National Thus Far

[CCS]

To stimulate the economy. Everything is to stimulate the economy.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ding-cuts.html

"The IMF has identified spending on payments to families, interest-free student loans and subsidized doctor visits as areas for possible review."

So if the country is spending more than it earns we apparently need to spend less on families, students and the sick. Not buy fewer Audis, not cut back imports on high end consumer electronics, not go on fewer overseas holidays.

How can one consider the world anything but mad if these are its values?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

If we're running a deficit, why did Key cut taxes in the first place?

The principle is that costs should sometimes be shared accross generations of tax payers. The argument is that each generation can be pretty well off rather than one generation experiencing untold riches and the next suffering abject poverty.

Given the magnitude of the issues currently affecting NZ those in power consider that it is reasonable that part of the cost of these bad times be offset against the riches of a future good time.

And, not that I particularly agree that taxes were cut. Broadly what happened is that there was a shift in who is now paying tax. More needs to be done though - those living of investment gains continue to live off of the backs of the rest of society by basically not paying any tax.

[Ab]

The first rule of getting tax revenue out of the elderly is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT GETTING TAX REVENUE OUT OF THE ELDERLY

[Lightspeed]

I wonder what it is about the baby boom generation that makes them a bunch of greedy old fuckers.

You know, the ones that are like that, not my grandma. Well, at least not one of my grandmas. Actually, they're probably both too old to be boomers. At least of the baby kind, but who knows come zombie apocalypse?

[Ab]

Read an article the other day on the retirement timebomb, and the stats it gave for Australia were something like retired Baby Boomers being 19% of the population but having 50% of the total net wealth of all households by 2030. And being, you know, retired.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'd rather borrow since this has a semblance of inter-generational equity if used for the right purposes.

you are such a lying cunt8)

[MrTTTT]

I hate the greedy babyboomers

[JP]

It's only because the younger generations are split between labour/nat, if we could unite against the baby boomers we could take all their wealth and dump all the oldies in dormitories. Problem solved.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

That's better than borrowing $120 million/week to fund tax cuts. Right?

Nope

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Given the magnitude of the issues currently affecting NZ those in power consider that it is reasonable that part of the cost of these bad times be offset against the riches of a future good time.

Except that there won't be a future good time due to Peak Oil and NACT cutting taxes.

Broadly what happened is that there was a shift in who is now paying tax. More needs to be done though - those living of investment gains continue to live off of the backs of the rest of society by basically not paying any tax.

Yep, taxes transferred, courtesy of NACT, from the rich to the poor.

[A Corpse]

Fucking poor people just need to go get better jobs!

[MrTTTT]

I reckon! Poor people are so lazy...

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Yep, taxes transferred, courtesy of the self-interest of every government, from the old to the young.

FTFY.

Old people are, on the whole, wealthier than young people. Retired old people pay no income tax yet they retain the right to vote. Doesn't take a genius to work out where that's heading.

[_Incubus_]

Whats wrong with wanting to develop a property portfolio? We have 1 investment house and are looking at a 2nd at the moment. I hardly think I'm a bad person for not wanting to rely on a shitty govt pension when I retire and I want to be able to generate the kind of wealth for my family that provides a secure future as well as a comfortable now.

[Ab]

Wheee!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_property_bubble

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

The principle is that costs should sometimes be shared accross generations of tax payers. The argument is that each generation can be pretty well off rather than one generation experiencing untold riches and the next suffering abject poverty.

I get this. But what great boon is on the horizon for future generations? I see the looming fuel crisis, climate change and an aging population ahead of us... but no rich source of wealth that we can borrow against.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I get this. But what great boon is on the horizon for future generations? I see the looming fuel crisis, climate change and an aging population ahead of us... but no rich source of wealth that we can borrow against.

NZ faces a modest future - we're a small irrelevant island (only the North Island counts really) with nothing much going for us given the current attitude of the population. All the same it's is not equitable to allow the cost of the current extreme misery being faced by many to be funded by only those currently okay.

The rapidly growing aged population (of people who basically don't pay any tax despite their considerable collective income) is a very nasty problem. Without a capital gains tax there is no hope here.

It is not great to live in a country where only some of those who could help support society actually contribute. Basically it's only salary and wage earners footing the bill. And, don't forget quite a few wage and salary earners don't actually contribute much once all of the backhanders they are entitled to are claimed.

