Originally Posted by
SBQ
You're missing the MAJOR distinction between taxing of necessities vs taxing of large size wealth. After all, pretty much EVERY OECD nation treats CGT differently to income tax rates. Why? Show me a country that applies CGT exemption limits each year? How would that be particularly useful to the person that owns no assets? Therefore, I don't see your argument that the principal resident should not be exempt as it would be the single source of asset a person can hold, and more importantly, not having to worry about selling for a capital LOSS (consider those that move from place to place every 5 or 10 years?) and then pay another round of CGT when the market rebounds.
I also do not buy into the argument about those choosing NOT to buy a house and instead, invest their savings elsewhere (ie managed funds). The fact is simple, those that can't afford to buy a house simply do NOT have the $ to save ; what % of those on minimum wage actually contribute to Kiwi Saver? Very few because that 3% they lose off their total annual income would be better spent in putting food on the table. The approach of CGT by other wealthy nations is aimed none other than the wealthy ; the NZ top 5% of the population that has parked their $ in real estate, banking it without having to worry about paying tax on the gain.