sharetrader
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 81
  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    I suspect not. Probably dreaming of the day she could earn $20 an hour as a school kid doing exactly the same job
    Maybe i'm misreading your quote but it would be safe to say she doesn't have to worry about $ after her term is done. An annual salary of $500K is pretty decent enough.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...r-in-oecd.html

  2. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    149

    Default

    I can understand all the moaning about no CGT. But perhaps there's a real underlying meaning why J.A. simply walked away from it and it may not have much to do with Winston Peters. I'm pretty certain implementing CGT in NZ would be a RADICAL change to the current tax setup. NZ would have to adopt a taxation system similar to the others like Canada and Australia. The argument I mentioned before is, "Should NZ, being a very small country, have a complex tax system like we see in very large nations with large populations?" People assume CGT would be easy to assess but as how it's shown in Canada, the CGT is very complex in terms of assessing 'fair market values', the noted time and use and more importantly, when the 'change of use' of a house (ie from personal to business) + % deductions etc. It makes the accountants and lawyers rich.

    I honestly don't believe there's an equality problem in NZ. Those on the low income end in NZ have it a lot better than the low income / welfare group in the US. WINZ does a very good job of that. The people complaining that they can't afford their 1st home need to reconsider their choices. A lot has to do with everyone wanting to live in the same place (Auckland) and while there are a lot more affordable places like S. Auckland, none of the moaners look to moving elsewhere as an option. Earning low income isn't all that bad, I hear over $20/hr minimum wage soon.

    Remember, it doesn't take much for the 1% to leave NZ. If the environment gets so bad and they start leaving, then would be left to do the employment? Surely the gov't can't employ everyone and without a tax base because the productive 1% have left? Hrm. I wonder if Michael Cullen understands capital outflows and brain drain?

  3. #48
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    6,561

    Default

    I don't doubt that implementing a CGT would be a radical change to the NZ taxation structure but I can't believe that the decision not to do so is anything but political. Here we have a Labour-led government, with a leader who has long advocated a CGT, appointing a (former) Labour chairman of a tax Working Group that produced a majority recommendation for some sort of CGT...….....

  4. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macduffy View Post
    I don't doubt that implementing a CGT would be a radical change to the NZ taxation structure but I can't believe that the decision not to do so is anything but political. Here we have a Labour-led government, with a leader who has long advocated a CGT, appointing a (former) Labour chairman of a tax Working Group that produced a majority recommendation for some sort of CGT...….....
    I dunno if it was entirely political. It just seems to obvious to point the finger at Winston as the key reason for squashing the CGT. Other nations with CGT have extremely complicated tax codes which is designed to make the accountants and lawyers rich. We're a country of 4.5 million people. I think the Labour Party realises that we shouldn't be causing so much headache and focus on more important issues, like resolving the school teacher strike (which in my opinion, I think teachers should be in a entirely different tax structure. Want to solve their pay dispute? make their incomes tax free. They provide a social good and should get the benefit ; but as the way we see things, it's seems other high paying professions trumps the card and no one cares to become a teacher). Ok i'm babbling along. Anyways with CGT, you are entirely right that the Labour Party has long advocated CGT and with links to the past key people wanting CGT. The surprise of abolishing it can't be the workings of just Winston, something tells me it's more to do with that the complexities with CGT and how current business structures are setup, that the change would be far too severe. Enough to put the whole country into a major recession, would most certainly lose the Labour Party's next election.

  5. #50
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    SBQ. You say that those on low income don’t have it too bad in NZ. Are you speaking from personal experience?

    Do you have statistics to back up your statement? Are wealth inequalities growing further apart?

    Do you rent a cold damp house in South Auckland? Is your family support network in Auckland so that is why you don’t want to move to cheaper areas elsewhere? Are you shut out of the housing market because you don’t have rich family to subsidise a deposit to buy a house in the housing market made so expensive by investors seeking capital gains?

  6. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    149

    Default

    @ Bjauck: Those are loaded questions in which most people would expect an answer that favours the low income. If you believe wealth redistribution is the answer then more power to you. Personally, I don't believe it's effective.

