NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

grouch wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Enzedder wrote:GS, the power to tax, once conceded, is almost impossible to rein in. I think the fear that most have is that the rates or methods of calculating/paying will be altered once the general idea is accepted - and unfortunately, the past history of every political party is that gut feeling (or fear) should be listened to.

In other words, I don't trust the politicians.
That's you then Enz... I understand the sentiment although I do think it is just sentiment. Do all these other naysayers share thesame fear?

Disclaimer here... to pre-empt where this may go, I'm in favour of paying personal tax. I'm not one of those who tries to avoid my share so I don't have a problem with contributing. I reckon that's a defining line in itself. Many don't... popular sentiment is that tax is bad and must be avoided.
Law , and particularly Tax Law is ponderous and open to interpretation.

All thinking taxpayers are obliged to avoid paying taxation above and beyond their legal obligations.
Unfortunately , our 30 year obsession with "Market Rules" has led to a festering industry of professional "tax consultants" pushing the boundaries and a dearth of informed and well drafted Law Revision which seeks to minimise unintended tax burden.

Enacting Law to define CGT is only to clarify the existing vague laws in this respect.

If you are a property investor , business developer , share market investor, farmer etc and are in the business of growing your capital base and claiming depreciation, maintenance , travel, plant, entertainment etc in the process , then when you sell any of these assets you are, currently obliged to declare your capital gain and be taxed at your nominal rate.

ie It's deemed to be income.

Many don't declare and the due taxation is not assessed.

The speculation in residential property is the target here and long overdue , IMO.

For 40 years the only viable path to wealth growth in this country has been via this type of investment.
It has distorted and crippled the productive economy and stunted innovation.

As a 'boomer' , who has never indulged in this , I'm now a target of [justifiable] contempt and anger from those born after the onset of Rogernomics who resent the fact that house ownership is no longer the norm it once was .
So where does the family bach fit onto this where no 'depreciation, maintenance , travel, plant, entertainment etc' has ever been claimed?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Enzedder wrote:
The speculation in residential property is the target here and long overdue , IMO.

For 40 years the only viable path to wealth growth in this country has been via this type of investment.
It has distorted and crippled the productive economy and stunted innovation.
My initial thoughts were to leave out the family home but I am beginning to think we cannot. My mate in Auckland has said if they do allow that loophole he would only sell the house he is currently living in when he needs to cash up another property.

i.e. Every 5 years he would sell the house he is currently living in, kick out a tenant and move into the next house etc. He'll die well before he gets to the end.

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?
:lol: That's my plan too. It would be political suicide to tax the family home though.
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

Enzedder wrote:
The speculation in residential property is the target here and long overdue , IMO.

For 40 years the only viable path to wealth growth in this country has been via this type of investment.
It has distorted and crippled the productive economy and stunted innovation.
My initial thoughts were to leave out the family home but I am beginning to think we cannot. My mate in Auckland has said if they do allow that loophole he would only sell the house he is currently living in when he needs to cash up another property.

i.e. Every 5 years he would sell the house he is currently living in, kick out a tenant and move into the next house etc. He'll die well before he gets to the end.

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?
I agree , a loophole like that needs to be eliminated.

Simply done , I would think , by categorising owners of Multiple residential properties differently to single dwelling owners and varying the holding periods of "Family Home" .
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

grouch wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
The speculation in residential property is the target here and long overdue , IMO.

For 40 years the only viable path to wealth growth in this country has been via this type of investment.
It has distorted and crippled the productive economy and stunted innovation.
My initial thoughts were to leave out the family home but I am beginning to think we cannot. My mate in Auckland has said if they do allow that loophole he would only sell the house he is currently living in when he needs to cash up another property.

i.e. Every 5 years he would sell the house he is currently living in, kick out a tenant and move into the next house etc. He'll die well before he gets to the end.

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?
I agree , a loophole like that needs to be eliminated.

Simply done , I would think , by categorising owners of Multiple residential properties differently to single dwelling owners and varying the holding periods of "Family Home" .

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?[
An exponential growth in the "Valuation Industry" no doubt will ensue and a real bottleneck at kickoff predicted.

Technology has a place here , verified/witnessed before/after , annual photo/text reports on a property detailing grounds,structure , exterior , interior , chattels , utilities , improvements , maintenance etc should compiled and submitted at purchase and sale.
User avatar
jdogscoop
Posts: 13572
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jdogscoop »

jono45 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jono45 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
Yeah because as ussual if you have persevered,saved invested in education or pursued a craft and started a business, employed people,pay your tax and gst ,they, the creepy left have come up with another way to take from you and redistribute to losers

wow :lol:

I forgot you existed. It was great.
Yeah well i been lurking abit recently and just couldnt go past your most recent socialist shit
:lol:
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
Agreed , if you are a single residential property owner.

