Planet Rugby Forum

Auckman wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:Looks fiscally neutral for me, with some additional opportunities to shelter gains on options due to US-NZ Tax Treaty. Those re-entry rules and retrospective double tax impacts for Fleewees repatriating from Australia are horrendous.

Wait, what's happening to us Fleewees in Oz? (Hmm, maybe I should read the report.)

Maybe I should as well...

Yes, I am now a fleewee too. What are we getting taxed for?

I wish a non Fleewee would read the report and tell us!

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

Exclusive brethren I believe.

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

7th Day Adventists.

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

Seven Day Adventists and what's worse is, it's an Australian company!

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

Ahhhhh Viennaaaa......

Over my head I’m afraid...

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why

Seventh Day Adventists comes to mind.

The guys who go to church on saturdays.

jambanja wrote:

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

Seven Day Adventists and what's worse is, it's an Australian company!

I was about to say that I don't buy anything from those tax dodgers - but I love Marmite.

I think that 'charitable purposes' shouldn't have any religious background. So they can still be a charity and give all the profit to charity but those charities have to be secular.

UncleFB wrote:

Auckman wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:Looks fiscally neutral for me, with some additional opportunities to shelter gains on options due to US-NZ Tax Treaty. Those re-entry rules and retrospective double tax impacts for Fleewees repatriating from Australia are horrendous.

Wait, what's happening to us Fleewees in Oz? (Hmm, maybe I should read the report.)

Maybe I should as well...

Yes, I am now a fleewee too. What are we getting taxed for?

I wish a non Fleewee would read the report and tell us!

Stamp duty on our passports every time we return. ha ha ha

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

It's also about bringing down house prices, if investors stay away from the housing market, then house prices will be affected which means that more housing is available to first time home buyers...supposedly

Will this CGT not have an impact on rents, surely rents will end up increasing to mitigate this? So the extra money that this is supposed to generate for those in need will get paid, by those in need, in rent increases, changing nothing effectively.

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

Seven Day Adventists and what's worse is, it's an Australian company!

I was about to say that I don't buy anything from those tax dodgers - but I love Marmite.

I think that 'charitable purposes' shouldn't have any religious background. So they can still be a charity and give all the profit to charity but those charities have to be secular.

Our mate (the original Marmite) is your answer

jambanja wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

It's also about bringing down house prices, if investors stay away from the housing market, then house prices will be affected which means that more housing is available to first time home buyers...supposedly

Will this CGT not have an impact on rents, surely rents will end up increasing to mitigate this? So the extra money that this is supposed to generate for those in need will get paid, by those in need, in rent increases, changing nothing effectively.

No, I don’t think so. Capital gains are not recognised concurrent to rent. Landlords will not be experiencing a loss as a result of CGT during ordinary business so no reason to increase rent. Some may be planning for the future and increase rent to account for lower selling value in future but I imagine they would be in the minority. It’s also something they may not get away with as the market may push them back.

Tbh, it’s more scaremongering than anything imo. With the rental wof, it was clear to see how the cost could end up with the tenant. This is quite different.

jambanja wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Enzedder wrote:What church owns Sanitarium that they don't pay tax? I know they don't but I never enquired why.

Oh, and I bet Brian Tamaki tells the flock to vote National to avoid this scrutiny

Seven Day Adventists and what's worse is, it's an Australian company!

I was about to say that I don't buy anything from those tax dodgers - but I love Marmite.

I think that 'charitable purposes' shouldn't have any religious background. So they can still be a charity and give all the profit to charity but those charities have to be secular.

Our mate (the original Marmite) is your answer

British Marmite? I'd rather you take a dump in my mouth!

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

Developers can't retain the houses and rent them out.
One way or another there has to be a supply of rental accommodation.

Christ, what's the point in saving for retirement when this government is just going to take my money and give it to dole bludgers with 14 kids.

Let people wipe their own arse ffs. People are fu%ken useless because we babysit them too much.

BillW wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

Developers can't retain the houses and rent them out.
One way or another there has to be a supply of rental accommodation.

Yes, and developers provide that supply. A CGT does not impact them.

