sharetrader

View Poll Results: Should there be a Capital Gains Tax on Property

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    194 100.00%
  • Yes

    42 60.00%
  • Goff is just an idiot

    2,147,483,655 100.00%
  • Epic fail for Labour

    1,921 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 196 to 206 of 206
  1. #196
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Having a mortgage free house rising in value each year, it must be infuriating seeing the less well off and young avoiding paying their fair share of GST by spending all their income on rent. Lucky we can still get them when they buy food so they can contribute like you aye FP.
    Not at all. It doesn't infuriate me and neither it should. Yes. I'm absolutely sure I pay more GST than said family who earns $23000 and rents. They should contribute just like I do when they spend of course. Just as their weetbix and underwear, their soap and shoe laces cost the same as mine. You must be terribly disappointed the retailers and manufacturers don't give them a discount.

  2. #197
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    You really make things complicated Minimoke. Now we are discussing working for families. (I would note GST on $23,000 is $3,000.00 or $57.69 per week but that is being pedantic.)
    I don't believe I am complicating things. I am more accurately reflecting the story. It is impossible to talk about regressive tax in the context of the rich and poor without accounting for income. Like it or not Working for Families bolsters incomes so it must be taken into account.

    WWF is that inconvenient benefit people who spruik poverty consistently do not raise. Do you ever hear the "Living Wage " bleaters mention it. No of course not - because it undermines their position that people don't take much home
    after a being exploited by the capitalist employers intent only on exploiting the vulnerable.

    And as an aside you wont here the government advocate against Living Wage because it pushes the burdon of income from the tax payer onto the employer.
    Last edited by minimoke; 12-10-2017 at 07:31 PM. Reason: quote

  3. #198
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Having a mortgage free house rising in value each year, it must be infuriating seeing the less well off and young avoiding paying their fair share of GST by spending all their income on rent. Lucky we can still get them when they buy food so they can contribute like you aye FP.
    You are assuming FP's house does rise in value each year - which is not a safe assumption. Regardless, it is only a paper increase. The house isn't a machine that churns out cash that a home owner can spend. The only way to release the cash is to take a mortgage on which you will pay interest as well as return capital.

    The great thing about renting is you dont bear the "loss" when the roof over your head depreciates, or needs repairs

  4. #199
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,654

    Default

    Not entirely so, Minimoke. As an eighty-year-old I could pull two or three hundred g's from my property and go cruising or whatever for the next few years without a worry in the world or I could greatly increase my successful investments. I do not have to worry about my offspring as they are already well ahead of me. But age has made me lazy or maybe just contented and I am happy with a couple of visits to the Club each week and a few drinks and a few bets on slow horses. Nobody has to die rich but a hell of a lot do.

  5. #200
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craic View Post
    Not entirely so, Minimoke. As an eighty-year-old I could pull two or three hundred g's from my property .
    I'm not sure how you would do that without a reverse mortgage (or home equity release) loan. (more here: https://www.govt.nz/browse/housing-a...rse-mortgages/) And I'm trying not to complicate things with loans from family repayabel in inheritance or other tools that are availabe

  6. #201
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    I'm not sure how you would do that without a reverse mortgage (or home equity release) loan. (more here: https://www.govt.nz/browse/housing-a...rse-mortgages/) And I'm trying not to complicate things with loans from family repayabel in inheritance or other tools that are availabe
    I think craic was suggesting he could trade down.

  7. #202
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastern BoP..
    Posts
    1,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craic View Post
    Not entirely so, Minimoke. As an eighty-year-old I could pull two or three hundred g's from my property and go cruising or whatever for the next few years without a worry in the world or I could greatly increase my successful investments. I do not have to worry about my offspring as they are already well ahead of me. But age has made me lazy or maybe just contented and I am happy with a couple of visits to the Club each week and a few drinks and a few bets on slow horses. Nobody has to die rich but a hell of a lot do.
    As my wise Mother always said.. " There are no pockets in a shroud "..

  8. #203
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Surprise surprise someone else thinks a capital gains tax is a good idea. I should have checked him out first in case he turns out to be a nutcase.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...-oecd-official


    Sensible and fair he suggests. Although the article suggests that "The idea remains unpopular with many New Zealanders, in part because of concerns it could discourage investment in new housing and push up rents, and because of compliance costs." In small part maybe but the main reason must be that they don't want to pay more tax.

  9. #204
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Surprise surprise someone else thinks a capital gains tax is a good idea. I should have checked him out first in case he turns out to be a nutcase.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...-oecd-official


    Sensible and fair he suggests. Although the article suggests that "The idea remains unpopular with many New Zealanders, in part because of concerns it could discourage investment in new housing and push up rents, and because of compliance costs." In small part maybe but the main reason must be that they don't want to pay more tax.
    He mentions design of the scheme, and that is the key. There are many problems with CGT that need to be understood and taken into account. Properly designed it can be good - but a copy of something like Austalia has is only good for appeasing the envious.

  10. #205
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    but a copy of something like Austalia has is only good for appeasing the envious.

    Ahh the politics of envy. Nice one FP

  11. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    "The Treasury has previously estimated that a broad-based capital gains tax, that excluded gains on owner-occupied housing"
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/104262446/capital-gains-tax-sensible-and-fair-for-nz-says-oecd-official

    Apart from the backlash from entitled home owners (increasingly becoming a wealthier minority), Why should owner-occupied housing be excluded? Excluding it will only continue the shift of investment into residential land,and in the absence of wealth or estate taxes, it will perpetuate the deveopment of a shrinking landowning elite who find it is tax efficient to over-capitalise their homes...


    Personal circumstances including singles, childless couples and where people have to shift frequently, may mean home-ownership is not the optimal form of obtaining accommodation. In such cases their equity may well better be deployed in creating businesses or investing in income-generating share investments. Yet if they invest all their capital in such vehicles as opposed to their own homes, they would be liable to capital gains.



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
  •