    We live in a global economy with few barriers where people rich and poor can simply migrate to where they want to live. Well actually it's the rich that have it a lot easier to migrate to their country of choice vs the poor that migrate through perhaps as refugees or in NZ, simply hop on the airplane and fly to Australia with no barriers. Anyways to answer your 1st point, the reason I say the low income sector in NZ really don't have it as bad, is they're doing well compared to the homeless we see in other OECD nations. At the end, NZ has a relatively high safety net and we have fewer #s of homeless when you compare to much larger, developed nations, like USA and Canada. Ask any NZ tourist that has walked the city streets in USA and you'll see homeless everywhere. Walk the streets in downtown Queen Street Auckland and they're not everywhere. Yes there are some.. but nothing in comparison to where i've traveled. Those with the desire to own their 1st home seem to have a greater say in votes than those that have nothing (ie those entirely dependent on WINZ) so it's not a surprise Jacinda is trying to speak for those groups of people to gain votes (ok that's a political issue) - and I can't help not to mention how Jacinda pushed for free tuition for 1st year NZ tertiary education when the advisory board they consulted, strongly suggested it was far better to give the last year of uni education free as the better incentive. From a good reliable source, I was told the Labour Party said no and basically implied they wanted the "votes". Anyways, back to CGT.

    We've seen recent news in the US about the need for more wealth redistribution (a la more taxation of the rich) by the liberal masses. However, I do believe those groups are no different to the groups in NZ that want the same, yet there's a very clear difference. NZ is a small country and the USA is a very big country. If you apply higher taxation in NZ, you'll find more of the rich will simply.. leave. If you apply higher taxation in the US, the rich won't leave because it's far worse to live in other countries (ie like the mess the EU has caused there and Brexit).

    Don't get me wrong if i'm being ignorant about the poor. I just don't think they're struggling as bad as the very poor elsewhere. NZ is fortunate to be surrounded by water where the control of illegal drugs (hard drugs like meth and heroin) isn't easy so prevalent as those drugs are in America. While many of the homes in S. Auckland are below WHO standards, NZ still is a developed nation and improvements are being made to improve the comfort of those old homes. But to improve the outcome of the very poor shouldn't be done by handing out free bees via taxation of those that have the $. The improvement of rental properties is one example where the gov't has done right; by forcing landlords to upgrade insulation, installing heat pumps, etc.

    I'll leave a link as an example overseas from Charlie Munger which he basically says, "High taxes drives away the rich" and while his example may be a US base (taxation between states), the same principle applies to NZ.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...way/ar-BBTCV1J

    "I think it's really stupid for a state to drive the rich people out. "They are old, they keep your hospitals busy, they don't burden your schools, police departments or prisons. Who wouldn't want rich people?"

    Is the Auckland market on the way down? We have a ban on foreign investors buying NZ residential properties so it's not like NZ has done nothing to address housing affordability.

  7. #52
    Senior Member Valuegrowth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    It seems countries need both rich and poor. Rich will invest and will create jobs while poor will earn salary for the work they do. Some rich do charity work as well. One concern among political analysts is income gap between rich and poor. In developing world it is much higher.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-d...-idUSKCN1PF00P
    Gap between rich and poor growing, fueling global anger: Oxfam

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/american-billionaires-call-for-upgrades-to-capitalism-starting-with-higher-taxes-on-themselves.html
    American billionaires call for upgrades to capitalism, starting with higher taxes on themselves

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-16/the-fed-can-help-stop-rising-inequality-in-the-next-recession
    How to Stop Rising Inequality in the Next Recession

    https://www.dw.com/cda/en/asias-growing-wealth-gap-is-a-problem-that-can-no-longer-be-ignored/a-45466242
    Asia's growing wealth gap is a problem that can no longer be ignored

    Happy Easter everyone!

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    ..... Do you rent a cold damp house in South Auckland? ....
    Ask yourself why a rented house is cold and damp.

    And a couple of probable answers. A house may be cold or damp because of structural issues. If that is the case, it is the landlord's problem and tenants have options. They can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal and if they can prove their case most likely there will be a notice to fix and also compensation payable by the landlord. Or tenants can move.

    If not structural it is almost certainly the way the tenants live - probably some combination of overcrowded, insufficient ventilation, unflued gas heating, can't afford the power bills to heat. In such cases it is the tenants' own problem, and the landlord has options. Notice to fix or to terminate.

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Ask yourself why a rented house is cold and damp.

    And a couple of probable answers. A house may be cold or damp because of structural issues. If that is the case, it is the landlord's problem and tenants have options. They can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal and if they can prove their case most likely there will be a notice to fix and also compensation payable by the landlord. Or tenants can move.

    If not structural it is almost certainly the way the tenants live - probably some combination of overcrowded, insufficient ventilation, unflued gas heating, can't afford the power bills to heat. In such cases it is the tenants' own problem, and the landlord has options. Notice to fix or to terminate.
    Or Its caold and damp because its a old build with no in wall insulation, and now spends half the day in the shade of a tree that was planted when the house was built. And if you complain the landlord will simply tell you to pack your bags, and go find another similarly ****ty rental. Thats the reality for most of the poor Auckland renters.

