PDA

View Full Version : Capital Gains Tax



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

iceman
05-10-2020, 10:15 PM
NZ is growing at a moderate rate, while Auckland is growing at a reasonably fast rate. Given population increases in other parts of the world, I'd say we're not really at a point where I'd call it a population explosion.

At the end of the day though, New Zealanders need to get used to apartment living if they want to live within or close to city centers. If they don't want to live in one, there's still plenty of land available throughout the country. People need to adapt.

Well said Zaphod. This is exactly what needs to happen. First home buyers should be looking at good quality, cheap to run apartments. Immigrants should have conditions placed on their Visa that they go to areas of NZ where their experience is needed. Like a medical doctor should go to Reefton if needed there, not Auckland to clog it up more . I just do not think like dibble in post 749 above and in fact think that attitude is the main reason for our silly house prices vs incomes.

Bjauck
06-10-2020, 07:08 AM
Well said Zaphod. This is exactly what needs to happen. First home buyers should be looking at good quality, cheap to run apartments. ...
Often suggested by baby boomers who were able to buy stand alone houses with gardens to raise their children. And who remain happy for house price inflation to continue outstrip wage inflation?

Entrep
06-10-2020, 07:47 AM
Often suggested by baby boomers who were able to buy stand alone houses with gardens to raise their children.

And/or those who are simply willing to work hard to get what they want

Bjauck
06-10-2020, 09:09 AM
And/or those who are simply willing to work hard to get what they want Fair comment.

However I am not sure if you are suggesting that young of today should expect to work harder than the previous generation to be able to afford smaller and less private accommodation and be grateful they do not have to rent?

Entrep
06-10-2020, 09:55 AM
Fair comment.

However I am not sure if you are suggesting that young of today should expect to work harder than the previous generation to be able to afford smaller and less private accommodation and be grateful they do not have to rent?

This is stating the obvious, but the world changes, the older generation had to deal with other things that young people today don't.

People can either start today and work towards a house or sit around complaining and hope that someone else makes things easier for them.

I guess my view is that you can sit around complaining or work on ways to achieve what you want yourself (like buying a cheap property out of Auckland, doing it up, renting it out, etc). Property is all about getting on the ladder (love it or hate it), that's the way it is in a popular country like NZ. That everyone should be entitled to get on the ladder in Auckland just isn't possible.

Bjauck
06-10-2020, 10:27 AM
This is stating the obvious, but the world changes, the older generation had to deal with other things that young people today don't.

People can either start today and work towards a house or sit around complaining and hope that someone else makes things easier for them.

I guess my view is that you can sit around complaining or work on ways to achieve what you want yourself (like buying a cheap property out of Auckland, doing it up, renting it out, etc). Property is all about getting on the ladder (love it or hate it), that's the way it is in a popular country like NZ. That everyone should be entitled to get on the ladder in Auckland just isn't possible. Some generations do have it better than others - the generation that came after war, enjoyed socialised education and medicine, high owner-occupation rates and came before "user pays" and before the looming environmental crisis following unfettered consumption managed to hit a sweet spot?

True we do have to work with how things actually are - The existing tax and investment environment in NZ. However reform is always possible and one person's "complaining" is another person's seeking ways to reform and improve...

It does not mean that it was inevitable that NZ housing would be become so expensive for our income levels. It was never inevitable that investor housing would become the de facto pension scheme for so many - making it more difficult to get that toe-hold on "the owner-occupier ladder."

iceman
08-10-2020, 07:54 AM
Often suggested by baby boomers who were able to buy stand alone houses with gardens to raise their children. And who remain happy for house price inflation to continue outstrip wage inflation?

Herald reports today (behind paywall) that NZ is in a townhouse and apartment building boom in Auckland as this has now become the favoured for young buyers.
This comment sums it up: "We've created a situation where people want to get into a new house or apartment and they don't want to have any maintenance and they want double glazing and insulation - they want the best of everything," he said.

So your baby boomer argument may be a bit off the mark. FYI, my first home was in an apartment building some 35 years ago and it worked well for me back then.

artemis
08-10-2020, 08:19 AM
There may be a boom, but until there are crews on the ground it is just a boom in approvals. I do think terrace and townhouse developments will do OK, but large apartment developments not so much. The latter provide mostly small less expensive places, especially as rentals, but will be cancelled if too difficult to sell off the plans.

Couple of years back Colliers reported that 49 consented apartment developments in Auckland were cancelled, for various reasons.

Bjauck
08-10-2020, 09:14 AM
Herald reports today (behind paywall) that NZ is in a townhouse and apartment building boom in Auckland as this has now become the favoured for young buyers.
This comment sums it up: "We've created a situation where people want to get into a new house or apartment and they don't want to have any maintenance and they want double glazing and insulation - they want the best of everything," he said.

So your baby boomer argument may be a bit off the mark. FYI, my first home was in an apartment building some 35 years ago and it worked well for me back then.

Getting a toe-hold for a first home buyer in the lowest quartile of the Auckland housing market would probably see little left over for renovation or maintenance? Plus with both people in a couple working long hours, just how much time would there be for work around the house? Especially with wood burners being phased out owing to trying to preserve the ravaged environment, surely double glazing and insulation are basic necessities? Also the average age of the first home buyer has been creeping up as the deposit needed increases at a rate faster than the increase in incomes.

I don't see how it negates my boomer point.

iceman
08-10-2020, 09:17 AM
It is difficult for FHB to get their deposit together but servicing the mortgage is not that hard and certainly no more difficult than in the past.
This is copied from an article written by Ashley Church on One Roof on 29 August this year:
“There’s the fact that it actually costs less to service a mortgage, today, than it did in the mid-80s when the cost reached an eye-watering 52 percent of average household income – the highest level it has reached in the modern era. Today it sits at around 37 percent of the average household income despite the fact that median house prices have increased dramatically, which means that there is still significant capacity to service additional house price growth within the average household budget.”

Bjauck
08-10-2020, 09:27 AM
It is difficult for FHB to get their deposit together but servicing the mortgage is not that hard and certainly no more difficult than in the past.
This is copied from an article written by Ashley Church on One Roof on 29 August this year:
“There’s the fact that it actually costs less to service a mortgage, today, than it did in the mid-80s when the cost reached an eye-watering 52 percent of average household income – the highest level it has reached in the modern era. Today it sits at around 37 percent of the average household income despite the fact that median house prices have increased dramatically, which means that there is still significant capacity to service additional house price growth within the average household budget.”
True, although raising the deposit is expensive, It is getting more affordable to service a mortgage especially with interest rates dropping like a stone. However job security for younger people especially is less certain as the Covid protections are lifted? I guess in its own way the government is shifting wealth from (older) deposit-holders to (younger) borrowers and (wealthier and older) real estate owners.

fungus pudding
08-10-2020, 09:32 AM
True, although raising the deposit is expensive, It is getting more affordable to service a mortgage especially with interest rates dropping like a stone. However job security for younger people especially is less certain as the Covid protections are lifted? I guess in its own way the government is shifting wealth from (older) deposit-holders to (younger) borrowers and (wealthier and older) real estate owners.

It's the falling interest rates that push up real estate prices. Far better to buy while interest rates are sky-high.

nztx
10-10-2020, 04:26 AM
Is the Green's "Wealth Tax" announced by Shaw not just another swipe at a variant of this sort of taxing ?

Probably equally unworkable as well .. ;)

fungus pudding
10-10-2020, 06:56 AM
Is the Green's "Wealth Tax" announced by Shaw not just another swipe at a variant of this sort of taxing ?

Probably equally unworkable as well .. ;)

Yes it is another swipe at a tax, but even more unworkable. Envisage an army of govt. inspectors, accompanied by art appraisers, antique valuers, real estate valuers, investment consultants and a car dealer arriving on your doorstep once a year to complete the annual valuation.

winner69
10-10-2020, 07:28 AM
Poll choice - Goff is just an idiot

Suppose nearly 10 years on that’s still a good choice

Bjauck
10-10-2020, 08:53 AM
Yes it is another swipe at a tax, but even more unworkable. Envisage an army of govt. inspectors, accompanied by art appraisers, antique valuers, real estate valuers, investment consultants and a car dealer arriving on your doorstep once a year to complete the annual valuation. Taxed on your income from personal effort....and all you want to do is try to feed your family and get some shelter.Yet the government grabs a chunk before you see it! Who would come up with such a scheme? After all the basic costs of food, shelter and clothing are necessary for my being able to present myself to earn the wage. Why be taxed on what it costs me to be able to work in the first place?

Yet the wealthy person can accumulate art and sell it for thousands more and all tax free...what a crazy world eh?

Would there be a threshold? Wouldnt art be valued for insurance and buildings only need to be valued every now and again (as with rates valuations) unless objected too?

It would be better to have a cgt than a wealth tax I agree, but look at the block from vested interests in that front too.

BlackPeter
10-10-2020, 09:50 AM
Yes it is another swipe at a tax, but even more unworkable. Envisage an army of govt. inspectors, accompanied by art appraisers, antique valuers, real estate valuers, investment consultants and a car dealer arriving on your doorstep once a year to complete the annual valuation.

Actually - its not that difficult. Anything below 50k is not considered, and most of the bigger ticket items are valued anyway.

Real estate: For anything property related we have a GV, no additional work / valuation required.

Cars: If I believe TRA, than ways above 95% of all cars must be worth less than 50K ... i.e. no valuation required. I am sure the reminder (creme of the creme) is insured, i.e. just take the insurance value. No additional work at all.

Antiques / Art ... again - it would be quite easy to just take the agreed insurance value. I doubt there is much stuff above 50k around which is not insured. No additional work required.

Companies ... might be an issues, but than - why not go for the NTA in the balance sheet they need to file anyway. No additional work required.

