National - FFS!

[Joshuatree]

Let's stay selfish and greedy and find a way to take it with you,ehhlol,paid too much you mean,poor wee thing,pay your accountant more ehh😉

[Joshuatree]

You haven't even read the Greens wealth tax 😉 idea,most houses will be exempt

[SBQ]

You haven't even read the Greens wealth tax  idea,most houses will be exempt

You mean NZ gov't can't fix the problem that houses on most part, get sold 100% tax free? So rather than addressing the tax discrepancy between share ownership through Kiwi Saver vs mortgage ownership through buying houses, it's been well talked about that the latter is a far better investment. No no.. can't address this problem so instead, let's lump on another type of tax?

I'm trying to bring meaningful discussion here. Not the bullying response from Joshuatree.

[fungus pudding]

You mean NZ gov't can't fix the problem that houses on most part, get sold 100% tax free? So rather than addressing the tax discrepancy between share ownership through Kiwi Saver vs mortgage ownership through buying houses, it's been well talked about that the latter is a far better investment. No no.. can't address this problem so instead, let's lump on another type of tax?

I'm trying to bring meaningful discussion here. Not the bullying response from Joshuatree.

There is not much difference between shares and real estate as far as tax goes. Traders are taxed - investors are not. The only real difference is the bright line test that means that income tax applies to any profit on residential real estate held for less than 5 years regardless of vendors' status. Excludes own home.

P.S. Should have emphasised - traders are taxed on profit generated on sale investors are not. Both are taxed on income.

[artemis]

There is not much difference between shares and real estate as far as tax goes. Traders are taxed - investors are not. The only real difference is the bright line test that means that income tax applies to any profit on residential real estate held for less than 5 years regardless of vendors' status. Excludes own home.

Yes, and traders and investors both pay tax on income.

There is a further difference with residential rentals - ringfencing of rental losses. Might not sound like a biggie but info from IRD is that in 2017 tax year 116,000 rental owners reported a rental loss averaging about $7,000. Anyone think landlords will shrug and accept without looking to reduce their exposure one way or another?

[iceman]

In the NZ investment arena, i'm a bit disappointed in Jacinda not following through with her CGT. It was quite clear she needed a coalition to get her PM position but she led everyone on, wasted $ on working groups this and that. A very serious problem in investments when the wealthy whom invested in real estate are earning far more (after tax if any?) than the working class person that is in Kiwi Saver (for on most part, those managed funds invest overseas which fall under FIF and have a different set of tax requirement).

I am also aware of National Party's fall out and lack of confidence within the party. But that does not mean they can't lead. All parties start from somewhere and have good and bad times.

I'm also curious on how Green Party's 'wealth tax' will be handled. Does that mean people will need to disclose all their assets of significant values? (not speaking real estate as that's easily tracked) but how about overseas investments? How about art paintings or valuables such as classic cars? This is very concerning and I have a term deposit that is about to mature end of this month - my sense tells me, don't keep it in the country.

I think you're right SBQ that when this wealth tax will be brought in and if people feel it is unfair, many will duse any legal means possible to avoid paying the tax. That is normal and and perfectly logical. However, with the increased regulation around the World in recent years to try to hinder funding of terrorism and money laundering, it has become very difficult to set up accounts and even buy shares/property in most countries without a huge amount of disclosure. So I am not sure most people could easily and realistically just move assets overseas, unless they already have set ups in place to do so.

Hopefully any CGT or wealth tax will be implemented fairly so people are not too adverse to paying it, for the betterment of NZ. That would also require Government to show responsibility and restraint with Government finances, something we are unlikely to see from the 2 biggest proponents of these taxes.

[fungus pudding]

Hopefully any CGT or wealth tax will be implemented fairly so people are not too adverse to paying it, for the betterment of NZ. That would also require Government to show responsibility and restraint with Government finances, something we are unlikely to see from the 2 biggest proponents of these taxes.

'Fairly' by whose definition? Can you imagine the Kermits ever agreeing with anyone else on what is 'fair'!

[Blue Skies]

Wealth tax sounds ok in theory but countries which have tried it, found it didn't work in practice, and it just pisses people off with the govt.
e.g. in 1990 12 countries in Europe tried a form of wealth tax, today only 3 still have it.
The Greens wealth tax would not just capture the super rich but also many in the middle socio economic group and with many people asset rich but income poor, the deferred payment of the tax would result in little extra tax revenue (& redistribution) for the govt for many years, so whats the point?
The cost of collecting a wealth tax for the govt, with all the disputes would consume a large chunk of it anyway.


https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...pe-kill-theirs

[BlackPeter]

Wealth tax sounds ok in theory but countries which have tried it, found it didn't work in practice, and it just pisses people off with the govt.
e.g. in 1990 12 countries in Europe tried a form of wealth tax, today only 3 still have it.
The Greens wealth tax would not just capture the super rich but also many in the middle socio economic group and with many people asset rich but income poor, the deferred payment of the tax would result in little extra tax revenue (& redistribution) for the govt for many years, so whats the point?
The cost of collecting a wealth tax for the govt, with all the disputes would consume a large chunk of it anyway.


https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...pe-kill-theirs

I agree - both CGT and wealth tax will be unpopular with the "haves", are likely to be inefficient to collect and will result not just in an explosion of our tax bureaucracy but as well of fat tax lawyers. Pretty disgusting picture the latter, I obviously meant an explosion of the numbers of fat tax lawyers.

Not sure I see the Green proposal as the best thing since sliced bread, but I do commend them that they are the only party which has identified the problem and proposed a solution. We inevitably need a broadening of our tax base as well as a rebalancing of our tax load. It is absolutely disgraceful that fat cats like e.g. Trump in the US do not pay taxes at all. I am sure we have plenty of tax avoiding mini trumps in NZ as well.

Inequality is killing our democratic institutions ... and somebody will need to pay for the rising costs of climate crisis, an explosion of our health and super costs due to the grey tsunami. Why not taxing the rich people who found so far the most creative ways to avoid taxation in any shape and form?

Instead of beating up the Greens proposal ... what would you think is a better way to pay for the looming costs of the grey tsunami retiring coupled with the increasing cost of climate change as well as reducing (or at least mitigating) inequality?

[artemis]

..... Instead of beating up the Greens proposal ... what would you think is a better way to pay for the looming costs of the grey tsunami retiring coupled with the increasing cost of climate change as well as reducing (or at least mitigating) inequality?

The baby boom bubble is making its way through the demographics and there have been official projections in the recent past that the country will continue to afford universal super even at current eligibility age. Though a gradual increase in the age is not a bad idea.

Climate change- settled science? Quite a lot of scientists think not. Meantime some careful digging under the ground and under the sea would create jobs and revenue.

Inequality. I would prefer to see effort and funding going into equality of opportunity rather equality of outcome. Teach a person to fish, and all that.