I'm all for buying the services that Governments should provide from a somewhat left perspective (so like NZ and not like the USA) but it really galls me that not everybody who can afford to contribute is required to contribute.

[[LvN]N3misiS]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Nope

my God it is painfull reading the comments on that article.
"Low income people don't get paid enough and are being exploited by the rich."
"The rich earn far too much and control more than their fair share of resources"
"John key is helping out his rich mates"
BLAH BLAH BLAH.

honestly what a fucking whingefest. If you aren't happy with your situation do something about it e.g. upskill. If you can't afford children why have them, it's not as if birth control is difficult these days. etc etc and so on and so forth

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

NZ faces a modest future - we're a small irrelevant island (only the North Island counts really) with nothing much going for us given the current attitude of the population. All the same it's is not equitable to allow the cost of the current extreme misery being faced by many to be funded by only those currently okay.

The rapidly growing aged population (of people who basically don't pay any tax despite their considerable collective income) is a very nasty problem. Without a capital gains tax there is no hope here.

It is not great to live in a country where only some of those who could help support society actually contribute. Basically it's only salary and wage earners footing the bill. And, don't forget quite a few wage and salary earners don't actually contribute much once all of the backhanders they are entitled to are claimed.

I'm all for buying the services that Governments should provide from a somewhat left perspective (so like NZ and not like the USA) but it really galls me that not everybody who can afford to contribute is required to contribute.

This post makes absurd amounts of sense to me. It is good.
How would you see the capital gains tax working, by the way?? (/How does capital gains tax work)

[Golden Teapot]

When I was studying (so a long time ago) I gained some familiarity with how capital gains tax operated in the UK; things may be different now.

From what I recall the tax was collected on realised capitals gains for everything except: there was an exemption for the primary residence (and rules about how often you could change that residence to stop cheating) and there was an allowance that was quite big ($20k NZ) in any tax year of exempt gains. So only people experiencing significant capital gains were taxed. In times of extremely high inflation indexation was allowed to reduce the size of capital gains too; think 1980s style inflation.

Something like that works for me. Anyone making significant realised capital gains other than through their genuine family home gets to pay tax on them.

Anything that means that a person with otherwise identical income pays the same amount of tax irrespective of how the income was derived works for me.

Probably tax on capital gains needs to be at a slightly higher rate than for income since the payment of tax is delayed and society loses value due to this delayed payment. So, if the top income tax rate was 30% perhaps the capital gains tax needs to be at 35% to create equity.

Introducing capital gains tax would require agreement from National and Labor; given Goff is a wet-blanket twit whose only political presence is represented by attempts to score points off of the opposition there is no chance of this happening any time soon. Given there is no chance of this both parties have to claim they don't want such a tax since to claim otherwise would result in no seats at the next election.

[fixed_truth]

Yeah a working capital gains tax might be difficult imo. For example what could happen to rent prices & the availability of rental properties if owning a rental property isn't profitable anymore.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

When I was studying (so a long time ago) I gained some familiarity with how capital gains tax operated in the UK; things may be different now.

From what I recall the tax was collected on realised capitals gains for everything except: there was an exemption for the primary residence (and rules about how often you could change that residence to stop cheating) and there was an allowance that was quite big ($20k NZ) in any tax year of exempt gains. So only people experiencing significant capital gains were taxed. In times of extremely high inflation indexation was allowed to reduce the size of capital gains too; think 1980s style inflation.

Something like that works for me. Anyone making significant realised capital gains other than through their genuine family home gets to pay tax on them.

Anything that means that a person with otherwise identical income pays the same amount of tax irrespective of how the income was derived works for me.

Probably tax on capital gains needs to be at a slightly higher rate than for income since the payment of tax is delayed and society loses value due to this delayed payment. So, if the top income tax rate was 30% perhaps the capital gains tax needs to be at 35% to create equity.

Sounds like a workable, sensible and fair outline to me.

[MrTTTT]

Am i right in thinking this: So you pay the capital gains tax once you've sold on the property?? Such that, x% of the increase in value is paid as tax?

[crocos]

That's a simplistic summary, but yes.

[Ab]

But... a capital gains tax would hurt people like this poor old retired grandmother! Won't someone think of the poor old senior citizens? Why do you hate old people so much?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10630266

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by Ab

But... a capital gains tax would hurt people like this poor old retired grandmother! Won't someone think of the poor old senior citizens? Why do you hate old people so much?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10630266

She sounds like a horrible old bitch!
Kill 'em all!

