-
@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....
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@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....
It also worked for Obama.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
If you have a pattern of buying and selling your main home, you may still have some tax to pay.
Which is what we were talking about at the beginning. It's already there. Our tax regime covers this stuff already.
Agree, I was just posting to tidy up the last misconception (that a family home is always exempt from income tax on capital gains).
The main reasons houses are expensive are the cost of materials and that people budget on weekly payments, so low interest means they can afford a bigger mortgage so they offer more.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out' -
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
No wonder the Nats are spending big on FB
-
It's actually QI how the "marketing" works.
I thought that Mark Mitchell would be the Nat candidate for my area until I saw a billboard (of all antiquated things) with Chris Penk on it.
They redefined the boundaries, which I also didn't know, until I was trying to find out what happened to Mitchell.
NZ Politics