National Thus Far

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Yoda

While I'm all for CGT, I'd like to know more about what impact actually implementing would have - interest rates, inflation, international opinion on our viability as an economy worth investing in.

Interest rates should go down, house prices are most likely to drop in the short term and then stabilise, international opinion should go up as our economy becomes more viable. A CGT tends to put more investment into actual productive stuff.

My understanding is that we're in a fragile slow climb out of a bad place, and that we can't really rock the boat too much (e.g. small changes to try and effect long term savings from households).

Actually, after NACTs mismanagement, we're most likely heading back into recession about now. Still waiting for last quarters figures but we had a drop the quarter before hand and it's not looking good for the last one. A drop over two quarters is the definition of recession.

[Golden Teapot]

I'm torn really. On the one had I like goff very much; such a caliber of leader for labor is a rare treat that in many ways I hope lasts for a very long time.

On the other-hand a different labor leader might be able to engage meaningfully with National and agree to middle-ground solutions for the politically tricky issues such as introducing equitable taxation.

I still remember cullen ten years ago over a breakfast table saying that a national/labor coalition was the best idea. This is what I'd like to see.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Interest rates should go down, house prices are most likely to drop in the short term and then stabilise, international opinion should go up as our economy becomes more viable. A CGT tends to put more investment into actual productive stuff.

Got any references for other countries where this has happened all happy-like? Where the investment bias is similar to what we have now?

I can't see a CGT being implemented that smoothly. If properties take a decent fall, and all those wealthy taking the CGT hit also tighten the belt and spend less, is that (and the knock ons) going to be less or more than the income the government gets from CGT?

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Actually, after NACTs mismanagement,

I tend to switch off when you start the paragraph like that.

Are there any numbers around, regarding how big the boomer/property issue is?

[Jodi]

Anyone with a negatively geared rental property will be fucked by a CGT.

But then again, I think that's the point.

[Lightspeed]

Yup, which means they'll sell up, which will bring down housing prices, which means a muthafucker might be able to by themselves a house!

Or something, fuck knows.

[blynk]

Hell, it wouldn't be too hard to even allow 1 residencial property & 1 rental property.
The link that Ab supplied earlier about the lady with a ridiculous number of properties annoys the hell out of me.

You know the CGT won't happen.
National won't want it because it will affect the people that are likely to vote for them.
Labour won't want to because it will alienate people that they want to try and sway onto to vote for them.

[Lightspeed]

We'll have to drum up a twitter movement! To the streets!

[JP]

Can someone explain an upside to property investment being viable? Not that I judge anyone for doing it, if I had enough cash I may have gotten in on it during the boom like so many others. But as far as I can see, it's about one of the leechiest ways to make money (at least banks 'facilitate the economy').

It also seems inevitable that since wealth is becoming more concentrated, so will property ownership, which sounds extremely unhealthy for any society (where as say concentration of access to luxury cars/jewelery is insignificant).

Apart from legislation what other ways are there to get around that problem? One thing i've heard suggested as vital is a level of roads/public transport that makes transport from city outskirts to work hubs extremely efficient. That reduces the need for shoe box apartments which can turn into ghetto's and have 100% rental occupants. Auckland is going to have this issue in a big way sooner or later.

Also, what are the odds that politicians actually sit down and discuss issues like this?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Got any references for other countries where this has happened all happy-like? Where the investment bias is similar to what we have now?

Nope, because most of the rest of the developed world has had CGT in place for decades. Of course, the US and Australia still had housing booms which would indicate that their CGTs aren't working as intended.

I can't see a CGT being implemented that smoothly. If properties take a decent fall, and all those wealthy taking the CGT hit also tighten the belt and spend less, is that (and the knock ons) going to be less or more than the income the government gets from CGT?

The rich don't actually spend that much of their income so the government should see an increase in the tax take. This is, of course, dependent upon the actual implementation.

I tend to switch off when you start the paragraph like that.

We shouldn't be heading back into recession now and so we're looking at economic mismanagement and National have been at the helm. Of course, I don't think we would have done much better under Labour either. Both main parties are still working with economic theories that only work with a growing economy and with Peak Oil here the economy isn't growing any more.

