sharetrader

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

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

    202 100.00%
  • Yes

    60 58.25%
  • Goff is just an idiot

    2,147,483,655 100.00%
  • Epic fail for Labour

    1,930 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 39 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 571
  1. #181
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Inflammatory comments aside nice to see that some smart people think we should look at a capital gains tax. I know I am a dummy so it is good to have smart people consider the issue.

  2. #182
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    We have been over this and I have explained it to you, that is all I can do unfortunately.
    Gst probably affects those that earn more and have more disproportionately as well. Most lower income people spend the majority of their income on rent, which has no GST component. Those with more disposable income as a % would spend more GST. So GST is a progressive tax in my humble opinion.

  3. #183
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Gst probably affects those that earn more and have more disproportionately as well. Most lower income people spend the majority of their income on rent, which has no GST component. Those with more disposable income as a % would spend more GST. So GST is a progressive tax in my humble opinion.
    Maybe you could give us an example with actual figures to prove your point.

  4. #184
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I put a lot of "effort" into my posts on sharetrader but you might have to weigh effort against usefulness, benefit to society or productivity.
    Done. I would be happy with a Productivity Index, which can be overlaid with an Income Index

  5. #185
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    We have been over this and I have explained it to you, that is all I can do unfortunately.
    I'm going to agree with FP on this one - I dont really see GST as being Regressive. Sure I understand the argument that a regressive tax takes more of a poor persons income that it does a rich person income. And to some extent that can be true - but not in New zealand.

    The reasons being is that here the first $14,000 of everyone's income gets taxed at 10.5%. People earning this level pay 15% GST equally. If you are earning $14,000 chances are you will be "poor". Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you are still paying the same amount of tax out of this income as a rich person.

    Income from $14,001 - $48,000 gets taxed at 17.5% and GST stays at 15%. People are now moving out of "poor" to "average" earnings and above the so called "living wage". Again doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or average you are still all paying the same amount of tax.

    If you are earning above average wage from $48,000 to $70,000 and no longer poor you will pay 30% of your income in tax. At this point you are no longer paying for the necessities in life like rent or mortgage. you are moving now into more discretionary spending which the poor dont spend. Since they don't spend here their income is no longer disproportionate to their tax. its at this point the average to well off start paying more tax than the poor.

    As for those earning over $70,000 they are paying 33% for things the poor will never buy. Paying way more tax than the poor. GST isnt regressive because its not impacting on the poor at this level.

  6. #186
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    I'm going to agree with FP on this one - I dont really see GST as being Regressive. Sure I understand the argument that a regressive tax takes more of a poor persons income that it does a rich person income. And to some extent that can be true - but not in New zealand.

    The reasons being is that here the first $14,000 of everyone's income gets taxed at 10.5%. People earning this level pay 15% GST equally. If you are earning $14,000 chances are you will be "poor". Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you are still paying the same amount of tax out of this income as a rich person.

    Income from $14,001 - $48,000 gets taxed at 17.5% and GST stays at 15%. People are now moving out of "poor" to "average" earnings and above the so called "living wage". Again doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or average you are still all paying the same amount of tax.

    If you are earning above average wage from $48,000 to $70,000 and no longer poor you will pay 30% of your income in tax. At this point you are no longer paying for the necessities in life like rent or mortgage. you are moving now into more discretionary spending which the poor dont spend. Since they don't spend here their income is no longer disproportionate to their tax. its at this point the average to well off start paying more tax than the poor.

    As for those earning over $70,000 they are paying 33% for things the poor will never buy. Paying way more tax than the poor. GST isnt regressive because its not impacting on the poor at this level.
    Your example is using income tax. A progressive income tax. No arguments from me in that regard.
    Post #72 on this thread if your still unsure.
    Blackcap may have a point especially if you add in bank fees and interest on pay day loans. But these specific examples apply in specific cases it doesn't change the fact that GST is regressive. Why have most other countries exempted basic foodstuffs. We will never agree. Re-read post #72 and if you still don't get it too bad.

  7. #187
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    I'm going to agree with FP on this one - I dont really see GST as being Regressive. Sure I understand the argument that a regressive tax takes more of a poor persons income that it does a rich person income. And to some extent that can be true - but not in New zealand.

    The reasons being is that here the first $14,000 of everyone's income gets taxed at 10.5%. People earning this level pay 15% GST equally. If you are earning $14,000 chances are you will be "poor". Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you are still paying the same amount of tax out of this income as a rich person.

    Income from $14,001 - $48,000 gets taxed at 17.5% and GST stays at 15%. People are now moving out of "poor" to "average" earnings and above the so called "living wage". Again doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or average you are still all paying the same amount of tax.

    If you are earning above average wage from $48,000 to $70,000 and no longer poor you will pay 30% of your income in tax. At this point you are no longer paying for the necessities in life like rent or mortgage. you are moving now into more discretionary spending which the poor dont spend. Since they don't spend here their income is no longer disproportionate to their tax. its at this point the average to well off start paying more tax than the poor.

    As for those earning over $70,000 they are paying 33% for things the poor will never buy. Paying way more tax than the poor. GST isnt regressive because its not impacting on the poor at this level.
    Not to mention any WFF tax credits as well .......

  8. #188
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Your example is using income tax. A progressive income tax. No arguments from me in that regard.
    Post #72 on this thread if your still unsure.
    Blackcap may have a point especially if you add in bank fees and interest on pay day loans. But these specific examples apply in specific cases it doesn't change the fact that GST is regressive. Why have most other countries exempted basic foodstuffs. We will never agree. Re-read post #72 and if you still don't get it too bad.
    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.

  9. #189
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Why have most other countries exempted basic foodstuffs. We will never agree. Re-read post #72 and if you still don't get it too bad.
    If you exempt GST on basic foodstuffs the gap between rich and poor remains. Doesnt change the fact that the first $23,000 (from post #72) of income get taxed and spent on basics the same way.

    Thats putting aside the inconvenience that while the rich and poor may save a bit on their basic foodstuffs the overall tax take has declined and the cost of managing taxes has gone up (more bean counters to figure out if rice is basic and if so is sushi, or a bowl of rice at the Indian takeaway?

    So what do you do. You have to make up the tax shortfall so you could up the rate of GST to 16% which affect the poor and wealthy equally. Or you put up other taxes. Which will either impact on the poor or incentivise the rich to reclassify their income / assets.

  10. #190
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    Not to mention any WFF tax credits as well .......
    (ah - the old benefit where the less you earn the more you get paid)

  11. #191
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    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.

  12. #192
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    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.

  13. #193
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,046

    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.

  14. #194
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    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 05:58 PM.

  15. #195
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,127

    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.

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
  •