-
So apparently Colmar Brunton poll last night had 46% in favour of CGT 41% against
Having done a bit more reading it does seem overly cumbersome with plenty of loopholes (for me anyway) Glad I've kept my investments very liquid
I'm wondering if this is actually a good result for Labour - allows them plenty of room to water down things so they become more palatable - say cay CGT at 25% - do something for farmers - althoughg they are CGT exempt if farm stays in family
-
@taniwharugby said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
I have heard our tax system is pretty good (brackets aside) when put against most other countries, is this correct?
Personally I think it is, at present anyway. Pretty straight forward and relativey low cost to administer. From a personal tax perspective, although out top bracket starts at a pretty low level, the average tax rates are still low overall.
-
@dogmeat said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
So apparently Colmar Brunton poll last night had 46% in favour of CGT 41% against
Having done a bit more reading it does seem overly cumbersome with plenty of loopholes (for me anyway) Glad I've kept my investments very liquid
I'm wondering if this is actually a good result for Labour - allows them plenty of room to water down things so they become more palatable - say cay CGT at 25% - do something for farmers - althoughg they are CGT exempt if farm stays in family
That was not the question they asked. They asked if you were in favour of a CGT if you got income tax relief. Which is vague question at best. And still only just got ahead.
-
The otherissue for thepolitical side is that nobody will change thier vote in favour. But plenty will change parties against. CGT doesnt win votes, only loses.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Thanks I never saw the news and the reports I've seen didn't elaborate on the raw data.
Interesting - fudged question for sure with predictable responses from the various industry sectors.
All in the hands of the politico's now. Time for the BSC (Blessed Saint Cindy) to see Winnie's true colours
-
@dogmeat said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
So apparently Colmar Brunton poll last night had 46% in favour of CGT 41% against
Having done a bit more reading it does seem overly cumbersome with plenty of loopholes (for me anyway) Glad I've kept my investments very liquid
I'm wondering if this is actually a good result for Labour - allows them plenty of room to water down things so they become more palatable - say cay CGT at 25% - do something for farmers - althoughg they are CGT exempt if farm stays in family
@dogmeat said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
So apparently Colmar Brunton poll last night had 46% in favour of CGT 41% against
Having done a bit more reading it does seem overly cumbersome with plenty of loopholes (for me anyway) Glad I've kept my investments very liquid
I'm wondering if this is actually a good result for Labour - allows them plenty of room to water down things so they become more palatable - say cay CGT at 25% - do something for farmers - althoughg they are CGT exempt if farm stays in family
Finding out this lunatic activist works for Colmar Brunton has changed my perspective on their ability to produce accurate results.
-
My basic, probably oversimplified theory, is that people go into business to make money by any legal means, and consequently any money made by people in business should be taxed in the same way. To me, that includes the any gain in value between purchase and sale of business assets, intentional or not, and most rental properties fall squarely into that category.
That's also why the family home should normally be exempt, because it normally isn't a business asset.
Not incorporating inflation makes sense as we don't currently incorporate inflation into GST, income tax brackets or any other tax, so would be consistent with that.
If I was selling it, that's how I would do it - taxing business income equally and in a consistent manner with other taxes.
-
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
My basic, probably oversimplified theory, is that people go into business to make money by any legal means, and consequently any money made by people in business should be taxed in the same way. To me, that includes the any gain in value between purchase and sale of business assets, intentional or not, and most rental properties fall squarely into that category.
That's also why the family home should normally be exempt, because it normally isn't a business asset.
**Not incorporating inflation makes sense as we don't currently incorporate inflation into GST, income tax brackets or any other tax, so would be consistent with that.
**
If I was selling it, that's how I would do it - taxing business income equally and in a consistent manner with other taxes.We should be incorporating inflation into income tax brackets. The proposal makes you get your property valued , if you maintain but don't improve it your property will increase in value regardless then IRD bend you over without lube and take 33% of what you earn from the sale. Not exactly a vote winner.
It looks like lifestyle blocks over 4500 sq m aren't exempt either , according to David Farrer if you take in a flatmate to help with the mortgage you lose your exemption too. Not sure how true that is but if it is true I hope labour campaign on a cgt.
-
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
My basic, probably oversimplified theory, is that people go into business to make money by any legal means, and consequently any money made by people in business should be taxed in the same way. To me, that includes the any gain in value between purchase and sale of business assets, intentional or not, and most rental properties fall squarely into that category.
That's also why the family home should normally be exempt, because it normally isn't a business asset.
Not incorporating inflation makes sense as we don't currently incorporate inflation into GST, income tax brackets or any other tax, so would be consistent with that.
If I was selling it, that's how I would do it - taxing business income equally and in a consistent manner with other taxes.
@GodderI just dont get this line of reasoning at all.
To support such reasoning means that you believe all money people get should be taxed and then only exceptions allowed. To me that is just a horrible thought. Govts are incompetent entities that spend money in terrible ways and throughout history the more power and control govts have, the worse off people are.
