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 20 of 101 FirstFirst ... 101617181920212223243070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 1008
  1. #191
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Exempting basic foodstuffs is plain stupid; particularly so with perishables. NZ's GST all inclusive systrem is the envy of tax collectors the world over. Leave GST as is and exempt the first $XXXX of income tax - a much better idea.
    I don't disagree. Keep it simple, I was just using the foodstuffs as an example of other countries recognising that GST is a regressive tax and trying to make it less so by exempting basic necessities.
    It would seem that legislators around the globe can recognise the regressive nature of GST but posters on this site are unable to. Sometimes when you are self centred it is hard to accept things that don't fit with your beliefs.

  2. #192
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    It would seem that legislators around the globe can recognise the regressive nature of GST but posters on this site are unable to. Sometimes when you are self centred it is hard to accept things that don't fit with your beliefs.
    Lets look at your numbers.

    Say a person earn $48,000 gross with 2 kids. pretty much the average wage and not in poverty. If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. Take the gross $923 a week, less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $849 in the hand. Less than they earned

    Say a person earns $23,000 gross and has 2 kids. And If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. That's a gross of $364 a week less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $667 in the hand. More than they earned.

    So while they both paid the same GST the poor person actually ends up better off. Thus GST is a smaller portion of income for the poor than it is for the average.

  3. #193
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Lets look at your numbers.

    Say a person earn $48,000 gross with 2 kids. pretty much the average wage and not in poverty. If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. Take the gross $923 a week, less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $849 in the hand. Less than they earned

    Say a person earns $23,000 gross and has 2 kids. And If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. That's a gross of $364 a week less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $667 in the hand. More than they earned.

    So while they both paid the same GST the poor person actually ends up better off. Thus GST is a smaller portion of income for the poor than it is for the average.
    It's actually worse than that. Presumably a fair chunk of that $23,000 will go on rent or mortgage interest - that portion is exempt from GST. Whereas diligent hard-workers like myself, who don't bother with renting or having a mortgage, pay GST on every dollar we spend.

  4. #194
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Lets look at your numbers.

    Say a person earn $48,000 gross with 2 kids. pretty much the average wage and not in poverty. If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. Take the gross $923 a week, less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $849 in the hand. Less than they earned

    Say a person earns $23,000 gross and has 2 kids. And If they spend $23,000 on necessities that's $66 a week goes to GST. That's a gross of $364 a week less tax plus working for families this person ends up with $667 in the hand. More than they earned.

    So while they both paid the same GST the poor person actually ends up better off. Thus GST is a smaller portion of income for the poor than it is for the average.
    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.)

    Without going over the figures in any great detail can I assume that you and Blackcap would like me to factor in the housing situation, children, consumption level and marginal income tax rates of every individual in NZ before I can safely say that GST is a regressive tax. I'll get back to you shortly.....
    Last edited by Aaron; 12-10-2017 at 04:58 PM.

  5. #195
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It's actually worse than that. Presumably a fair chunk of that $23,000 will go on rent or mortgage interest - that portion is exempt from GST. Whereas diligent hard-workers like myself, who don't bother with renting or having a mortgage, pay GST on every dollar we spend.
    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.

  6. #196
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    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.

  7. #197
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    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 06:31 PM. Reason: quote

  8. #198
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    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

  9. #199
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,560

    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.

  10. #200
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    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

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
  •