Capital Gains Tax? Keep related posts in this thread, please.

[Wayne]

Except CGT won't cause a catastrophic nuclear winter

says you!..

[Wayne]

Fiona Rotherham gets it wrong.

If I remember correctly it said that she is the business editor.
I tought I might send her an email and educate her.

[artemis]

If I remember correctly it said that she is the business editor. I tought I might send her an email and educate her.

She could do worse than keep an eye on these forums.

[Perry]

Except CGT won't cause a catastrophic nuclear winter

Neither will having nuclear-powered ships in our waters.

[cube]

I'm not sure if this nugget of Labour Policy had been revealed/discussed before.

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-f...ectid=11150239

What's more, he says, the tax would apply only to net gains. "Costs associated with improving the value of the asset are deducted from the gross capital gain before any tax is incurred."

Sounds like a loophole to me. $250,000 bathroom anyone?

[Perry]

Nugget or Crock of . . . .

Details on this and other issues are yet to be worked out by an expert panel, says Labour's Clark.

Ahh, ye olde 'devil is in the detail' syndrome, used so well by forked-tongued politicians.
De-coded means we'll tell you the details after you've voted us in. Scumbags!

He also points out that a CGT would apply only to gains made after the tax is brought in, on what
he calls Valuation Day or V-day. "What this means in the context of your reader is that gains in
values on their property that have accrued to date (including as a result of their blood, sweat and
tears) will not be taxed - only future increases in value will be."

Increases in value? Yeah, right. Anyone want to place bets on that being (or changing to)
increases in dollar numbers? (When the "expert panel" details are revealed, of course!)

What's more, he says, the tax would apply only to net gains. "Costs associated with improving the
value of the asset are deducted from the gross capital gain before any tax is incurred."

Picking up on Cube's implication: who will decide what's an improvement and what it's worth? Also,
will "costs associated with improving the value of the asset" include/exclude a DIY person's labour
value? The shilly-shallying between costs, value, gains, plus no mention of inflation or changes in
numbers - rather than value, show how moronically ignorant those involved really are!

And let us not forget that the W'gton woodenheads will already have collected income tax, plus
GST on all the materials used in those improvements! DIY tax, anyone?

Shameless money grubbing trough swillers!

[muppet]

Sounds like a loophole to me. $250,000 bathroom anyone?

What about a $15000 bathroom in a $45000 house?

[drelly]

Picking up on Cube's implication: who will decide what's an improvement and what it's worth? Also,
will "costs associated with improving the value of the asset" include/exclude a DIY person's labour
value?

I think these are easy to answer...
1. If it's already been claimed as an expense, it's not claimable as an improvement cost.
2. DIY Labour costs aren't included as expense and income would negate each other.

[Davo36]

Someone was telling me that London property is increasing in value very quickly just now - and they have a capital gains tax in place...

So it just doesn't work.

[flyernzl]

Well what does work is the revenue it brings in.

[HermanZ]

Someone was telling me that London property is increasing in value very quickly just now - and they have a capital gains tax in place...

So it just doesn't work.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/london-property-the-new-reserve-currency-2013-10

“This is what happens when property in your city becomes a global reserve currency,” writes Goldfarb. “The gap between London prices and those of the rest of the country is now at a historic high, and there is only one way to explain it. London houses and apartments are a form of money.”

Quite a few articles on the web about capital moving to London for safety, and new buildings being left empty.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/20/london-new-york-times-foreign-rich-property

I'm wondering if something similar is happening in Auckland.
If I was rich in Asia, what would a safe place to store some of my wealth?

HermanZ

[Wayne]

Ahh, ye olde 'devil is in the detail' syndrome, used so well by forked-tongued politicians.
De-coded means we'll tell you the details after you've voted us in. Scumbags!

A bit early to be calling them that - the election is a ways away.

Some people still think the CGT is to reduce house prices - I don't think it is. As has been said before it is more about balancing the tax system (and I don't necessarily agree that is needed here).
Adding all these if's and maybe's makes for loopholes. How about if you are going to have a CGT just tax all gain is value. No ifs, or buts or maybes. Set the rate at something that doesn't make people scream too loud and be done with it.

[Bluekiwi]

A bit early to be calling them that - the election is a ways away.

Some people still think the CGT is to reduce house prices - I don't think it is. As has been said before it is more about balancing the tax system (and I don't necessarily agree that is needed here).
Adding all these if's and maybe's makes for loopholes. How about if you are going to have a CGT just tax all gain is value. No ifs, or buts or maybes. Set the rate at something that doesn't make people scream too loud and be done with it.

There is already a capital gains tax in place, and you pay it each year, its called Rates, and it goes up every year double or tripple what inflation is.

[speights boy]

There is already a capital gains tax in place, and you pay it each year, its called Rates, and it goes up every year double or tripple what inflation is.

Yes.
Scrap the idea of a CGT, and replace it with a land tax levied annually on top of the rates bill.
Very difficult to avoid and will bring in a far more reliable revenue stream.
Good idea.

[Wayne]

Yes.
Scrap the idea of a CGT, and replace it with a land tax levied annually on top of the rates bill.
Very difficult to avoid and will bring in a far more reliable revenue stream.
Good idea.

Given that Rates is a land tax then you would double the tax and give half to the central Govt?