Are there any numbers around, regarding how big the boomer/property issue is?

IIRC, in the 1970s/80s we had close to 70% home ownership and now we're down to about 50%.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

The rich don't actually spend that much of their income so the government should see an increase in the tax take. This is, of course, dependent upon the actual implementation.

CGT only applies when they sell the property - if they're not selling they won't be hit.

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by crocos

CGT only applies when they sell the property - if they're not selling they won't be hit.

you sure? Nat/Act proposition was way different

A CGT is just a speed hump, not a game changer,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225870686052

read and think about it for a couple of days,

[crocos]

Dude - you've been having too much ReeFer if you think that article remotely has anything to do with:
1) Capital Gains Tax
2) New Zealand

Thanks for playing, please try again some other time.

Capital gain is the increase in value of a property at the time of sale over that which it cost at time of purchase. The difference is the capital gain. Taxation is on that difference, and you don't pay it until you've received the money for the property.

If it's ANY other form of taxation, then it's some other form, not CGT.

[Golden Teapot]

Yep - the universal convention is that it is a "capital realised-gains tax".

[GRiM ReeFer]

oh for fuck sake Crocos, that is why I said think about it for a couple of days, because your knee jerk reaction only interpetes it to fit your existing opinion.

The article is explaining the Australian governments incentives and investments in their social housing schemes, Billions(additional $20bil over 5 years just from fed govt) in tax fed to companies to provide cheap housing, billions in tax breaks for first home owners($7,000 each), to cover the short fall in housing due to lack of investment in property sector.

When we have the periodic own vs rent debates here a wide range of posters choose to rent for various reasons, well Crocos who do you think will provide that option?

So what is the point in introducing CGT now?

a)make property investment unattractive

b)hoping to increase housing affordability?

c)force investors to put their money into this mystical production sector?

d)tax revenue


"A" reduces "D" and doesn't result in "C" because "C" is not attractive,
"B" reduces "D" nullifying "A".
over time "A" will result in "-D" as government is forced to follow Australia and use "D" to nullify "A" because it didn't work.

Why don't you rage against car lease companies they obviously force the cost of cars up, oh that's right they don't, because supply meets demand.

oh that's right the building industry calculates demand, then supplies one less so Crocos is forced to rent, what a pack of wankers.

We are in a recession, house prices have dropped, you can buy a used house for less than it's replacement cost.

When looking at housing affordability, why don't they show wages vs building material costs? because that would show exactly why we are fucked, wages have not kept up with true inflation. Government mismanagement and overspending by successive governments is why we are here, not the property sector, it's a sideline debate.

[GRiM ReeFer]

#I'm not against a correctly applied Point of sale CGT,

What I dislike is politicians framing it as magic bullet, what we need now is job growth and wage increases, that should be the election debate not this bullshit.

Don't let the politicians decide the topics to be debated come election time.

[MrTTTT]

What we need is job growth, but isn't that part of what a CGT is hoped will address? Less investment on property speculation, more investment on production and therefore more jobs.

I remember reading something written in 1994 that predicted the current crisis based on the pattern of the rise and fall of Spain/Genoa, Britain and now USA. Crazy!!

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

oh for fuck sake Crocos, that is why I said think about it for a couple of days, because your knee jerk reaction only interpetes it to fit your existing opinion.

I think you're the one who's knee jerkin'. There's a difference between what CGT is, and how effective it might be/alternative methods to CGT.

All I heard crocos say is what you linked isn't CGT (which GT agreed with), NOT any of the shit you just said.

[BoyWonder]

This should be GMG but it is political...

Campbell Live - beneficiaries saying National's policies only benefit the millionaires. You do have to actually pay tax before you can benefit from a tax cut.

[BoyWonder]

Oh and before anyone says what about GST? You can thank the Labour party for that...

[crocos]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

oh for fuck sake Crocos, that is why I said think about it for a couple of days, because your knee jerk reaction only interpetes it to fit your existing opinion.

Read again what I responded with.

You asked if I was sure that Capital Gains Tax is only taken against realized capital gains (ie when property sold).

