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 60 of 101 FirstFirst ... 105056575859606162636470 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1008
  1. #591
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,685

    Default

    One simple line of code:

    Sale_price - purchase_price * tax rate.

    It's almost too simple which is why every country has it in place. for comparison the IRD's GST guide is 100 pages and nearly every business is required to know how to fill in the seperate form (sounds complex), know what to include in it as a taxable supply, what they can claim, make a number of adjustments, maintain their invoice records which have a company's GST number on it for multiple years somewhere.

    This raises admin costs when you have to file two monthly rather than once for income. More of the economy is shifting towards capital and less income so it's also needed from that perspective if you are to maintain a tax base.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 08-07-2020 at 12:53 AM.

  2. #592
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    Which does nothing to address the issue of the proportion of tax that should be paid by individuals. What rate for each individual represents a "fair share" of the burden for these services? Let's put aside the separate and very subjective argument of which specific services and what level of services are essential.
    The fair share to be paid by individuals is determined by how much they earn e.g. PAYE on wages and salary, or tax on interest or how much they spend i.e. GST. Tax is paid on what you receive in income and capital gains.

    Tax is not calculated on what a “fair share” of the burden for these services.

    It sounds like you are trying to rewrite the tax laws. The more you receive from the “common wealth” of a country, the more tax you pay. The “common wealth” is what every citizen in a country inherits from the efforts of our forebears over the years. If you accumulate income and wealth then you should pay tax on it. If you are in business you benefit indirectly from all government funded services that support your business, your employees, and your customers. It is not just what you as an individual use. You are an individual and you are also part of a community. The community provides services such as education, health, social welfare, justice etc which all provide the infrastructure for a healthy society, which enable you to run a profitable business.

  3. #593
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    One simple line of code:

    Sale_price - purchase_price * tax rate.
    .
    ...just like AirNZ's spreadsheet is revenue-expenses * tax rate.
    Devil is in the detail.

    We have a half decent CGT that charges people at their top rate, not the usual 15-20% mooted. It's just tricky for IRD to prove intent... a tweak to move onus onto the tax payer to prove intent (or lack thereof) would go some way to addressing that without too much political hoo-ha.

  4. #594
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    The fair share to be paid by individuals is determined by how much they earn e.g. PAYE on wages and salary, or tax on interest or how much they spend i.e. GST. Tax is paid on what you receive in income and capital gains.

    Tax is not calculated on what a “fair share” of the burden for these services.

    It sounds like you are trying to rewrite the tax laws. The more you receive from the “common wealth” of a country, the more tax you pay. The “common wealth” is what every citizen in a country inherits from the efforts of our forebears over the years. If you accumulate income and wealth then you should pay tax on it. If you are in business you benefit indirectly from all government funded services that support your business, your employees, and your customers. It is not just what you as an individual use. You are an individual and you are also part of a community. The community provides services such as education, health, social welfare, justice etc which all provide the infrastructure for a healthy society, which enable you to run a profitable business.
    I agree with you. That's not the point I'm making though. What I am questioning is the all too often repeated orthodoxly that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. What is this fair share? How do we calculate it? It's completely subjective and those that repeat the line invariably can't come up with objective measures. It appears to be a line used to bludgeon those who believe others have accumulated too much wealth.
    Last edited by Zaphod; 11-07-2020 at 08:45 AM.

  5. #595
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dibble View Post
    Au contraire, context is everything otherwise no need to step outside the poll. CGT is expensive to administer, burdensome and relatively easy to fiddle. To expand the existing CGT it begs the question "why?" If it is merely revenue, increasing GST is far more efficient and its difficult to (legally) avoid. Plus it hits the wealthy harder if that is one's goal. Alternatively rolling out user pays might achieve the same goal (and negate the need for any new taxes). The Q how much an individual should pay absolutely, via what means and how much relative to another person, or corporation, is thus very much linked to what an individual gets/expects in return (micro and macro). It obviously gets very philosophical.
    How do you know CGT is expensive to administer? Put that question to every other OECD nation that has CGT?

    As I mentioned before, you have to assess the FULL tax impact in NZ. Everything from how much corporate taxes are paid, how much tax on dividends and interest, how much income taxes are paid, and how much consumption taxes like GST is paid. I still find for many posters here, they don't know the difference between taxes on 'consumption', taxes on income, and taxes on gain in asset value such as shares and hard assets like real estate. They are NOT all the same.

    The wealthier have 2 choices to level the disparity field. Pay more taxes or give their portion of wealth back to society. Many would agree, the former is not nearly efficient as giving to charity. Gov't bureaucracies always creates inefficiencies. After all where did the money come from? No one questioned how the wealthy obtain their wealth from? If it originally came from society, then it's more fair to for them to contribute it BACK to society. I'm not saying they should give ALL of it back, but it's very fair that since they obtain a larger portion of wealth, they have a duty of care to give a larger portion back to society.

  6. #596
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dibble View Post
    Au contraire, context is everything otherwise no need to step outside the poll. CGT is expensive to administer, burdensome and relatively easy to fiddle. To expand the existing CGT it begs the question "why?" If it is merely revenue, increasing GST is far more efficient and its difficult to (legally) avoid. Plus it hits the wealthy harder if that is one's goal...
    How does gst hit the wealthy harder. I would have thought that the Wealthy save and invest a much greater proportion of their income. Consequently a financial transaction tax/stamp duties would be the way to go and perhaps easier to administer than a GST. Stamp duties on the sales and purchase of investment properties and/or a land tax would perhaps be the easiest to administer and would help relieve the burden from those who rely solely on salaries/wages/dividends/interest.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 11-07-2020 at 09:57 AM.

  7. #597
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    I agree with you. That's not the point I'm making though. What I am questioning is the all too often repeated orthodoxly that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. What is this fair share? How do we calculate it? It's completely subjective and those that repeat the line invariably can't come up with objective measures. It appears to be a line used to bludgeon those who believe others have accumulated too much wealth.
    I guess what is “fair” is determined by “the people.” If people consider that some segment of society is benefiting excessively from the “common wealth” then governments will be voted in to change that - or - if governments refuse to change the status quo revolution will occur. Obviously at the moment the status quo means that income and the cost of subsistence is taxed heavily and leveraged long term land-based investment has a less onerous tax burden. How long that lasts depends on how long “the people” will put up with it. For how long will “the people” accept the shift to a greater concentration of wealth at the top?
    Last edited by Bjauck; 11-07-2020 at 10:15 AM.

  8. #598
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    I agree with you. That's not the point I'm making though. What I am questioning is the all too often repeated orthodoxly that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. What is this fair share? How do we calculate it? It's completely subjective and those that repeat the line invariably can't come up with objective measures. It appears to be a line used to bludgeon those who believe others have accumulated too much wealth.
    It's definitely subjective as you say and it seems to me that a lot of people deem it to be 'fair' when the burden falls on anyone but themselves. For all that I find it hard to argue with a flat rate - i.e. every dollar earned is taxed at exactly the same rate - double your income will double your tax. That's my idea of fair. It also has the added advantage of not being a major disincentive.

  9. #599
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    5,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It's definitely subjective as you say and it seems to me that a lot of people deem it to be 'fair' when the burden falls on anyone but themselves. For all that I find it hard to argue with a flat rate - i.e. every dollar earned is taxed at exactly the same rate - double your income will double your tax. That's my idea of fair. It also has the added advantage of not being a major disincentive.
    Is a "dollar earned" a capital gain?

  10. #600
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Is a "dollar earned" a capital gain?
    Is a capital gain a dollar earned?

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
  •