Interesting that Robertson said that they intend to enact the laws with a start date after the next election.

I wonder if NZ First and Greens agree. If Winnie says no, a general election is triggered and he'll have to take his chances.

I wonder if he can buy a safe seat in Northland, or Wairarapa for Ron mark, as the price?

Enzedder wrote:Interesting that Robertson said that they intend to enact the laws with a start date after the next election.

I wonder if NZ First and Greens agree. If Winnie says no, a general election is triggered and he'll have to take his chances.

I wonder if he can buy a safe seat in Northland, or Wairarapa for Ron mark, as the price?

He already has $3b!!

Dark wrote:There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.

Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.

Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Eh?
Accountants do your accounts.
They have to account for everything.
More paperwork.
More money.

Heard and interview with one of the 3 people on the panel who didn't want a CGT.

He was saying all the valuations businesses are going to have to do for the 2021 cut in, will be over a billion dollars.

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.

Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Eh?
Accountants do your accounts.
They have to account for everything.
More paperwork.
More money.

This is about compiling income tax returns. Different business. You might call them 'accountants', but professionally it's different.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.

Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Eh?
Accountants do your accounts.
They have to account for everything.
More paperwork.
More money.

This is about compiling income tax returns. Different business. You might call them 'accountants', but professionally it's different.

WTF?
So those people who have done my accounts for years, and have given me tax advice,what should I call them?

Dark wrote:Heard and interview with one of the 3 people on the panel who didn't want a CGT.

He was saying all the valuations businesses are going to have to do for the 2021 cut in, will be over a billion dollars.

I may have missed something, but why do they need to do revaluations if they didn’t before? CGT is only recognised when sold.

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:Heard and interview with one of the 3 people on the panel who didn't want a CGT.

He was saying all the valuations businesses are going to have to do for the 2021 cut in, will be over a billion dollars.

I may have missed something, but why do they need to do revaluations if they didn’t before? CGT is only recognised when sold.

The tax that you have to pay is only on the profit made on the capital gains of your asset from the value at 2021.

Any capital made before this isn't taxed

So everyone has to have everything valued as of that time.

Houses are easy as obviously you have the current RV etc, but businesses will have to fork out about 10k each (depending on the size obviously) to get current value at 2021.

But I think there is a caouple of years leeway to do it.

Which will be about $1 billion

Edit: Made a bit of a hash of explaining that, but someone better at writing clearly might chip in.

Should probably have said it isn't retrospective.

Everything starts completely fresh in 2021, as if everyone just brought their business off themselves

Dark wrote:Should probably have said it isn't retrospective.

Everything starts completely fresh in 2021, as if everyone just brought their business off themselves

Yeah so no point selling up immediately to avoid it as the capital gains to this point are exempt anyway. It's only the future gains post 2021 that will be captured.

Just have to shop around different valuers looking for the highest value.

Wilderbeast wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote: No direct mention of Kiwisaver but I'm guessing the highlighted bit would apply to any share component?

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the need to move investment away from housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But if you are going to tax the alternatives I can't see how you achieve it. Although, tbf, I'm not sure that was in the working groups ToR (And I'm too lazy to go back and check).

I struggle to see why we need to move investment away from housing.
Is there or is there not a housing crisis?
Don't we need more housing?

It’s talking about landlords, who do nothing to increase the supply of housing. Developers are already taxed on property development. This means nothing to them.

Ahhhhh Viennaaaa......

Over my head I’m afraid...

https://youtu.be/xJeWySiuq1I

Enzedder wrote:Interesting that Robertson said that they intend to enact the laws with a start date after the next election.

I wonder if NZ First and Greens agree. If Winnie says no, a general election is triggered and he'll have to take his chances.

I wonder if he can buy a safe seat in Northland, or Wairarapa for Ron mark, as the price?

Why waste income tax breaks mid-term when you can use the promise of them to buy votes in an election year?

Most entrepreneurs with start-ups are reasonably happy, except for Peter Beck.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12206050

There is a hope that investment starts moving away from residential property investment towards NZ start-ups.

