Labour tax policy

[blynk]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

CGT sob story #1

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10738564

Millionaire disgusted by nasty tax!!!!!!

Does anyone else want punch this guy in the face.

[CCS]

If you're selling tickets, I'll take two.

[Waldo]

nope, geez you guys are violent

[plaz0r]

Originally Posted by asshat

He said [...] "House prices may be pushed up by property investors holding on for a lot longer, making the dream of home ownership that step too far for a number of people."

Yeah, because right now property investors are trying so hard to make first homes affordable.

Cunt.

I hope you trip and strangle yourself with your tie.

[StN]

Originally Posted by blynk

Thats good. You can't be taxing the Lotto.

Off topic - but 2 people won 1st div Big Wed, and no-one got second.

Those lucky bastards didn't cover the bases!

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Waldo

nope, geez you guys are violent

I'm not normally, but FFS. He's going to lose 15% of what he made. OMG.

Everyone knows the a CGT is needed. Left & Right are saying it (with the exception of the National Party).
Sure the actual details may be disputed, but once it is in, it can be adjusted.

I would love him to just Fuck off to Australia.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by StN

Off topic - but 2 people won 1st div Big Wed, and no-one got second.

Those lucky bastards didn't cover the bases!

Wow, what idiots. If you ever play big wednesday, you have to get both heads & tails. Its why they designed the game like that.

I laugh at anyone who only gets 2nd division on Big Wed (with the exception of the ticket being a gift)

[CCS]

Today, he has more than $1 million equity in his property portfolio and says Labour will never get a cent with its "nasty" capital gains tax (CGT).

"That's because I'm not selling, ever. My children will inherit these places," he said, adding that Labour's plans would damage New Zealand.
...
He said the tax would also have unintended effects. "Rental prices will be pushed up with fewer property investors investing. House prices may be pushed up by property investors holding on for a lot longer, making the dream of home ownership that step too far for a number of people."

wat. Sounds like the CGT would have no effect on his plans anyway.

Fucking cunt rind.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

CGT sob story #1

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10738564

Millionaire disgusted by nasty tax!!!!!!

There are very valid reasons for opposing Labour's tax plans but this dumbarse "aspirational society" and "providing for my retirement" narrative is getting very boring. In fact, it's worse than boring. Most people would like to provide for their retirement -- the question is why should gains arising from capital accural should not be taxed when almost all income is taxed?

Secondly, it's becoming clear that we DON'T want a society of idiots aspiring to get rich VIA SPECULATING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. This market is between 5 to 6 times larger than the worth of every single share on the NZX combined. Anyone who can't see a problem is plain ignorant.

Finally, for as long as we have no means-tested pension, very few people are purely funding their own retirement. Is this guy trying to tell me he won't try and collect the pension? By the way, have people noticed how the number of those having private health insurance in this country is dropping? Most people in real businesses actually support a CGT -- Labour's just poorly implemented.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by blynk

Thats good. You can't be taxing the Lotto.

Lotto is (IIRC) pre-taxed as part of the ticket sales.

[Deadmeat]

Does national have an actual argument against implementing a CGT? All i've heard from them is "too complicated" or calling the policy a hodge podge. Is it a case of them knowing it's a valid idea but they're determined to pursue the privatisation path purely for ideologies sake?

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Does national have an actual argument against implementing a CGT? All i've heard from them is "too complicated" or calling the policy a hodge podge. Is it a case of them knowing it's a valid idea but...

I think so, which is disappointing, I support a CGT simply on the fact that:
It's an income, incomes are taxed. Money in the bank is taxed ffs.
Scrap the exemption for family homes and I'd support such a bill.

[fixed_truth]

Herald news cartoon today

[aR Que]

^^ It feels weird agreeing with commies :P

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Does national have an actual argument against implementing a CGT? All i've heard from them is "too complicated" or calling the policy a hodge podge. Is it a case of them knowing it's a valid idea but they're determined to pursue the privatisation path purely for ideologies sake?

Well, your response is fairly ideologically-based too. Whilst National's opposition is lame, it is clear that there are many principled reasons for opposing the CGT AS LABOUR WISHES TO IMPLEMENT IT. I've already given some of those reasons and there are more:

(a) They are STILL favouring capital accumulation. Why should the gain be taxed at a flat 15%?

(b) The CGT is part of an overall tax package that's intended to lower the taxes of Labour's traditional support base whilst remaining (presumably) fiscally neutral or at least not excessively inflating the national debt. But given the number of exemptions and the like, Labour's projections of how much they can make out of it are unlikely to come to fruition. NZ will likely be in more debt if Labour implements its overall tax package, of which the CGT is only a part.

(c) With CGT being taxed at 15%, it'll be a certainty that the lawyers and accountants will be having a field day trying to convert income to capital for taxpayers to help them avoid tax and to be able to claim artificial losses. Labour has shown an absolutely dismal record in terms of being able to close tax loopholes.