Multiple residential property owner ,then the "Family Home " is included.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

grouch wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
Agreed , if you are a single residential property owner.

Multiple residential property owner ,then the "Family Home " is included.
:thumbup:
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

guy smiley wrote:
grouch wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
Agreed , if you are a single residential property owner.

Multiple residential property owner ,then the "Family Home " is included.
:thumbup:
:lol: :thumbdown: Sorry dude, even your heroine Taxcinda won't go there.
User avatar
Demilich
Posts: 3564
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Demilich »

booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
You wouldn't be being taxed on the equity you "built up" in it though, just the capital gain (assuming that the value of actual improvements you do to the property are excluded). Any equity you yourself invested in it, wouldn't be being taxed. Only the capital gains on it. Exactly the same as for other investments.

It would be political suicide - but this is my entire issue with the thing - they are almost certainly not going to be interested in doing it "right" or fairly, if doing so has a negative impact on their political future.

And if it IS intended to be a way to shift capital away from property speculation, then just apply it to all non-family homes, and educate people on investing in something other than housing (rather than providing an exemption for your initial investment in the property market and no exemption on non-housing investments).
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

booji boy wrote: :lol: :thumbdown: Sorry dude, even your heroine Taxcinda won't go there.
You'll be buying me a shedload of craft beer at this rate once I hit the shores of Taupo. You can afford it though, you filthy tax dodging capitalist pig.

Back on point... if someone has a portfolio of properties then nominating a primary residence as excluded should be reasonable and palatable. As Grouch says, it's easy enough to specify terms like length of ownership to lock that down and avoid exploitation...

the issue would be in selling that idea. Communication skillz :lol: and just imagine the shrieks from the politirazzi.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Why don't you all give up trying to find a punitive tax to hit the rich with?
Just throw stones at them.

Come on.
You know that's what you really want to do.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote: :lol: :thumbdown: Sorry dude, even your heroine Taxcinda won't go there.
You'll be buying me a shedload of craft beer at this rate once I hit the shores of Taupo. You can afford it though, you filthy tax dodging capitalist pig.

Back on point... if someone has a portfolio of properties then nominating a primary residence as excluded should be reasonable and palatable. As Grouch says, it's easy enough to specify terms like length of ownership to lock that down and avoid exploitation...

the issue would be in selling that idea. Communication skillz :lol: and just imagine the shrieks from the politirazzi.
:lol: Happy to dude!

I've never dodged a cent of tax in my life. It's just this new fangled CGT I don't like the sound of. ;)
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

Demilich wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
You wouldn't be being taxed on the equity you "built up" in it though, just the capital gain (assuming that the value of actual improvements you do to the property are excluded). Any equity you yourself invested in it, wouldn't be being taxed. Only the capital gains on it. Exactly the same as for other investments.

It would be political suicide - but this is my entire issue with the thing - they are almost certainly not going to be interested in doing it "right" or fairly, if doing so has a negative impact on their political future.

And if it IS intended to be a way to shift capital away from property speculation, then just apply it to all non-family homes, and educate people on investing in something other than housing (rather than providing an exemption for your initial investment in the property market and no exemption on non-housing investments).
Also why not incentivise all the stupid people on low wages in unskilled work away from living in the most expensive areas such as AK
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

BillW wrote:Why don't you all give up trying to find a punitive tax to hit the rich with?
Just throw stones at them.

Come on.
You know that's what you really want to do.
They'd love to stone us true, but they also want to flog a share of our hard earned, taxed paid, cash. Stoning us alone would leave them out of pocket.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
Taxcinda and her cronies still have to get it past Winston too. Apparently he's not a fan.
User avatar
Demilich
Posts: 3564
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Demilich »

jono45 wrote:
Demilich wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Demilich wrote:
guy smiley wrote:You only pay CGT once, when and if you make a profit...

But the way the discussion is moving you’d think you were paying it every year on every dollar. It’s not going to hurt investments, it’s not going to destroy existing values. Life would go on more or less the same. You have one family home exempt if they do this and follow that model so you’re not being hurt on selling that either.

But the sky seems to be falling.
All the talk suggests that it won't be adjusted for inflation, which in reality means it's not just "profit" getting hit.

It also depends on whether they go with only taxing it when it is sold, or taxing paper profits. If it's the latter (which there is some talk that they may do for shares), and there are no deductions for losses, then you potentially pay capital gains tax on profits you never realise and will likely pay multiple times for the same "profit".

