sharetrader

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

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

    210 100.00%
  • Yes

    67 56.30%
  • Goff is just an idiot

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

    1,932 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 333940414243
Results 841 to 850 of 850
  1. #841
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

    We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?

  2. #842
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dibble View Post
    Out of curiosity, if a CGT has as a goal to steer money to productive investments does anyone know what these investments are for the average retail investor? The sentiment is bandied about and certainly has some logic but assuming the money isnt headed offshore (the FDR tax complexity is disincentive enough on that front) quite what are people supposed to buy instead, a coffee franchise?

    We've just seen the hunger for longish bonds at about 2% so there appears to be no shortage of money seeking some sort of investment home and i dont see a lot of biotech or invention type funds. The lack of NZX listings suggests something is amiss but is it as simple as blaming untaxed housing?
    Some good questions there, dibble. The Labour CGT policy originally covered some assets but not others. Your de Kooning and heirloom diamond tiara were not included, nor were the family bach or small business if and only if sold under strict rules to fund retirement. Don't think those small businesses included rentals though. The last couple were tweaks based on negative feedback.

    Along came the Tax Working Group with an increasing level of complexity. Finally it seeped into the voter's mind that their shares, their Kiwisaver, their farm, their lifestyle block were up for grabs. Not to mention their coffee franchise if sold. Idea dumped.

    What Labour really wanted was to tax private rental housing and encourage it out of the market into 100,000 affordable homes and taxpayer subsidised social housing. When the CGT didn't work they changed tax rules for private rentals and brought in a lot of extra cost and compliance. Possibly get the desired result over time. Ms Ardern seems to think 2030 would be about right though as there is not much money in the kitty 2030 looks optimistic.

  3. #843
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    A flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage on their earnings is the fairest way in my view, Big earners pay a lot - low earners pay little. Yet the socialists scream that that is unfair, because the high earners can afford more, so argue for a progressive system. And that sums up the problem in a nutshell. 'Fair' is impossible to define, making it a pointless and senseless word in relation to tax given there is no acceptable agreement.
    Im sure youd quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

    If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
    However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.

  4. #844
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I’m sure you’d quickly come up with a definition of fair (or unfair) if the government started taxing you at 100%. When you are advantaged by a situation fair is supposedly impossible to define, and that would change if you were disadvantaged.

    If you believe in the greed is good ideology you would say fair is impossible to define. But if you wanted a tax system that was considered fair by most of the citizens then fairness would be seen as social justice and people would be taxed according to their ability to pay.
    However there is lots of money to be made by lawyers and accountants advising the rich how to minimise, avoid and evade taxes, so plenty of propaganda in the media saying fair is impossible to define, and advocating for a flat tax.
    "Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell

  5. #845
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    You are not paying more than your fair share.
    Your fair share takes into account your ability to pay, not what you pay in relation to anyone else.
    A fair tax system means that the costs of contributing to tax revenues are shared in a way that takes into account the ability to pay.

    From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Karl Marx
    'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.

  6. #846
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    'Ability to pay' does not make for fairness. Should a tin of baked beans cost more if you happen to be very wealth? You and Karl Marx might think so, but not many do.
    If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?

    Otherwise for one person $80 is petty cash but for another it means no food for a week. The punishment would not necessarily fit the infringement?
    Last edited by Bjauck; Today at 08:52 AM.

  7. #847
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    If the consequence of an offence against the law of the land is both punishment and deterrence. Do you think that fines should be levied at amounts according to the transgressor's ability to pay?
    Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.

  8. #848
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Of course, but a fine is not primarily a money raising exercise; it is a punishment and while $1 would be severe punishment to me you probably wouldn't blink at a $10,000 fine.
    I Wish that that were true...

    If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

    Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.

  9. #849
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    I Wish that that were true...

    If not a Punishment...taxes are used to encourage certain activities (and resulting in deterrence for others)

    Ability to be able to pay taxes must be a factor in deciding whether to levy them in the first place.
    Indeed, So they should be levied so a low earner can pay them. Obviously a high earner could fairly be taxed the same percentage on his higher income. X on y Dollars should mean 2x on 2y, but not 3x on 2y.

  10. #850
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    "Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell
    Fairness and social justice are nothing new. They have always been with us. They have just varied in their interpretation according to time and place.

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
  •