While more taxes are clearly never popular - and the geese who might get plugged are already intensely hissing .... the country clearly needs a wider tax base to pay for superannuation and health for an aging population, for improved infrastructure and for educating the generation (our grandchildren) who needs to pay anyway the lions share of our super, health and the accumulated Covid cost.

The Rich are getting richer in NZ as well as everywhere, while the poor are getting poorer. A wealth tax would hit the people who benefited most from the recent crisis. I think this sounds fair enough.

fungus pudding
10-10-2020, 10:06 AM
Actually - its not that difficult. Anything below 50k is not considered, and most of the bigger ticket items are valued anyway.

Real estate: For anything property related we have a GV, no additional work / valuation required.

Cars: If I believe TRA, than ways above 95% of all cars must be worth less than 50K ... i.e. no valuation required. I am sure the reminder (creme of the creme) is insured, i.e. just take the insurance value. No additional work at all.

Antiques / Art ... again - it would be quite easy to just take the agreed insurance value. I doubt there is much stuff above 50k around which is not insured. No additional work required.

Companies ... might be an issues, but than - why not go for the NTA in the balance sheet they need to file anyway. No additional work required.

While more taxes are clearly never popular - and the geese who might get plugged are already intensely hissing .... the country clearly needs a wider tax base to pay for superannuation and health for an aging population, for improved infrastructure and for educating the generation (our grandchildren) who needs to pay anyway the lions share of our super, health and the accumulated Covid cost.

The Rich are getting richer in NZ as well as everywhere, while the poor are getting poorer. A wealth tax would hit the people who benefited most from the recent crisis. I think this sounds fair enough.

I don't. The big problem is those who are asset rich - cash poor, which describes a huge percentage of retirees in our bigger cities. I know it can be deferred -- which makes it simply a return to the death taxes we used to have and dumped in the early 90s. The thing that follows would obviously be a return to gift duties, or it won't work. Both death duties and gift duties were horrible taxes. I'm sure you recall the dodgy nonsense that went with those taxes. No doubt you also recall the legitimate gifting programs used to avoid death duties. They would re-emerge on day one.
As far as limits on asset values go (individual items at 50k and the proposed total of 1 million), the levels applied on introduction of a wealth tax can be altered at the drop of a hat. Naturally they will be kept low to introduce such a scheme - but a future govt. only requires the stroke of a pen to change it.
Not many countries have such with wealth taxes and the associated gift and death duties, mainly because they are an administrative nightmare.

Bjauck
10-10-2020, 10:21 AM
…Both death duties and gift duties were horrible taxes. …and GST and income taxes are worse than both of them.

fungus pudding
10-10-2020, 10:46 AM
…and GST and income taxes are worse than both of them.

Couldn't agree less. We have to have some sort of tax or taxes. NZ GST system is extremely effective and easy to administer. Income tax is a necessary evil, and although we all have different views on the rates and progressions, it's relatively simple to apply and administer.

Bjauck
10-10-2020, 11:02 AM
Couldn't agree less. We have to have some sort of tax or taxes. NZ GST system is extremely effective and easy to administer. Income tax is a necessary evil, and although we all have different views on the rates and progressions, it's relatively simple to apply and administer. I am not sure that income tax is particular easy to apply and administer as the court cases, accountants fees and laws as to what constitutes income, dividends, profits etc attest to.

Why couldn’t capital transfer taxes (death and gift) be the necessary evil? We have to agree to differ on this.

People are taxed twice before they just obtain the necessities for life - first by way of PAYE deducted from wages and then by way of GST on food and goods. It is highly regressive. Forget about a flat tax - the NZ system has a regressive system with those with the most gains (both capital and income) ending up paying the smallest percentage in tax.

BlackPeter
10-10-2020, 11:57 AM
I don't. The big problem is those who are asset rich - cash poor, which describes a huge percentage of retirees in our bigger cities. I know it can be deferred -- which makes it simply a return to the death taxes we used to have and dumped in the early 90s. The thing that follows would obviously be a return to gift duties, or it won't work. Both death duties and gift duties were horrible taxes. I'm sure you recall the dodgy nonsense that went with those taxes. No doubt you also recall the legitimate gifting programs used to avoid death duties. They would re-emerge on day one.
As far as limits on asset values go (individual items at 50k and the proposed total of 1 million), the levels applied on introduction of a wealth tax can be altered at the drop of a hat. Naturally they will be kept low to introduce such a scheme - but a future govt. only requires the stroke of a pen to change it.
Not many countries have such with wealth taxes and the associated gift and death duties, mainly because they are an administrative nightmare.

Nothing wrong with having different views and a good discussion on taxes.

What is a given is that we will need to increase the tax base over the coming decades ... as indicated health costs, super costs, costs to deal with climate change (either try to stem it or alternatively pay for the damage) all will go up. Substantially.

Good on the Greens for being the only party which at least made a proposal how to broaden the tax base ... basically all other parties pretend there is no problem. I am sure there are other ways to solve this problem, but putting the head into the sand will not cut it.

If you don't like the wealth tax - which other taxes would you like to see introduced or increased instead?

artemis
10-10-2020, 12:16 PM
A GST increase captures the black and grey economies so produces more revenue than projections based on the legit books.

There is also the option to reduce expenditure. Management mantra - there is 30% waste in every process. I have certainly worked in and alongside jobs just like that. And that's not counting the useless or failed projects and initiatives.

fungus pudding
10-10-2020, 01:59 PM
Nothing wrong with having different views and a good discussion on taxes.

What is a given is that we will need to increase the tax base over the coming decades ... as indicated health costs, super costs, costs to deal with climate change (either try to stem it or alternatively pay for the damage) all will go up. Substantially.

Good on the Greens for being the only party which at least made a proposal how to broaden the tax base ... basically all other parties pretend there is no problem. I am sure there are other ways to solve this problem, but putting the head into the sand will not cut it.

If you don't like the wealth tax - which other taxes would you like to see introduced or increased instead?

Study up Laffer economics, specifically the Laffer curve, and you'll find it's indisputable there are two levels of tax, one high and one low, that will produce the same result. In simple terms lowering the tax rate can often produce as much or more revenue than raising it. If too low obviously it will not provide sufficient revenue to run Govt; but if too high it won't either because of disincentives, driving transactions to the black market, under the counter trading etc, or worse still - lack of trading. The trick is to find and apply the lowest effective rate.

Bjauck
10-10-2020, 05:47 PM
Study up Laffer economics, specifically the Laffer curve, and you'll find it's indisputable there are two levels of tax, one high and one low, that will produce the same result. In simple terms lowering the tax rate can often produce as much or more revenue than raising it. If too low obviously it will not provide sufficient revenue to run Govt; but if too high it won't either because of disincentives, driving transactions to the black market, under the counter trading etc, or worse still - lack of trading. The trick is to find and apply the lowest effective rate. There may be some truth with extreme tax and the “Laffer” curve but it depends on other factors and NZ is a long way off from prohibitive tax on the wealthy.....

However I can see why some would latch onto narratives such as Laffer and trickle-down...

https://qz.com/895785/laffer-curve-everything-trump-and-republicans-get-wrong-about-trickle-down-economics-and-reaganomics/

Almost everything Republicans get wrong about the economy started with a cocktail napkin in 1974

fungus pudding
10-10-2020, 06:34 PM
There may be some truth with extreme tax and the “Laffer” curve but it depends on other factors and NZ is a long way off from prohibitive tax on the wealthy.....

However I can see why some would latch onto narratives such as Laffer and trickle-down...

https://qz.com/895785/laffer-curve-everything-trump-and-republicans-get-wrong-about-trickle-down-economics-and-reaganomics/

Almost everything Republicans get wrong about the economy started with a cocktail napkin in 1974

You may consider Labours' proposed marginal tax of 39% above 180k is not excessive. I do think it is, and it will certainly require a bit of 'restructuring'. Think back to the shenanigans when Muldoon struck top margin at 66% (pre GST)

dibble
10-10-2020, 09:54 PM
Study up Laffer economics, specifically the Laffer curve, and you'll find it's indisputable there are two levels of tax, one high and one low, that will produce the same result. In simple terms lowering the tax rate can often produce as much or more revenue than raising it. If too low obviously it will not provide sufficient revenue to run Govt; but if too high it won't either because of disincentives, driving transactions to the black market, under the counter trading etc, or worse still - lack of trading. The trick is to find and apply the lowest effective rate.

Laffer made up his curve in a bar. There is no conclusion on what point between the two extremes is best. His wisest moment is noting lower tax MUST be linked to increased productivity otherwise any drop in tax is pointless. There is scant evidence to prove giving tax breaks to the wealthy achieves commensurate productivity gains (net of inflation) let alone achieves an overall net benefit to society. Indeed skeptics might suggest is the whole Laffer thing is merely something to cling to to get your lobbyist buddies tax breaks. Look at the logic, do people suddenly work more when tax drops? Do they even have the option to do that? Did everyone you know go out and work harder when National dropped rates to 33%?

Aaron
11-10-2020, 06:49 AM
Study up Laffer economics, specifically the Laffer curve, and you'll find it's indisputable there are two levels of tax, one high and one low, that will produce the same result. In simple terms lowering the tax rate can often produce as much or more revenue than raising it. If too low obviously it will not provide sufficient revenue to run Govt; but if too high it won't either because of disincentives, driving transactions to the black market, under the counter trading etc, or worse still - lack of trading. The trick is to find and apply the lowest effective rate.

You can see some interviews with Arthur Laffer on you tube. Have a watch and you can can make your own conclusions as to what sort of person he is and whether his views are pragmatic or ideologically driven. No surprise his ideas appeal to FP though.

fungus pudding
11-10-2020, 07:33 AM
You can see some interviews with Arthur Laffer on you tube. Have a watch and you can can make your own conclusions as to what sort of person he is and whether his views are pragmatic or ideologically driven. No surprise his ideas appeal to FP though.

