sharetrader
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 154
  1. #141
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    I think what Bjauck is meaning is that if asset value goes up from $100k to $200k in tax year, you are liable for tax on the $100k value increase. But where are you going to get the $33,000 from (tax on the $100k) because you have not yet sold the asset. Some people would really be struggling to pay the tax when the value of their houses go up for example.
    Its easier with stocks for instance to sell a portion of shares if you have to pay a bill, but for some larger capital assets this is very difficult, especially if these assets are not really liquid.
    What makes you think the effective rate for a CGT would be comparable to the current income tax rates?

  2. #142
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    FIF also calculates liability on unrealised gains (when the assets have not been sold.) So it is a type of wealth tax when no income has actually been derived and no asset actually sold or disposed.

    CGT calculates liability when the asset has been realised. For example income tax may apply to realised capital gains under the brightline test.
    Oh, a wealth tax is coming, but it's probably a couple of decades away.

  3. #143
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    What makes you think the effective rate for a CGT would be comparable to the current income tax rates?
    I don't, and it may not be. Just using a hypothetical example to show that if you were going to be taxed on unrealised gains, or a wealth type tax, it may cause a lot of people a lot of heartache getting the funds necessary to pay the IRD.

  4. #144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    I don't, and it may not be. Just using a hypothetical example to show that if you were going to be taxed on unrealised gains, or a wealth type tax, it may cause a lot of people a lot of heartache getting the funds necessary to pay the IRD.
    Could be good for banks offering reverse mortgages ...

  5. #145
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    This is going to create some liquidity issues if it becomes law:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107...of-their-dream

  6. #146
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Isn't the basis of any CGT that it is paid when the asset is sold, alternatively if you have to pay each year then you must be able to claim the loss if/when it happens as well. Cannot see any govt trying to implement that across a broad spectrum of assets not withstanding the admin nightmare/cost - use the KISS (as possible) principle!

  7. #147
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    Isn't the basis of any CGT that it is paid when the asset is sold, alternatively if you have to pay each year then you must be able to claim the loss if/when it happens as well. Cannot see any govt trying to implement that across a broad spectrum of assets not withstanding the admin nightmare/cost - use the KISS (as possible) principle!
    Yes a CGT is paid when the asset is sold. But plenty of countries have a "wealth" tax". For instance, in The Netherlands where I have lived for some time, if you own net cash or assets over 25,000 Euro, you have to pay 4% per annum of that wealth added to your income to be taxed. For example you have 100,000 Euro sitting in a bank account. Every year the tax man takes 4% of this or 4,000 Euro and adds it to your taxable income. . Applies to other assets as well like houses etc. You end up paying 4% of your net assets in tax. This tax is currently at 30%. (your own home is exempt) Think we have it pretty good in NZ at the moment.
    Last edited by blackcap; 18-10-2018 at 07:21 AM.

  8. #148
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64

    Default

    thats a bit Sh*t, to take 4% - in the bank you're lucky to get 2%-2.5%, add inflation and it looks more like government theft. Certainly wont encourage saving

  9. #149
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enzed staffy View Post
    thats a bit Sh*t, to take 4% - in the bank you're lucky to get 2%-2.5%, add inflation and it looks more like government theft. Certainly wont encourage saving
    You are only taxed on the 4% though... so you end up losing 1.2% of your wealth per annum.

    To be fair, on the flip side you are not taxed on your interest. There is no tax on interest income. But yeah if like many countries in Europe you do not even get 1% for your money in the bank then you are going backwards, and with inflation and all you are really going down hill. So there is little incentive to save after certain amounts.

  10. #150
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Ok Ok - I misunderstood. thanks for the clarification

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
  •