sharetrader
Page 39 of 697 FirstFirst ... 293536373839404142434989139539 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 6963
  1. #381
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,697

    Default

    Sounds like amateur, token, sleuthing here, put in the too hard /awkward basket, someone could get a private investigator to trace to the source and verify if Oravida was the culprit.

  2. #382
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    Sounds like amateur, token, sleuthing here, put in the too hard /awkward basket, someone could get a private investigator to trace to the source and verify if Oravida was the culprit.
    If that's what you think, and it concerns you, then be that someone and do it. Let us know the outcome.

  3. #383
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    Sounds like amateur, token, sleuthing here, put in the too hard /awkward basket, someone could get a private investigator to trace to the source and verify if Oravida was the culprit.
    I'm sure NZR have the motivation to find the culprit and it's not political but financial. I'm no fan of Judith Collins but this is pretty low JT

  4. #384
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,697

    Default

    Sure not nominating fp lol, semantics in a pile of "rubbish".

  5. #385
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,697

    Default

    wow up to $400 million of swamp kauri thats big and greedy and motivational!

  6. #386
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westerly View Post
    It is if you are a worker. Terminology is important

    CGT should not be applied to the family home, if you sell for whatever reason you would in most cases have to buy a replacement. Any capital gain would probably be needed to fund the replacement.

    westerly
    The same applies to commercial and industrial properties. That is precisely why a repatriation clause should be part of a CGT, and applied to pvt. dwellings as well as C and I. Those two inclusions would form the basis of a fair, sensible and workable tax.

  7. #387
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    The same applies to commercial and industrial properties. That is precisely why a repatriation clause should be part of a CGT, and applied to pvt. dwellings as well as C and I. Those two inclusions would form the basis of a fair, sensible and workable tax.
    You are both wrong. It's fundamentally because with private dwellings, the owner cannot offset property costs and interest against income while they own the asset, whereas the rentier can. Both have the same problem of possibly needing most of the capital to put into another asset, but equally they could bank the money. Rentiers will generally still get all of their original capital back on an asset sale, plus the large majority of their capital gain. Private dwelling owners deserve all of the capital gain in the eye of the taxman, because they've been at a tremendous disadvantage compared to rentiers.

    There is no good reason for the taxman to wait a lifetime for CGT payments under a repatriation system. It will do the country no good to have inefficient property money being recycled, simply to save a comparatively small amount of tax. Maybe if property capital was moved into a business operation that employed people, then it could be worthwhile to offer a tax rebate of some kind. How would you like that, FP?

  8. #388
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,738

    Default

    At least we can have confidence in our Min of Finance ... he seems to be up with the play

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/101...rns-about-debt
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  9. #389
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    You are both wrong. It's fundamentally because with private dwellings, the owner cannot offset property costs and interest against income while they own the asset, whereas the rentier can. Both have the same problem of possibly needing most of the capital to put into another asset, but equally they could bank the money. Rentiers will generally still get all of their original capital back on an asset sale, plus the large majority of their capital gain. Private dwelling owners deserve all of the capital gain in the eye of the taxman, because they've been at a tremendous disadvantage compared to rentiers.
    You are missing one of the fundamentals of being a land lord. What you should be aiming for is a rent that exceeds expenses (interest costs, maintenance depreciation etc) with a view to making a profit on with the tax man will grab a portion. So lets just say, for simplicity, that a landlord breaks even. He is still up for "capital gains" particularly if he falls under the bright line test. Thus he is at a disadvantage compared to the private home owner.

    Incidentally I see both the land lord and home owner as productive users of capital in that they are both putting a roof over someones head.

  10. #390
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    You are missing one of the fundamentals of being a land lord. What you should be aiming for is a rent that exceeds expenses (interest costs, maintenance depreciation etc) with a view to making a profit on with the tax man will grab a portion. So lets just say, for simplicity, that a landlord breaks even. He is still up for "capital gains" particularly if he falls under the bright line test. Thus he is at a disadvantage compared to the private home owner.

    Incidentally I see both the land lord and home owner as productive users of capital in that they are both putting a roof over someones head.
    I think out system of applying income tax based on intent is quite suffficient without having separate systems and tax rates.
    If there is a fault, it is simply that IRD do not seem to enforce their own rules very often.
    CGT can be a monster. Careful design is essential.

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
  •