-
@voodoo said in NZ Politics:
Just to be clear, Australia does not have CGT on the family home, just investment properties.
... and I recall the proposed CGT from 2017 in NZ would exempt the family home as well. They almost alwyas do, as it's political suicide to have tax on the family home.
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
Also @reprobate the allowance for inflation is non-trivial, and the challenge of 'fair pricing' for assets is really hard too. How much fo a discount can you sell it for to family members? What happens if it is owned by a trust or company? From what I see, it rapidly becomes a massive complex nightmare that often doesn't raise as much money as folk want.
In the UK they had stamp duty on house sales - kind of a CGT in another name. Low rated, but applied to every property transaction.Just looked it up (https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax/residential-property-rates#:~:text=You usually pay Stamp Duty,when you bought the property) - free up to GBP500k, then 5-12% above that!
-
@voodoo said in NZ Politics:
Just to be clear, Australia does not have CGT on the family home, just investment properties.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear there when I mentioned Aus.
We have already have covered the NZ tax regime and investment properties are taxed, like Aus. We just don't call it CGT. It is investment profit and taxable.The family home is exempt for good reasons.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
That is still taxable in NZ. "Intent". Wording of our tax laws are quite clever. You can't have two family homes. My accountant would never let me get away with that sort of thing. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal one is not. Brightline also clarifies things.
Aus actually have a 6 month restriction where you can own 2 homes -whilst you "move" after that, which ever one gets sold is taxable, the other is your family home.
The rules are already there on both sides of the ditch and people who try to flout them end up like Al Capone.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
That is still taxable in NZ. "Intent". Wording of our tax laws are quite clever. You can't have two family homes. My accountant would never let me get away with that sort of thing. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal one is not. Brightline also clarifies things.
Aus actually have a 6 month restriction where you can own 2 homes -whilst you "move" after that, which ever one gets sold is taxable, the other is your family home.
The rules are already there on both sides of the ditch and people who try to flout them end up like Al Capone.
Shit don't tell the ATO. We had an overlap of 9 months...
... mind you they probably owe us money given the inflation/expenditure/"increased" value argument...
Bought at the top of the market and sold in the doldrums ...
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
inflation/expenditure/"increased" value argument...
That is why some of us don't like CGT. It's complex even for rentals, but family homes become even more messy. The winners are accountants not homeowners.
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
Shit don't tell the ATO. We had an overlap of 9 months...
They are renowned for their compassion and understanding. Should be fine...
-
@Hooroo said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@JC
You don't tax on theoretical value, but you do calculate equity on that basis. The former is the opinion of just about everybody bar some of the Greens, the latter is fact rather than opinion.
As for ascribing me the position of having a problem with someone having money, that's just crap. It's not spiteful to tax all of someone's income, it's just wanting it to be fair. Why should someone who starts out more wealthy have access to a more advantageous tax system? That's crazy. It's the very epitome of the rich getting richer.
In my example, person A does not necessarily even have to pay any principal (until the sale) on the house, but they still get richer and don't get taxed on that part of their income, whereas person B is taxed on all of theirs over the same period. It is not fair that some of someone's income should be tax-free simply because they were able to afford a house. And as I said previously, it is quite possible for a government to increase its tax take on CGT and reduce their tax take elsewhere - so it is not true to say that fixing the tax system doesn't help person B - it absolutely should.
I get that you are, as a property owner, opposed to capital gains tax and you think that the government would just take the extra money, increase the total tax taken, and waste it. Maybe they would, I certainly don't have a lot of faith in their decision-making, which has made the housing situation worse. But I am talking about what makes sense from a taxation perspective, what is fair and does not disadvantage the poor, and can help to address the ridiculous situation that NZ finds itself in re housing. CGT is common worldwide, it makes sense and increasing that tax take could provide lower income tax elsewhere for example, which would stimulate the right areas of the economy.Well clearly you know a lot more about this than me. That economics degree and the 30 years in banking were clearly wasted.