I am simply saying it's impossible to argue with the conclusion of the curve. Consider an increase in income tax rates to 99%. Result - no income for govt. because the economy would be driven to underground, or barter. At 1% - nobody would avoid either earning or declaring it. Absurd examples, but that does emphasize the logic. You are correct - logic does feature in my reasoning.

Aaron
11-10-2020, 08:28 AM
I am simply saying it's impossible to argue with the conclusion of the curve. Consider an increase in income tax rates to 99%. Result - no income for govt. because the economy would be driven to underground, or barter. At 1% - nobody would avoid either earning or declaring it. Absurd examples, but that does emphasize the logic. You are correct - logic does feature in my reasoning.

Thanks, absurd examples make it much more understandable. Very simplistic. Much like a flat income tax rate.

Bjauck
11-10-2020, 08:43 AM
I am simply saying it's impossible to argue with the conclusion of the curve. Consider an increase in income tax rates to 99%. Result - no income for govt. because the economy would be driven to underground, or barter. At 1% - nobody would avoid either earning or declaring it. Absurd examples, but that does emphasize the logic. You are correct - logic does feature in my reasoning.

An additional point to consider for NZ conditions is that unlike the USA, NZ does not have a CGT. So the NZ version of the "Laffer Curve" always has a leaky valve to those investments that rely on capital gains for most of its return.

So tax cuts for the wealthier will tend to lead usually to increased investment, not into taxable income producing investment but mostly into investment producing tax-free capital gains.

Any total tax return effectiveness, if there is one, from the Laffer theory is significantly reduced in the NZ tax environment?

westerly
11-10-2020, 11:13 AM
A GST increase captures the black and grey economies so produces more revenue than projections based on the legit books.

There is also the option to reduce expenditure. Management mantra - there is 30% waste in every process. I have certainly worked in and alongside jobs just like that. And that's not counting the useless or failed projects and initiatives.

National tried reducing expenditure resulting in Labour inheriting many problems that should never have occurred.
GST increases may capture the black economy but has more effect on the lower paid.
A return to death duties would be one way to increase revenue and despite FP’ s abhorrence would be a good substitute for CGT.
The Nordic system of open tax paid availability would be interesting if introduced. Reputedly many wealthy people in NZ pay no tax at all which may be legitimate, but would certainly raise a few eyebrows if there names were freely available.

westerly

fungus pudding
11-10-2020, 12:24 PM
National tried reducing expenditure resulting in Labour inheriting many problems that should never have occurred.
GST increases may capture the black economy but has more effect on the lower paid.
A return to death duties would be one way to increase revenue and despite FP’ s abhorrence would be a good substitute for CGT.
The Nordic system of open tax paid availability would be interesting if introduced. Reputedly many wealthy people in NZ pay no tax at all which may be legitimate, but would certainly raise a few eyebrows if there names were freely available.

westerly

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on their* names. Or even better - their* methods. You can't of course-don't believe everything you hear; especially from your envious mates who moan and grizzle rather than going and earning a buck.

* N.B. correct spelling.

iceman
12-10-2020, 07:17 AM
National tried reducing expenditure resulting in Labour inheriting many problems that should never have occurred.
GST increases may capture the black economy but has more effect on the lower paid.
A return to death duties would be one way to increase revenue and despite FP’ s abhorrence would be a good substitute for CGT.
The Nordic system of open tax paid availability would be interesting if introduced. Reputedly many wealthy people in NZ pay no tax at all which may be legitimate, but would certainly raise a few eyebrows if there names were freely available.

westerly

The comparison between NZ and Nordic countries is an interesting one. I put it to you that the big difference is the large proportion of people in NZ that either do not want to work or are unemployable. Until we fix that, any dream of a Nordic type social system is just that, a dream. A CGT or a wealth tax will not fix it. We need to fix attitudes first.

Balance
12-10-2020, 07:29 AM
The comparison between NZ and Nordic countries is an interesting one. I put it to you that the big difference is the large proportion of people in NZ that either do not want to work or are unemployable. Until we fix that, any dream of a Nordic type social system is just that, a dream. A CGT or a wealth tax will not fix it. We need to fix attitudes first.

NZ's productive sector is screaming out for workers.

Despite tens of thousands on social welfare (thanks to Cindy's breeding beneficiaries' policies), the productive sector, especially the horticultural sector, faces disaster because of lack of workers.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 07:54 AM
The comparison between NZ and Nordic countries is an interesting one. I put it to you that the big difference is the large proportion of people in NZ that either do not want to work or are unemployable. Until we fix that, any dream of a Nordic type social system is just that, a dream. A CGT or a wealth tax will not fix it. We need to fix attitudes first. What if part of the solution "to fix attitudes" is to broaden the tax base to include those taxes (and maybe others you also dislike?) to encourage investment into taxable income producing and employment stimulating areas. You have already excluded that part of any solution?

Have you got links to the studies that conclude that NZ has higher proportion of people who do not wish to work or are "unemployable" compared with the various Nordic countries?

However I agree. NZ does need to look at the appropriate and relevant education and vocational training, underlying socio-economic causes, underlying taxation issues and other systemic issues behind any non-engagement in NZ society. It would be great to have actual policies that address these issues head-on instead of their coming to grief against the powerful block of vested interests?

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 07:58 AM
NZ's productive sector is screaming out for workers.

Despite tens of thousands on social welfare (thanks to Cindy's breeding beneficiaries' policies), the productive sector, especially the horticultural sector, faces disaster because of lack of workers. Is this related to CGT?
Instead of relying on low pay and poor conditions that only workers from poor countries are prepared to put up with, Maybe pay more and improve conditions to attract more NZers?

Balance
12-10-2020, 08:01 AM
Is this related to CGT?
Instead of relying on low pay and poor conditions that only workers from poor countries are prepared to put up with, Maybe pay more and improve conditions to attract more NZers?

Or reduce welfare payments and get people to actually work?

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 08:03 AM
Instead of relying on low pay and poor conditions that only workers from poor countries are prepared to put up with, Maybe pay more and improve conditions to attract more NZers?

And import more from countries that pay lower wages? Does that really make sense - or is it easier said than done? Remember, it's the consumer that ultimately dictates what the employer can pay.

Every increase in the minimum rate risks sending jobs overseas.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 08:51 AM
And import more from countries that pay lower wages? Does that really make sense If they have a comparative advantage in producing a particular product, yes it makes sense. If kiwifruit for example can be grown and harvested more efficiently overseas then it is a win-win for NZ consumers and the country concerned. NZ then could concentrate on industries and products for which it has a comparative advantage.


Every increase in the minimum rate risks sending jobs overseas. (Satire) So globalism was really about a race to the bottom for workers conditions and wage rates after all? All so those nasty capitalists could import desperate and poor labourers from desperate post-colonial countries and then enjoy their capital gains off the backs of downtrodden workers and inherit daddy's wealth tax free. (/satire) I tried to make it relevant to CGT.

iceman
12-10-2020, 08:55 AM
What if part of the solution "to fix attitudes" is to broaden the tax base to include those taxes (and maybe others you also dislike?) to encourage investment into taxable income producing and employment stimulating areas. You have already excluded that part of any solution?

Have you got links to the studies that conclude that NZ has higher proportion of people who do not wish to work or are "unemployable" compared with the various Nordic countries?

However I agree. NZ does need to look at the appropriate and relevant education and vocational training, underlying socio-economic causes, underlying taxation issues and other systemic issues behind any non-engagement in NZ society. It would be great to have actual policies that address these issues head-on instead of their coming to grief against the powerful block of vested interests?

Bjauck you are making huge assumptions about my position on taxes. I am all for fair taxes to maintain a good and FAIR social system.

But in response to your question, no I do not have any links to "studies" on differences between Nordic countries and NZ. I have interests in both a Nordic country and in NZ and trust myself to see the difference, I don't need studies to tell me about it. And the typical Leftie response is that we need to increase wages to get people to work. While that is partly true because our benefits are very high and not much incentive to work, it is not true that the jobs available are all low paying. In my industry (fishing), we can no longer crew vessels with reliable good Kiwi workers. An 18 yo unqualified but hard worker, could get a job in our industry tomorrow if they'd want to go away for 6 weeks at a time. 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off and earn $35-50k a year for 6 months work. But no, going away for a weekend is beyond what they're prepared to do.
Agriculture and horticulture is in the same situation.
I've just come from a couple of weeks trip around the bottom of the South Island. I made a point of talking to pub, hotel and tourism business owners along the way. They are ALL complaining about the lack of reliable workers available and some were working much longer hours than they wanted themselves, because they can not get workers.

So I'm sorry to hear you need some studies to prove this to you. Open your eyes and have a look for yourself. The situation in NZ today is outrageous. Stop making excuses for it.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 09:06 AM
..

So I'm sorry to hear you need some studies to prove this to you. Open your eyes and have a look for yourself. The situation in NZ today is outrageous. Stop making excuses for it.
You had seemed to dismiss certain taxes from the outset. My apologies for getting that wrong.

Individual Personal experience is great and is necessary to stimulate discussion. It does however need independent and careful corroboration.

I guess we may have different preconceptions as to where the blame for various shortcomings in NZ lie. I guess the response to Coronavirus brings these differences to the forefront. I think both you and I do try to look for the real causes and not to rely on excuses for the sake of an easy time.

I do try to keep eyes open, but concede you sound like you have greater real life experience.

westerly
12-10-2020, 11:01 AM
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on their* names. Or even better - their* methods. You can't of course-don't believe everything you hear; especially from your envious mates who moan and grizzle rather than going and earning a buck.

