Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greens Wealth Tax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Perry
    replied
    The onslaught of unmitigated and expertly over-qualified ignorance continues . . .

    Being a pronouncement by a taxpayer funded university airhead, one Ananish Chaudhuri, a professor of behavioural and experimental economics at the University of Auckland, it's no surprise that the gummint's position - both obvious and latent - is supported, if not endorsed. Plus . . .

    Experimental economics? What?

    Fanciful eco-gnome-ics
    would probably be a more accurate and better title.

    Orperhaps mental midget eco-gnome-ics?

    The entire, tedious item is the epitome of socialist apron-string-clinging symptom-chasing, disguised as cause-addressing.

    Wide CGT, including on family home, best answer to inequality
    3 Mar 2021

    Originally posted by STUFFed
    Critics may well argue that this latter capital gain is not unearned income. It represents returns to saving and risk-taking. Such investment activities do require time and effort. This is fine since it is always feasible to make allowances for the imputed value of such activities. In regulating public utilities, for instance, regulatory authorities often resort to guaranteeing them a “fair rate of return” rather than allowing them to charge monopoly prices.

    But, even after we make any such adjustment, given Auckland’s galloping house prices, it is difficult to argue that all of this additional capital gain is “earned”. So, taxing such “unearned” income in some form only seems fair.
    Did you spot the sleight of pen? From additional capital gain to unearned income, even though no income was received at or before any such tax was imposed!

    As for "only seems fair?" Fair to whom? Never mentioned, like the definition of "fair," itself (see below). An undefined generalisation that's atypical of airheads and drongos in taxpayer-funded sinecures.


    "Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' [how do you determine] what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has, or has worked for?" - Thomas Sowell.

    Leave a comment:


  • McDuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    .. the illusory increase in dollar numbers adjusted for inflation are considered as income by the profoundly ignorant author of the article.
    You make an interesting point.

    What exactly are you measuring, if your tape measure keeps stretching..?

    I like it.


    But, if you're honest with yourself, you'll see its more than just that.

    A part of it, just a part, is similar to that guy in morning bumper to bumper traffic.

    The guy who keeps changing lanes to get ahead of the flow,
    At some point, you notice the same car is taking advantage of everyone's good will, and you don't drop back to let him in.
    You smile an wave at him, watching as his angry little red face bob and gnash through the glass, and his fist shake at you, as he is forced to miss his turnoff and be late for work.
    But at least you're one minute early to work.
    Maybe time for a coffee.
    Gee you think, I've lost about three hours to that guy every year.
    Maybe ill never let him in again and treat myself to a half day.
    The country will be shitty and selfish, but hey, when you're dealing with fools, what are you going to do.

    So yes, as long as only a few people play the system - some of the time, it will pretty much go below the radar.
    Once playing the system becomes the norm, and it threatens the integrity of the system, you really have to curb the behavior.
    Last edited by donna; 03-03-2021, 08:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    More carefully crafted bullshit from the terminally gullible amidst today's donor media. A Beginner's Guide to Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics would be a better title.

    Perhaps With Added Deceptive Sophistries as a sub-title.

    A beginner’s guide to paying less tax
    2 Mar 2021

    Originally posted by STUFFed
    A lot of millionaires are paying tax at a rate lower than the lowest earners in the country. We found this out from a Treasury report, which attempted to measure how wealth is distributed. The key takeaway: 42 per cent of the richest Kiwis pay less than 10 per cent of their total income in tax.
    A complete, total and utter lie, of course. All because the illusory increase in dollar numbers adjusted for inflation are considered as income by the profoundly ignorant author of the article.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    Very subversive, fifth columnist item, this one.

    Lies, damned lies, statistics and gummint data.

    More than 40% of millionaires paying tax rates lower than the lowest earners, Government data reveals
    25 Feb 2021
    Originally posted by STUFFed
    The research looked at “economic income” which “is a broader concept than taxable income and includes, for example, capital gains”. In New Zealand economic income, as opposed to “taxable income”, which is defined in legislation, is not a concept used in tax law.
    VERY SNEAKY

    How to lie and yet not lie, at the same time.
    Originally posted by Yes, Sir, STUFFed

    Leave a comment:


  • Anthonyacat
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    Anyone want to stab a guess at how many houses there are in Auckland valued at $1M or more?
    According to a quick Google, there are 540,000 homes in Auckland. Our median home price is something north of $900,000 and tipped by some commentators to reach $1M by the end of the year, particularly if we get a post-election boom. Usually a pending election slows down the market, but it didn't seem to this time. Or did it, and the frenzy we have seen was actually slow?

    In any case, with 540,000 houses and a median price approaching $1M, the answer to your question is somewhere near 270,000.