Honestly, if Labour gets in I guarantee you that I for one will try and make my way to the tax law team at my work. I can see the $$ signs flashing in my eyes already.

[Deadmeat]

Originally Posted by cyc

Well, your response is fairly ideologically-based too. Whilst National's opposition is lame, it is clear that there are many principled reasons for opposing the CGT AS LABOUR WISHES TO IMPLEMENT IT.

Fair enough, I should have made it clear I was asking whether they had an argument against a CGT in general. Separating the idea of the CGT from what labour is proposing to use it to pay for. I agree with a CGT, just not necessarily with the details as labour has laid them out.

[CCS]

How would one define family home?

[blynk]

Maybe it was a ploy to have it at 15%. Because National can't argue that it should be at 30%, because then they would be admitting that there should be a CGT.

Also I read an article that mentioned that Labours estimates were on the low side, so that the opposition could find holes in it.

[GRiM ReeFer]

how do they determine profit?

bricks and mortar. If I buy a brick today for $2,
and next week sell it for $4, did I made a profit?

I can still only buy one brick.

[blynk]

But what happens when you buy the brick for $2.
Rent it out for .10c a day for a month.
Paint it. And sell it for $4.

[Ab]

Here's my plan, I'll cash in the NZGames millions and buy residential property by pinning the real estate section of the Herald up on a wall and throwing darts at it while blindfolded. Where the darts hit, I buy. As my purchases will depend on blind luck, my property portfolio will be the result of chance and thus my income will be gambling not investment, and I won't pay tax.

As you can tell I have thought this through very carefully and the potential benefits are enormous.

[blynk]

or

You could play a game of modified texas holdem, where your chips are your house, and the other players chips are money.

There is 1 round, you are dealt no cards, only the 5 cards on the board.

In the case of a split pot, you divide the pot up. You take the money, they take the house.

Game over.

[aR Que]

What if I have a partner (I know, i know, but lets just go with it for now) and we aren't married, is she allowed to have a family home and am I allowed one too?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

Here's my plan, I'll cash in the NZGames millions

I knew you were selling our data in order to provide targeted ads!

and buy residential property by pinning the real estate section of the Herald up on a wall and throwing darts at it while blindfolded. Where the darts hit, I buy. As my purchases will depend on blind luck, my property portfolio will be the result of chance and thus my income will be gambling not investment, and I won't pay tax.

As you can tell I have thought this through very carefully and the potential benefits are enormous.

I'd like to subscribe to your Property Tycoon circle!

[blynk]

Originally Posted by aR Que

What if I have a partner (I know, i know, but lets just go with it for now) and we aren't married, is she allowed to have a family home and am I allowed one too?

If you were both living in the house, yes.

I think the family home, means your residence.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

buy residential property by pinning the real estate section of the Herald up on a wall and throwing darts at it while blindfolded. Where the darts hit, I buy. As my purchases will depend on blind luck, my property portfolio will be the result of chance and thus my income will be gambling not investment

I see a small flaw in your plan: You can influence the outcome by clustering more desireable properties.

[A Corpse]

That and all property values always rise, forever.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by blynk

If you were both living in the house, yes.

I think the family home, means your residence.

What if you have two houses that you live in?

[PhX]

Whats wrong with taxing everything at the variable rates. No exceptions? Much like GST, it would be hard to avoid but perhaps 'lower' overall (as in income tax would be lower but of course what is given with one hand is taken with the other).

NZ #1 plan needs to be to expand exporting, physical and services, anything else is going to get us into the shit even more.

[jrp]

All these investors holding on to their property portfolio to give to their kids will be fucked off when some government 'broadens' the tax base in another possible area where they can increase the goevernment tax take - Death Duty and Inheritance Tax.

Think about it - why should rich peoples kids reap the benefits of their parents 'hard work'? That doesn't happen for anyone else - why should it happen for them.

And the benefits to society are multiple:

1. CGT will tax many years for any real tax take for the government - a death tax could start tomorrow.

2. Everyone dies, therefore everyone is taxed one last time - can't get fairer than that.

3.There will be a steady tax take for the government as the baby boomer bubble is starting to hit the average death age.

4. Typically, old people don't spend much because they don't need much - which is not good for the money-go-round (the multiplier effect). A death tax might change the oldies spending patterns since they're generally a bunch of selfish pricks who wouldn't want to see their money go to the government - so they'll spend it instead. Which will help the economy.

5.Investors wont want to hold on to houses to give to their kids - so more houses on the market.

6. Death duty is still in NZs law books - it just needs to have a rate above zero applied to it. Very quick to implement.

I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now. But I could see some Labour/Greenie types wetting their knickers over this - "yeah, fuck the rich kids - that'll teach 'em for being born into privilege rather than having to earn it themselves"

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by jrp

Think about it - why should rich peoples kids reap the benefits of their parents 'hard work'?

Why shouldn't people be able to do what they want with what they have earned from their hard work?

edit: read your bottom line. lol?