* N.B. correct spelling.

Tax records are private but to enlighten you on their methods this link makes interesting reading,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity especially the link to IRD research
wage earners can't avoid tax ,PAYE takes care of that.

westerly

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 11:16 AM
Tax records are private but to enlighten you on their methods this link makes interesting reading,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity especially the link to IRD research
wage earners can't avoid tax ,PAYE takes care of that.

westerly

That does not explain how to use a trust to avoid tax.

westerly
12-10-2020, 12:08 PM
That does not explain how to use a trust to avoid tax.

I would rather talk to my envious mates. They are not thick.:)

westerly

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 01:15 PM
I would rather talk to my envious mates. They are not thick.:)

westerly
You can all sit around scheming up how to 'redistribute' someone else's goodies.

artemis
12-10-2020, 02:54 PM
You can all sit around scheming up how to 'redistribute' someone else's goodies.

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell.

Comments?

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 03:04 PM
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell.

Comments?

Fairness and social justice is nothing new. For the Commonwealth, The Magna Carta in 1215 is a classic example.

Anyway was it fair profit/payment for the person's work?

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 04:05 PM
Fairness and social justice is nothing new. For the Commonwealth, The Magna Carta in 1215 is a classic example.

Anyway was it fair profit/payment for the person's work?

The willing buyer - willing seller concept will determine that.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 04:10 PM
The willing buyer - willing seller concept will determine that.....and the laws of the land. Those laws include taxes so I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law?

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 04:21 PM
....and the laws of the land. Those laws include taxes so I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law?

Just because something is law does not make it fair.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 05:12 PM
Just because something is law does not make it fair.
So a willing seller of stolen goods who found a willing buyer should be entitled to keep his “income”? Perhaps “some” laws are fair?

fungus pudding
12-10-2020, 05:32 PM
So a willing seller of stolen goods who found a willing buyer should be entitled to keep his “income”? Perhaps “some” laws are fair?

Of course some laws are fair. However your illogical statement 'I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law' is not necessarily the case.

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 05:52 PM
Of course some laws are fair. However your illogical statement 'I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law' is not necessarily the case. So every individual can have their own interpretation of what is fair?

zacman
12-10-2020, 06:44 PM
So every individual can have their own interpretation of what is fair?

But of course. We are all allowed an opinion. However, irrespective on whether or not I think a law is fair, I must still adhere to it. I may think that it is unfair that large parts of Central Auckland have a speed limit of 30km/hr, but tough, I must follow the law.

zacman

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 07:36 PM
But of course. We are all allowed an opinion. However, irrespective on whether or not I think a law is fair, I must still adhere to it. I may think that it is unfair that large parts of Central Auckland have a speed limit of 30km/hr, but tough, I must follow the law.

zacman So going back to Artemis's discussion point - what "your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for" depends on what you feel is a fair income, taking into account what you think are fair laws, fair share of local and national infrastructure, expenses, security, and fair health, social and environmental responsibilities.

A democratic society probably has a legal framework that approximately hits the "mid-point" of the spread of opinions on what is fair.

Baa_Baa
12-10-2020, 08:45 PM
So going back to Artemis's discussion point - what "your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for" depends on what you feel is a fair income, taking into account what you think are fair laws, fair share of local and national infrastructure, expenses, security, and fair health, social and environmental responsibilities.

A democratic society probably has a legal framework that approximately hits the "mid-point" of the spread of opinions on what is fair.

You think it’s unfair if one earns an high salary and fair if they don’t, so the ones who do earn high wages should support the ones who don’t? And you address this imbalance through tax.

Is that a summary of what you think?

moka
12-10-2020, 10:34 PM
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell.

Comments?It is the wrong question, or it has the wrong or too narrow a focus. Social justice includes much more than is what your fair share of what someone else has worked for. Implicit in that question is that others are not entitled to any or much of what someone else has worked for. The question is also about an individual and we are all part of society whether we are in paid work or not, with obligations and responsibilities to each other. The question is about capitalism and ignores the social aspects.

The questions we ask need to include words like social justice, social welfare, social wealth, social labour, social inequality, social media, social movements, social discontent, social security, social services, social value, society, socialism. Yes, even that much maligned and discredited word socialism. And not in the sense of either socialism or capitalism, but an acknowledgment that we have a system or society that includes the characteristics of both socialism and capitalism.

nztx
12-10-2020, 11:06 PM
You may consider Labours' proposed marginal tax of 39% above 180k is not excessive. I do think it is, and it will certainly require a bit of 'restructuring'. Think back to the shenanigans when Muldoon struck top margin at 66% (pre GST)

I remember the final part of that era well .. Excess Retention Tax, all manner of weird & wonderful Loss making Partnerships

Now we have Company Imputation Taxes passing through Company Tax credits to stakeholders

nztx
12-10-2020, 11:16 PM
Why do we need further Wealth Transferring Taxes anyway ?

Think everyone's Super & Kiwisaver funds may well also be caught by mutations of this, in the same way as failed CGT hoped
to capture it's target & kneecap everyone from all walks in process

What of initiatives to simplify Tax processes ?

Have these been thrown out with the trash due Politician's excessive spending / wasteful initiatives - in their soul digging to find a convenient target audience to inflict to try to fill the coffers for the wasted billions under their terms ?

What will this potentially do to the country's productivity / retirement planning / people's savings investing habits ?

It is no secret that there is a small bunch of high / middle earners shelling out a sizeable portion of "Net Taxes" at one end
and a vast raft at the lower end, all in the "Net Tax Refund / receiving Tax Credits spectrum throwing in top ups, W4F etc

Seeing this sort of collect from one & seeing where it gets disbursed & the vast extent of 'subsidy' to another sector never ceases to amaze year in year out, with ever increasing levels for the net tax refund / credit group

The drag on the economy at lower end of the spectrum increases every time gleeful politicians pursuing their self serving
goals elect to ramp up W4F etc etc

Should the Lower Spectrum on the receiving end not be more productive to justify the vast pool of 'Net Tax Refunds/Credits' they pocket each year ?

Bjauck
12-10-2020, 11:21 PM
You think it’s unfair if one earns an high salary and fair if they don’t, so the ones who do earn high wages should support the ones who don’t? And you address this imbalance through tax.

Is that a summary of what you think?

No. However if there is a debate about what is fair to deduct by way of tax from someone's income or other gains then there is an equally valid discussion about what constitutes fair income or gains in the first place.

For example if you think teachers are underpaid then you are more likely to think it is "unfair" to deduct as much tax from them as someone else who has the same income.

Also you may think it unfair if someone's income from their business does not fully account for the costs (for example) on the environment and for which the current government does not insist on compensation. In other words you may think it unfair that some of the true costs of an activity are socialised, whereas the exaggerated profits are privatised.

artemis
13-10-2020, 05:42 AM
A further context is '2 workers for every 1 beneficiary'. Some interesting discussion and official numbers by Lindsay Mitchell at the below link, noting that the beneficiary number includes those on super. If the impost on workers continues to rise we should not be surprised if some of those workers make economic adjustments.

As they say - time is the new money.

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2020/10/2-workers-for-every-1-beneficiary.html

Bjauck
13-10-2020, 09:48 AM
A further context is '2 workers for every 1 beneficiary'. Some interesting discussion and official numbers by Lindsay Mitchell at the below link, noting that the beneficiary number includes those on super. If the impost on workers continues to rise we should not be surprised if some of those workers make economic adjustments.

As they say - time is the new money.

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2020/10/2-workers-for-every-1-beneficiary.html

So definitely time to tax capital gains as other countries in the OECD do. If the impost on workers' incomes rises but capital gains generally remain untaxed, then the economic change taxpayers will try to do will be to structure their affairs to enable more untaxed capital gains, further burdening those who earn taxable incomes?

artemis
13-10-2020, 10:16 AM
So definitely time to tax capital gains as other countries in the OECD do. If the impost on workers' incomes rises but capital gains generally remain untaxed, then the economic change taxpayers will try to do will be to structure their affairs to enable more untaxed capital gains, further burdening those who earn taxable incomes?

It is not either / or. And appears unlikely there will be a capital gains or wealth tax for at least the next 3 years. Yet as a smaller economy and higher debt $$ need to come from either increased revenue or reduced spending or of course both.

For example -
- productivity increase - probably means increased automation, fewer jobs in those sectors.
- spend less tax / rates revenue - some stupid expenditure out there that should be examined. And canned.
- new industries supported but limited support so sink or swim.
- less regulation unless supported by rigorous benefit cost analysis and post implementation reviews with consequences if results are nothing like projections.

Bjauck
13-10-2020, 10:31 AM
It is not either / or. And appears unlikely there will be a capital gains or wealth tax for at least the next 3 years. Yet as a smaller economy and higher debt $$ need to come from either increased revenue or reduced spending or of course both.

For example -
- productivity increase - probably means increased automation, fewer jobs in those sectors.
- spend less tax / rates revenue - some stupid expenditure out there that should be examined. And canned.
- new industries supported but limited support so sink or swim.
- less regulation unless supported by rigorous benefit cost analysis and post implementation reviews with consequences if results are nothing like projections. Of course there will be no CGT as vested interests have blocked that. So it looks like investment continues to favour Real estate (see the latest REINZ figures) and not into productivity improving business investment. So NZ will have to continue to rely on immigration and not productivity improvements for any GNP growth. And increased tax revenue to pay for covid will have to be squeezed out of workers, income earners and GST...

Sir Ten
15-10-2020, 03:07 PM
Has anyone else wondered whether the only way to deal with the "housing crisis" is to wait 30 odd years? And even if that helps, Gen X'ers and Millenials are largely screwed?

