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.
Printable View
The statement I made that I have been thinking about is below.
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-taugh...n-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.)
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/...M7W6X6QJIGDYY/
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?
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
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20...e-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.
Windfall tax anyone?
"NZME is now in the process of returning $15m in cash to shareholders through share buy-backs and special dividends. It is not the only one. Fletcher Building received $68m in wage subsidy cash during 2020 and has refused to repay it, despite an increasingly robust profit and balance sheet. It paid $140m of cash dividends to shareholders in April this year after reporting solid profit growth and a strong outlook because of a boom in house building and building materials sales. NZME and Fletcher Building are just two among many large and small New Zealand companies that have refused to repay the cash, despite reporting profit growth and higher cash reserves."
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-po...y+26+July+2022