National Thus Far

[Reformed_Quint]

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Throw. Goddamn you.

[sidbo]

Originally Posted by Reformed_Quint

Quick, through your hands in the air and panic! No time for rational!

Rationale. Goddamn you.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I'm anti-progress when the government gets 2% royalties plus whatever companies tax that the foreign mining company can't wiggle out of paying. Give us a 40% royalty like Aussie and then we're talking.

Nah that's just an excuse. You just want NZ to stay a backwater.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by fidgit

But 2% doesn't sound like much compared to how much we'd be letting a global mining conglomerate walk away with.

Fun fact, extractive industries contribute less to NZ's GDP than the power companies do. (I'd hope so, considering the size of my power bill).

Originally Posted by fidgit

(and for sure, most strip mines just tear the land up and walk away, but dreams are free right?)

To be fair to open cast mining, Have you seen what the guys up at Stockton have done? They've preserved the entire layer of top soil, and carefully tend it. When they're finished mining they're required to fill the hole back to the original contours and relay the turf.

But we need to ensure those conditions are always imposed.

[Deadmeat]

At a post-Budget lunch in Christchurch today, English told business leaders that National would "get to grips'' with its position on state asset sales in the next eight months.

New Zealand Rail was ''a black hole of complexity'' to which it had committed recently another $750m. ''This is the price of nostalgia,'' English said.

Is the trucking lobby so powerful that rail is considered as 'nostalgia'?

[TheBender]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

.............

Worth the full link - Mr English was in a bit a straight talking mode today

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-sales-English

Personally I'm pleased to see them talking like this. Only hope they wowsers STFU so we get a chance to decide over something else than slightly left or slightly right in 2011

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Is the trucking lobby so powerful that rail is considered as 'nostalgia'?

Yeah, nostalgia. Another description would be 'white elephant'.

[xor]

So it looks like property investors will get bit of a sting with the way depreciation is measured. I'm happy/ish

[Trigger]

yep, I am happy to see property investors raped as much as possible

[Thomas Meatball]

Yeah, I'd like to rape some property investors.






Wait, is that what we're talking about?















Mmmm, rape.

[Spink]

rape

rape

rape

rape

rape

[madmaxii]

Property Investors are your landlords.

Read and weep.

[QWERTY?]

ok this might be poor logic but,

people expect that with these changes rent will increase yes?

but with less incentive to invest in property, property prices will not go up so much, so average mortgages will be less, so rent will initially go up, but then stabilize no?

[FaTBoB]

with less investment in property less houses will be built creating a housing shortage, supply and demand forcing rent up.

Then 10 years down the road the governemt will spend billions subsidising corporate entities to build high density rental housing,
lower income children will grow up in apartments without lawns..
in america I think they call these ghettos,

#this is exactly what happen in NSW, so why the fuck is National following the same failed policy,
http://www.news.com.au/money/propert...-1111116185861


Shape your opinion base on truth, not the other way around.

[JP]

You seem to be confusing people who actually invest in the creation of property, and those who simply buy existing houses to rent in a parisitic fashion.

Even if both are so negatively affected, it wouldn't be hard to encourage the creation of new property while discouraging parisitic investment (if National aren't seperating these two types of investment then fair enough, but that will easily enough be fixed).

It's not ok so many nzers basically want to own rental property as their major investment. That's retarded.

[BoyWonder]

I can't see the major issue here...

Previously you would depreciate each year to offset your income so you would not have to pay as much tax, or any tax potentially.

When the time comes to sell that property though you would have to declare how much you sold it for and that amount would be compared to what you had depreciated it down to, and you would then have to declare the recovered depreciation as income anyway (basically you are saying "what do you know - it didn't really go down in value after all!").

So now property owners can't offset a large chunk of their yearly income with depreciation so they will be busy finding other expenses to offset. Shock, horror, it might actually mean that property owners do more maintenance work on their properties because it is in their interset to create tax deductable expenses. At the end of it all they will be able to keep any profits they made on selling the property also.

[xor]

AFAIK they've previously been able to claim depreciation of the original value of the asset. From Oct 1st it'll be for the current value. So with an increase in property prices, it'll mean that investors can't claim the depreciation values they once did.

Is that what you meant?

[BoyWonder]

The depreciation has always been on diminishing value, IE take 4% off the value of the building the first year, and the remaining value is depreciated at 4% the next year and so on.

[xor]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

The depreciation has always been on diminishing value, IE take 4% off the value of the building the first year, and the remaining value is depreciated at 4% the next year and so on.

Ah I see

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I can't see the major issue here...

Previously you would depreciate each year to offset your income so you would not have to pay as much tax, or any tax potentially.

When the time comes to sell that property though you would have to declare how much you sold it for and that amount would be compared to what you had depreciated it down to, and you would then have to declare the recovered depreciation as income anyway (basically you are saying "what do you know - it didn't really go down in value after all!").

So now property owners can't offset a large chunk of their yearly income with depreciation so they will be busy finding other expenses to offset. Shock, horror, it might actually mean that property owners do more maintenance work on their properties because it is in their interset to create tax deductable expenses. At the end of it all they will be able to keep any profits they made on selling the property also.

Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive rise in claimed R&M costs.

[FaTBoB]

Originally Posted by JP

You seem to be confusing people who actually invest in the creation of property, and those who simply buy existing houses to rent in a parisitic fashion.

what, I mean really what?

Do you want me to try and counter retarded thinking like this?

IF I build a house and rent it, thanks cool, but If I sell that house to someone that then rents it, he is a parasite?