  10. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Or Its caold and damp because its a old build with no in wall insulation, and now spends half the day in the shade of a tree that was planted when the house was built. And if you complain the landlord will simply tell you to pack your bags, and go find another similarly ****ty rental. Thats the reality for most of the poor Auckland renters.
    ,

    If the tenants don't like their rental they could apply for one of the other 4,000 odd currently available across Auckland. Including 1,200 apartments most of which look modern, neat and clean. And that's just the ones advertised on Trademe. Or they can do nothing and whinge.

  11. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    ,

    If the tenants don't like their rental they could apply for one of the other 4,000 odd currently available across Auckland. Including 1,200 apartments most of which look modern, neat and clean. And that's just the ones advertised on Trademe. Or they can do nothing and whinge.
    Yes, because a 38sqm student apartment in the city is suitable for an adult and two kids, and transport time doesn't matter etc. Usual BS answer from the usual quarters.

  12. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Or Its caold and damp because its a old build with no in wall insulation, and now spends half the day in the shade of a tree that was planted when the house was built. And if you complain the landlord will simply tell you to pack your bags, and go find another similarly ****ty rental. Thats the reality for most of the poor Auckland renters.
    I take it you're being hysterical. If not, as I mentioned before the NZ gov't has passed law that such 'old', poor performing, homes must meet the Healthy Home Standard:

    https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/about-te...rds-announced/

    As for the small student apartment flats in the city, again, I assume you're being hysterical. You know it's interesting to find that the majority of the world's population in HIGH density cities live in apartments. They seem to have no issues raising families in small 1 or 2 bedroom style apartments. This is nothing new but I suppose in Kiwi terms, it's entirely foreign and there's this silly stigmatic idea that the kiwi family must live in a detached 3 or 4 bedroom home with a decent size yard. It's the same boring debate that the poor or the hard working couple is required to buy their 1st home at an affordable price and because they feel that they've been deprived from that opportunity. So in response why not attack the rich folks that have a lot more than the status quo with CGT ?

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Yes, because a 38sqm student apartment in the city is suitable for an adult and two kids, and transport time doesn't matter etc. Usual BS answer from the usual quarters.
    So sorry, I didn't realise that there were 4000+ studio apartments for rent in Auckland and nothing else. Or that contraception and personal responsibility for family size / and stable housing are such alien concepts in a first world 21st century country.

  14. #59
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Ask yourself why a rented house is cold and damp.

    And a couple of probable answers. A house may be cold or damp because of structural issues. If that is the case, it is the landlord's problem and tenants have options. They can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal and if they can prove their case most likely there will be a notice to fix and also compensation payable by the landlord. Or tenants can move.

    If not structural it is almost certainly the way the tenants live - probably some combination of overcrowded, insufficient ventilation, unflued gas heating, can't afford the power bills to heat. In such cases it is the tenants' own problem, and the landlord has options. Notice to fix or to terminate.
    Inadequate supply of affordable housing to cope with population growth has meant that even the landlords with cold and damp houses will get desperate tenants, who have little money after rent to afford heating.

    Every landlord must appreciate tenants who respect the residence as if it were their own stable home. The trouble is that even good tenants can have that home taken away should the landlord want it for their own family or want it as vacant possession for a sale. So secure family life is often unattainable for those who cannot afford their own homes.

    Even if offered by landlords, Fixed tenancies are often not an option for those for whom employment is not secure or requires flexibility. That is more common in today’s job market - especially at more junior levels.

  15. #60
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    SBQ.
    I am not sure if I understand correctly but are you suggesting that Kiwis should Shoe-horn the family into a one bedroom apartment because that happens for the residents of unspecified international cities?

    Does that that mean we should have a CGT because that is what happens overseas?

    Should we boost security of tenure for the tenant to the level in some other countries? If the landlord wants the flat for his family member, then that shouldn’t happen because it is already rented to a good tenant who does not want to leave.

    So the folk who earn untaxed capital gains from their rental investments should be entitled to this untaxed return, even if this in effect means that their demand for investor housing means they out-bid many families from being able to afford a first home? Is this another example of an entitlement that happens to benefit middle-class baby-boomers in particular?

    So the exceptional tax and other advantages of home ownership should increasingly be affordable for fewer families?

    So we can do things the “kiwi way” as far as taxes are concerned for asset owners yet first home buyers and renters must settle for residences that are fit for the conditions as in densely populated overseas cities. Only the wealthier can enjoy kiwi exceptionalism?


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
  •