You overlook the income tax an investor who actively trades pays.
Yes, I did overlook that. That would be a simple matter of the same rules applying, but if the asset has only been held for under 5 years say, the rate is higher, closer to the current income tax figure, as less of the gain is from inflation. It could even be a sliding rate from the current income tax rate for active traders, through to the lower CGT rate once the asset is held for over 5 years or so. IRD would be able to put some numbers on a policy like that.
Yes, I did overlook that. That would be a simple matter of the same rules applying, but if the asset has only been held for under 5 years say, the rate is higher, closer to the current income tax figure, as less of the gain is from inflation. It could even be a sliding rate from the current income tax rate for active traders, through to the lower CGT rate once the asset is held for over 5 years or so. IRD would be able to put some numbers on a policy like that.
Generally speaking CGT schemes do not apply both CGT and income tax. If they did it would be goodnight to all builders and developers who often land bank for future developments and pay income tax on gains. CGT is complex - devil always in the detail, but try and find a scheme somewhere that works well. It ain't easy.
Generally speaking CGT schemes do not apply both CGT and income tax. If they did it would be goodnight to all builders and developers who often land bank for future developments and pay income tax on gains. CGT is complex - devil always in the detail, but try and find a scheme somewhere that works well. It ain't easy.
I didn't suggest charging both income tax and CGT on the transaction, as that would be crazy. But a sliding scale of rates would mean that it would be hard to circumvent the process of paying some kind of tax on the gain, and it's obvious that it's normally quite easy to do at the moment. You just have to state somewhere officially, that your intention all along was to invest for the future, and guess what, it didn't work out for some reason, and you have to sell a bit earlier than intended. As long as you don't do it too often.
A CGT along these proposed lines would be no different to the current situation for quickfire developers (approx income tax rate of CGT), people who own their own houses and even private baches (no CGT), but would have an effect on landlords and other property investors who intermittently rotate their investments. But after a few years of ownership (it's only levied on the capital gain) and by then it's a smaller percentage tax.
I didn't suggest charging both income tax and CGT on the transaction, as that would be crazy. But a sliding scale of rates would mean that it would be hard to circumvent the process of paying some kind of tax on the gain, and it's obvious that it's normally quite easy to do at the moment. You just have to state somewhere officially, that your intention all along was to invest for the future, and guess what, it didn't work out for some reason, and you have to sell a bit earlier than intended. As long as you don't do it too often.
A CGT along these proposed lines would be no different to the current situation for quickfire developers (approx income tax rate of CGT), people who own their own houses and even private baches (no CGT), but would have an effect on landlords and other property investors who intermittently rotate their investments. But after a few years of ownership (it's only levied on the capital gain) and by then it's a smaller percentage tax.
Shades of Rowling's spec tax in there. 'Good on you Wallace, you made my life worth living'.
This was withdrawn by 1979, and it was put in place when NZ had high inflation and a shortage of housing. Those penalty rates would have meant that very few speculators would have sold within 2 years of first owning a property, which I guess was the whole idea. After 2 years, no extra tax. It is a sliding scale as you say, but an onerous 90% to 60% tax rate. Nowadays the proposed tax rates are a lot lower, and the inflation rate generally is too.
The argument from property investors is that this was a failed scheme which increased property prices by 50%, (Olly Newland et al), but there's no way of knowing what the change would have been if the tax wasn't in place to curb some of the bubble.
FP, you say you did well during this time because of Bill Rowling's faulty policy, or would it be that you bought and held during this period, and it worked out well? It was nothing to do with Bill Rowling.
Third Labour Government of New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Third Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1972 to 1975. During its time in office, it carried out a wide range of reforms in areas such as overseas trade, farming, public works, energy generation, local government, health, the arts, sport and recreation, regional development, environmental protection, education, housing, and social welfare.[1][2] Māori also benefited from revisions to the laws relating to land, together with a significant increase in a Māori and Island Affairs building programme.[3] In addition, the government encouraged biculturalism and a sense of New Zealand identity. The government lasted for one term before being defeated a year after the death of its popular leader, Norman Kirk. It was the last of the traditional New Zealand Labour governments.
W69, the hardworking Labour hopeful, Rowenna, missed out with Southampton, Itchen. She held the Labour vote, but a lot of other voters dumped the Liberal Democrat party there, and some voted Conservative. Just enough.
Originally Posted by elZorro
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks