If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

Of course you are right. There is no new taxation introduced with this tweak. Anyone that comes under this new rule, should have been paying INCOME TAX anyway. Now anything bought and sold within 2 years will not sidestep paying income tax like they should be.
Daytr, as with any tax, there are always ways around avoiding it if people want to.Requiring foreign property buyers to be registered with the IRD, having a NZ bank account and providing their domicile country's tax number, will surely make it easier to track them, tax them and reduce risk of money laundering.
I know you very much dislike John Key and everything he does but I fail to see why you can not support this !

I wasn't aware I disliked Key. Never met the man, but he seems okay to me. Certainly affable - quite refreshing really. I didn't say I don't support this, although it's a waste of time as it won't raise any money worth counting. The IRD have previously had blitzes on traders, but would not impose tax if a valid reason for selling. e.g. they followed and taxed short term sellers in Wanaka when land blocks were opened up, but if someone sold a section they intended to build on, but changed their mind after the loss of a spouse, they would most unlikely attract tax. That's gone out the window.

[iceman]

I wasn't aware I disliked Key. Never met the man, but he seems okay to me. Certainly affable - quite refreshing really. I didn't say I don't support this, although it's a waste of time as it won't raise any money worth counting. The IRD have previously had blitzes on traders, but would not impose tax if a valid reason for selling. e.g. they followed and taxed short term sellers in Wanaka when land blocks were opened up, but if someone sold a section they intended to build on, but changed their mind after the loss of a spouse, they would most unlikely attract tax. That's gone out the window.

Sorry my bad FP. The second part of my earlier post was a response to Daytr. Apologies for not being clear.

[Daytr]

Iceman, you are correct on one thing in your post only. I don't like John 'pull a ponytail' Key.
However I have seen a couple of things they have done I have liked. I'm not that one eyed.
One that comes to mind is the flexibility they have introduced with WINZ for people to take on part time or seasonal work & not lose out, as they can sign on again without much of a stand down etc.
I do actually support any move to contain an out of control property market & foreign buying.
What I'm saying is that this policy will be largely ineffectual & doesn't go nearly far enough & does very little to reign in the foreign buying.
There is a lot of talk around laundered money being used by foreign buyers, however what evidence is there of this?
What sort of laundering? I assume mostly offshore tax evasion? Yes its good to have them registered, however what tax will be collected if they hold beyond 2 years? The laundering referred to will be evading paying tax in other jurisdictions, not NZ & I doubt we will see the IRD chasing that down.
So I'm critical, as its a band-aid solution on what is a gaping wound !

Of course you are right. There is no new taxation introduced with this tweak. Anyone that comes under this new rule, should have been paying INCOME TAX anyway. Now anything bought and sold within 2 years will not sidestep paying income tax like they should be.
Daytr, as with any tax, there are always ways around avoiding it if people want to.Requiring foreign property buyers to be registered with the IRD, having a NZ bank account and providing their domicile country's tax number, will surely make it easier to track them, tax them and reduce risk of money laundering.
I know you very much dislike John Key and everything he does but I fail to see why you can not support this !

[craic]

Budget Day. And Labour have already written the lengthy speeches criticising the document. Oh! they will have a whole collection of variables for whatever is in it, and their their alternatives, which they wll never have to deliver or pay for. I made six dollars on the horses yesterday - non taxable - which is fifty cents short of the price of the handle of Murphys down at the club, that I will drink to celebrate good governance for another year or two.

[RGR367]

Yeah. There are 2 boring shows today at Wellington. One is the Budget 2015 announcement by the Gov't and the show following it by the critics. Take your pick and hope you still find delights on one and/or both of them

[elZorro]

Budget Day. And Labour have already written the lengthy speeches criticising the document. Oh! they will have a whole collection of variables for whatever is in it, and their their alternatives, which they wll never have to deliver or pay for. I made six dollars on the horses yesterday - non taxable - which is fifty cents short of the price of the handle of Murphys down at the club, that I will drink to celebrate good governance for another year or two.

Good governance Craic? Looks like it'll be eight years 'on the trot' when the govt spends more than it gets in. They would be a bad bet for 2017, especially if there is any more economically bad news between now and the next election. The dairy cheque could be low for up to another 5 years, they reckon. That's about how long cows are milked for. Tourism, another one of the lowest paid areas for staff, is now likely to exceed dairy income for NZ, to be the top export dollar earner.

[craic]

And how would labour get more for the milk fat or improve the lot of tourism staff? I'm sure they will tell us today - but I for one will be up the hill with a chainsaw and axes managing my own economy. Not a bad start at Woodville, got $1.60 back for a $2 bet.

[elZorro]

And how would labour get more for the milk fat or improve the lot of tourism staff? I'm sure they will tell us today - but I for one will be up the hill with a chainsaw and axes managing my own economy. Not a bad start at Woodville, got $1.60 back for a $2 bet.

Craic, you missed my point. We're still too reliant on commodity earnings and tourism. Neither of which are reliable, good payers. Labour had plans to broaden the economy way back in 2008 with R&D incentives for SMEs and others - by and large these were pulled away from SMEs by National, so they could instead gift up to $885 mill over three year periods to 57 large businesses, many of whom are not NZ owned /don't need the money/ are listed companies/are losing money hand over fist/don't even manufacture goods here.

[Daytr]

Debt, debt & more debt. The legacy of John Key.
Oh & some motorways that put the country in hock.
Great investment that...

[neopoleII]

""so they could instead gift up to $885 mill over three year periods to 57 large businesses""

considering that the few remaining smokers in NZ pay over a billion $$ a year in excise tax per year.......
which happens to more tax than all the SOEs pay in NZ.....

its not really a lot of money in the big picture........

unless of course when the smokers are extinct that the massive tax burden gets put onto.....??

simple point is ..... who gets taxed and who gets the tax "distribution" and what is a fair level?
IMHO both the left and the right have got it wrong, but then its all about vote buying.
labour supports alot of tax distribution recipients and national supports alot of tax payers.
somewhere in the middle we have citizens voting via mmp to form our governments.
and most voters are blind to where the tax money comes from and where it is going.