NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

Maniototo Man wrote:
BillW wrote:
guy smiley wrote:I know it’s ToR, it’s that I was alluding to really, in light of recent suggestions regarding the fleecing of the privileged.

Good name for a beer festival, that... Fleece the Privilege.
Talking of privilege.
Your wages in West Australian mining would put you in the top 5% of the worlds earners.
The present minimum wage places New Zealand as the third highest in the world after Australia and Luxemburg as far as I can gather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... by_country

So what are we trying to achieve?

I'm not against CGT in principle but it is just another administrative nightmare.
Just another boil on the arse of the productive sector.

A solution looking for a problem.
I tends to agree. If you're going to have it don't do it half arsed - include the family home. As soon as you make exceptions it gets complicated and you create a lucrative new opportunity for the tax accountants.

Of course a CGT on the family home would be political suicide.

It appears it may not be redistributive enough to make all the trouble worth it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/109818 ... would-work
There's no basis for any of the two bolded statements you have made. An exemption would be a simple thing to implement and enforce, especially when compared to what is already exempt ofr can be claimed. There is no clear rational for including the family home when one of the sated aims is to increase housing affordability and shift investment from unproductive housing to productive endeavours.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

BillW wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
brat wrote:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202581

Why on earth would you build these ridiculous 'houses' in wanaka of all places

Completely idiotic government
Because Central Otago has a dire shortage of non-tourism housing in the right places and more than enough top end housing.

Then why does no one want them?
Workers' houses at sav blanc socialist prices.
Crikey, you've nailed it, Bill. :shock:
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

guy smiley wrote:
BillW wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
brat wrote:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202581

Why on earth would you build these ridiculous 'houses' in wanaka of all places

Completely idiotic government
Because Central Otago has a dire shortage of non-tourism housing in the right places and more than enough top end housing.

Then why does no one want them?
Workers' houses at sav blanc socialist prices.
Well, we wouldn't want workers getting paid a decent wage, would we.

That would really f**k things up.
Not sure how that would lower the price of houses.
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?
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

Anyway



Image




x(







Man









Walking





:nod:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

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

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

guy smiley wrote:
BillW wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
brat wrote:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202581

Why on earth would you build these ridiculous 'houses' in wanaka of all places

Completely idiotic government
Because Central Otago has a dire shortage of non-tourism housing in the right places and more than enough top end housing.

Then why does no one want them?
Workers' houses at sav blanc socialist prices.
Well, we wouldn't want workers getting paid a decent wage, would we.

That would really f**k things up.
house prices would increase right?
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

Ted. wrote:
Maniototo Man wrote:
BillW wrote:
guy smiley wrote:I know it’s ToR, it’s that I was alluding to really, in light of recent suggestions regarding the fleecing of the privileged.

Good name for a beer festival, that... Fleece the Privilege.
Talking of privilege.
Your wages in West Australian mining would put you in the top 5% of the worlds earners.
The present minimum wage places New Zealand as the third highest in the world after Australia and Luxemburg as far as I can gather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... by_country

So what are we trying to achieve?

I'm not against CGT in principle but it is just another administrative nightmare.
Just another boil on the arse of the productive sector.

A solution looking for a problem.
I tends to agree. If you're going to have it don't do it half arsed - include the family home. As soon as you make exceptions it gets complicated and you create a lucrative new opportunity for the tax accountants.

Of course a CGT on the family home would be political suicide.

It appears it may not be redistributive enough to make all the trouble worth it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/109818 ... would-work
There's no basis for any of the two bolded statements you have made. An exemption would be a simple thing to implement and enforce, especially when compared to what is already exempt ofr can be claimed. There is no clear rational for including the family home when one of the sated aims is to increase housing affordability and shift investment from unproductive housing to productive endeavours.
How do you ensure people shift their investment to a productive sector instead of putting it into a larger more expensive family home that will be tax exempt when they eventually downsize in retirement? I remember reading about that being an issue somewhere else. Oz maybe? Can't remember now.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

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.
Yeah.
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

Fat Old Git wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Maniototo Man wrote:
BillW wrote:
guy smiley wrote:I know it’s ToR, it’s that I was alluding to really, in light of recent suggestions regarding the fleecing of the privileged.

Good name for a beer festival, that... Fleece the Privilege.
Talking of privilege.
Your wages in West Australian mining would put you in the top 5% of the worlds earners.
The present minimum wage places New Zealand as the third highest in the world after Australia and Luxemburg as far as I can gather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... by_country

So what are we trying to achieve?