I should not have to justify why I shouldnt be forced under threat to give my money away, others should have to convince me. And the argument that we need a tax because we have other taxes is a crap reason. Which usually leads to the 'fairness' argument which again is complete horse shit. Fairness is completely in the eye of the beholder, so don't bloody steal my money and tell em that it is 'fair', you can argue that bringing n CGT makes things more consistant, but that is horse shit as well as
1/ There are exemptions
2/ Consistancy isnt always a good thing, Hitler committed genocide against the jews, committing more genocide against other groups to be consistent in his slaughter wouldnt have equated to anything good. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback The long-standing legal principle for income tax in NZ has been that all income is taxable unless it is explicitly exempt. The bright line test has established a legal basis for taxing some capital gains automatically, but the legal loophole for some capital gain has been to argue that it isn't income because, essentially, it wasn't intentional.
However, I suggest that in business, the main point is to make money, and buying a property for the purpose of renting it out suggests poor (or wilfully ignorant) business planning not to take into account potential capital gains. Equipment hire and car rental businesses have to record gains on any disposals of equipment/cars as income, for example, yet rental houses are somehow exempt from this if the owner decides that it is.
Consistency of laws and application of those laws is important to maintain the rule of law. The English had various civil wars and rebellions, including deposing multiple Kings to get the point across that not even the Sovereign is above the law (I'm aware that a number of these were tax-related, but usually the point was that taxation required the consent of Parliament, not that all tax was bad). If a law is bad, it should be changed or repealed. Sometimes civil disobedience is the right answer, but this doesn't look like a case where that would apply from the first day, unlike the example you gave.
@jegga allowing inflation discounts for capital gains and interest on term deposits (get the banks to apply this when deducting RWT), and using the tax raised to offset inflation adjustments to the brackets (as well as a larger one-off adjustment at introduction) would be my preferred option.
-
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback The long-standing legal principle for income tax in NZ has been that all income is taxable unless it is explicitly exempt. The bright line test has established a legal basis for taxing some capital gains automatically, but the legal loophole for some capital gain has been to argue that it isn't income because, essentially, it wasn't intentional.
However, I suggest that in business, the main point is to make money, and buying a property for the purpose of renting it out suggests poor (or wilfully ignorant) business planning not to take into account potential capital gains. Equipment hire and car rental businesses have to record gains on any disposals of equipment/cars as income, for example, yet rental houses are somehow exempt from this if the owner decides that it is.
Consistency of laws and application of those laws is important to maintain the rule of law. The English had various civil wars and rebellions, including deposing multiple Kings to get the point across that not even the Sovereign is above the law (I'm aware that a number of these were tax-related, but usually the point was that taxation required the consent of Parliament, not that all tax was bad). If a law is bad, it should be changed or repealed. Sometimes civil disobedience is the right answer, but this doesn't look like a case where that would apply from the first day, unlike the example you gave.
@jegga allowing inflation discounts for capital gains and interest on term deposits (get the banks to apply this when deducting RWT), and using the tax raised to offset inflation adjustments to the brackets (as well as a larger one-off adjustment at introduction) would be my preferred option.
I would think that equipment hire companies would only have to return income when the item is sold for above book value. Any gain above original purchase price would be a capital gain. Same deal with rental properties that were depreciated before the rules were changed.
-
@Toddy said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback The long-standing legal principle for income tax in NZ has been that all income is taxable unless it is explicitly exempt. The bright line test has established a legal basis for taxing some capital gains automatically, but the legal loophole for some capital gain has been to argue that it isn't income because, essentially, it wasn't intentional.
However, I suggest that in business, the main point is to make money, and buying a property for the purpose of renting it out suggests poor (or wilfully ignorant) business planning not to take into account potential capital gains. Equipment hire and car rental businesses have to record gains on any disposals of equipment/cars as income, for example, yet rental houses are somehow exempt from this if the owner decides that it is.
Consistency of laws and application of those laws is important to maintain the rule of law. The English had various civil wars and rebellions, including deposing multiple Kings to get the point across that not even the Sovereign is above the law (I'm aware that a number of these were tax-related, but usually the point was that taxation required the consent of Parliament, not that all tax was bad). If a law is bad, it should be changed or repealed. Sometimes civil disobedience is the right answer, but this doesn't look like a case where that would apply from the first day, unlike the example you gave.
@jegga allowing inflation discounts for capital gains and interest on term deposits (get the banks to apply this when deducting RWT), and using the tax raised to offset inflation adjustments to the brackets (as well as a larger one-off adjustment at introduction) would be my preferred option.
I would think that equipment hire companies would only have to return income when the item is sold for above book value. Any gain above original purchase price would be a capital gain. Same deal with rental properties that were depreciated before the rules were changed.
I was thinking the same thing , it would be pretty rare for equipment that is hired out and used to actually appreciate in value.