I suspect it will hurt investments, in the share-market at least, as it doesn't take much negativity at all to drive NZers away from any investment other than housing.

I'm not against a well implemented CGT, but I don't think it should exclude the family home, unless there are similar exclusions in other areas. Yes, I understand the family home is being used for a set purpose rather than just for investment, but the profit portion when selling it ARE investment gains (if adjusted for inflation). People aren't losing money by being taxed on their gains for the family home, any more than they are for being taxed on other investments.
Not excluding the family home would be political suicide for any party and even Taxcinda has been at pains to assure us the family home will be excluded. Economists think it should be included but fuck them. Most people sell to upgrade to another house. Imagine being taxed on the equity you've built up in your existing home that you are trying to put towards the purchase of your next home? What a crock!
You wouldn't be being taxed on the equity you "built up" in it though, just the capital gain (assuming that the value of actual improvements you do to the property are excluded). Any equity you yourself invested in it, wouldn't be being taxed. Only the capital gains on it. Exactly the same as for other investments.

It would be political suicide - but this is my entire issue with the thing - they are almost certainly not going to be interested in doing it "right" or fairly, if doing so has a negative impact on their political future.

And if it IS intended to be a way to shift capital away from property speculation, then just apply it to all non-family homes, and educate people on investing in something other than housing (rather than providing an exemption for your initial investment in the property market and no exemption on non-housing investments).
Also why not incentivise all the stupid people on low wages in unskilled work away from living in the most expensive areas such as AK
Forcibly shift them and their extended families into Gulags around the outskirts of Hamilton?
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
Taxcinda and her cronies still have to get it past Winston too. Apparently he's not a fan.
Of course. Winston & Brudges' National colleagues own more properties per person than any other set of MPs. I wouldn't accuse them of being self-serving though.

;)
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
I love how the left think their overlords arnt fat cats themseelves, with rentals and family trusts etc, the only outcome for the anti residential investor tax regime is severe pain for those that they proport to lookout for, those who will never have 2 sticks to rub together let alone purchase a property, the dumb left.........hang on they have built 47 houses lol
Last edited by jono45 on Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Demilich wrote:Forcibly shift them and their extended families into Gulags around the outskirts of Hamilton?
:lol: Hamilton would make Siberia seem appealing.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

jono45 wrote:
Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
I love how the left think their overlords arnt fat cats themseelves, with rentals and family trusts etc, the only outcome for the anti residential investor tax regime is severe pain for those that they proport to lookout for, those who will never have 2 sticks to rub together let alone purchase a property, the dumb left.........hang on they have built 47 houses lol
:lol:

Image
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Tehui wrote:
jono45 wrote:
Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
I love how the left think their overlords arnt fat cats themseelves, with rentals and family trusts etc, the only outcome for the anti residential investor tax regime is severe pain for those that they proport to lookout for, those who will never have 2 sticks to rub together let alone purchase a property, the dumb left.........hang on they have built 47 houses lol
:lol:

Image
:lol: :lol:
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

Tehui wrote:
jono45 wrote:
Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
I love how the left think their overlords arnt fat cats themseelves, with rentals and family trusts etc, the only outcome for the anti residential investor tax regime is severe pain for those that they proport to lookout for, those who will never have 2 sticks to rub together let alone purchase a property, the dumb left.........hang on they have built 47 houses lol
Come on do it right,find one with a blue jacket
:lol:

Image
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8853
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Tehui wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:Soimon Brudges & his wealthy cronies will inevitably indulge in scaremongering on the CGT subject over the next few months. The hysteria seems to be building with some on PR already.
Taxcinda and her cronies still have to get it past Winston too. Apparently he's not a fan.
Of course. Winston & Brudges' National colleagues own more properties per person than any other set of MPs. I wouldn't accuse them of being self-serving though.

;)
Oh of course! Not a single Labour MP would own any investment property would they. :lol:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

booji boy wrote:
Oh of course! Not a single Labour MP would own any investment property would they. :lol:
Out of interest...who has said that?

Aside from the voices in Jono45's twin heads, of course... but who ever actually claims any of that shit about one side or other? This is a debate about policy, isn't it? Or are all you hardened Tory Sympathisers trying to run a scare campaign while you burn the books and barricade the home ghettoes?
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Oh of course! Not a single Labour MP would own any investment property would they. :lol:
Out of interest...who has said that?

