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

[speights boy]

Have no idea on the percentage figures that the TWG and Treasury have studied, but as a collection method that seems the simplest.

[Perry]

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.

Keep in mind the baggage-laden panel-of-experts syndrome.
Hell! Even Comrade Commissar Clark was on to that problem.
Will they be meeting and pontificating before the election?
However, do make a note in your diary to see how it pans out.

Some people still think the CGT is to reduce house prices - I don't think it is.

Is that not what it's being peddled as? A panacea for house
price increases? As Spacie observes - it's an oxymoron to say
that adding a tax to house prices will make them more afford-
able and/or cheaper.

[Perry]

I think these are easy to answer...
If it's already been claimed as an expense, it's not claimable as an improvement cost.

No differentiation between revenue and capital expense, then?

[cube]

Usually, CGT is claimed to be targetting [evil] speculators who push up the prices of housing for ordinary, hard-working, Kiwis (the people, that is, not the birds) - despite the fact that there is already an adequate (if under-utilised) tax regime for 'speculators'.

I'd have a scaled tax - 30% on $ gains if you sell in the first year down to 0% if you sell 4 years+

[Wayne]

at the moment speculators are supposed to pay full tax on gains (say 30% or whatever their marginal rate is).
CGT has been given as 15% so does that mean speculators pay 15% or 30% (since they still run a business or trading and houses are stock)?

[drelly]

No differentiation between revenue and capital expense, then?

Not sure what you mean? They are two completely different things.

I'd have a scaled tax - 30% on $ gains if you sell in the first year down to 0% if you sell 4 years+

I like that idea too but I'd push it out to 10 years for 0%.

[Perry]

No differentiation between revenue and capital expense, then?

Not sure what you mean? They are two completely different things.

Both are expenses.

If it's already been claimed as an expense, it's not claimable as an improvement cost.

Expenses can be either capital or revenue in nature.
Revenue expenses are 100% deductible in the year
they are incurred. Capital expenses are what? They
can't be depreciated, now. And they must be paid
out of tax-paid income, plus they will incur GST, not
being recoverable for residential; but will be recover-
able for commercial. Look complicated? Throw in the
occasional building with shops below, some offices
and some residential rentals, al la Davo. Not to worry -
let's tax 'em again, eh? Or not? Or will that depend
on the panel of x-spurts?

Truly a crock!

[drelly]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Some capital expenses can still be depreciated. Adding a shower unit for instance.

In a thread about depreciation, I said that I thought it was ridiculous to allow depreciation on something that is maintained and equally ridiculous to allow depreciation on something that is neglected. I haven't heard anyone disagree with that yet?

GST hasn't been recoverable unless trading (or gst registered) anyway.

There's always some situations that fall between the cracks.

[Perry]

So if revenue expenses are for R & M on a building
and property in their entirety, no depreciation is
to be claimed as buildings don't wear out, nor do
they depreciate - according to Blenglish.

[drelly]

So if revenue expenses are for R & M on a building
and property in their entirety, no depreciation is
to be claimed as buildings don't wear out, nor do
they depreciate - according to Blenglish.

As long as they're maintained, they don't really.

[eri]

imho

the lack of decent housing deposits was the main trigger of the GFC

as all the liar and ninja loans, based on nothing, came tumbling down in the usa

so nz banks going back to skin-in-the-game deposits was an essential part of preventing a bubble here

but apparently the nz public think a new tax on selling houses would work better than building cheaper houses

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9389195/Support-grows-for-capital-gains-tax

i can see why the gov. would like the public to believe taking more money off them is "fair"

but i don't believe that new taxes are what nz really needs to maintain its place in world economic standings

guess that's not the concern

just that all nz'ers slip down the rankings together

there will be less envy

so we will be happier

...

won't somebody think of the children

[Wayne]

I was thinking the other weekend when I was reading yet another article on CGT that is is going to happen - it is just so commonly talked about in a 'good' light.
As in the light at the end of the tunnel.
I do wonder sometimes how many people think it is fair because it is taxing someone that they perceive has more than them (the tall poppy thing).
I have said before that I would support a CGT if only to stop people talking about it and move on to the real issues.
As you say Eri - build more cheaper houses.
Cheaper section won't do it. For Ak I expect a $200k section would be considered cheap but that still makes for a $400-500k house in total.
Hoe about $150k for a section and $150-200k for a house on top of it. $300-350k total is getting closer to the mark.

Why is it so expensive to build here compared to, say, Aus? Seems materials are cheaper there - I am often tempted to bring back a ship load!

[Bluekiwi]

I was thinking the other weekend when I was reading yet another article on CGT that is is going to happen - it is just so commonly talked about in a 'good' light.
As in the light at the end of the tunnel.
I do wonder sometimes how many people think it is fair because it is taxing someone that they perceive has more than them (the tall poppy thing).
I have said before that I would support a CGT if only to stop people talking about it and move on to the real issues.
As you say Eri - build more cheaper houses.
Cheaper section won't do it. For Ak I expect a $200k section would be considered cheap but that still makes for a $400-500k house in total.
Hoe about $150k for a section and $150-200k for a house on top of it. $300-350k total is getting closer to the mark.

Why is it so expensive to build here compared to, say, Aus? Seems materials are cheaper there - I am often tempted to bring back a ship load!

Three words.

"Flat - Featureless - Desert".

And nother five words.

"Fanatical - Pedantique - Pencil Pushing - Natzi's"

[PC]

Wasn't GST sold as the saviour of us all?
Cure cancer, fight evil, stop 2.5% rate rises, etc.

Déjà vu again.

[Wayne]

Wasn't GST sold as the saviour of us all?
Cure cancer, fight evil, stop 2.5% rate rises, etc.

Déjà vu again.

Yeah it was and that's the problem I feel.
While it is still floating around people aren't looking at the real issues.