- Those that own a large proportion of the houses are, let's say, 50 years or older (yep, it's an assumption, that I haven't had time to find supporting information for... yet... but if I'm onto something, I do have 30 odd years)
- In 1996, only 23% of the population were 50+. As of 2018, it was closer to 32%.
- When the boomers start pushing up daisies there should be an increased level of supply
- In the meantime, a large proportion of Gen X'ers and Millenials probably need to come to the realisation that home ownership is not going to be the norm for their generations. Their job is to stop procreating - which has been helped by slow wage growth relative to house price growth - i.e. large families (say, 5+) are unaffordable
- Therefore, in 30 years time we have less people, more houses and prices go down

I know it's very simplistic and that the government can and will tweak around the edges but, as we've seen, all governments (regardless of colour) have struggled to make much of an impact.

The variable in there that needs some attention is wage growth. And by wage growth I mean, productivity driven wage growth, not wage growth driven by government intervention (minimum wages) which just leads to price increases and inflation. At the moment, it seems like our pollies are throwing darts at the board with things like fees-free university, etc.

Hard not to feel sorry for millenials. I reckon many of them are pretty f*cked. Doesn't help that they're been encouraged to behave in ways that don't necessarily foster much self-responsibility... and did I mention robots. Robots are coming for them and their jobs too.

artemis
15-10-2020, 03:34 PM
....
I know it's very simplistic and that the government can and will tweak around the edges but, as we've seen, all governments (regardless of colour) have struggled to make much of an impact.....

There is an even simpler solution, if there is a housing crisis at all. It is ECON101 - supply and demand. Not much ordinary folk can do about demand, but certainly can do something about supply.

But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.

Realistically there are going to be some limits, but need be nowhere near as many as there are now. But if people in the supply chain can make a decent buck from building, they will. And if cheap, people will buy or rent. Might mean cookie cutter or imports in containers from China. Might mean permanent trailer parks.

Might be like an idea Rodney Hide wrote about a few months ago, a small trial subdivision where people could buy a section and build what they like with minimal or no consents or comebacks. Every buyer agrees.

People put up basic baches for generations and just got on with life. Worked well.

macduffy
15-10-2020, 03:56 PM
People put up basic baches for generations and just got on with life. Worked well.

True, but they were holiday homes. Not one's pride and joy permanent res.

;)

artemis
15-10-2020, 04:11 PM
True, but they were holiday homes. Not one's pride and joy permanent res.;)

Actually they were not all holiday homes. Some permanent, some rented. Family used to stay in one back in the day and others in the street were similarly basic but lived in. No longer allowed to be rented out even to existing long term tenants without big bucks to upgrade, followed by rent increases.

Time to time some of these little enclaves are in the media because long term residents have to leave.

Sir Ten
15-10-2020, 04:36 PM
But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.



Agree. So simple, but seemingly, so hard.

Bjauck
15-10-2020, 05:24 PM
....
- In the meantime, a large proportion of Gen X'ers and Millenials probably need to come to the realisation that home ownership is not going to be the norm for their generations. Their job is to stop procreating - which has been helped by slow wage growth relative to house price growth - i.e. large families (say, 5+) are unaffordable
- Therefore, in 30 years time we have less people, more houses and prices go down. If home ownership is not going to be the norm then it should not be treated as a special case. Net imputed rent should be taxed just like the interest from a term deposit is taxed or non-cash or fringe benefits are taxed.

Immigration not natural population increase has been a big driver in creating the demand for the limited supply. Boomers were happy to see this result in a surge in prices for their homes and rental investments often enjoying more in this untaxed capital gain than from employment or business.



I know it's very simplistic and that the government can and will tweak around the edges but, as we've seen, all governments (regardless of colour) have struggled to make much of an impact. They have been kicking the can down the road.


The variable in there that needs some attention is wage growth. And by wage growth I mean, productivity driven wage growth, not wage growth driven by government intervention (minimum wages) which just leads to price increases and inflation. At the moment, it seems like our pollies are throwing darts at the board with things like fees-free university, etc.
Productivity growth requires capital investment in business - why invest into business when you have gotten so much untaxed leveraged capital gain in real estate? Successful NZ companies have so often had to relocate their listings to Australia to access capital...

Offering meaningful change makes Parties unelectable in NZ?

Bjauck
15-10-2020, 05:27 PM
...
But first governments, central and local, need to step out of the way. Sort the RMA, sort the rural urban boundary, sort consents process and costs, stop interfering in the rental market more than with other businesses.

Realistically there are going to be some limits, but need be nowhere near as many as there are now. But if people in the supply chain can make a decent buck from building, they will. And if cheap, people will buy or rent. Might mean cookie cutter or imports in containers from China. Might mean permanent trailer parks.

Might be like an idea Rodney Hide wrote about a few months ago, a small trial subdivision where people could buy a section and build what they like with minimal or no consents or comebacks. Every buyer agrees.

People put up basic baches for generations and just got on with life. Worked well. Back to dangerous and unhealthy slum housing and landlords?

artemis
15-10-2020, 05:55 PM
Back to dangerous and unhealthy slum housing and landlords?

That's a simplistic and skewed point of view. Have you read the Healthy Homes standards?

If there is a shortage of rental housing, people will be much more likely to bunk up together. And there does seem to be a shortage atm, though perhaps mainly for those the private sector is not at all interested in offering a tenancy to.

If a rental does not meet all the current and coming soon standards landlords are in for huge fines. It does not mean the property is dangerous, or a slum. It might mean the insulation met the standard 3 years ago but no longer does. But might well mean the insulation does not get topped up, tenants get kicked out, move in with the rellies and the place goes on the market

"University of Otago public health professor Philippa Howden-Chapman said overcrowding was the single biggest housing-related cause of poor mental and physical health."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/renting/122907853/election-2020-vanilla-housing-policies-unlikely-to-ease-auckland-rental-crowding--economist

Bjauck
16-10-2020, 06:55 AM
That's a simplistic and skewed point of view. Have you read the Healthy Homes standards?

If there is a shortage of rental housing, people will be much more likely to bunk up together. And there does seem to be a shortage atm, though perhaps mainly for those the private sector is not at all interested in offering a tenancy to.

If a rental does not meet all the current and coming soon standards landlords are in for huge fines. It does not mean the property is dangerous, or a slum. It might mean the insulation met the standard 3 years ago but no longer does. But might well mean the insulation does not get topped up, tenants get kicked out, move in with the rellies and the place goes on the market

"University of Otago public health professor Philippa Howden-Chapman said overcrowding was the single biggest housing-related cause of poor mental and physical health."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/renting/122907853/election-2020-vanilla-housing-policies-unlikely-to-ease-auckland-rental-crowding--economist

Slum housing for some seemed to be the inevitable consequence of what you were suggesting. So it is just that you want standards not to improve (for rental properties) - for them to be stuck in a time warp? So we need to provide more social housing to replace the gap left by landlords who would only have provided the sub-standard rental properties.

Over-crowding is the biggest cause. Government (local and national) have failed to ensure housing supply (and other infrastructure) has been able to keep up with its immigration settings. That s the trouble when the only way (under current policies) to boost the economy is by boosting the population.

Presumably there are other causes too. All those crowded boarding houses at private schools had better watch out!

artemis
16-10-2020, 07:18 AM
Slum housing for some seemed to be the inevitable consequence of what you were suggesting. So it is just that you want standards not to improve (for rental properties) - for them to be stuck in a time warp? So we need to provide more social housing to replace the gap left by landlords who would only have provided the sub-standard rental properties. ....

Like I said above, have a read of the Healthy Homes regulations, not really for homes, just for rentals. And the long list of fines in the Residential Tenancies Act. If a landlord has to pay average $8k to meet the standards, the rent increase for a 2 bedroom townhouse in Parnell might work well. A rural 2 bedroom rural cottage not so much.

The HH standards are highly prescriptive and some very complex. Plus a range of new measures from Minister Faafoi. Yes they might improve conditions for tenants and actually good for landlords that stick around as they upgrade and raise rents so the tenants pay.

Landlords can make other decisions, because they can. 37% increase in house sales in September yoy - wonder where those come from?

Consequences.

Bjauck
16-10-2020, 07:30 AM
As we have previously discussed rentals tend to accommodate more people, so a substandard house with just one owner-occupier would be less hazardous to them than if they had four additional house-mates. However I agree, higher standards should be phased in for all NZ housing.

Anyway we are highlighting the need for whatever government comes into power to introduce housing policies to relieve the housing shortage that has accumulated over the years if not decades. Housing has not kept up with immigration.

artemis
16-10-2020, 07:33 AM
Thousands and thousands of rental vacancies advertised right now.

Bjauck
16-10-2020, 07:45 AM
Thousands and thousands of rental vacancies advertised right now. What do you think that means? Post covid restrictions boom? Landlords with too high rent expectations in a covid recession? New landlords seeking tenants?

artemis
16-10-2020, 08:30 AM
What do you think that means? Post covid restrictions boom? Landlords with too high rent expectations in a covid recession? New landlords seeking tenants?

Maybe all of the above and more. Even so, 20,000 waiting for heavily taxpayer subsidised housing can apply for them. And the taxpayer will still supply the Accommodation Supplement, TAS, bond and initial rent. Hard to keep talking about housing shortage with thousands of rental vacancies.

If landlords decide not to reduce rent they will have their reasons. And if they are forgoing income the reasons will be acceptable to them.

Bjauck
16-10-2020, 11:00 AM
Maybe all of the above and more. Even so, 20,000 waiting for heavily taxpayer subsidised housing can apply for them. And the taxpayer will still supply the Accommodation Supplement, TAS, bond and initial rent. Hard to keep talking about housing shortage with thousands of rental vacancies.
..
Covid recession and covid tourism restrictions means a change in employment opportunities. Some regions are more heavily impacted. I would say that that since lockdown restrictions were eased there would also be population movement - so perhaps there could also be quite a few tenants looking for accommodation too. A jump in available accommodation at the moment, may not necessarily mean there are not still many people who are living in overcrowded conditions.