I explained that yes, Capital Gains Tax is against realized capital gain (which GT also agreed with)

The context of your comment implied that the article you linked was about National's suggested CGT. It didn't suggest you were saying "here's a possible alternative to CGT to consider that the Aussies are playing with in addition to the Capital Gains Tax system they already have".

Roit: Time for dinner.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

Oh and before anyone says what about GST? You can thank the Labour party for that...

How so?


Also, yeah for sure I was thinking that watching Campbell Live - it's all well and good going back and asking if anything's gotten better, but the feeling I got was they expected things to improve magically around them, without having to do any work. Did either of the folks they talked to make an effort? (I guess raising 5 kids doesn't leave you much time for Open Polytechnic).

I hate that I think this way, because it's pretty much the crux of the Right Wing way of thinking, but yeah - things are only going to get better if you make an effort to make them better for yourself.

(That said, the article was light on details, so maybe the unemployed guy had tried to get some vocational training and hadn't been able to, or so on.)

The way they both mentioned the raise in price of milk and bread in the same way made it feel a bit set up too - or like they're parroting someone's Talking Points.

[GRiM ReeFer]

****Crocos

ah no.

The working group put forward the idea of either a CGT or a flat land tax, Key said "NO" to both, but seems they are back on the table, I was unclear, what I meant was: I don't trust Key and when he talks about CGT this far from the election he is probably doing it to draw out the other parties to state their position, while he waits and see what flies, then make the most agreeable promises to get elected; then with a little smile and wave, fuck us all deep and hard.


The article I linked to, once you read and interpret it, clearly shows how CGT is only a speed hump and not the solution it is being sold as.

Australia introduced CGT in 1985, then in 1999 reduced it by %50 because the higher CGT was self defeating, reducing it made property investment feasable again which increased CGT revenue from $5 billion to $17 billion.

Now The Australian Fed Govt. is subsidizing large corporations to provide low cost housing.
While small investors get hit with CGT, large corporations get tax breaks, ie the second phase referred to in the article. The Aussie Govt. is making property investment attractive because when it isn't housing doesn't get build and supply and demand kick in, rents go up and lower wage workers get left out in the cold, or rain, hence the articles happy comments about high demand to the tune of 100,000 dwelling, great government backed investment for the larger corporation.

Read past the article: force the little people out of property ownership and turn them into consumers(rent is a consumable) added bonus direct their taxes into private companies.

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by fidgit

How so?

Well it was Labour that brought in GST in '86 (although National would have done too soon enough I imagine). It also bothers me that no consideration was given to the fact that globally economics took a massive dive a year after Key visited, but I guess keeping informed is not as convenient as just blaming the government.

[fidgit]

Oh right, I thought you meant the raise from 12.5% to 15%. Which is what the bene's were moaning about on Campbell Live. It's a bit rich to suggest they can't complain about the raise in staples due to GST when I'd guess the Mother wasn't even born when Labour introduced GST...

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

It also bothers me that no consideration was given to the fact that globally economics took a massive dive a year after Key visited, but I guess keeping informed is not as convenient as just blaming the government.

The economy did take a dive but that's not the problem. The problem is that JK and the rest of NACT have done absolutely nothing about it except to make conditions worse. Tax cuts that went to the rich and putting the government in even more debt when they should have kept taxes the same and started spending on infrastructure etc to increase jobs. Trains especially come to mind as having them made in NZ does a hell of a lot more for the economy than having them made in China.

[CCS]

John Keys aborted my unborn baby. Fucking cunt.

[Golden Teapot]

Making trains in NZ would do a couple of things.

First, it would delay their delivery into the distant future versus the delivery point possible using any sensibly chosen commercial supplier. While we'd all be waiting for these a lot of people would be employed to be inefficient; presumably paid for by tax on the rich.

Second, the poor quality of the final product would need excessive maintenance over their shortened lifetimes. This would result in the employment of extra staff to try to maintain them; again presumably paid for by tax on the rich.

So the outcome is higher taxes and delayed delivery of a product that would then operate unreliably. Just the sort of thing train users would be after?

And, if you don't believe this then think back to when cars were ordinarily assembled in NZ (so not towards the end when the quality was lifted - but the quality car makers chose when consumers had no choice). Our trains would be just like those - an absolute joke versus the product available elsewhere in the world.