Shape your opinion base on truth, not the other way around.

[FaTBoB]

Sorry bit over the top.

Basically what I'm saying is if there is a demand a market will fill it, (I'm all for removal of depreciation, I was initally countering qwery's understanding)

This talk of parasitic is illogical, and unhelpful.

NZer's invest in property because it is stable and reliable,

if the share markets and NZ business were reliable and not filled with dodgy failures we would invest in them too,

You know what would incourage nz'ers to invest in the stock market?
Being payed enough to have discretional income to gamble with.

The ratio of wages to house prices has changed but not because of rocketing house prices, house value inflation pretty much mirrors interest rates, otherwise no one would buy houses, wages have slipped behind,

accomodation costs are a fact of life, rental property is a valid investment, it is a need that needs to be met, otherwise people will suffer, good government is about stability and sustainable growth, not creating volitilty for quick profits.

[EvilLumpy]

Originally Posted by FaTBoB

rental property is a valid investment

...

sustainable growth

Please explain how you indirectly equate these two.

[chubby]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10646716

In terms of scale, the Budget's centrepiece package of tax cuts has National betting heavily on the economy continuing its slow recovery and not being hit by another international shock which plunges it back into recession, once more mangling the Government accounts and further delaying a return to surpluses.


That is just the sort of calculated gamble that would be second nature for a former forex dealer like Key.

He has effectively wagered National's reputation as a responsible fiscal manager on the expectation that there will not be another bout of global financial dysfunction, thereby securing a big dividend in votes at next year's general election.


....The upshot is that National is effectively borrowing for tax cuts - at least in the initial stages because the depreciation changes and other revenue-raising or -saving measures on the other side of the ledger take a while to kick in.

...,the Treasury has warned of "significant uncertainty" as to the economic impact of the tax package. It cautiously assessed that the package might result in growth of less than 1 per cent after seven years - hardly Asian tiger stuff.

...The Treasury went on to say only around 10,000 of the 174,000 jobs expected to be created over the next three years or so would be attributable to tax cuts.

hardly one of nationals harshest critics.
and yet here, at good old nzg, we get a bunch of geeks probing for hints on how to continue with their tax avoidance.


i heart middle-class NZ.

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by chubby

hardly one of nationals harshest critics.
and yet here, at good old nzg, we get a bunch of geeks probing for hints on how to continue with their tax avoidance.


i heart middle-class NZ.

Who's probing for tax avoidance?

[chubby]

no-one here, of course.

[fidgit]

We're expecting 174,000 jobs to be created in the next 3 years? Fuckin' aye, that's not bad.

Though how many redundancies are still to come form within Govt. funded organisations?

[xor]

Originally Posted by fidgit

We're expecting 174,000 jobs to be created in the next 3 years? Fuckin' aye, that's not bad.

Though how many redundancies are still to come form within Govt. funded organisations?

A lot imo. Supercity will chop the local govt. And there's still a shitload of labours bloat that needs to be slashed.

[A Corpse]

"Do more with less! Problem solved! Eyyyyyy!!!"

Go buy more groceries with less money! Easy!

[BoyWonder]

I think you're referring to the last rise in GST - when GST went up without any tax cuts at the same time.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I think you're referring to the last rise in GST - when GST went up without any tax cuts at the same time.

http://thestandard.org.nz/another-nat-lie-on-gst/

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I think you're referring to the last rise in GST - when GST went up without any tax cuts at the same time.

I was actually referring to what government departments are being told, but I could have been clearer I guess.

[chubby]

The first 1.2 million taxpayers get less than a dollar a week. A full-time minimum wage worker gets $4.12 a week.

The first 3 million (of 3.4 million) taxpayers get just $4.24 a week on average. The top 100,000 taxpayers average $105 a week.

Half of the net tax cut goes to 8% of taxpayers.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

Half of the net tax cut goes to 8% of taxpayers.

And how much of the overall tax take COMES from that 8% of taxpayers?

[Lightspeed]

Around 80%. Which the rest of us should be oh so grateful for. Grateful that most of the income generated in NZ goes to so few. Because we're just piggy-backing. That top 8% would still be sitting pretty if the rest of us weren't here.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

And how much of the overall tax take COMES from that 8% of taxpayers?

how about the number that would give that hackneyed complaint some meaning..... from possession of which portion of the net wealth(or how big a piece of the pie)?

[Ab]

Can't we all just agree that lowering the top tax rate to 33% is good because "that reduction allows New Zealanders to keep more of their own money" (Goff, 1988) ?

[madmaxii]

Yes

[leadinjector]

Originally Posted by Ab

And how much of the overall tax take COMES from that 8% of taxpayers?

bang on.


my dad gets taxed in the highest bracket, and has to listen to cunts whinge about how they pay a few hundred bucks from their paycheck. but you cant tell them to get fucked because then you look like some imperialist bastard. the tax that a guy who earns a million bucks a year has to pay FAR outweighs what some fucking bottom scraper pays, but HE is the one who gets all the shit for being a greedy rich cunt. fuck that mentality, its a bullshit idea that imo does nothing but hold NZ back in its development. poorer people should pay less tax percentage? guess what buddy, you pay fuck all as it is. upskill and get a better job.

the business i run gets taxed at the same rate whether i earn 100 bucks a week or 2k a week. is that fair?

ok i lost my ramble at this point, ive had 3 beers. sue me.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by leadinjector

upskill and get a better job.

So you reckon all our factory workers, cleaners, retail staff, etc., should just upskill and get better jobs, easy as that?

I'm sure our economy would be fine without people to clean up after us or run our factories.