Also with fewer foreign students, and fewer inward arrivals generally, there may be previously rented out accommodation looking for new tenants.

moka
18-10-2020, 08:11 PM
Green Party candidate Ali Hale Tilley says middle salary and wage earners carry more than their fair share of the tax burden and that if we want the country to prosper as a whole, the wealthy need to embrace paying tax instead of finding ways to hide it.
"It's the nation's mindset that needs changing," she said. "It's a privilege to pay taxes. When it gets reinvested, everybody is lifted up."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/local-focus-to-tax-or-not-to-tax-whanganui-candidates-debate-a-rebate/SY26Y3F7XN4E2XFKMRF53WWG44/

lissica
18-10-2020, 10:06 PM
Green Party candidate Ali Hale Tilley says middle salary and wage earners carry more than their fair share of the tax burden and that if we want the country to prosper as a whole, the wealthy need to embrace paying tax instead of finding ways to hide it.
"It's the nation's mindset that needs changing," she said. "It's a privilege to pay taxes. When it gets reinvested, everybody is lifted up."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/local-focus-to-tax-or-not-to-tax-whanganui-candidates-debate-a-rebate/SY26Y3F7XN4E2XFKMRF53WWG44/

Treasury states that the top 3% pay 24% of income tax. I'm paying more than my fair share.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-tax

couta1
19-10-2020, 03:29 AM
Green Party candidate Ali Hale Tilley says middle salary and wage earners carry more than their fair share of the tax burden and that if we want the country to prosper as a whole, the wealthy need to embrace paying tax instead of finding ways to hide it.
"It's the nation's mindset that needs changing," she said. "It's a privilege to pay taxes. When it gets reinvested, everybody is lifted up."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/local-focus-to-tax-or-not-to-tax-whanganui-candidates-debate-a-rebate/SY26Y3F7XN4E2XFKMRF53WWG44/ I don't give a toss what any Green Party candidate says about taxes, they are all economically inept so why should I trust them?

artemis
19-10-2020, 12:03 PM
With the increase in top tax rates will there be a shift to growth stocks away from those that pay divvies?

moka
19-10-2020, 12:04 PM
In the debate, Chloe Swarbrick from the Greens argued for the wealth tax, pointing out that wealth in property is created by taxes spent on infrastructure.
I heard from a man this week who objected to the way a wealth tax would penalise people who bought a bach in Coromandel back when the road trip took six hours, and now owned valuable property but were not rich.
But Swarbrick is right. Those baches are now worth a fortune in part because the roads, paid for by taxes, now make the journey so much quicker.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/simon-wilson-rapture-or-reform-jacinda-ardern-and-the-wealth-tax/7OKVMX7TQQU3E3U4PAG56BF4UY/

Shia Navot from Top, however, argued against the Greens' wealth tax, but not because wealth shouldn't be taxed. Top thinks there are better ways to do it.
Perhaps they're right. Greens co-leader James Shaw has said many times, if other parties don't like their proposal, he would welcome them coming up with something better.
Labour's David Parker, the trade minister, told an OECD conference this week there is a growing gap between the wealthy who can leverage their assets at very low interest rates, and the young and others without assets. "There is a problem with this status quo around the world," he said, "and we need a conversation about what the remedy might be."

moka
19-10-2020, 03:02 PM
Treasury states that the top 3% pay 24% of income tax. I'm paying more than my fair share.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-taxYou are not paying more than your fair share.
Your fair share takes into account your ability to pay, not what you pay in relation to anyone else.
A fair tax system means that the costs of contributing to tax revenues are shared in a way that takes into account the ability to pay.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Karl Marx
The phrase 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' means, that ideally, each person should contribute to society according to his or her best efforts to do so, and should nonetheless receive from society what he or she requires to survive in relative health and safety.

fungus pudding
19-10-2020, 03:36 PM
You are not paying more than your fair share.
Your fair share takes into account your ability to pay, not what you pay in relation to anyone else.
A fair tax system means that the costs of contributing to tax revenues are shared in a way that takes into account the ability to pay.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Karl Marx
The phrase 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' means, that ideally, each person should contribute to society according to his or her best efforts to do so, and should nonetheless receive from society what he or she requires to survive in relative health and safety.

A flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage on their earnings is the fairest way in my view, Big earners pay a lot - low earners pay little. Yet the socialists scream that that is unfair, because the high earners can afford more, so argue for a progressive system. And that sums up the problem in a nutshell. 'Fair' is impossible to define, making it a pointless and senseless word in relation to tax given there is no acceptable agreement.

couta1
19-10-2020, 04:12 PM
A flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage on their earnings is the fairest way in my view, Big earners pay a lot - low earners pay little. Yet the socialists scream that that is unfair, because the high earners can afford more, so argue for a progressive system. And that sums up the problem in a nutshell. 'Fair' is impossible to define, making it a pointless and senseless word in relation to tax given there is no acceptable agreement. Absolutely a flat tax is the fairest by a country mile but will never happen under a Socialist/Communist Govt, their agenda will always be to take from those that have and redistribute to those that have not, the fact that many of the have not's don't want to get ahead if it takes self effort is of no consequence.

Zaphod
19-10-2020, 04:59 PM
But Swarbrick is right. Those baches are now worth a fortune in part because the roads, paid for by taxes, now make the journey so much quicker.


That is one rabbit hole I would avoid going down. It will result in never-ending arguments.

I do recall Twyford suggesting that land owners near major transport projects would be required to fund their development as they were viewed as disproportionately benefiting from them, so perhaps we will have no choice but to address this argument in the longer term.

dibble
20-10-2020, 11:41 AM
I do recall Twyford suggesting that land owners near major transport projects would be required to fund their development as they were viewed as disproportionately benefiting from them, so perhaps we will have no choice but to address this argument in the longer term.

That should definitely apply to the nice new 6 lane motorway carved through one's back yard.

dibble
20-10-2020, 01:02 PM
Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?

artemis
20-10-2020, 01:50 PM
Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?

Some good questions there, dibble. The Labour CGT policy originally covered some assets but not others. Your de Kooning and heirloom diamond tiara were not included, nor were the family bach or small business if and only if sold under strict rules to fund retirement. Don't think those small businesses included rentals though. The last couple were tweaks based on negative feedback.

Along came the Tax Working Group with an increasing level of complexity. Finally it seeped into the voter's mind that their shares, their Kiwisaver, their farm, their lifestyle block were up for grabs. Not to mention their coffee franchise if sold. Idea dumped.

What Labour really wanted was to tax private rental housing and encourage it out of the market into 100,000 affordable homes and taxpayer subsidised social housing. When the CGT didn't work they changed tax rules for private rentals and brought in a lot of extra cost and compliance. Possibly get the desired result over time. Ms Ardern seems to think 2030 would be about right though as there is not much money in the kitty 2030 looks optimistic.

moka
20-10-2020, 05:49 PM
A flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage on their earnings is the fairest way in my view, Big earners pay a lot - low earners pay little. Yet the socialists scream that that is unfair, because the high earners can afford more, so argue for a progressive system. And that sums up the problem in a nutshell. 'Fair' is impossible to define, making it a pointless and senseless word in relation to tax given there is no acceptable agreement.I’m sure you’d quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.

artemis
21-10-2020, 04:40 AM
I’m sure you’d quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell

fungus pudding
21-10-2020, 08:17 AM
You are not paying more than your fair share.
Your fair share takes into account your ability to pay, not what you pay in relation to anyone else.
A fair tax system means that the costs of contributing to tax revenues are shared in a way that takes into account the ability to pay.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Karl Marx


'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.

Bjauck
21-10-2020, 08:50 AM
'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.

If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?

Otherwise for one person $80 is petty cash but for another it means no food for a week. The punishment would not necessarily fit the infringement?

fungus pudding
21-10-2020, 09:30 AM
If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?

Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.:D

Bjauck
21-10-2020, 11:03 AM
Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.:D I Wish that that were true...

If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.

fungus pudding
21-10-2020, 12:58 PM
I Wish that that were true...

If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.

Indeed, So they should be levied so a low earner can pay them. Obviously a high earner could fairly be taxed the same percentage on his higher income. X on y Dollars should mean 2x on 2y, but not 3x on 2y.

Bjauck
21-10-2020, 02:36 PM
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell Fairness and social justice are nothing new. They have always been with us. They have just varied in their interpretation according to time and place.

moka
21-10-2020, 08:15 PM
'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.
What Is Fairness? It depends on the situation. Ideologues believe that only their notion of fairness is correct.

1. SAMENESS: There is the fairness where everything is equal. So everyone pays the same price for a theater ticket, whether a child, an adult or a senior citizen. No one has more than another. Everyone eats or no one does, for example. Logically, then, an infant and an adolescent will receive the same amount of food. It doesn’t matter that one needs more than the other. Fairness is finding the average and applying it across the board. This is fairness as equality of outcome.

2. DESERVEDNESS: In this notion of fairness you get what you deserve. If you work hard, you succeed and keep all that you earn. Fairness means keeping what you deserve and deserving nothing if it isn’t earned. The hardest working, most diligent, smartest and most talented should have more because of their attributes; the lazy, indifferent, stupid and inept deserve to have less. Fairness is a rational calculation. This is fairness as individual freedom.