-
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback The long-standing legal principle for income tax in NZ has been that all income is taxable unless it is explicitly exempt. The bright line test has established a legal basis for taxing some capital gains automatically, but the legal loophole for some capital gain has been to argue that it isn't income because, essentially, it wasn't intentional.
And it is a log standing legal principal that capital gains is not considered income, so shouldnt be taxed. So I am not sire the relevance of your point.
However, I suggest that in business, the main point is to make money, and buying a property for the purpose of renting it out suggests poor (or wilfully ignorant) business planning not to take into account potential capital gains. Equipment hire and car rental businesses have to record gains on any disposals of equipment/cars as income, for example, yet rental houses are somehow exempt from this if the owner decides that it is.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Genuinely no idea, are you saying that business are willfully ignorant for not planning for Capital gains? What business makes capital gains on assets? Not many. And certainly only a fraction of the ones that will be caught bu this tax.
Consistency of laws and application of those laws is important to maintain the rule of law. The English had various civil wars and rebellions, including deposing multiple Kings to get the point across that not even the Sovereign is above the law (I'm aware that a number of these were tax-related, but usually the point was that taxation required the consent of Parliament, not that all tax was bad). If a law is bad, it should be changed or repealed. Sometimes civil disobedience is the right answer, but this doesn't look like a case where that would apply from the first day, unlike the example you gave.
I didn't say consistency was bad, I said justifying a decision based solely on consistency is a nonsense. And justifying based on supposed 'fairness' is even worse. How it will effect economy should be the only consideration.
The CGT will be terrible for investors, business owners and many others.
It will hurt the housing market, it will hurt the busineses, it will suppress start ups and give foreign companies an advantage, it will hurt Kiwisaver, and will discourage capital investment at all levels, on the contrary side at least it stick it to those rich pricks who create jobs and take risks. Evil capitalist bastards. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@Godder said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
My basic, probably oversimplified theory, is that people go into business to make money by any legal means, and consequently any money made by people in business should be taxed in the same way. To me, that includes the any gain in value between purchase and sale of business assets, intentional or not, and most rental properties fall squarely into that category.
That's also why the family home should normally be exempt, because it normally isn't a business asset.
Not incorporating inflation makes sense as we don't currently incorporate inflation into GST, income tax brackets or any other tax, so would be consistent with that.
If I was selling it, that's how I would do it - taxing business income equally and in a consistent manner with other taxes.
@GodderI just dont get this line of reasoning at all.
To support such reasoning means that you believe all money people get should be taxed and then only exceptions allowed. To me that is just a horrible thought. Govts are incompetent entities that spend money in terrible ways and throughout history the more power and control govts have, the worse off people are.
I should not have to justify why I shouldnt be forced under threat to give my money away, others should have to convince me. And the argument that we need a tax because we have other taxes is a crap reason. Which usually leads to the 'fairness' argument which again is complete horse shit. Fairness is completely in the eye of the beholder, so don't bloody steal my money and tell em that it is 'fair', you can argue that bringing n CGT makes things more consistant, but that is horse shit as well as
1/ There are exemptions
2/ Consistancy isnt always a good thing, Hitler committed genocide against the jews, committing more genocide against other groups to be consistent in his slaughter wouldnt have equated to anything good.It's spelled “consistency”.
Oh, and everything else was wrong also. -
@Kirwan said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
It will raise rents (again) too, another of their policies to do so. So they are really sticking it to the poor here, add in the new taxes on petrol and life gets harder and harder.
Aren’t they supposed to be reducing poverty?
It’s not our fault blah blah blah , nine years of neglect blah blah blah , neoliberalism blah blah blah. The excuses write themselves. Been a very very long time since labour had any idea or gave a shit about the plight of the poor.
To get this past Winston what sort of bribe are they going to offer him ? Given the age of his voters this is going to screw them hard when they sell up to fund their retirement.
-
This is a pretty good example of how out of touch our pm is
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12207207
-
@jegga said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
This is a pretty good example of how out of touch our pm is
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12207207
Whoever pics the thumbnail pics of Cindy each time is doing a great job.
Always an unsmiling looking miserable and generally like she doesn’t know what she’s doing -
@jegga said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
This is a pretty good example of how out of touch our pm is
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12207207
Did you read the article or just the headline? It’s a poorly written opinion piece that probably took around 5 minutes to write.
I don’t think the reaction has been that bad (aside from the obvious people on this forum who won’t vote labour anyway, and a few right leaning journalists like hosking).
-
@SammyC said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
@jegga said in So we are about to get taxed up a storm!:
This is a pretty good example of how out of touch our pm is
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12207207
Did you read the article or just the headline? It’s a poorly written opinion piece that probably took around 5 minutes to write.
I don’t think the reaction has been that bad (aside from the obvious people on this forum who won’t vote labour anyway, and a few right leaning journalists like hosking).
Yeah I read it. What makes it poorly written?
So we are about to get taxed up a storm!