Capital Gains Tax

[macduffy]

Post deleted.

[Bjauck]

Deleted - too tangential.

[BlackPeter]

Well if James Shaw had his way with the NZ economy how would it look in a few years? If the economy suffers big time because of their environmental obsession then that is inept IMO.

.. and if the environment (as we need it to economically survive) goes extinct due to some dinosaurs deciding that we need to continue with its destruction, what do you think would this mean to our NZ economy?

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.

One third of our economy (at the moment probably more) is dependant on agriculture. Just consider what the rapidly increasing frequency of draughts, extreme flooding and increased storm intensity will do to our economy?

Just compare the insurance premiums for your house with the premiums you payed a decade or two ago. What happened to them? They went up steeply, didn't they, and that's not for insurance companies getting rich.

Same thing (only worse) for farmers. Many find it already difficult to pay the premiums to insure their crops ... it won't take long anymore until many farmers are not able to insure their crop against adverse weather events. An increasing number of big weather disaster impacting on our agriculture will do our economy under these circumstances well, won't it?

But this is just one example ... infrastructure cost will go steeply up with climate change, new pests and diseases are coming into the country and need money to fight, the pressure from climate change refugees will go up world wide.

Maybe the Greens are the better economists after all? Always good to look at the big picture rather than focussing solely on the next quarters earnings ...

[couta1]

.. and if the environment (as we need it to economically survive) goes extinct due to some dinosaurs deciding that we need to continue with its destruction, what do you think would this mean to our NZ economy?

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.

One third of our economy (at the moment probably more) is dependant on agriculture. Just consider what the rapidly increasing frequency of draughts, extreme flooding and increased storm intensity will do to our economy?

Just compare the insurance premiums for your house with the premiums you payed a decade or two ago. What happened to them? They went up steeply, didn't they, and that's not for insurance companies getting rich.

Same thing (only worse) for farmers. Many find it already difficult to pay the premiums to insure their crops ... it won't take long anymore until many farmers are not able to insure their crop against adverse weather events. An increasing number of big weather disaster impacting on our agriculture will do our economy under these circumstances well, won't it?

But this is just one example ... infrastructure cost will go steeply up with climate change, new pests and diseases are coming into the country and need money to fight, the pressure from climate change refugees will go up world wide.

Maybe the Greens are the better economists after all? Always good to look at the big picture rather than focussing solely on the next quarters earnings ...

Climate change hasn't just arrived its been going around in a cycle since Adam and NZ can't make any meaningful difference toward controlling it, so why ruin the economy because of it.

[blackcap]

..

Climate change has arrived, the only question is whether humanity as we know it gets through it with limited damage, with lots of damage or not at all.

Not according to this environmentalist:

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...-climate-scare

[artemis]

'AGW' turned into 'climate change' for a reason.

[arekaywhy]

'AGW' turned into 'climate change' for a reason.

heh, yeah, I predict they'll change it soon to "climate general inconvenience"...now pay me more taxes!

[Bjauck]

17 year old & 14yo buy a ChCh investment property using money they inherited. They plan to hold then sell for the capital gains. They already know the how the best tax free money is made in Aotearoa. Labour is keeping this intact. Labour may have their work cut out encouraging post covid investment in business and employment preservation.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...-rising-prices

[fungus pudding]

17 year old & 14yo buy a ChCh investment property using money they inherited. They plan to hold then sell for the capital gains. They already know the how the best tax free money is made in Aotearoa. Labour is keeping this intact. Labour may have their work cut out encouraging post covid investment in business and employment preservation.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...-rising-prices

I presume you read that article. Those young buyers will be taxed on that capital gain. Their admitted intention is to profit from selling, and you can bet your bottom dollar the IRD will have noted that purchase.
You may remember some years ago a purchaser made a similar statement on a TV program. I can't remember the details, but I can remember the screams of protest when he discovered he had revealed his intention was to profit from selling and that the IRD, after viewing the program, had stated he would be taxed.

[Bjauck]

I presume you read that article. Those young buyers will be taxed on that capital gain. Their admitted intention is to profit from selling, and you can bet your bottom dollar the IRD will have noted that purchase.
You may remember some years ago a purchaser made a similar statement on a TV program. I can't remember the details, but I can remember the screams of protest when he discovered he had revealed his intention was to profit from selling and that the IRD, after viewing the program, had stated he would be taxed.

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?