3. NEED: The third idea of fairness is that those who have more to give should give a greater percentage of what they have to help others who are unable to contribute much, if anything at all. Fairness here takes into account the facts that humans have obligations to one another and the more one has the more is demanded of that person to contribute to the common good. Fairness and responsibility are linked. Compassion plays a role in the calculation of fairness. This is fairness as social justice.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201205/its-not-fair-what-is-fairness

moka
21-10-2020, 08:45 PM
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas SowellActually it is labour that does the work to produce the goods or services, while the capitalist does not need to do any work.
Profits from capital invested don’t need to involve work, so labour should get most of the income because they do the actual work while the capitalist sits on the couch. But that is not how it works because capitalism is based on exploitation due to the imbalance of power between capital and labour.
But it is like the myth of the self-made man. Does he grow and cook his own food? He uses the resources of society like roads, electricity, buildings, knowledge, and other people, including his customers.
He is successful because he uses the “common wealth” of society which has been built up by others including previous generations.

moka
21-10-2020, 09:10 PM
I Wish that that were true...

If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.True, ability to pay must be a factor in levying taxes.

​However the main function of taxes is social investment, or public investment. And tax is the foundation of a civilised and fair society.
The more investment in society, in infrastructure, education, health and other public services the wealthier the society which is of benefit to everyone. You would think capitalists would understand how necessary investment is and therefore be willing to pay their fair share of tax, but it seems that many don’t see it that way.

couta1
21-10-2020, 09:24 PM
Why is there an estimated 20 billion dollar black economy in NZ if its fair then? Change to a flat tax rate of 20% and watch a lot of that 20 billion make its way back into the system.

moka
22-10-2020, 12:41 AM
Why is there an estimated 20 billion dollar black economy in NZ if its fair then? Change to a flat tax rate of 20% and watch a lot of that 20 billion make its way back into the system.There is a black economy because unfairness and exploitation are part and parcel of capitalism. It is normal business practice. Changing to a flat tax rate of 20% would not change the behaviour of those who operate in the black economy.

Winning and success are what matters and honesty and integrity are secondary and are surrendered in order to get what you want.

Predatory capitalism is encouraged. Predatory capitalism is where a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Predatory capitalism refers to cultural acceptance of domination and exploitation as normal economic practice.

The appropriation and accumulation of wealth occur in two different ways.
There is a vast array of extra-legal activities such as robbery, thievery, swindling, corruption, violence and coercion along with a range of suspicious and shady practices in the market (monopolisation, manipulation, market cornering, price fixing, Ponzi schemes etc.)

Secondly, individuals accumulate wealth by legally sanctioned exchanges under conditions of non-coercive trade in freely functioning markets.

The first sort of activities are typically excluded as external to the “normal” and legitimate functioning of the capitalist market. This is a misleading fiction. It is stupid to seek to understand the world of capital without looking at the drug cartels, traffickers in arms and the various mafia and other criminal forms of organisation that play such a significant role in world trade.

There is a vast array of predatory practices e.g. falsification of assets, money laundering, Ponzi finance, and interest rate manipulations revealed by the GFC and by the Australian Royal Commission into Banking. We are talking mainstream organisations here, not “criminal organisations.”

An economy based on dispossession lies at the heart of what capitalism is foundationally about. Bankers do not care in principal whether their profits and excessive bonuses come from lending money to those who exploit others.

The desire for money as a form of social power becomes an end in itself which distorts the neat demand –supply relation of the money that would be required to simply facilitate exchange.

moka
22-10-2020, 12:52 AM
Here is what Albert Einstein had to say about predatory behaviour and socialism in 1949.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)

Why Socialism?
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases.

Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations.

The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society.

It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate.

All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life.

Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

BlackPeter
22-10-2020, 11:18 AM
Treasury states that the top 3% pay 24% of income tax. I'm paying more than my fair share.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-tax

Well, but then the top 5% in NZ own 39% of all wealth. Maybe they don't pay their fair share of taxes?

BlackPeter
22-10-2020, 11:28 AM
I don't give a toss what any Green Party candidate says about taxes, they are all economically inept so why should I trust them?

Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if you consider e.g. James Shaw as economical inept, then you might be in a minority position. I had some interaction with him and consider him as highly intelligent and economically ept.

I guess what you really want to say is that you don't like what they say, but this does not mean that they are wrong and you are right.

Throwing around unproven generic statements like "they are all ... inept" is a sad reflection on the person making this statement. I know you can do better.

couta1
22-10-2020, 11:43 AM
Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if you consider e.g. James Shaw as economical inept, then you might be in a minority position. I had some interaction with him and consider him as highly intelligent and economically ept.

I guess what you really want to say is that you don't like what they say, but this does not mean that they are wrong and you are right.

Throwing around unproven generic statements like "they are all ... inept" is a sad reflection on the person making this statement. I know you can do better. Well if James Shaw had his way with the NZ economy how would it look in a few years? If the economy suffers big time because of their environmental obsession then that is inept IMO.

Bjauck
22-10-2020, 12:14 PM
Well if James Shaw had his way with the NZ economy how would it look in a few years? If the economy suffers big time because of their environmental obsession then that is inept IMO. I am not sure how any Party can avoid being concerned about the environment these days. That is unless they want humans to be part of a man-made mass extinction event. The longer things are swept under the carpet, the more we will have to become "obsessed with" the environment.

peat
22-10-2020, 12:26 PM
I had some interaction with James Shaw and consider him as highly intelligent and economically ept.


I dont believe ept is actually a word , even if inept is a word , and the best definition of the acronym EPT on the internet was 'excess profits tax' so thats what you meant right? coz it fits in well !

arekaywhy
22-10-2020, 12:36 PM
Actually it is labour that does the work to produce the goods or services, while the capitalist does not need to do any work.
Profits from capital invested don’t need to involve work, so labour should get most of the income because they do the actual work while the capitalist sits on the couch. But that is not how it works because capitalism is based on exploitation due to the imbalance of power between capital and labour.
But it is like the myth of the self-made man. Does he grow and cook his own food? He uses the resources of society like roads, electricity, buildings, knowledge, and other people, including his customers.
He is successful because he uses the “common wealth” of society which has been built up by others including previous generations.

Maybe think a bit harder before making a statement such as this

Bjauck
22-10-2020, 12:48 PM
I dont believe ept is actually a word , even if inept is a word , and the best definition of the acronym EPT on the internet was 'excess profits tax' so thats what you meant right? coz it fits in well ! True, not all backforms of words exist. Online American dictionaries may not have all defintions. However"ept" has an entry in my SOE (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) with the meaning of adroit, competent, appropriate, effective.

What do they say...a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing ;) (Edit - I mean that in relation to the online dictionaries!)

fungus pudding
22-10-2020, 12:54 PM
I dont believe ept is actually a word , even if inept is a word , and the best definition of the acronym EPT on the internet was 'excess profits tax' so thats what you meant right? coz it fits in well !

The opposite of inept is adept.

fungus pudding
22-10-2020, 12:55 PM
Maybe think a bit harder before making a statement such as this

You are asking the impossible.

arekaywhy
22-10-2020, 12:59 PM
Whilst I don't like the idea of a capital gains tax, as I just don't want any more taxes...I do think that a flat income tax and flat capital gains tax, applied to all capital gains, no exemptions, will level the playing field. This must still leave room for a minimum amount of income that is not taxed at all, so that those starting out in life can get the basics sorted for themselves, rather than relying on nanny state to look after them

Bjauck
22-10-2020, 01:00 PM
The opposite of inept is adept.
"Ept" is a perfectly valid word (see my post above) and was used appropriately by BP in conveying his meaning.

fungus pudding
22-10-2020, 01:04 PM
"Ept" is a perfectly valid word (see my post above) and was used appropriately by BP in conveying his meaning.

Precisely why I didn't say it wasn't. However it is not universally excepted. In my scrabble playing days it was not a permitted word.

Bjauck
22-10-2020, 01:07 PM
Precisely why I didn't say it wasn't. However it is not universally excepted. In my scrabble playing days it was not a permitted word. I would say that its meaning is understood even if "adept" is the preferred antonym to "inept". Who does not accept the word "ept"?

As a matter of interest Did you allow dialect words or American spellings for scrabble?

fungus pudding
22-10-2020, 01:54 PM
I would say that its meaning is understood even if "adept" is the preferred antonym to "inept". Who does not accept the word "ept"?

As a matter of interest Did you allow dialect words or American spellings for scrabble?

I have just checked the official scrabble dictionary 'scrabblewordfinder.org' , and surprisingly it's still not there. I'm not sure how 'official' the online one is - I'd never seen or used it before. I used to have the official one that listed all words that were acceptable, English or American, a compilation from all dictionaries - and I'm sure it wasn't in there - but that's going back a while. But yes, it doesn't take much to realise what is meant - so I would not argue that it is not a legitimate word; just that it is not universally accepted.

macduffy
22-10-2020, 02:31 PM
Post deleted.

Bjauck
22-10-2020, 02:38 PM
Deleted - too tangential.

BlackPeter
23-10-2020, 08:42 AM
Well if James Shaw had his way with the NZ economy how would it look in a few years? If the economy suffers big time because of their environmental obsession then that is inept IMO.

.. and if the environment (as we need it to economically survive) goes extinct due to some dinosaurs deciding that we need to continue with its destruction, what do you think would this mean to our NZ economy?

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.

One third of our economy (at the moment probably more) is dependant on agriculture. Just consider what the rapidly increasing frequency of draughts, extreme flooding and increased storm intensity will do to our economy?

Just compare the insurance premiums for your house with the premiums you payed a decade or two ago. What happened to them? They went up steeply, didn't they, and that's not for insurance companies getting rich.

Same thing (only worse) for farmers. Many find it already difficult to pay the premiums to insure their crops ... it won't take long anymore until many farmers are not able to insure their crop against adverse weather events. An increasing number of big weather disaster impacting on our agriculture will do our economy under these circumstances well, won't it?

