Lol, Chan Ban.

http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-conten...y-May-2013.pdf (pdf)

There is also a clause in the FTA between NZ and China stating that NZ cannot discriminate against Chinese investment.

RAW HAW HAW HAAAAWWW!!

Oh fuck that's just hilarifailious.

Hey remember when there was all that outcry over the GCSB monitoring our emails and phonecalls? No, me neither.

Nice work Labour comms geniouses. Regular as clockwork, just as National starts looking shaky on something Labour starts rolling around naked smearing faeces on itself and makes you forget all about it.

Maybe... maybe some CIA mofo is dosing their water or gassing their offices or something? Surely...

So, you're for it so long as you're pretty much exempt? For such a tax to work it must apply to all houses.

Perhaps that's because the family home is almost always exempt?

Buy a house for $500k. Sell it for $1000k pay tax of $150k means starting shopping with a mortgage of $150k to stand still. This will deflate prices. If family homes are exempt a CGT will do nothing in NZ since few people make gains from any other type of "investment".

Correct - we didn't buy our house for capital gain, we bought it to live in.

When we sell it at the current market price we will have to buy another house at the current market price.

"Investors" that are buying residential properties to make a profit should be taxed accordingly to discourage such activities in accordance with our "Kiwi ideals".

If it doesn't have much effect - fine, at least we gain some tax dollars and can perhaps stop selling off our assets etc. It has to be better than not having a CGT.

See "tax on telecommuters".

Labour isn't saying that a single policy will address the Auckland housing crisis. Their package also includes this foreign sales ban, building 100,000 houses and Loan to Value Ratio exemption for first home buyers. I think the public see this as a better approach to National's (increase land supply?) and hence why it's so popular with the public. (regardless of its actual likely effectiveness)

I don't think anybody but the deluded think that building 100,000 in 10 years will help, or is even possible.

That's not a great argument really. It's not all that different to a share trader doing the same thing with the same sob story, "I just want to hold the shares and I don't care about the capital gain because when I sell them I'm just going to buy some other ones and the fact my wealth goes up as the market does really isn't my fault".

The issue is that one day your asset will be converted back to cash and then spent even if that doesn't happen until your estate is settled and there will be a massive tax free gain in there.

Such people are already required to pay tax of their gains. The issue is that most don't and IRD are not good at catching these folk.

Interesting. For what reason would a share trader just hold shares with no intention of making any money?

"I really believe in this company and want to be a part of it, I dont want other parties to take control of it so I will hold onto my shares"


?? I dunno :|

LOL

Great comeback Spoon1, you really tore apart his argument there.

Come on, think about it.

LOL what? Are you some kind of idiot?

His argument is perfectly consistent and, IMO, completely correct. I don't believe anyone should get free capital gains, whether you choose to live in a house or not.* When you realise your gains, if we as a society believe that the source of someone's wealth should not be a determinant factor on whether a person gets taxed or not (i.e. tax on income but no tax on capital gains), there is no principled reason why owner occupied homes should be exempt.

Oh and LOL @ Fixed_Imbecile -- have you heard of dividends?

* Of course, if you are arguing that "I gotta buy a similar house at today's purchase price", you must realise that in your world people can just trade down and pocket capital gains tax-free.

Shame on me, but that was a genuine question. I've never purchased shares before and I've never heard of people buying them without expecting a return. But yeah I've probably looked over something simple.


And cyc, I'm not interested in being drawn into one of your usual childish shit-flinging fights. If (like most, if not all here) you want join the discussion without the pathetic key board warrior shit; then I'll bother.

Oh wow, there's even a link to Key Board Warrior!

The comparison is ridiculous and not worth any more than a LOL.

If you buy an asset and it increases in value you don't need to liquidate it to obtain benefit from it. A share portfolio (or a house) worth lots of money is an asset. Thus you can borrow against it and use the money you borrowed to buy stuff. Like more shares or houses. If those shares or houses increase in value to the point where they're worth considerably more than the debt you took on to purchase them, you can borrow against them. To buy more assets. Like more shares or houses. Lather rinse repeat.

You don't ever need to sell the assets to get a return. They just need to keep going up in value.


Welcome to the bubble.

Of course this fun game of musical chairs is massively weighted towards those people who already have assets (shares or houses) before the music starts. So if you're a baby boomer who bought his first house in the Tauranga burbs for $10,000 in 1970, you're fucking laughing. If you're a 25-year-old Uni graduate in Auckland with a $100,000 student debt then there's no way you're getting in the game. Forget it. And it's all the fucking Asians' fault.

Fuck, forget all that for the sake of the simple-minded and dim (i.e. Fixed_Imbecile and his friends). Just know this: the aforementioned individuals get to pass on all their wealth to the next generation without having to pay one bit of tax EVER.

Great idea..... if you are one of the lucky ones.

Cool I wasn't aware that you can borrow against a share portfolio.

GT made some pretty reasonable points. So did cyc for that matter. The fact that you don't even have a comeback suggests that you're simply not willing to look at it from another angle and you are, as GT said, bilnkered.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11166485