If National wins ...

[Bjauck]

....The worth of a capital gains tax depends on its design.

Of course.

And in spite of what the hoi- polloi think, investment in real estate is treated no differently from shares or any other commodity investment. ...

Nothing like putting yourself in a superior class from those who you think may disagree with you. All residential real estate is treated the same as other investments apart from the majority of it which is still owner-occupied! And you can certainly do a good amount of leveraging with investment in land. Even labour's plans include an exemption for owner-occupied investment in real estate. So labour would continue the unfairness. So owner occupiers would continue to have the privilege of their tax preferred investment. Tough for all those who cannot afford to own their own homes and can only invest in fully taxed fixed interest and share investments?

[Bjauck]

That's silly, but anyone putting their hand up to run the show should come out with specifics - rather than 'vote for us and we'll get some mob who thinks along our lines to work out the details if and only if we win.'

It would be reckless to specify the tax reform before undertaking a comprehensive review- no matter whether the reform was suggested by an incumbent or someone applying to be the government. Sensible.

Voters know that with Labour there will be a review of tax with possible reforms (which have been discussed generally but obviously not in detail as the review has not been held!). They know with National that it will be more of the same. Which would be more reckless?

[minimoke]

Re capital gains tax.

No matter how it is dressed up it will only ever work if there is a gain in capital value.

Seems to me with various parties policies on tax and expenditure we can see a pretty much wholesale halt in future gains. So little to worry about!

[BlackPeter]

Perhaps...it is a risk as they have not been tested for so long. Are you suggesting a one party state is the best system?

Certainly not ... but I prefer parties and politicians who keep their skills well honed during their opposition time. Opposition time should be for a party a time to regrow and improve their skills and to rejuvenate, not a time to sit back, complain and generally do nothing but throwing mud, complaining about their bad luck and the other parties better leadership and marketing systems. Labour was over 9 years a very weak opposition (well documented on this thread), stumbling from one inept leader to the next and not putting any effort into working out their policies.

I am somewhat concerned that this does not qualify them now to run the country ... better to give them three more years (under a now much better leader) to prepare them for government. Who knows - maybe they are next time able to cost their policies and tax increases? You don't need to be in government to do your homework.

[Bjauck]

Re capital gains tax.

No matter how it is dressed up it will only ever work if there is a gain in capital value.

Seems to me with various parties policies on tax and expenditure we can see a pretty much wholesale halt in future gains. So little to worry about!

True taxing realised capital gains could be a moot point if people sell out (and cause values to drop) of assets reliant on capital gains! However if people divert their investment activity into income producing assets, you could see a boost in revenue from income tax and/or GST.

[artemis]

Re capital gains tax.

No matter how it is dressed up it will only ever work if there is a gain in capital value.

Seems to me with various parties policies on tax and expenditure we can see a pretty much wholesale halt in future gains. So little to worry about!

True dat. Also CGT does not kick in until asset is sold. So any delay in selling by an owner pushes government revenue well down the track.

Hard to believe a CGT will only attach to second or subsequent residential properties. If it does apply more widely eg shares, farms, businesses, then sensible investors will adjust their actions in their own best interest.

[Bjauck]

...Labour was over 9 years a very weak opposition (well documented on this thread), stumbling from one inept leader to the next and not putting any effort into working out their policies.

I am somewhat concerned that this does not qualify them now to run the country ... better to give them three more years (under a now much better leader) to prepare them for government....

Good points. There are many factors to bear in mind when deciding which Party would be more reckless to have in government. For Labour, it is a pity for them only just now to have a leader who is shaping up to the best one they've had for long.

[artemis]

Good points. There are many factors to bear in mind when deciding which Party would be more reckless to have in government. For Labour, it is a pity for them only just now to have a leader who is shaping up to the best one they've had for long.

Don't agree. There have been good Labour leaders in the past few years. In fact none were hopeless, they were just middle aged rather grey chaps. The constant changes didn't help them though.

Ms Ardern is not a grey chap, of course. Sure she smiles nicely and is empathetic, but she has been a senior caucus member for some time in a party which has not used the last 9 years to develop and agree important policy.

[Joshuatree]

Brian fallow in the herald today

"It is, of course, a bit rich of National to be scornful of the plan for a tax working group, when that is exactly what it did in 2009.
And if you think the tax system needs some significant changes - and it does - then it makes sense to be a bit careful about how to go about it.
The tax working group approach of picking all the best brains and publishing the advice from officials, academics and tax practitioners ahead of any final report and political decisions is simply good process."

[Joshuatree]

Its the usual bull dust from national re labours big spend up; they are so close. Brian Fallow in NZ Herald today

"Assuming, perhaps generously, that Labour can live with the tighter unallocated operating allowances its fiscal plan includes, its budgeted operating expenditure over the four years to June 2021 would be just $8b, or 2.3 per cent, higher than National plans.
Its revenue would be $7.4b, or 1.6 per cent higher. That does not look like an increase under the weight of which the economy would crumble.'