[jrp]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Why shouldn't people be able to do what they want with what they have earned from their hard work?

You can say this about any tax at all, Income tax, GST, CGT - all tax is inherently unfair as it is money you have earned from your hard work, but the government takes it anyway.

Governments need money to function, so we have tax. It is just a case of how that money collected.

You can easily argue that the children of a dead person have not worked for that money at all - they have probably already benefited from it throughout their parents lives - but they haven't worked for it. Why should they get it? That doesn't sound fair. It's a perfect chance for redistributing wealth in a society.

There is nothing that makes Death Tax more or less fair then any other tax - including CGT. Although it would probably be a lot more effective and efficient as a government money earning then would CGT.

[blynk]

I don't know about that.

That is like saying that I get tax on my income, and I then put a portion of that income into my savings account. (Excl interest etc) Then when I take it out to use it, I get taxed again.

With money inheritence, the tax has already been paid on it. With assets, the tax will be paid on it when it is sold.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Fair enough, I should have made it clear I was asking whether they had an argument against a CGT in general.

Yeah but this way of approaching the issue is dangerous. We already KNOW that National is irrationally and ideologically against any CGT. Most sensible people and recognised experts in the relevant areas agree that a CGT in some form is necessary. As such, if you care about the economy and the like, the thing to do (all else being equal)* is to support someone who will implement a CGT. Then the issue becomes whether the CGT proposed as part of the overall tax package, of which any tax is always but one part, makes any sense. In that sense, I am afraid Labour's overall tax package is a disaster.

* In my case, I don't consider all else being equal but Labour has at least gone from having zero shot of getting my vote to actually getting some consideration after the recent announcement. Their willingness to implement a CGT is a worthy point of difference but won't be enough to swing my vote, especially based on the current package.

[jrp]

Originally Posted by blynk

I don't know about that.

That is like saying that I get tax on my income, and I then put a portion of that income into my savings account. (Excl interest etc) Then when I take it out to use it, I get taxed again.

With money inheritence, the tax has already been paid on it. With assets, the tax will be paid on it when it is sold.

You are already taxed multiple times on your money as it is. When you buy something you are taxed GST on it, when you have already paid Income Tax on it. Alcohol and tobacco tax you twice after you've already paid tax on it. Shit, they even charge GST on a tax - your council rates are a tax that has GST charged on it.

When you're dead you don't even know you're being taxed.

You can't get a less painful tax than that.

[fixed_truth]

You can say this about any tax at all, Income tax, GST, CGT - all tax is inherently unfair as it is money you have earned from your hard work, but the government takes it anyway.

But the difference with a 'death tax' is that you are often talking about unrealised capital gain. If I pass on my million dollar business, farm, house etc to my kids - then wouldn't they have to come up with $150,000 if they wished to keep it?

[Ab]

Death taxes often see the recipients of inherited property being forced to sell the property in order to pay the tax they've incurred by inheriting it.

[jrp]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

But the difference with a 'death tax' is that you are often talking about unrealised capital gain. If I pass on my million dollar business, farm, house etc to my kids - then wouldn't they have to come up with $150,000 if they wished to keep it?

Yes. And if the business is valued at a certain amount to be taxed at a given amount, then it will be worthwhile the recipient paying the tax rather than selling the business or house.

Either way, the recipients of inheritance are still get getting something they have not worked for at all - so why shouldn't they be taxed?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by jrp

You can say this about any tax at all, Income tax, GST, CGT - all tax is inherently unfair as it is money you have earned from your hard work, but the government takes it anyway.

If you put each person on a deserted island for a year to see what they produce, you wouldn't find that some have produced enough simply to feed themselves while others have produced enough to feed millions, regardless of how hard they work.

Yet this is possible in our society. Because of society. So it seems inherently fair that those whose care society has been placed in should take from those who most benefit from society, in the service of society. Not everything, nor with an attempt to distribute wealth evenly. But certainly enough to support society, if only so those that benefit so greatly from it can continue to do so.

[jrp]

Originally Posted by Ab

Death taxes often see the recipients of inherited property being forced to sell the property in order to pay the tax they've incurred by inheriting it.

All good for the economy. Sucks for the person inheriting it though - but still good from NZs economic perspective.

Actually I am not pro inheritance tax - but it would be better then Labour's cluster fuck of a policy. More simple and straight forward than all these exceptions and exemptions they're talking about.

I also find it funny that so many people are saying a CGT is absolutely necessary all of a sudden - bollocks.

What I would like to see a system that is fairer on it's collection than what happens at the moment.

That the like of bankrupt David Henderson only paid $17,000 tax in all of years of property development, while claiming millions in GST refunds that were not paid is grossly unfair. There are thousands of other developers, day care centres, 'charity' organisations, and others who are happily milking the system. Even when it's illegally done bugger all of them go before the courts and get convicted - the cost/return ratio is not worth it at the moment.

If a government looked to actually cleaned up the present system then I'd wager they wouldn't have to increase the tax take.