sharetrader

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

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

    213 100.00%
  • Yes

    74 56.49%
  • Goff is just an idiot

    2,147,483,658 100.00%
  • Epic fail for Labour

    1,935 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 89 of 101 FirstFirst ... 397985868788899091929399 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1008
  1. #881
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    They said they may live in their investment. Will their expressed intent to sell (for the capital gain) result in any gain being taxable, whether they live in the property as owner-occupiers or not? If this is their first property, would that make a difference?

    If someone states when buying a house, which they occupy or leave empty in case they occupy it in the future , that they are buying it to live in and also with the subsidiary intention of selling it for the capital gain, is the capital gain on sale taxable as it was an intent when the house was purchased? Would the capital gain only be taxable if it were decided that the main intention of the owner-occupier was to sell for a capital gain?
    The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.

  2. #882
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arekaywhy View Post
    Maybe think a bit harder before making a statement such as this
    The statement I made that I have been thinking about is below.

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    Actually it is labour that does the work to produce the goods or services, while the capitalist does not need to do any work.
    Profits from capital invested don’t need to involve work, so labour should get most of the income because they do the actual work while the capitalist sits on the couch. But that is not how it works because capitalism is based on exploitation due to the imbalance of power between capital and labour.
    But it is like the myth of the self-made man. Does he grow and cook his own food? He uses the resources of society like roads, electricity, buildings, knowledge, and other people, including his customers.
    He is successful because he uses the “common wealth” of society which has been built up by others including previous generations.
    I did a bit more research and other thinking people agree with me.
    Good graph in the article showing worker’s incomes have flat-lined for half a century but their productivity, which is roughly the profit that they earn for capitalists, has skyrocketed since 1974.

    https://eand.co/how-capitalism-taugh...n-5db12d3a6e93
    So exploitation is so routine, so normal in America that it’s an everyday, commonplace affair — which people are quite invisible to.
    And that is because capitalism’s foundational belief, which it has been long taught, maybe even indoctrinated, into Americans, is that if we each exploit everyone that we can, beginning with ourselves, as ruthlessly and mercilessly as possible, then everyone will be better off, not just the capitalists. (Because the strong will survive — and even the weak will benefit, by becoming a little more selfish, tough, independent, and less of a burden upon the strong.)

    The person at the bottom has contributed in a very real, and very significant way, to the billions that Bezos has amassed.

    Predatory capitalism made “work” largely the execution and perfection of exploitation. Instead of labour being the expression of the human possibility (like, say, discovering antibiotics, building a healthcare system, making it affordable to get an education), it became the predation upon human vulnerability (like, say, fine-tuning the algorithm for maximum revenue, with horrific clickbait videos, looting pension funds, overcharging students for debt, hiking up drug prices thousands of percent, and so on.)

  3. #883
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.
    I suspect that they prefer mind readers to test cases. There is an awful lot of case law around intent which is simply missing.

  4. #884
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    The IRD decide that on a case-by-case basis. Intent is the deciding factor, and IRD are the judge of intent. They must have a large number of mind-readers on their staff.
    A couple of excited kids interviewed by media would I hope be an extenuating factor in any IRD decision. If that turns out not to be taken into account I predict a backlash against the rather grey IRD rules.

  5. #885
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    A couple of excited kids interviewed by media would I hope be an extenuating factor in any IRD decision. If that turns out not to be taken into account I predict a backlash against the rather grey IRD rules.
    At age of 17 and younger can a minor actually own the house? Presumably there is an adult or trustee behind them to take legal ownership? So in this case "the owner's" intent may be different from that of the minors/beneficiaries?

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/...M7W6X6QJIGDYY/

    I imagine in a housing market with rising prices, that there may be many owner-occupiers buying a primary residence to live in, with another intent to sell the house at a higher price on their way "up the property ladder." With such a high priced property market, many first home buyers must buy intending to sell to trade their way "up" from a small apartment to a family sized house in a safe neighbourhood, taking advantage of boost to deposits from leveraging and extra income from any career promotion?
    Last edited by Bjauck; 25-10-2020 at 02:25 PM.

  6. #886
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,659

    Default A Labour Day Question

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    ...
    I did a bit more research and other thinking people agree with me.
    Good graph in the article showing worker’s incomes have flat-lined for half a century but their productivity, which is roughly the profit that they earn for capitalists, has skyrocketed since 1974....
    I guess the first capitalist was the ace hunter gatherer caveman who was rewarded with the best and biggest portion of the day's kill. He did not want it, so he traded it for an extra spear.

    Eventually he had a cave full of spears. By then, he was old and couldn't hunt. If the others used his amassed spears then it would mean hunters could hunt instead of making spears instead. The band of humans would be more productive. If they decided not to simply steal the spears from the old alpha hunter, how much would this extra productivity be worth and should they still give hum the choicest cut of mammoth or sabre-tooth?

    On the other hand, the retired alpha hunter is a wily old codger. His old wife came from a different band of humans. Their lands are now impoverished and they are facing hunger. Their young men would be willing to hunt the land of the Alpha hunter's band and give him meat plus half the antlers and ivory.

    So capital, saving and specialisation make labour more productive. How much they are relatively worth is the question
    Last edited by Bjauck; 25-10-2020 at 07:25 PM.

  7. #887
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20...e-transformer/
    Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
    Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
    Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
    Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.

  8. #888
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20...e-transformer/
    Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
    Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
    Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
    Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.
    Profits from capital gain are different from income from capital gain. Income from capital gain is and always has been taxed. I don't expect you to know the difference.

  9. #889
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20...e-transformer/
    Take tax reform. Ardern didn’t just abandon capital gains tax because of the Peters brake. She banned it from Labour policy while she is leader, thereby telling us that Labour accepts it is OK some people don’t pay tax on some of their income. (should that be capital not income?)
    Same for tax on wealth, a major determinant of generational material inequality.
    Labour’s campaign tax policy was skimpy: a 6-point rise in tax on the incomes of a tiny few at the top. No move down a path Robertson endorsed in private when in opposition: to reduce the heavy reliance on taxing incomes and instead tax environmental degradation and privatisation of natural resources for profit.
    Ardern banned capital gains tax because, she said, there was no public mandate for it. But true mandates are built, not given. Ardern in essence said she would not try to build a mandate for taxing income from capital gain.
    Don't forget all that fancy $ that went into paying the Working Tax Group, for which their recommendation WAS for NZ to have some form of CGT, particularly on real estate (where the top 1% have locked in their wealth). Then the following week Ms Ardern made that statement on TV - "No CGT for as long as she is politics".

    I met with my new bank manager earlier in the week and I expressed the same issue. Why is it only wealthy have done so well in real estate while the middle class struggle in their Kiwi Saver? The 5 year stand down 'bright line test' is a joke and again it shows Ms Ardern not being serious about a 'fair tax policy' for NZ.

  10. #890
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    Windfall tax anyone?
    "NZME is now in the process of returning $15m in cash to shareholders through share buy-backs and special dividends. It is not the only one. Fletcher Building received $68m in wage subsidy cash during 2020 and has refused to repay it, despite an increasingly robust profit and balance sheet. It paid $140m of cash dividends to shareholders in April this year after reporting solid profit growth and a strong outlook because of a boom in house building and building materials sales. NZME and Fletcher Building are just two among many large and small New Zealand companies that have refused to repay the cash, despite reporting profit growth and higher cash reserves."
    https://www.interest.co.nz/public-po...y+26+July+2022

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
  •