Yeah, well, it was a nice place to
eatdrink your lunch, all the sameNow it's true
-
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Hooroo said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@JC
You don't tax on theoretical value, but you do calculate equity on that basis. The former is the opinion of just about everybody bar some of the Greens, the latter is fact rather than opinion.
As for ascribing me the position of having a problem with someone having money, that's just crap. It's not spiteful to tax all of someone's income, it's just wanting it to be fair. Why should someone who starts out more wealthy have access to a more advantageous tax system? That's crazy. It's the very epitome of the rich getting richer.
In my example, person A does not necessarily even have to pay any principal (until the sale) on the house, but they still get richer and don't get taxed on that part of their income, whereas person B is taxed on all of theirs over the same period. It is not fair that some of someone's income should be tax-free simply because they were able to afford a house. And as I said previously, it is quite possible for a government to increase its tax take on CGT and reduce their tax take elsewhere - so it is not true to say that fixing the tax system doesn't help person B - it absolutely should.
I get that you are, as a property owner, opposed to capital gains tax and you think that the government would just take the extra money, increase the total tax taken, and waste it. Maybe they would, I certainly don't have a lot of faith in their decision-making, which has made the housing situation worse. But I am talking about what makes sense from a taxation perspective, what is fair and does not disadvantage the poor, and can help to address the ridiculous situation that NZ finds itself in re housing. CGT is common worldwide, it makes sense and increasing that tax take could provide lower income tax elsewhere for example, which would stimulate the right areas of the economy.Well clearly you know a lot more about this than me. That economics degree and the 30 years in banking were clearly wasted.
Yeah, well, it was a nice place to
eatdrink your lunch, all the sameNow it's true
I had a beer a week ago when watching one of our horses race at lunch time and felt guilty! What has happened to workplaces where you can't poke off for lunch and enjoy a beer or two!?!
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
That is still taxable in NZ. "Intent". Wording of our tax laws are quite clever. You can't have two family homes. My accountant would never let me get away with that sort of thing. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal one is not. Brightline also clarifies things.
You can't have two family homes but you can sell one place, move into the other then sell it a little later. As you haven't purchased the second home within the brightline period there is nothing payable. Also it becomes your new family home as long as you spend 50% of time there.
Do it right and you can then invest in another property, sell the holiday home (no tax) and move there. Intent was to live at the beach, you decided you didn't like it so moved back to town in your investment apartment. -
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
That is still taxable in NZ. "Intent". Wording of our tax laws are quite clever. You can't have two family homes. My accountant would never let me get away with that sort of thing. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal one is not. Brightline also clarifies things.
You can't have two family homes but you can sell one place, move into the other then sell it a little later. As you haven't purchased the second home within the brightline period there is nothing payable. Also it becomes your new family home as long as you spend 50% of time there.
Do it right and you can then invest in another property, sell the holiday home (no tax) and move there. Intent was to live at the beach, you decided you didn't like it so moved back to town in your investment apartment.No argument there. I said that you can't have two family homes and yes you can do that as often as you like, moving from place to place. Most people don't want to do that and doing a reno while living in a property is a nightmare. The intent to purchase and resell for profit is where the tax kicks in if you don't live there
Brightline is on sale timeline not purchase, so it is relevant to owning more than one property if you don't live in it.
Anytime you purchase property with the intention of selling it for a profit you must pay tax on the profit unless an exemption applies.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
That that distortion becomes a major headache - people move into their investment/home for 6 months to bypass the tax, as it's worth it.
That is still taxable in NZ. "Intent". Wording of our tax laws are quite clever. You can't have two family homes. My accountant would never let me get away with that sort of thing. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal one is not. Brightline also clarifies things.
You can't have two family homes but you can sell one place, move into the other then sell it a little later. As you haven't purchased the second home within the brightline period there is nothing payable. Also it becomes your new family home as long as you spend 50% of time there.
Do it right and you can then invest in another property, sell the holiday home (no tax) and move there. Intent was to live at the beach, you decided you didn't like it so moved back to town in your investment apartment.No argument there. I said that you can't have two family homes and yes you can do that as often as you like, moving from place to place. Most people don't want to do that and doing a reno while living in a property is a nightmare. The intent to purchase and resell for profit is where the tax kicks in if you don't live there
Brightline is on sale timeline not purchase, so it is relevant to owning more than one property if you don't live in it.
Anytime you purchase property with the intention of selling it for a profit you must pay tax on the profit unless an exemption applies.
Yeah, but we are talking about Capital Gains here and when they aren't captured as taxable.
I see this as a fairly common scenario. Live in your family home where you work. Buy a 'holiday' property at a beach development and sit on it, maybe doing short term Air BnB rentals to earn income (taxable) and use it yourself at holidays or just rent it out. Intent is to retire to the beach.
Retire, sell the family home (no tax). Move to beach property and that becomes new family home. Invest from family home sale in another property where you do actually want to live. Sell beach house (no tax on capital gains from years of ownership) and move to 'new' place.
You have collected capital gains on two properties (one extra) that aren't taxed. -
Is anyone else totally bemused by the National Party strategy - assuming there is one?
It seems to be fatally flawed to me. Trying to make Collins all cutesy and user friendly. Never going to win that battle. Might as well channel the inner pit bull and go all out.
If it was me I'd be campaigning along the lines of Vote Labour if you want moonbeams and unicorns but not if you want stuff done. Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders?
Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders
Put the snarl up against the Smile. Probably doomed to fail but at least you'd be trying. All National seem to be trying to achieve is something better than 2002 -
-
@dogmeat absolutely. They seem utterly directionless. You are not going to out 'nice' Jacinda, so don't try. Should be hammering the question - how do we get out of this economic mess? Choice is more public holidays, uncontrolled spending ($1B/year growth/slush fund), no targets and lots of rhetoric -- or contrast with effective spending, targets, discipline and accountability.
I'm not sure I'd back the current lot of Nats to actually deliver that, but the advantage of opposition is you don't have to actually do anything until you get into power. Worked for the current lot - they have found out how hard it is to get infrastructure and land to allow house building.
Either way, doomed to failure, but at least you put up a choice to the electorate. This has been teh softest, most insipid election campaign I can remember. Everyone (including the politicians) seem tired, fed up with this, and looking forward to summer and a break.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat absolutely. They seem utterly directionless. You are not going to out 'nice' Jacinda, so don't try. Should be hammering the question - how do we get out of this economic mess? Choice is more public holidays, uncontrolled spending ($1B/year growth/slush fund), no targets and lots of rhetoric -- or contrast with effective spending, targets, discipline and accountability.
I'm not sure I'd back the current lot of Nats to actually deliver that, but the advantage of opposition is you don't have to actually do anything until you get into power. Worked for the current lot - they have found out how hard it is to get infrastructure and land to allow house building.
Either way, doomed to failure, but at least you put up a choice to the electorate. This has been teh softest, most insipid election campaign I can remember. Everyone (including the politicians) seem tired, fed up with this, and looking forward to summer and a break.
Couldnt agree more!
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Is anyone else totally bemused by the National Party strategy - assuming there is one?
It seems to be fatally flawed to me. Trying to make Collins all cutesy and user friendly. Never going to win that battle. Might as well channel the inner pit bull and go all out.
If it was me I'd be campaigning along the lines of Vote Labour if you want moonbeams and unicorns but not if you want stuff done. Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders?
Kiwibuild, Light Rail, Child Poverty, Pay Inequality, Secure Borders
Put the snarl up against the Smile. Probably doomed to fail but at least you'd be trying. All National seem to be trying to achieve is something better than 2002My Facebook is full of National announcements on policy and trying to set a vision. Good long term planning type stuff. Not sure where you are seeing the cutesy stuff, but I guess on TV?
To me it looks like they are positioning themselves as the party that can things done, and Labour as the party of broken promises (they are stacking up now) and people out of their depth.
Will it be enough change the media narrative, particularly about Taxinda? Probably not, but at least there are ideas being talked about instead of babies and the gender of a leader.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
I dunno about that. The media put their twist on things and FB allows them to set the agenda. It worked for Trump....
NZ Politics