I'm not against CGT in principle but it is just another administrative nightmare.
Just another boil on the arse of the productive sector.

A solution looking for a problem.
I tends to agree. If you're going to have it don't do it half arsed - include the family home. As soon as you make exceptions it gets complicated and you create a lucrative new opportunity for the tax accountants.

Of course a CGT on the family home would be political suicide.

It appears it may not be redistributive enough to make all the trouble worth it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/109818 ... would-work
There's no basis for any of the two bolded statements you have made. An exemption would be a simple thing to implement and enforce, especially when compared to what is already exempt ofr can be claimed. There is no clear rational for including the family home when one of the sated aims is to increase housing affordability and shift investment from unproductive housing to productive endeavours.
How do you ensure people shift their investment to a productive sector instead of putting it into a larger more expensive family home that will be tax exempt when they eventually downsize in retirement? I remember reading about that being an issue somewhere else. Oz maybe? Can't remember now.
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.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

BillW wrote:
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.
Yeah.
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.
Yeah, like pinus radiata. Or portland cement. Hang on, maybe you mean greywacke aggregate. Ok, ok, it must be the steel reinforcing and roofing materials... the gib? :roll:
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Ted. wrote:
BillW wrote:
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.
Yeah.
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.
Yeah, like pinus radiata. Or portland cement. Hang on, maybe you mean greywacke aggregate. Ok, ok, it must be the steel reinforcing and roofing materials... the gib? :roll:
Pre-cut houses.
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

Ted. wrote:Nevertheless, there is a serious shortage of non-tourist accommodation in Central Otago. This issue is pretty fundamental to Central Otago's housing policy and why, for example, QLDC are putting so much effort into finding solutions for the shortage.
I need to read my ratepayers communications more closely. All I’ve noticed is the rates appear to have come down.

Which initiatives are the QLDC pushing? I hope they aren’t pushing to increase the prices at Fergburger
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

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.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Ted. wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Maniototo Man wrote:I tends to agree. If you're going to have it don't do it half arsed - include the family home. As soon as you make exceptions it gets complicated and you create a lucrative new opportunity for the tax accountants.

Of course a CGT on the family home would be political suicide.

It appears it may not be redistributive enough to make all the trouble worth it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/109818 ... would-work
There's no basis for any of the two bolded statements you have made. An exemption would be a simple thing to implement and enforce, especially when compared to what is already exempt ofr can be claimed. There is no clear rational for including the family home when one of the sated aims is to increase housing affordability and shift investment from unproductive housing to productive endeavours.
How do you ensure people shift their investment to a productive sector instead of putting it into a larger more expensive family home that will be tax exempt when they eventually downsize in retirement? I remember reading about that being an issue somewhere else. Oz maybe? Can't remember now.
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.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Ted. wrote:Anyway



Image




x(







Man









Walking





:nod:
Yep, the sooner the better. :thumbup:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19665
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Enzedder wrote:Where the hell has this CG taxing of a family home come from?

Typical National fearmongering!!! Even the fans are at it.
Economists, in their wisdom, are always saying that for a CGT to be truly effective it needs to include the family home. A few posters have also noted that making exceptions makes the tax more complicated and opens up loopholes. Like your mate for example. ;)

It's not National fearmongering. Taxcinda has been at pains, in her most earnest furrowed brow, to assure us that the family home will be excluded. We all know that as it would be political suicide. Even Grinch Cullen knows it and wouldn't recommend it.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16184
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

booji boy 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.
Economists, in their wisdom, are always saying that for a CGT to be truly effective it needs to include the family home. A few posters have also noted that making exceptions makes the tax more complicated and opens up loopholes. Like your mate for example. ;)

It's not National fearmongering. Taxcinda has been at pains, in her most earnest furrowed brow, to assure us that the family home will be excluded. We all know that as it would be political suicide. Even Grinch Cullen knows it and wouldn't recommend it.
:lol:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19665
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Stop bullshitting - leave it to your heroes.

Look at the TOR for the Tax Working group - the family home has NEVER been in considerations so why include it in your bullshit?
Last edited by Enzedder on Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

BillW wrote:
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.
Yeah.
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.
Swing and a miss there...

Europe is a prime source, so is Australia.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

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:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19665
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

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)
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

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.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

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.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

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.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Sonny Blount »

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.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

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.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

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.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

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.
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

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.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

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:
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

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.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19665
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

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.
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by merlin the happy pig »

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.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

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.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

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.
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

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.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19665
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

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.
Post Reply