    But you can't forget liability offset aspects. The vast majority of those homes have mortgages on them to some extent. Anything bought in the last 5-10 years the debt will be quite substantial.

    You also can't forget that most homes aren't owned by one person, it's usually a couple. So the home would need to be $2M+ for that alone to trigger the wealth tax. While we're certainly seeing a few of those now, it'll be at least a couple election cycles before we see it as the norm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    Anyone want to stab a guess at how many houses there are in Auckland valued at $1M or more?

    (Forget the beach bach, fancy car, boat and liability offset aspects, for the moment.)

    I wonder how many farms in NZ would be valued under $1M? Or were farms supposed to be exempt?

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueSky
    replied
    Originally posted by PC View Post
    More tax and tenants "rights" we go.
    Sir Robert is absolutely right about never owning residential rentals!!
    I hear Australia's nice.
    100%
    If it weren't for the taxes I would be buying over there

    Ak market is too overcooked , previously unrenovated houses were selling with reno price built in! (endors wanting to sell WITHOUT actually doing any work!
    now any property with lit bit of land are selling as potential to subdivide lol $1M in Manuewa
    certainly Not for the faint hearted

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    [...]

    Of course, with redundant partners in gummint, then Comrade Cindy can blame them for what goes wrong.

    Good observation Perry.

    Yes, if she choses to Govern alone and still fails in important areas like housing (backlog for state housing has dramatically increased) and child poverty (no change in the number of children living in material hardship) - she will no longer be able to fall back on being a "war-time Prime Minister" feeding the masses at the next election or be able to pass blame to partners.

    In short, COVID-19 is not going to indefinitely inoculate her against underperformance in weighty social and economic issues.
    Last edited by Sanya; 18-10-2020, 02:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    Originally posted by Sanya View Post
    Will Jacinda include the Greens and perhaps even lone Māori Party MP Rawiri Waititi in her new government, either in Cabinet or in a confidence and supply agreement? She has spoken of her desire for consensus-building - so perhaps.
    Sounds good until one asks consensus-building with whom?

    Of course, with redundant partners in gummint, then Comrade Cindy can blame them for what goes wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by donna View Post
    Well it may not have been the outcome we all wished for but it's Goodbye to the Greens Weath Tax - yaaaaooh!

    cheers,

    Donna

    Hope you are right Donna.

    Will Jacinda include the Greens and perhaps even lone Māori Party MP Rawiri Waititi in her new government, either in Cabinet or in a confidence and supply agreement? She has spoken of her desire for consensus-building - so perhaps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frezzinghot
    replied
    Originally posted by PC View Post
    More tax and tenants "rights" we go.
    Sir Robert is absolutely right about never owning residential rentals!!
    I hear Australia's nice.
    So what is the alternative? Mass exodus of mum and dad investors, homes flood the market, first home buyers take up the slack,(those that can be bothered} BUT cause and would be huge slump in prices?

    The puppeteers would not like that, huge losses for residential banks.

    Leave a comment:


  • PC
    replied
    More tax and tenants "rights" we go.
    Sir Robert is absolutely right about never owning residential rentals!!
    I hear Australia's nice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    I do hope you're right, Donna.

    Don't overlook comrade socialist Cindy's undertaking to bring some Watermelons into parliament. Just what form that would take and how much influence the Watermelons would have is the concern.

    I hope ACT do better than Winston First ever did. Not sorry to see that slippery fellow slip away.
    Last edited by Perry; 18-10-2020, 08:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Well it may not have been the outcome we all wished for but it's Goodbye to the Greens Weath Tax - yaaaaooh!

    cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeffa
    replied
    I doubt any "substantial" new taxes will be introduced in the next term of government.
    The recession and resulting increasing unemployment will will be the determining factor in any left leaning or democratic politicians here or USA to raise taxes.
    There number one primary goal will be to reduce unemployment ,increasing taxes on businesses or individuals will cause the opposite effect.
    The next government will introduce more stimulus into the economy so makes little sense to take it back in taxes because you will arrive at square 1 with higher unemployment.

    In 3 or 4 years when the country is back to "full time " employment and not "part time " like we are at now and asset prices have increased 50% that is when you may see new taxes.
    I suppose it is whoever wants to get elected and how wealthy the center voter is or isn't.

    Interestingly the Labour government in England 40 or 50 years ago * introduced a death tax on the wealthy aristocrat landlords of 80% .
    The next generation could not afford to maintain mansions and castles so had to tear them down, oddly enough the same Labour government set up trust with taxpayer funded money to protect and restore the few remaining mansions as apart of saving English history.
    Last edited by Jeffa; 16-10-2020, 05:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X