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

[Perry]

I'm definitely very happy replacing headaches with $110k luxury vehicle.

How good is the insulation, as well as the beds and the bathroom?

[AlFa]

How good is the insulation, as well as the beds and the bathroom?

It's definitely quite on low revs but I need to check if bathroom could be added as an option :-P

[BlueSky]

TWG - Gung ho approach revealed

https://www.psa.org.nz/assets/Uploads/A-Fairer-Tax-system-for-Aotearoa-New-Zealand-PSA-28-Mar19.pdf

[AlFa]

TWG - Gung ho approach revealed
https://www.psa.org.nz/assets/Upload...A-28-Mar19.pdf

No surprise there... tax the rich until they poor, spend on government salaries and giveaways for worthless breading animals

[Don't believe the Hype]

Lovely biased document.

I love the part in the FAQ's
"Isn't it unfair that a $350k bach is taxed whilst a $4m family home is not" - answer - "yes it is but it's less unfair than a $350k home" - interpretation yes it's unfair but it meets our narative so we'll focus on the other end of the scale and move on to our next biased point.


Followed by this gem -

Leaving the family home untaxed is the compromise that every country makes ... otherwise it is not electorally feasible

electorally feasible - love the jargon used. Interpretation - doing this will mean you get booted out of power... electorally feasible... he he

[donna]

We all welcome the day when the primary needs like housing are 'above' politics. Until then it's one step forward and two steps back. Just look at the stupidity of KiwiBuild and the cost to taxpayers. The glow is dimming on Jacinda and the Govt who have spend lots of our $$ on reviews and the like and achieved nothing - no wonder National are polling at 44% - I wonder when Judith will get the nod to take over the leadership.

cheers,

Donna

[Keys]

I wonder when Judith will get the nod to take over the leadership.

Four months out from the next election.

[Bluekiwi]

Simon is hopeless, and rumour has it that Judith aint particularly interested in the job, that's what I heard.
But could give it to her for a chance to do the job and then hand it over.

But, unless they have mates, they are not ever going to get 48% plus to win.
They got the best they could ever had hoped with 46% and still lost.

They have ZERO chance with any leader, as long as they are national no mates.

Plus next year you have well timed Jacinda's wedding photos.
That's got to be worth 4 points on top of the 4 points most likely granted as a result of that lunatic down south.

Basically, Nats got zero chance, even if Jesus was leading the party

[Davo36]

Yep, exactly.

No one wants to take over the leadership just now. Too long to go, too many chances for them to be rolled also before the election.

They take over a few months out and a) It's a big media-grabbing change for the party and, b) There's no time to change again.

[Perry]

Fair's Fare For Gummints

No surprise there... tax the rich until they poor, spend on government salaries and giveaways for worthless breeding animals.

Lovely biased document. I love the part in the FAQs:
"Isn't it unfair that a $350k bach is taxed whilst a $4m family home is not" - answer - "yes it is but it's less unfair than a $350k home" - interpretation yes it's unfair but it meets our narrative so we'll focus on the other end of the scale and move on to our next biased point.

Taxing the income from capital gains: “joining the modern world, tax-wise”

The word 'wise' does not sit comfortably with the word 'tax.'

Worse - what was really meant was:

"Taxing inflation: joining other modern governments so as to get something for nothing."

With no definition of the word fair, the exercise was worse than a farcial and wasteful spend-up of taxpayers' money.

[LifeBroker]

totally agree @donna - it will be very interesting to see if Mr. Luxon will join politics and National. Surely that will challenge the status quo in National and Labour.

[Perry]

The Poor Get More

It comes up from time-to-time, but here's yet another analysis about killing golden-egg-laying geese.
An inconvenient truth about tax in New Zealand
31 Jul 2019

Considering who pays what tax in deciles (or 'tenths'), the following graphs from the Tax Working Group's interim report provide another view our over-reliance on a small proportion of the population. What they show is that it is only when we get to around the top 50 per cent of households is there any net income tax paid. Below that income level no net tax is paid, as those households receive more in transfers than they pay in tax.

Who'd a thunk it, eh?

"Transfers" seems to be a euphemism for a variety of relief concessions / grants / benefits / election bribes, etc.

The figures do not factor in GST, though.

[Perry]

Here We Go Again, Folks

What's the truth about property investors' tax perks?
15 Feb 2021

There is so much wrong with the blather in the article that I can't be bothered with anything on a point-by-point basis. However, there were a few grains of truth in the quick sands quagmire of general ignorance. Using the word 'perk' was always going to skew the way the item was presented and any comments.

The article is a good example of what happens when absolute accuracy of expressions is not utilised. E.g. Making assertions about tax without specifying what tax, each-and-every time. No matter from what source and who the earner is, all NZ taxpayers pay income tax on their earnings at the prescribed rates.

Nowhere in the article was the word 'unrealised' used. Talk of a capital gain that is no more than an illusory number on a piece of paper, without any offset for inflation and price increases in similar assets generally, is the worst kind of blather there is in such an item.

When the Tax Working Group reported that their idea of a CGT would not include any adjustment for inflation, it became plain that the proposed CGT idea was a socialist tax-grab on inflation itself. inflation being something heavily influenced by the government, itself.

To illustrate: In the Policy Targets Agreement (PTA) that the RBNZ has with the Minister of Finance, price stability was defined as annual increases in the Consumers Price Index (CPI) of between 1 and 3 percent on average over the medium term, with a focus on keeping future average inflation near the 2 percent target midpoint.

Using that policy statement, the 2% midpoint figure and a house price of $1M, a year later, that house would have altered in price (not value), so that it was now 'worth' $20,000 more. The CGT proposed would've resulted in the home owner having a tax liability on that illusory and hypothetical $20k, being something that the gummint 'set up' the homeowner for, through it's policy agreement with the RNBZ.

Despite the tide of ignorance in people's minds that any talk of a CGT is awash with, it did appear that most NZ citizens saw the proposed CGT for what it really was - a naked tax grab - rather than the presented and false facade of 'targeting' residential rental property owners.

All governments lie, it's only the degree and audacity that varies.

[flyernzl]

Here is Andrew King's response:

https://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/60971

[Perry]

I fixed the broken link, thanks. Although very similar in content, the piece by Andrew did not reference the Stuff item, by Edmunds. Rather, some more drivel from B Thickey.

Andrew is right in that the lies, propaganda and dis-information from the ignorant, the ill-informed, the media, the gummint et al, have poisoned the well for residential PIs.

And isn't amazing just how hard it is to get the contrary truth to be published where more people will see it?

Supposedly, many years ago, a national party government said it encouraged residential rentals as a business, because PIs were more efficient at housing people than the gummint. But just like you can't track down that reference to MPs and FBT, I've never been able to track that reference down, either.

Probably be lurking in the GA Library, somewhere.