NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion > Politics
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29th July 2013, 13:28     #1
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
YELLOW PERIL YELLOW PERIL

Oh fuck there's so much fail coming out of Labour one does not know where to start.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 13:40     #2
Spoon1
Mmm... Sacrilicious
 
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).
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 13:45     #3
Saladin
Nothing to See Here!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
Oh fuck there's so much fail coming out of Labour one does not know where to start.
It's a good thing you live in a country where they'd never implement such a silly scheme eh?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 13:59     #4
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 


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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:02     #5
aR Que
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1

CGT will have a greater effect and I'm all for that (on 2nd+ houses).
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?)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:05     #6
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Labour just said to every baby boomer in Auckland "the value of your investment properties just dropped. You're welcome."
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:07     #7
xor
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
CGT will have a greater effect and I'm all for that (on 2nd+ houses).
CGT has proven to do very little to prevent the increase of house prices in other countries...
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:09     #8
sidbo
Raptus regaliter
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xor
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:10     #9
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladin
It's a good thing you live in a country where they'd never implement such a silly scheme eh?
Australia doesn't have a Free Trade Agreement with China under which Australia agrees to make no commercial distinction between local and Chinese investors.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 14:17     #10
Juju
get to da choppa
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 16:12     #11
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Lol, Chan Ban.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 16:53     #12
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
A gross 23% of sales for our 549 agents nationwide are to first home buyers, 19% are to investors, and 8% to people located offshore. There is no upward trend evident in the
proportion of sales offshore. . . .

That is, 3.6% of dwellings sold each month go to people staying out of the country. This is the gross sales figure and were we to have the proportion of proper ties being sold occurring on behalf of an offshore buyer we would be able to calculate a net figure.
http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-conten...y-May-2013.pdf (pdf)
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 17:09     #13
xor
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
Australia doesn't have a Free Trade Agreement with China under which Australia agrees to make no commercial distinction between local and Chinese investors.
There is also a clause in the FTA between NZ and China stating that NZ cannot discriminate against Chinese investment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 17:49     #14
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Cheesy grin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juju
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.
Quote:
The current Labour leader and Miss Clark’s successor as MP for Mt Albert, David Shearer, claimed at the weekend there are “more than 11,000 overseas investors [who] own properties here that they don’t live in”.

What Mr Shearer did not say is the figure comes from Inland Revenue’s numbers about “non-resident” taxpayers who pay taxes on houses they own in New Zealand.

“Non-resident” taxpayers are largely made up of expatriate New Zealanders and in this context are those who have gone overseas and who have rented out their properties here.

There are no figures on this but it is a highly common practice – although most who go overseas will have only one, or maybe two, properties to rent out and not, as in the case of Miss Clark, who departed to the United Nations in 2009, who owns four.
RAW HAW HAW HAAAAWWW!!
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 18:45     #15
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 21:18     #16
Lightspeed
 
Sad

Maybe... maybe some CIA mofo is dosing their water or gassing their offices or something? Surely...
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2013, 22:05     #17
TD
Anas Latrina
 
David Shearer tells Pakistani taxi driver that he can’t buy home
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 07:52     #18
Golden Teapot
Love, Actuary
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
CGT will have a greater effect and I'm all for that (on 2nd+ houses).
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 08:01     #19
Golden Teapot
Love, Actuary
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xor
CGT has proven to do very little to prevent the increase of house prices in other countries...
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".
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 12:41     #20
Spoon1
Mmm... Sacrilicious
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Teapot
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 12:51     #21
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
See "tax on telecommuters".
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 18:10     #22
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
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.
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)
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

Last edited by fixed_truth : 30th July 2013 at 18:11.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 19:08     #23
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
I don't think anybody but the deluded think that building 100,000 in 10 years will help, or is even possible.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 19:30     #24
Golden Teapot
Love, Actuary
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
Correct - we didn't buy our house for capital gain, we bought it to live in.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 19:34     #25
Golden Teapot
Love, Actuary
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
"Investors" that are buying residential properties to make a profit should be taxed accordingly to discourage such activities in accordance with our "Kiwi ideals".
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2013, 20:32     #26
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Teapot
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".
Interesting. For what reason would a share trader just hold shares with no intention of making any money?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

Last edited by fixed_truth : 30th July 2013 at 20:34.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 08:31     #27
pxpx
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
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 :|

Last edited by pxpx : 31st July 2013 at 08:32.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 13:02     #28
Spoon1
Mmm... Sacrilicious
 
Laugh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Teapot
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.
LOL
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 15:06     #29
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Great comeback Spoon1, you really tore apart his argument there.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 16:13     #30
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Interesting. For what reason would a share trader just hold shares with no intention of making any money?
Come on, think about it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 16:22     #31
cyc
Objection!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
LOL
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 17:41     #32
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
Come on, think about it.
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.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 18:18     #33
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Oh wow, there's even a link to Key Board Warrior!
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 18:25     #34
Spoon1
Mmm... Sacrilicious
 
The comparison is ridiculous and not worth any more than a LOL.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 19:03     #35
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 19:10     #36
Golden Teapot
Love, Actuary
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
The comparison is ridiculous and not worth any more than a LOL.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 20:38     #37
cyc
Objection!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 20:51     #38
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
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.
Cool I wasn't aware that you can borrow against a share portfolio.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2013, 21:16     #39
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon1
The comparison is ridiculous and not worth any more than a LOL.
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.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2013, 07:18     #40
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11166485

Quote:
Maori will be outnumbered by Asians as the second-biggest ethnic group in New Zealand within the next decade, a leading academic says.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)