But this is just one example ... infrastructure cost will go steeply up with climate change, new pests and diseases are coming into the country and need money to fight, the pressure from climate change refugees will go up world wide.

Maybe the Greens are the better economists after all? Always good to look at the big picture rather than focussing solely on the next quarters earnings ...

couta1
23-10-2020, 08:49 AM
.. and if the environment (as we need it to economically survive) goes extinct due to some dinosaurs deciding that we need to continue with its destruction, what do you think would this mean to our NZ economy?

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.

One third of our economy (at the moment probably more) is dependant on agriculture. Just consider what the rapidly increasing frequency of draughts, extreme flooding and increased storm intensity will do to our economy?

Just compare the insurance premiums for your house with the premiums you payed a decade or two ago. What happened to them? They went up steeply, didn't they, and that's not for insurance companies getting rich.

Same thing (only worse) for farmers. Many find it already difficult to pay the premiums to insure their crops ... it won't take long anymore until many farmers are not able to insure their crop against adverse weather events. An increasing number of big weather disaster impacting on our agriculture will do our economy under these circumstances well, won't it?

But this is just one example ... infrastructure cost will go steeply up with climate change, new pests and diseases are coming into the country and need money to fight, the pressure from climate change refugees will go up world wide.

Maybe the Greens are the better economists after all? Always good to look at the big picture rather than focussing solely on the next quarters earnings ... Climate change hasn't just arrived its been going around in a cycle since Adam and NZ can't make any meaningful difference toward controlling it, so why ruin the economy because of it.

blackcap
23-10-2020, 09:07 AM
..

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.





Not according to this environmentalist:

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

artemis
23-10-2020, 09:55 AM
'AGW' turned into 'climate change' for a reason.

arekaywhy
23-10-2020, 10:33 AM
'AGW' turned into 'climate change' for a reason.


heh, yeah, I predict they'll change it soon to "climate general inconvenience"...now pay me more taxes!

Bjauck
24-10-2020, 05:07 AM
17 year old & 14yo buy a ChCh investment property using money they inherited. They plan to hold then sell for the capital gains. They already know the how the best tax free money is made in Aotearoa. Labour is keeping this intact. Labour may have their work cut out encouraging post covid investment in business and employment preservation.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/123136971/christchurch-firsthome-buyers-face-massive-interest-and-rising-prices

fungus pudding
24-10-2020, 07:16 AM
17 year old & 14yo buy a ChCh investment property using money they inherited. They plan to hold then sell for the capital gains. They already know the how the best tax free money is made in Aotearoa. Labour is keeping this intact. Labour may have their work cut out encouraging post covid investment in business and employment preservation.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/123136971/christchurch-firsthome-buyers-face-massive-interest-and-rising-prices

I presume you read that article. Those young buyers will be taxed on that capital gain. Their admitted intention is to profit from selling, and you can bet your bottom dollar the IRD will have noted that purchase.
You may remember some years ago a purchaser made a similar statement on a TV program. I can't remember the details, but I can remember the screams of protest when he discovered he had revealed his intention was to profit from selling and that the IRD, after viewing the program, had stated he would be taxed.

Bjauck
24-10-2020, 08:56 AM
I presume you read that article. Those young buyers will be taxed on that capital gain. Their admitted intention is to profit from selling, and you can bet your bottom dollar the IRD will have noted that purchase.
You may remember some years ago a purchaser made a similar statement on a TV program. I can't remember the details, but I can remember the screams of protest when he discovered he had revealed his intention was to profit from selling and that the IRD, after viewing the program, had stated he would be taxed.

They said they may live in their investment. Will their expressed intent to sell (for the capital gain) result in any gain being taxable, whether they live in the property as owner-occupiers or not? If this is their first property, would that make a difference?

If someone states when buying a house, which they occupy or leave empty in case they occupy it in the future , that they are buying it to live in and also with the subsidiary intention of selling it for the capital gain, is the capital gain on sale taxable as it was an intent when the house was purchased? Would the capital gain only be taxable if it were decided that the main intention of the owner-occupier was to sell for a capital gain?

fungus pudding
24-10-2020, 10:44 AM
They said they may live in their investment. Will their expressed intent to sell (for the capital gain) result in any gain being taxable, whether they live in the property as owner-occupiers or not? If this is their first property, would that make a difference?

If someone states when buying a house, which they occupy or leave empty in case they occupy it in the future , that they are buying it to live in and also with the subsidiary intention of selling it for the capital gain, is the capital gain on sale taxable as it was an intent when the house was purchased? Would the capital gain only be taxable if it were decided that the main intention of the owner-occupier was to sell for a capital gain?

The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.

moka
24-10-2020, 11:09 PM
Maybe think a bit harder before making a statement such as this

The statement I made that I have been thinking about is below.


Actually it is labour that does the work to produce the goods or services, while the capitalist does not need to do any work.
Profits from capital invested don’t need to involve work, so labour should get most of the income because they do the actual work while the capitalist sits on the couch. But that is not how it works because capitalism is based on exploitation due to the imbalance of power between capital and labour.
But it is like the myth of the self-made man. Does he grow and cook his own food? He uses the resources of society like roads, electricity, buildings, knowledge, and other people, including his customers.
He is successful because he uses the “common wealth” of society which has been built up by others including previous generations.
I did a bit more research and other thinking people agree with me.
Good graph in the article showing worker’s incomes have flat-lined for half a century but their productivity, which is roughly the profit that they earn for capitalists, has skyrocketed since 1974.

https://eand.co/how-capitalism-taught-americans-to-love-exploitation-5db12d3a6e93
So exploitation is so routine, so normal in America that it’s an everyday, commonplace affair — which people are quite invisible to.
And that is because capitalism’s foundational belief, which it has been long taught, maybe even indoctrinated, into Americans, is that if we each exploit everyone that we can, beginning with ourselves, as ruthlessly and mercilessly as possible, then everyone will be better off, not just the capitalists. (Because the strong will survive — and even the weak will benefit, by becoming a little more selfish, tough, independent, and less of a burden upon the strong.)

The person at the bottom has contributed in a very real, and very significant way, to the billions that Bezos has amassed.

Predatory capitalism made “work” largely the execution and perfection of exploitation. Instead of labour being the expression of the human possibility (like, say, discovering antibiotics, building a healthcare system, making it affordable to get an education), it became the predation upon human vulnerability (like, say, fine-tuning the algorithm for maximum revenue, with horrific clickbait videos, looting pension funds, overcharging students for debt, hiking up drug prices thousands of percent, and so on.)

GTM 3442
25-10-2020, 12:29 AM
The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.

I suspect that they prefer mind readers to test cases. There is an awful lot of case law around intent which is simply missing.

artemis
25-10-2020, 06:03 AM
The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.

A couple of excited kids interviewed by media would I hope be an extenuating factor in any IRD decision. If that turns out not to be taken into account I predict a backlash against the rather grey IRD rules.

Bjauck
25-10-2020, 01:37 PM
A couple of excited kids interviewed by media would I hope be an extenuating factor in any IRD decision. If that turns out not to be taken into account I predict a backlash against the rather grey IRD rules. At age of 17 and younger can a minor actually own the house? Presumably there is an adult or trustee behind them to take legal ownership? So in this case "the owner's" intent may be different from that of the minors/beneficiaries?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/parents-buying-property-for-children/IUIF32TCVGS2UM7W6X6QJIGDYY/

I imagine in a housing market with rising prices, that there may be many owner-occupiers buying a primary residence to live in, with another intent to sell the house at a higher price on their way "up the property ladder." With such a high priced property market, many first home buyers must buy intending to sell to trade their way "up" from a small apartment to a family sized house in a safe neighbourhood, taking advantage of boost to deposits from leveraging and extra income from any career promotion?

Bjauck
25-10-2020, 07:05 PM
...
I did a bit more research and other thinking people agree with me.
Good graph in the article showing worker’s incomes have flat-lined for half a century but their productivity, which is roughly the profit that they earn for capitalists, has skyrocketed since 1974.... I guess the first capitalist was the ace hunter gatherer caveman who was rewarded with the best and biggest portion of the day's kill. He did not want it, so he traded it for an extra spear.

Eventually he had a cave full of spears. By then, he was old and couldn't hunt. If the others used his amassed spears then it would mean hunters could hunt instead of making spears instead. The band of humans would be more productive. If they decided not to simply steal the spears from the old alpha hunter, how much would this extra productivity be worth and should they still give hum the choicest cut of mammoth or sabre-tooth?

On the other hand, the retired alpha hunter is a wily old codger. His old wife came from a different band of humans. Their lands are now impoverished and they are facing hunger. Their young men would be willing to hunt the land of the Alpha hunter's band and give him meat plus half the antlers and ivory.

So capital, saving and specialisation make labour more productive. How much they are relatively worth is the question

moka
25-10-2020, 11:47 PM
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-10-2020/jacinda-ardern-and-transforming-the-would-be-transformer/
Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 06:07 AM
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-10-2020/jacinda-ardern-and-transforming-the-would-be-transformer/
Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.

Profits from capital gain are different from income from capital gain. Income from capital gain is and always has been taxed. I don't expect you to know the difference.

SBQ
26-10-2020, 08:30 PM
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-10-2020/jacinda-ardern-and-transforming-the-would-be-transformer/
Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.

Don't forget all that fancy $ that went into paying the Working Tax Group, for which their recommendation WAS for NZ to have some form of CGT, particularly on real estate (where the top 1% have locked in their wealth). Then the following week Ms Ardern made that statement on TV - "No CGT for as long as she is politics".

I met with my new bank manager earlier in the week and I expressed the same issue. Why is it only wealthy have done so well in real estate while the middle class struggle in their Kiwi Saver? The 5 year stand down 'bright line test' is a joke and again it shows Ms Ardern not being serious about a 'fair tax policy' for NZ.