But this is the way the ultra left likes it - everything is okay so long as the rich are giving their income to the poor.

[fixed_truth]

This 'community max' situation appears to be quite the stuff up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUs4lO2rVhI

[chubby]

"Generally, we look at the Government in New Zealand as being relatively small and compared to its peers it's quite efficient."

Furthermore, Curry said New Zealand was "relatively light" in government related entities.

He noted the Government's plans for partial asset sales, "but if you look at what's left, the sorts of government related businesses in New Zealand are quite minimal compared to a lot of other countries".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10706501

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Making trains in NZ would do a couple of things.

First, it would delay their delivery into the distant future versus the delivery point possible using any sensibly chosen commercial supplier. While we'd all be waiting for these a lot of people would be employed to be inefficient; presumably paid for by tax on the rich.

Second, the poor quality of the final product would need excessive maintenance over their shortened lifetimes. This would result in the employment of extra staff to try to maintain them; again presumably paid for by tax on the rich.

So the outcome is higher taxes and delayed delivery of a product that would then operate unreliably. Just the sort of thing train users would be after?

And, if you don't believe this then think back to when cars were ordinarily assembled in NZ (so not towards the end when the quality was lifted - but the quality car makers chose when consumers had no choice). Our trains would be just like those - an absolute joke versus the product available elsewhere in the world.

But this is the way the ultra left likes it - everything is okay so long as the rich are giving their income to the poor.

Jesus GT, I don't think I've seen anyone get anything as wrong as you just did. The trains could be delivered on time, on budget and of equivalent or better quality. That's what the one and only report that's even looked into the case of making them here says.

Looking to the past is not a good indication of what we can do in the future.

[Cynos]

I'm pretty sure making predictions based on past events is what Golden Teapot does for a living...

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

The trains could be delivered on time, on budget and of equivalent or better quality.

Personally I'd prefer our trains built by people who make a lot of trains. That way rather than a report about what the locals claim they can do, we can base reports on the track record of existing train manufacturers.

I can't imagine many people would consider a single report by a trade union very compelling.

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

track record of existing train manufacturers.

I see what you did there

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I can't imagine many people would consider a single report by a trade union very compelling.

wow- yet another knee-jerk denial of news,based on who brought it to light.
no wonder the MSM has such an easy job feeding kiwis shit....they actually prefer the taste.

[Lightspeed]

What news? Union.org.nz is a special interest website, not a news website.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I'm pretty sure making predictions based on past events is what Golden Teapot does for a living...

Within a specific context.

We should have moved to tiny efficient cars in the 80s, it's completely retarded we didn't. If you have a boat bring out the Holden or whatever sure, but people should be driving to work/around town in vehicles as efficient as possible.

Public transport should also be made better all the time, I mean if you can get 40 people to voluntarily cram onto a bus you can get a lot more with a better system.

Instead we just don't do shit. Maybe raise petrol tax which does nothing.

[Golden Teapot]

And, because you're interested in the best outcome for NZ (and the World) you'll also promote making these trains somewhere more sensible than here too?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I can't imagine many people would consider a single report by a trade union very compelling.

The report was done by economic consultancy BERL

Today, BERL remains a privately-owned company. Its staff collaborate with a network of consultants and specialist contributors to bring together the best range of expertise suitable for the various projects it tackles. The provision of sound, practical, independent business and economic advice continues to be the hallmark of BERL’s work.

So they probably are a bit more qualified to say where the sensible place to build the trains are.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The report was done by economic consultancy BERL

Way to disliberately miss the point. I don't care about who's right in this instance but Lolspeed's point was that this was a report paid for by the union. Unions are not, in general, known for their tolerance of viewpoints which differ from their bottom line.

Of course, not everybody who's commissioned by someone else to write a report will toe their principal's line but in the absence of a careful examination of the arguments, the risk of this report being of that ilk is always there. So, at best, we have a report that's CONSISTENT with a POV that you like. It's not any definitive proof that you are correct.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

So, at best, we have a report that's CONSISTENT with a POV that you like. It's not any definitive proof that you are correct.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So they probably are a bit more qualified to say where the sensible place to build the trains are.

But yeah, they could be just telling the Union what they want to hear in order to secure future work. o_O