However If you bend over backwards to try to appeal to the globalised rich business people, who are prepared to travel from country to country, you may well end up with a backlash from the general population - and Brexit and Trump situations.
Printable View
However If you bend over backwards to try to appeal to the globalised rich business people, who are prepared to travel from country to country, you may well end up with a backlash from the general population - and Brexit and Trump situations.
There are far fewer eateries and restaurants in downtown Chch today than pre-earthquake era. Far fewer businesses in the downtown core too = less workers = less meal plates and coffees to dish out.
I know this may be a bit off topic but what is exactly the cause of Brexit? From what I recall it's the mass invasion of migrants destabilizing the general population? Perhaps UK wanted to avoid the issues that Greece, Spain, & Italy experienced? In Trump's case, as Munger mentioned you have pro-democrat states in the US that have failed by turning their backs against wealthy businesses that create jobs. I mean you don't need a lot of common sense to see who generates the employment? or perhaps would the economy (and country) be in a more healthy state if the only jobs available was from the gov't?Quote:
However If you bend over backwards to try to appeal to the globalised rich business people, who are prepared to travel from country to country, you may well end up with a backlash from the general population - and Brexit and Trump situations.
‘Mass invasion?”....’destabilisation” only if you believe the screaming tabloid headlines. Lots of causes and there are separate threads for those topics. Briefly many of the poorer people and communities who had been promised ‘Trickle down’” benefits from giving tax breaks to the wealthy, were left further behind by government policies. Many consequently were encouraged by populist politicians who urged the disaffected to vote for them with beguiling slogans such as “make America great again” and “bring back control”.
First homes in Auckland only for wealthy buyers or from wealthy families who can contribute toward deposits?
Would exempting the family home from a CGT amount to a tax break for the wealthier?
Why not boost income tax thresholds, KiwiSaver tax breaks or introduce a tax break for those who earn up to a certain level of fixed interest?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12205655
Fixed interest, as a class of income, does tend to be the investment income that is earned by a broader cross-section of people.
However I do agree with you that all investment income and capital gains should be treated the same. If the family home is exempt from a CGT (and income tax as currently) then why shouldn’t there be tax free thresholds for business and investment income and capital gains - especially for those who do not want to own their own home.
For those who do not own (or cannot own) a family home, then they should have an exemption for their investments (up to a certain threshold?) For those that have a low value family home, then they should be given a CGT and Income tax allowance for other investments. Family home exemption (without a value limit) from a CGT could lead to a mansion effect in NZ.
Perhaps one way to replace the family home exemption from a CGT would be to give all adult taxpayers an annual CGT exemption allowance equivalent to say 5% of the average house price at the start of the year. This could accumulate if unused in a particular year. The exemption could then off-set taxable realised capital gains whether they be from the family home, investment real estate or other investments.
Winston has now told farmers that they should be exempted as CGT is only to stop short term speculation. This is getting better by the day !!
Might be time to sell the shares and buy the second family home.