Chat Forum
It is currently Sun May 31, 2020 12:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29545 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 ... 739  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8250
Enzedder wrote:
Stop bullshitting - leave it to your heroes.

Look at the TOR for the Tax Working group


You don't pay much attention to economists do you?

You yourself said you had a mate who owns about 5 houses and would just sell the one he was living in to avoid the CGT. Smart fella! :smug: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19335
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Quote:
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.


Why would that matter if it brought the other companies into line? Our companies are happy to make their products in cheap places so why the hell can't people buy cheap (like the farmers do with their phosphates)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32564
Location: in transit
booji boy wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Stop bullshitting - leave it to your heroes.

Look at the TOR for the Tax Working group


You don't pay much attention to economists do you?

You yourself said you had a mate who owns about 5 houses and would just sell the one he was living in to avoid the CGT. Smart fella! :smug: :thumbup:



Hang on... you reckoned ecnomists would tax the family home, but here you're talking about an example of using the family home to avoid the CGT.

Have you been drinking already booji boy? That's just disrespectful to everyone man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8250
Enzedder wrote:
Stop bullshitting - leave it to your heroes.

Look at the TOR for the Tax Working group - the family home has NEVER been in consideration so why include it in your bullshit?


I see you've edited your post. It's called a discussion mate. As I've already said there's no scaremongering here. Your heroine and her comrades have made it abundantly clear the family home is safe. Doesn't mean the pros and cons can't be discussed. I wasn't the one suggesting it. I was just responding to Maniatoto Man's suggestion it should include the family home. I think Demilich (or other posters) have also suggested it and every economist I've ever heard discussing it reckons the family home should be included.

Fortunately your heroine and her cronies don't agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8250
guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Stop bullshitting - leave it to your heroes.

Look at the TOR for the Tax Working group


You don't pay much attention to economists do you?

You yourself said you had a mate who owns about 5 houses and would just sell the one he was living in to avoid the CGT. Smart fella! :smug: :thumbup:



Hang on... you reckoned ecnomists would tax the family home, but here you're talking about an example of using the family home to avoid the CGT.

Have you been drinking already booji boy? That's just disrespectful to everyone man.


:lol: I have a drinking problem yes but even I don't start drinking this early in the day! 🍻🍺

And in response to your comment. Economists would but this Govt won't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4086
guy smiley wrote:
BillW wrote:
Not sure how that would lower the price of houses.


I didn't say it would. Nice deflection though.
BillW wrote:
What is it that makes you think that anybody in parliament has got the knowledge and expertise to build houses cheaper than the professionals do it?


hmmm... the professionals are running a tidy little duopoly on supply costs and creaming the consumer blind. Great read in last weekend's Herald on that. What the govt could do is award large contracts to other companies large enough to run their own supply chains and slash costs, introducing serious competition to the market.

So there's that.



Release land from zoning restrictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20429
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Unlike an investment property, it is not earning while they are using it as a family home. If property become more affordable, that implies the value of the gain is reduced, comparatively, so the incentive to invest is lessened. How that would compare to other investments, I don't know. What I do know is that the cost per earnings and the capital gain in residential property is completely out of whack with no correction in sight without a major financial meltdown. In a nutshell, the current cost of putting a roof over our collective heads is hurting the country, there is nothing good about it for the vast majority.


They are also not able to claim the interest, rates, insurance and maintenance and make a tax loss which is then offset against their other income. Although tax losses of this sort are set to be ring fenced going forward anyway.


All true, but it is the apparently the experience in some other countries. I guess that is because many people are risk adverse and housing is seen as being a relatively safe bet where you are unlikely to lose everything.

It's also possible that you could actually earn some income from your family home. I flated in several properties where one of the flaties was the owner when I was younger for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20429
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8250
Fat Old Git wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Unlike an investment property, it is not earning while they are using it as a family home. If property become more affordable, that implies the value of the gain is reduced, comparatively, so the incentive to invest is lessened. How that would compare to other investments, I don't know. What I do know is that the cost per earnings and the capital gain in residential property is completely out of whack with no correction in sight without a major financial meltdown. In a nutshell, the current cost of putting a roof over our collective heads is hurting the country, there is nothing good about it for the vast majority.


They are also not able to claim the interest, rates, insurance and maintenance and make a tax loss which is then offset against their other income. Although tax losses of this sort are set to be ring fenced going forward anyway.


