sharetrader
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 123
  1. #16
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    They want to make you pay an annual tax on the value if your house and assetts so they can give it to someone else. That's extreme socialism.
    Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

    TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

    Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

    Socialism:
    noun


  2. #17
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

    TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

    Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

    Socialism:
    noun

    I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP. I guess communism is the worst insult he could find even if it isn't correct.

    In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. My understanding TOP is wanting to try and make society fairer/better(there is no perfect solution though) for as many people as possible whereas ACT's policies would tend to disproportionately benefit a smaller portion of society. David Seymour probably still believes in the trickle down theory for a better society.
    To be honest a retired person living in a multi million dollar beach front mansion without any other investments would get right royally screwed by the equity tax so should never vote TOP out of self interest. And although these people would be worse off under a TOP govt I don't think they are the ones genuinely struggling to get by. It might even get some people thinking about investing in something other than just the most expensive house they can afford.
    Last edited by Aaron; 25-08-2017 at 11:22 AM.

  3. #18
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP.
    For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.

  4. #19
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    I think if we were totally honest we would admit that we buy rentals on the expectation the capital value will increase even if our intent is to invest to derive a weekly income.

    Same with shares in a start up that isnt making a profit.

    So the capitalist tax avoider in me says no to cspital gains tax.

    But the equitable payment of tax on all gain says CGT may make some sense

    There will of course be unintended consequences - like rent rising to cover future tax bill or maitenance deferred to accrue for liability.

  5. #20
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.
    People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type. If an asset tax was associated with the individual assets, I am not sure if they could be avoided as easily as incomes accruing to individuals.

    I think you are right about an asset tax being unpopular...there are still a great number of Owner occupiers who would shudder at the though of their investments in their homes being subject to an asset tax (in addition to rates?) However just because it would be popular, does not make it any more socialist than other revenue raising measures...

    Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively.

  6. #21
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    ...
    In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. ....
    An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like! I do think that TOPs tax reform would lead to more investment in commercial (as opposed to investment in high priced land) profitable businesses. I would envisage a boost to the NZ stock market and fewer nz businesses ending up being owned by foreign concerns. So in that respect, TOP could boost NZ capitalism.

  7. #22
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.
    Come on don't be modest FP. You sure your not rich? I can't argue with you on that as I don't have a definition for rich in NZ. I used to be concerned about the top ten percent owning all the wealth until I realised just being born in NZ might put me in the top ten percent globally. I didn't see it as a big problem after that.
    An equity tax would not be popular. I can agree with you on that. I have yet to see a popular tax of any description. A disincentive??. What do you mean by that? A disincentive to invest and grow your wealth? I am not sure about that. Would you prefer to be homeless rather than paying an equity tax? Personally I wouldn't. We have an income tax and last time I looked most people were still working. The income tax is not popular, at all but people still work. An equity tax would help to spread the load more evenly maybe. The example that gets trotted out is someone living in a million dollar house pays no tax on the rental benefit but a person with a million dollar term deposit pays tax on the interest benefit. Even worse the guy working his guts out day to day to get ahead pays income tax on his hard earned income while the guy who has a large portfolio of appreciating assets only pays tax on the income they produce not the capital gain. He may not even work very hard for the capital gain. An economic system that requires 2% inflation every year pretty much guarantees his success.

    And to quote Bjauck
    "Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively."

    Talking of communism Prosser's statement regarding power companies sounds a lot more like communism to me.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type.
    Kerry Packer summed it up:
    "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

    A reasonable fair taxation system usually means that the incentives for evasion are deterred by the likelihood of enforcement and penalty and that the incentives for avoidance are not usually cost-effective enough to bother. Many countries that have reduced high marginal tax rates for income often collect more tax revenues when they have reduced rates and increased enforcement/penalties as the reward for evasion is lowered and the deterrence factor raised.

    In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.

    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.

  9. #24
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rep View Post
    ....
    In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.....
    The net benefit derived from investing one's capital in one's home is currently tax free whereas if that capital had been invested in a business instead, all the profits/net benefits derived therefrom would be taxed. So the incentive is there to build up the nest egg by way of an expensive home rather than by way of a prifitable business or portfolio of financial investments. The stats for NZ household wealth bear that out.

    If there is to be a change to the tax system. I would suggest that the change be gradually phased in, so that the pensioners who have relied on the current tax system are not unduly affected. For example, if a single pensioner without much other income is living alone in a multi-million dollar house, then the asset tax (to the extent it would exceed the income tax payable) should be allowed to accrue as a charge on the property.

    With an asset tax, eventually I would anticipate that residential property values (and other assets currently producing little taxable income) would settle at more affordable and realistic prices than as currently under the current tax system.

    Middle NZ may find that their kids would be able to afford to buy their own homes and move out of home.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 25-08-2017 at 01:46 PM.

  10. #25
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    The net benefit derived from investing one's capital in one's home is currently tax free whereas if that capital had been invested in a business instead, all the profits/net benefits derived therefrom would be taxed.
    Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
    If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

    If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

    If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
    If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

    I fail to see the difference?
    Last edited by blackcap; 25-08-2017 at 02:18 PM.

  11. #26
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rep View Post
    Kerry Packer summed it up:
    "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

    A reasonable fair taxation system usually means that the incentives for evasion are deterred by the likelihood of enforcement and penalty and that the incentives for avoidance are not usually cost-effective enough to bother. Many countries that have reduced high marginal tax rates for income often collect more tax revenues when they have reduced rates and increased enforcement/penalties as the reward for evasion is lowered and the deterrence factor raised.

    In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.

    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.
    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.

  12. #27
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like!
    Trying to marry Act's policies with Top's, would be like trying to mate a mosquito with a phone book.

  13. #28
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) in a for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
    If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

    If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

    If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
    If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

    I fail to see the difference?
    The discussion had been on owner-occupied housing (one's own home.) So it will never pay you a taxable rent as you live in it without having to pay tax on the value to you of being able to do that (i.e. the dividend from the equity in owner-occupied housing is always tax free). Despite being unprofitable, experience has shown that owner-occupied residential housing increases in capital value! If you rent out a room in your home, then that is a different matter.

    With shares in listed companies - you can get those that do not pay dividends yet do go up in value. Many are companies in their growth phase with hopes of becoming profitable in the future. Also some have investments in land...
    However it is difficult to get banks to lend you money to invest in shares - so your chance of leveraging as many capital profits as with land or houses is more limited.

    If a business has no prospect of being able to afford to pay its participants/employees an income or turning a profit, is it in fact a business? Whereas owner-occupied housing will under the present system never be profitable or tax-paying except in so far as it pays rates (which in effect is payment for services rendered anyway.)

  14. #29
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
    If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

    If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

    If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
    If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

    I fail to see the difference?
    Because there is no difference.

  15. #30
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    The discussion had been on owner-occupied housing (one's own home.) So it will never pay you a taxable rent as you live in it without having to pay tax on the value to you of being able to do that (i.e. the dividend from the equity in owner-occupied housing is always tax free). Despite being unprofitable, experience has shown that owner-occupied residential housing increases in capital value! If you rent out a room in your home, then that is a different matter.

    With shares in listed companies - you can get those that do not pay dividends yet do go up in value. Many are companies in their growth phase with hopes of becoming profitable in the future. Also some have investments in land...
    However it is difficult to get banks to lend you money to invest in shares - .
    Most banks couldn't care less what you want to do with money you borrow. They are only concerned with the security you offer.
    And do residential homes increase in value? No. It's an illusion. Buildings depreciate, and money depreciates.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •