ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

TOP policy offers no exemption from the tax for a private dwelling. Morgan is emphatic about that. Regardless of pros and cons, that makes it dead in the water as far as ever getting it accepted by voters.

---

Your right fairness and equity do not top self interest. How else has National stayed in power so long if it weren't for the universal pension bribe and finding capital gains taxes too difficult to comprehend let alone discuss.

Our GST is one of the most pure in the world. I don't think I have come across another consumption tax that didn't have exemptions for basic foodstuffs. That got past the voters though. Maybe NZers aren't that bright or perhaps they don't care if it is a regressive tax as it only hurts the poor and the poor don't vote or don't appreciate they are getting a raw deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

TOP policy offers no exemption from the tax for a private dwelling. Morgan is emphatic about that. Regardless of pros and cons, that makes it dead in the water as far as ever getting it accepted by voters.

---

That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."

It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time - if you'd asked people 30 years ago when they scrapped the Auckland Harbour Bridge Tolls that they would be tolled for using the motorway or entering the main city, you'd have been laughed as much as the Takapuna City Mayoral candidate who said his main objective was to have barriers, bells and signals at every level crossing in the city (he was from out of town and seemed unaware that there is no rail on the North Shore).

In any case, if you slowly boil the frog then progressively you might get there but it's too big a leap right now for the electorate and I'm sceptical it will actually make any difference to the housing market in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rep

That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."

It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time..

---

Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances. Not in NZ however, so kiwis stuff as much as money and credit as possible into the expensive family home. Hardly any money is left over for investing into shares, which has helped to result in a small share market and so many of our successful companies being owned by foreigners.

Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardt

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

---

We should remember are both essentially left to centrist parties. Both want to tax as much as the can. Both want everyone to be beneficiaries. Neither are business friendly. Both dreaming if harming NZérs will change the climate. Both feeding a sense of entitlement, You need to look at the other parties for clear alternatives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances.

---

Which countries, and what type of investments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

Which countries, and what type of investments?

---

The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

---

Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.

https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.a...ed-retirement/

I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.

https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.a...ed-retirement/

I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.

---

The Australians also have an interesting way of dealing with Health costs with high income earners getting a rebate for private insurance premiums and an extra levy if they don't take out private insurance, if I understand their scheme correctly.

And in the UK and Australia real estate and some other property transactions often have stamp duties. However, true, there are various caveats put on the financial investment schemes. However the incentives to invest in financial investments, half-hearted though they may be, are more attractive than what NZ has in place for either retirement or non-retirement savings. Hence the continuing overwhelming appeal in NZ to use the tax-preferred owner-occupied housing as a means of investment as well as the provision of home and shelter.

At least the NZ imputation scheme was introduced to resolve the double taxation issues from NZ dividend payments. A next step will be to eliminate the taxation on the inflation component of a fixed interest investment's return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

The Australians also have an interesting way of dealing with Health costs with high income earners getting a rebate for private insurance premiums and an extra levy if they don't take out private insurance, if I understand their scheme correctly.

And in the UK and Australia real estate and some other property transactions often have stamp duties. However, true, there are various caveats put on the financial investment schemes. However the incentives to invest in financial investments, half-hearted though they may be, are more attractive than what NZ has in place for either retirement or non-retirement savings. Hence the continuing overwhelming appeal in NZ to use the tax-preferred owner-occupied housing as a means of investment as well as the provision of home and shelter.

At least the NZ imputation scheme was introduced to resolve the double taxation issues from NZ dividend payments. A next step will be to eliminate the taxation on the inflation component of a fixed interest investment's return.

---

What is the inflation component of a fixed interest investment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardt

Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

---

It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

What is the inflation component of a fixed interest investment?

---

If your td earns 3% gross pa or 2% after tax, and the increase in CPI is 2% pa, the effective inflation adjusted net yield on your term deposit is zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardt

S....

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

---

I think the most "productive capitalism" friendly parties are TOP (for its suggested reforms to try and shift investment away from inflating the price of land) and ACT in that order.

You are dreaming if you think ACT will ever get another MP - one is already too many and thats a gift from the Tories anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tim23

You are dreaming if you think ACT will ever get another MP - one is already too many and thats a gift from the Tories anyway.

---

Paying teachers based on performance rather than collective lowest common denominator seems like a good idea to me