Aside from the voices in Jono45's twin heads, of course... but who ever actually claims any of that shit about one side or other? This is a debate about policy, isn't it? Or are all you hardened Tory Sympathisers trying to run a scare campaign while you burn the books and barricade the home ghettoes?
Fhil Twyford,Ian Lees-Galoway,kelvin Davis you have got to be joking hahaahaaaaaaaaa
Could someone enlighten me what guy does for a living? it might give me some clues as to why he is so addiced to the smeg dripping from the creepy lefts secret coalitions foreskin (both original and post op)
Last edited by jono45 on Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

By f**k you are stupid.

I bags we throw you at one of BillW's rich cnuts.
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

guy smiley wrote:By f**k you are stupid.

I bags we throw you at one of BillW's rich cnuts.
ok so whats stupid? How many people do you employ guy? Do yo supply 6+ figures of gst to the pot etc ,what do you do for a biscuit guy?
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7040
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
I dont think it's fair at all , it just suits the dumb lefts narrative
Last edited by jono45 on Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17412
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

grouch wrote:
grouch wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
The speculation in residential property is the target here and long overdue , IMO.

For 40 years the only viable path to wealth growth in this country has been via this type of investment.
It has distorted and crippled the productive economy and stunted innovation.
My initial thoughts were to leave out the family home but I am beginning to think we cannot. My mate in Auckland has said if they do allow that loophole he would only sell the house he is currently living in when he needs to cash up another property.

i.e. Every 5 years he would sell the house he is currently living in, kick out a tenant and move into the next house etc. He'll die well before he gets to the end.

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?
I agree , a loophole like that needs to be eliminated.

Simply done , I would think , by categorising owners of Multiple residential properties differently to single dwelling owners and varying the holding periods of "Family Home" .

How the heck do we figure out what is past profit and what is taxable though? All get valuations done by the date the law is implemented?[
An exponential growth in the "Valuation Industry" no doubt will ensue and a real bottleneck at kickoff predicted.

Technology has a place here , verified/witnessed before/after , annual photo/text reports on a property detailing grounds,structure , exterior , interior , chattels , utilities , improvements , maintenance etc should compiled and submitted at purchase and sale.
Govt Valuation. Open to objection, as it is and should be.
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7040
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

jono45 wrote:
JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
I dont think it's fair at all , it just suits the dumb lefts narrative
But why, what are the differences?
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

JB1981 wrote:
jono45 wrote:
JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
I dont think it's fair at all , it just suits the dumb lefts narrative
But why, what are the differences?
A entrenched class system and racist outlook would be a starting point
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17412
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
Our "Tories" would be considered full on Marxist Leninists by the average Democrat. By the same toke, the average communist would consider "Lefty" Labour to be right of Genghis Khan. i.e. they are silly labels used for trolling, baiter's of the credulous and, erm, asinine people.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

JB1981 wrote:
jono45 wrote:
JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
I dont think it's fair at all , it just suits the dumb lefts narrative
But why, what are the differences?
It's all a bit turned on it's head in New Zealand to be honest.
The Labour Party doesn't represent the workers any more.
In fact the Sav blanc socialists that run it are ashamed of it's roots.
The National Party which was once the party of the idle rich, is now run fronted by people of more humble beginnings than those of the left.
A broader and more representative mix I think.
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

jono45 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:By f**k you are stupid.

I bags we throw you at one of BillW's rich cnuts.
ok so whats stupid? How many people do you employ guy? Do yo supply 6+ figures of gst to the pot etc ,what do you do for a biscuit guy?
Come on guy drag yourself away from gloating over all the online articles regarding Tamati Coffeys baby news......
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

JB1981 wrote:Out of interest (and ignorance) are there actually Tories in NZ? What is the philosophy and are National and their supporters close enough to wear the label. I have seen the term used here a couple of times over the weekend and have no idea if it is fitting or not.
When you have people running around shrieking about Loony Leftys and similar it’s safe to assume they’re Tories.

That’s just how it works.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

jono45 wrote:
jono45 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:By f**k you are stupid.

I bags we throw you at one of BillW's rich cnuts.
ok so whats stupid? How many people do you employ guy? Do yo supply 6+ figures of gst to the pot etc ,what do you do for a biscuit guy?
Come on guy drag yourself away from gloating over all the online articles regarding Tamati Coffeys baby news......
Go back and read what I said you muppet.
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

guy smiley wrote:
jono45 wrote:
jono45 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:By f**k you are stupid.

I bags we throw you at one of BillW's rich cnuts.
ok so whats stupid? How many people do you employ guy? Do yo supply 6+ figures of gst to the pot etc ,what do you do for a biscuit guy?
Come on guy drag yourself away from gloating over all the online articles regarding Tamati Coffeys baby news......
Go back and read what I said you muppet.
Oh go on guy ....indulge me , what general field of endeavour do you operate in ?
Post Reply