Auckman wrote:Most entrepreneurs with start-ups are reasonably happy, except for Peter Beck.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12206050

There is a hope that investment starts moving away from residential property investment towards NZ start-ups.

Never thought about Beck

He has done loads, but really his mega capital gains will probably only sky rocket (forgive the pun) about then.

Dark wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:Heard and interview with one of the 3 people on the panel who didn't want a CGT.

He was saying all the valuations businesses are going to have to do for the 2021 cut in, will be over a billion dollars.

I may have missed something, but why do they need to do revaluations if they didn’t before? CGT is only recognised when sold.

The tax that you have to pay is only on the profit made on the capital gains of your asset from the value at 2021.

Any capital made before this isn't taxed

So everyone has to have everything valued as of that time.

Houses are easy as obviously you have the current RV etc, but businesses will have to fork out about 10k each (depending on the size obviously) to get current value at 2021.

But I think there is a caouple of years leeway to do it.

Which will be about $1 billion

Edit: Made a bit of a hash of explaining that, but someone better at writing clearly might chip in.

All good, this makes sense. I didn’t realise CGT only applied to gains post 2021. Crucial detail.

Dark wrote: Houses are easy as obviously you have the current RV etc,

If you were considering on selling a property any time in the next few years, you would probably wanna fork out for a market valuation as it'd almost certainly be higher meaning less taxable income when you sold it, tbf.

Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.

Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Eh?
Accountants do your accounts.
They have to account for everything.
More paperwork.
More money.

This is about compiling income tax returns. Different business. You might call them 'accountants', but professionally it's different.

WTF?
So those people who have done my accounts for years, and have given me tax advice,what should I call them?

Call them what the fudge you like, I wasn't looking to initiate a pointless semantic debate. I was making a glib comment about Dark not wasting his time studying the wrong thing which he clearly had no intention to do about a differentiation that I'm pretty qualified to comment on. As I said, you (and many others) may call them all accountants, but I wouldn't be letting about 90% of generic qualified accountants anywhere near my tax returns.

Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.

Dark wrote:Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage

That's exactly the sort of speculative property investing that a CGT is intending to mitigate.

Too many people these days consider the only value in owning a rental property to be its potential capital gain, whereas traditionally the value was in the passive income stream it creates.

Unfortunately now the cost of owning these properties is so high that the rental return is considered insignificant and the incentives in the property market are all based around enabling perpetual strong growth in property values which only further exacerbate the problems for everyone.

Gordon Bennett wrote:Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.

Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?

booji boy wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.

Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?

It's not a real gain though. Effectively, as money has grown less valuable due to inflation, unless your asset value has grown in excess of inflation, you've actually lost money over the period in question.

The overcomplication thing is a bit of an oxymoron though when you're bringing in CGT, which is inherently a massive additional complication to the tax system.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.

Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?

It's not a real gain though. Effectively, as money has grown less valuable due to inflation, unless your asset value has grown in excess of inflation, you've actually lost money over the period in question.

The overcomplication thing is a bit of an oxymoron though when you're bringing in CGT, which is inherently a massive additional complication to the tax system.

I like your thinking sir. Exactly how I've always felt about CGT.

Cullen is just a complete and utter wit kant! Too spineless to implement it during his 9 year reign but now it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

deadduck wrote:

Dark wrote:Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage

That's exactly the sort of speculative property investing that a CGT is intending to mitigate.

Too many people these days consider the only value in owning a rental property to be its potential capital gain, whereas traditionally the value was in the passive income stream it creates.

Unfortunately now the cost of owning these properties is so high that the rental return is considered insignificant and the incentives in the property market are all based around enabling perpetual strong growth in property values which only further exacerbate the problems for everyone.

That's been the case all along.
Capital gain was the only way to entice enough people into investing in rental properties and to keep housing stocks up.
The rental charged to the tenant must be cheaper than what mortgage repayments would be for that property. Otherwise tenants could buy the property themselves.
So most rental owners experienced losses in their first few years.
It's a pity that a housing price bubble in one area of NZ has resulted in kneejerk reactions that impact on the whole country.
I'm not against CGT in principle, it's just that it is a difficult tax to administer and it may not have the effect that it's proponents expect.