All true, but it is the apparently the experience in some other countries. I guess that is because many people are risk adverse and housing is seen as being a relatively safe bet where you are unlikely to lose everything.

It's also possible that you could actually earn some income from your family home. I flated in several properties where one of the flaties was the owner when I was younger for example.


Oh people certainly do. I think you can be captured under current legislation if you are repeatedly buying and selling the house you are in you'd be classified as a developer. You can do it once or twice but if you keep doing it repeatedly the profit would be taxable. My neighbour, a real home handyman, moved into his house and did a heap of work on it and flicked it off for a tidy profit after about 2 years. If you keep doing that every two years you'd be deemed to be in the 'business' of buying and selling houses. The trick is for the IRD to capture this as people obviously won't declare it voluntarily.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9942
Location: Texas
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.

It’s a fairly predictable slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge, floodgates type concern but even if it subsequently is expanded to primary residence it will be heavily qualified and have a tolerance for a socially acceptable gain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8250
Mr Mike wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.

It’s a fairly predictable slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge, floodgates type concern but even if it subsequently is expanded to primary residence it will be heavily qualified and have a tolerance for a socially acceptable gain.


Would you guys please stop bullshitting!!!

Bloody National scaremongering!!! :x

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9942
Location: Texas
booji boy wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.

It’s a fairly predictable slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge, floodgates type concern but even if it subsequently is expanded to primary residence it will be heavily qualified and have a tolerance for a socially acceptable gain.


Would you guys please stop bullshitting!!!

Bloody National scaremongering!!! :x

:lol:

I think there is a clear basis for mass panic selling of all residential property stock.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19335
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.


As Booji is really pushing though, the family home is being used constantly to discredit the working group when it isn't even part of the discussions. Get with the fucking programme boys - grow up . This is the only time since GST we have had an opportunity to review tax methods and these scaremongers just want to run it down - it isn't a discussion at all with them.

I gave an example of a way that may be used to get around it - surely a discussion would include ways to stop that, not give up the idea immediately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1863
guy smiley wrote:
BillW wrote:
Not sure how that would lower the price of houses.


I didn't say it would. Nice deflection though.
BillW wrote:
What is it that makes you think that anybody in parliament has got the knowledge and expertise to build houses cheaper than the professionals do it?


hmmm... the professionals are running a tidy little duopoly on supply costs and creaming the consumer blind. Great read in last weekend's Herald on that. What the govt could do is award large contracts to other companies large enough to run their own supply chains and slash costs, introducing serious competition to the market.

So there's that.


If by the professionals you mean Materials suppliers, I wholeheartedly agree.
Builders much less so. Builders have been screaming about materials costs for years.

This government deserves credit for taking the problem of housing seriously.
They also deserve a brickbat for appearing to completely fail to understand how to go about it.

If they actually by some miracle achieve or even vaguely approach there targets,
given that they have not imported a whole lot of new labourers and building companies,
What evidence will there be that they didn't merely scavenge capacity that would have done exactly the same thing without there interference.

Two things they can do:
1. Do as suggested above and source materials from outside Fletchers/Hardies (preferably USA)
2. Make it easier to zone land as residential.

If they refuse to make it easier to develop new residential areas then they may have to bite the bullet and build tower blocks instead.
After all the goal is affordable housing, what they have produced so far is miles from that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32564
Location: in transit
merlin the happy pig wrote:

Two things they can do:
1. Do as suggested above and source materials from outside Fletchers/Hardies (preferably USA)
2. Make it easier to zone land as residential.

If they refuse to make it easier to develop new residential areas then they may have to bite the bullet and build tower blocks instead.
After all the goal is affordable housing, what they have produced so far is miles from that.


There were 105 submissions to the governments tender for off site construction proposals, over 40 from overseas. The process is ongoing so no info available...

yes, we need more land. That opens up another kettle of fish though, with developers controlling standards and design, unless you do it through govt control and this country has spent the last 30 years getting govt out of any sort of business like that. Tower blocks are definitely the go for high density living but again, standards need to be applied there to ensure they're attractive for long term dwelling as opposed to being cheap rental boxes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20429
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Enzedder wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.


It's clearly exempt in the ToR for the group. Not surprising that it still gets discussed though.