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Given there is no chance of this both parties have to claim they don't want such a tax since to claim otherwise would result in no seats at the next election.

There's also the ever looming threat under MMP that if both Nat&Lab agree to something like this then it opens the door to Winston.

[_Incubus_]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

When I was studying (so a long time ago) I gained some familiarity with how capital gains tax operated in the UK; things may be different now.

From what I recall the tax was collected on realised capitals gains for everything except: there was an exemption for the primary residence (and rules about how often you could change that residence to stop cheating) and there was an allowance that was quite big ($20k NZ) in any tax year of exempt gains. So only people experiencing significant capital gains were taxed. In times of extremely high inflation indexation was allowed to reduce the size of capital gains too; think 1980s style inflation.

Something like that works for me. Anyone making significant realised capital gains other than through their genuine family home gets to pay tax on them.

Anything that means that a person with otherwise identical income pays the same amount of tax irrespective of how the income was derived works for me.

Probably tax on capital gains needs to be at a slightly higher rate than for income since the payment of tax is delayed and society loses value due to this delayed payment. So, if the top income tax rate was 30% perhaps the capital gains tax needs to be at 35% to create equity.

Introducing capital gains tax would require agreement from National and Labor; given Goff is a wet-blanket twit whose only political presence is represented by attempts to score points off of the opposition there is no chance of this happening any time soon. Given there is no chance of this both parties have to claim they don't want such a tax since to claim otherwise would result in no seats at the next election.

It is fairly similar to that in Australia, you dont pay capital gains tax on your primary residence.

[_Incubus_]

double post..

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'm all for buying the services that Governments should provide from a somewhat left perspective (so like NZ and not like the USA) but it really galls me that not everybody who can afford to contribute is required to contribute.

Yup.

[fixed_truth]

So the people want a capital gains tax eh?
http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/sm...-planet-speech

The truth is that the Government needs more revenue and the Greens are the only party in Parliament to put forward a serious plan to generate serious revenue – a capital gains tax excluding the family home. In virtually every other developed country you pay tax on income whether that income comes from wages or capital gains.
The Green Party stands for smart, fair taxes and has the courage to say what National and Labour both know: that a capital gains tax excluding the family home will move capital away from property speculation; it will put downward pressure on house prices and help make the dream of home ownership a reality for more Kiwis; it will redirect much-needed capital to a starved productive sector; and it will reduce spiralling government debt.
The National Party is building up massive government debt because they won’t make changes that the tax system desperately needs. Labour is scared to do more than tinker at the edges.
Smart Green economics is about having the courage to make the changes our tax system needs so that we don’t dump our debt on our grandchildren.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, likely where my vote is gonna head this election.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yeah a working capital gains tax might be difficult imo. For example what could happen to rent prices & the availability of rental properties if owning a rental property isn't profitable anymore.

House prices become more affordable as there is more property available. More people will buy houses instead of renting. There will be less people in the rental space.

I don't think it is right that it is slightly easier to live in New York and buy a house than it is in Auckland (based on Income Vs Price).

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Yeah, likely where my vote is gonna head this election.

After hearing this, and seeing Labour & Nationals plans, I think I might be heading down this route as well.

I always throught the tax cuts (maybe not the last lot because of the GST change) were stupid. There were so many signs about government debts and shit, but they all went and campaigned on it, so had to do them.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by blynk

There will be less people in the rental space.

I guess I'm wondering who will own this rental space. With a CGT will it still be worth it for for people to be landlords? If not where will the landlords come from? And if yes, would a CGT actually make more property available then?

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I guess I'm wondering who will own this rental space. With a CGT will it still be worth it for for people to be landlords? If not where will the landlords come from? And if yes, would a CGT actually make more property available then?

Why worry about this? Is it hard to find a place to rent in any other country that has CGT?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Why worry about this? Is it hard to find a place to rent in any other country that has CGT?

I haven't seen any stats so I'm not sure. Though in Australia weren't low income families pushed into living in trailer parks?

[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.

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).

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

given Goff is a wet-blanket twit whose only political presence is represented by attempts to score points off of the opposition there is no chance of this happening any time soon..

agree about goff, but cant you even un-tounge johns arse during this comment?