sharetrader
Page 69 of 697 FirstFirst ... 195965666768697071727379119169569 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 6963
  1. #681
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    This "land value capture" tax that Cullen and Twyford are talking about seems like a CGT in disguise on residential property including ones home !!
    Ironic that the idea comes originally from the Productivity Commission.
    National created the Commision as part of it's agreement for support from that party consigned to history at the last election, apart from one odd character hanging in there thanks again to National.

    westerly

  2. #682
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    This "land value capture" tax that Cullen and Twyford are talking about seems like a CGT in disguise on residential property including ones home !!
    I think its worse. While I sort of can appreciate the principle of the idea (of taxing value added to ones property through public actions) - I can't see how this can be levied on a fair and equitable basis.

    So - if the government funds a road which happens to better connect my property with the next town, than my property value might rise. Labour proposed to tax this increase.

    However - if this connection passes close to my property, the noise and pollution might reduce my property value. Would I get in this case a tax refund?

    As well - if I don't sell my property - would I still need to pay the value capture tax? If yes - where would I take the money from? Would I need to sell my property to be able to pay Labour's tax?

    If I only have to pay the tax when selling - how do they manage the process of tax assessment and collection? I might keep my "value added" property for a long time. What about inheritance - would this trigger a tax event forcing children to sell the family property because they can't afford to pay the value added tax?

    What if I appreciate the remoteness of our place and don't want all the city dwellers to interfere with our life? Who would compensate us for the loss of tranquility?

    As usual with Labour's proposals - lots of hot air and little thinking ...
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  3. #683
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Sir Michael is flying a few kites. That's what politicians do. I'm sure it helps the TWG to have people like BlackPeter raise questions that might not have penetrated the ivory towers. Then they can consider and ignore, but pop them in a footnote somewhere to show they have consulted.

  4. #684
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    It is a given that the TWG will recommend options that clip the ticket of rich pricks, which would have to include a vast swathe of middle income earners with property or other investments. Otherwise it would not bring in enough revenue to justify a major shift in policy and administration, including the massive expenditure in IRD's new IT systems which will be in place by the next election.

    National have experience in running the country's finances and hopefuly will come up with a plan based on reducing goverment bloat rather than robbing the taxpayer. The social investment approach was heading in that direction, seems to be overtaken by spreading cash around based on feelz.

  5. #685
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    So, would rental properties need to be exempt from a wealth tax to avoid the tax being passed on to renters in the form of a higher rent?

  6. #686
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,227

    Default

    A wealth tax will never happen. It would mean declaring your assets every year at their exact value and paying tax on it. The great masses would not be able to accurately do this. What value would you put on your house? qv can't be relied upon. It would be a can of worms checking the accuracy.

    The amount of wealth that would leave the country would be huge. A lot of people could live offshore with the amount of tax they would not have to pay.

  7. #687
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macduffy View Post
    So, would rental properties need to be exempt from a wealth tax to avoid the tax being passed on to renters in the form of a higher rent?
    I assume you jest.

    Come in Marama Davidson, your time starts now. Since she said on The Nation last week that renter rights and rent controls are her top priority. The current government might not need too much persuading and the Green votes will be top of mind in 2020 for tax reform if NZFirst remains below 5%.

    So a wealth tax of some sort on the one hand and rent controls and reverse mortgages on the other.

  8. #688
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    I think its worse. While I sort of can appreciate the principle of the idea (of taxing value added to ones property through public actions) - I can't see how this can be levied on a fair and equitable basis.

    So - if the government funds a road which happens to better connect my property with the next town, than my property value might rise. Labour proposed to tax this increase.

    However - if this connection passes close to my property, the noise and pollution might reduce my property value. Would I get in this case a tax refund?

    As well - if I don't sell my property - would I still need to pay the value capture tax? If yes - where would I take the money from? Would I need to sell my property to be able to pay Labour's tax?

    If I only have to pay the tax when selling - how do they manage the process of tax assessment and collection? I might keep my "value added" property for a long time. What about inheritance - would this trigger a tax event forcing children to sell the family property because they can't afford to pay the value added tax?

    What if I appreciate the remoteness of our place and don't want all the city dwellers to interfere with our life? Who would compensate us for the loss of tranquility?

    As usual with Labour's proposals - lots of hot air and little thinking ...
    As Artemis says, I think these ideas are only there to get people thinking, that a CGT would be the most pleasant option. Far better than a wealth tax, too. A CGT should only apply to those assets where upkeep costs, any interest paid, and other overheads have been claimed against income in tax returns.

    So it would apply to businesses, domestic and industrial rentals, some baches, no private homes (unless perhaps they were over a value threshold), probably not to antiques or collectibles. It would have no effect on savings sitting in a bank account, but hopefully it would direct investments from relatively unproductive areas, into areas with more risk and higher probable return. It would also encourage ownership of private homes, while discouraging some property investors and freeing up their properties and land holdings.

    The CGT would only apply at a low rate from the start date, and is only levied at the time an asset has sold, providing a clear capital gain, the rate allowing for some natural appreciation and possibly the extra capital expenses used to get there. Whether there should be different rates for different assets is another matter.

    In tandem with that, Labour are considering reducing the rate of GST, a regressive tax.

  9. #689
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    elzorro, sounds like you are describing "income tax" to me, you earn an income whether that is buying selling houses for a profit (bright line test) , buying selling shares, widgets or whatever, if applicable allow for expenses and pay tax on what is left.

    The IRD need to monitor better and/or the govt of the day needs to tighten the rules, e.g when are you a share trader when are you not for example.

  10. #690
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    elzorro, sounds like you are describing "income tax" to me, you earn an income whether that is buying selling houses for a profit (bright line test) , buying selling shares, widgets or whatever, if applicable allow for expenses and pay tax on what is left.

    The IRD need to monitor better and/or the govt of the day needs to tighten the rules, e.g when are you a share trader when are you not for example.
    I think you misunderstand me. Once a brightline test has been set, traders who sell assets within the brightline settings get taxed at the income tax rates, but longer term asset owners pay no tax on an eventual sale at the moment. A case in point is Trademe. From nothing to several hundred million, but no income tax to pay on the asset sale. Australia has all of these sort of taxes, including stamp duty on house purchases. Only a small proportion of NZers can participate in the tax rort we have in NZ at the moment, it isn't fair on normal taxpayers with far fewer assets, who pay their dues at every turn.

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
  •