As Booji is really pushing though, the family home is being used constantly to discredit the working group when it isn't even part of the discussions. Get with the fucking programme boys - grow up . This is the only time since GST we have had an opportunity to review tax methods and these scaremongers just want to run it down - it isn't a discussion at all with them.

I gave an example of a way that may be used to get around it - surely a discussion would include ways to stop that, not give up the idea immediately.


In an ideal world that would be exactly what would happened. We're trying to achieve "A" but we've identified that as a result of the changes to get that we might end up with "B" or even "C" and "D", so how can we prevent that and direct everything back to ensuring we only get "A"?

But too often in politics we just get "no, we're sure that won't happen", I can imaging someone many years ago saying "stoats eats rabbits, I'm sure they won't go after the flightless native birds and their eggs instead...". And any serious discussion gets lost in the usual tribal red vs blue shit fights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3347
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:11 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19335
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:43 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Enzedder wrote:
Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?

I don't know what you mean by that remark.
If you are referring to earthquakes they certainly could.
It happened in Canterbury but we never ended up with a housing crisis.
Didn't need the Government to build the houses.
Go figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4842
Location: NZ
BillW wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?

I don't know what you mean by that remark.
If you are referring to earthquakes they certainly could.
It happened in Canterbury but we never ended up with a housing crisis.
Didn't need the Government to build the houses.
Go figure.



It is a peculiarity about Auckland.

For some reason they expect the govt to do everything for them when they are supposed to have a super duper, mega council


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19335
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
BillW wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?

I don't know what you mean by that remark.
If you are referring to earthquakes they certainly could.
It happened in Canterbury but we never ended up with a housing crisis.
Didn't need the Government to build the houses.
Go figure.


Landlords very rarely build to rent - they buy existing houses. those houses won't disappear because an investor doesn't want to buy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5439
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6066
Location: Vandean Coast
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.



The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:01 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5439
deadduck wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.



The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue


The question was whether this would help inequality. It would, and the shane jones slush fund or free tertiary won’t change that. Those are irrelevant right now.

And they are not rolling in revenue. I have no idea what gives you that idea. This years budget is epically oversubscribed from agencies begging for cash after the lean years under nationals zero-spend budgets (which were necessary at the time, no criticism there). But Labour is not flush with cash. fudge no.

And using tax relief to justify a cgt is perfectly acceptable. It’s a complete restructure of the tax system in order to make it more fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15915
merlin the happy pig wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
the professionals are running a tidy little duopoly on supply costs and creaming the consumer blind. Great read in last weekend's Herald on that. What the govt could do is award large contracts to other companies large enough to run their own supply chains and slash costs, introducing serious competition to the market.

So there's that.


If by the professionals you mean Materials suppliers, I wholeheartedly agree.
Builders much less so. Builders have been screaming about materials costs for years.

This government deserves credit for taking the problem of housing seriously.
They also deserve a brickbat for appearing to completely fail to understand how to go about it.

If they actually by some miracle achieve or even vaguely approach there targets,
given that they have not imported a whole lot of new labourers and building companies,
What evidence will there be that they didn't merely scavenge capacity that would have done exactly the same thing without there interference.

Two things they can do:
1. Do as suggested above and source materials from outside Fletchers/Hardies (preferably USA)
2. Make it easier to zone land as residential.

If they refuse to make it easier to develop new residential areas then they may have to bite the bullet and build tower blocks instead.
After all the goal is affordable housing, what they have produced so far is miles from that.


Interesting read.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5439
BillW wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.


How does this mean a cgt won’t impact inequality exactly? Seems somewhat unrelated and more than a bit random...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6066
Location: Vandean Coast
Wilderbeast wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.



The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue


The question was whether this would help inequality. It would, and the shane jones slush fund or free tertiary won’t change that. Those are irrelevant right now.

And they are not rolling in revenue. I have no idea what gives you that idea. This years budget is epically oversubscribed from agencies begging for cash after the lean years under nationals zero-spend budgets (which were necessary at the time, no criticism there). But Labour is not flush with cash. fudge no.

And using tax relief to justify a cgt is perfectly acceptable. It’s a complete restructure of the tax system in order to make it more fair.




Over the next four years they're forecasting an increase in spending of over $11 billion and still forecasting a surplus in 2021-22 of over $7 billion.

In the 2018 financial year, tax revenues increased by 6% and the government found themselves with a surplus $2.4 billion ahead of what they had forecast.

The government making out like they're skint is a joke. The fact that they've decided to allocate away much of it on wasteful spending, which might leave them short in other areas, is a bed of their own making. But in any case, if they were really keen on tax relief, they could afford to do it without introducing a CGT.

But there doesn't seem to be much impetus from the government to alter the brackets. They were very vocal in their criticism of National's plan to do much the same thing and immediately rolled it back when they came to power. That plan would have only cost $1.5 billion. I really don't think they'll do it prior to 2020 and it will be some kind of election bribe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6066
Location: Vandean Coast
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.



So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.



So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.


That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6229
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.



So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.


That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.

Ah, kinda curious on your thoughts regards the Callaghan Innovation. I've seen it about and even considered using it, but never really understood just what it is or isn't doing... if it is in anyway successful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:19 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:
How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?

It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.


It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.


How does this mean a cgt won’t impact inequality exactly? Seems somewhat unrelated and more than a bit random...

I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
Flockwitt wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.



So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.


That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.

Ah, kinda curious on your thoughts regards the Callaghan Innovation. I've seen it about and even considered using it, but never really understood just what it is or isn't doing... if it is in anyway successful.


Callaghan Innovation turned a reasonably successful applied research organisation (Industrial Research Limited) into another government research funding organ - replicating what MBIE, TEC and the Royal Society already do, but at the more applied research end. At the same time, the remaining applied researchers at the new Callaghan Innovation were no longer allowed to apply for government funding; only commercial funding, so the really top quality people left (mostly offshore) and crippled the applied research sector. Obviously, the blue skies research still happens at universities and applied research still happens in the CRIs, but the advanced physics and chemistry that IRL used to manage is largely gone. The fact that they put Sir Paul Callaghan's name to this debacle adds insult to injury.

But where Callaghan Innovation does plug a gap is that they do provide support to small and emerging businesses and aid in the commercialisation process. My view is that this could have been managed within MBIE, removing unnecessary duplication and not crippling the IRL research at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
BillW wrote:
I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.


That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4643
Location: The other side of midnight
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people wxho couldn't previously afford to access it.


Why was the free year applied to the first year rather than the final or even second year?

Is there any financial penalty for students who take advantage of the free first year and then decide that the course/degree isn’t for them


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:44 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Gordon Bennett wrote:
BillW wrote:
I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.


That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.


Pareto principle says no.
Price's law says no.
NZ example says no.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
jambanja wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it


Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people wxho couldn't previously afford to access it.


Why was the free year applied to the first year rather than the final or even second year?

Is there any financial penalty for students who take advantage of the free first year and then decide that the course/degree isn’t for them


The financial penalty is that they still have to pay living expenses for the time they're studying and if they withdraw without completing, they have absolutely nothing to show for it other than having less money than when they started.

As for applying it to the final year instead of the first year - yep, I can absolutely see that being a valid alternative. In terms of pragmatism and cost to implement though, the 'final year' is less clearly defined. For Architecture students, it's year five; for medical students its 5+ years, Engineering 4 years, those doing conjoints or double majors it could be anywhere over 4 years. Inherently more complicated. But yes, I can see the benefit that the final year being free would encourage students to complete... perhaps...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2173
BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
BillW wrote:
I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.


That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.


Pareto principle says no.
Price's law says no.
NZ example says no.


How is there an 'NZ example'. The question I'm posing is if, in somewhere like the UK, would inequality be worse without CGT. How does the NZ example provide any evidence, given that we don't have a before and after? As for your other principle and law, I'd rather see a case study or two in this specific example. After all, most physical and economic laws only apply only in a limited range of circumstances and applying such laws to examples without empirical and experimental evidence could be seen as ridiculous extrapolation.

On the other hand, I will confess to a certain level of playing devil's advocate here. I would not be surprised in the slightest to see that CGT is a mere drop in the ocean when it comes to effecting inequality. In which case, a more robust adjustment of, say, reducing GST and increasing top rate income tax would be more effective. However, that wouldn't achieve the rebalancing of investments that the CGT is purported to achieve.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29545 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 ... 739  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BillW, Blackrock Bullet, Cartman, easyray, Google Adsense [Bot], happyhooker, Mick Mannock, Raggs, Red Revolution, Rinkals, Saint, Slim 293, Yer Man and 192 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group