-
05-02-2018, 12:29 PM
#351
Originally Posted by winner69
Pity tomorrow is celebrated by just a minority — for the rest of us it’s just a day off
Is it "celebrated" or just "recognised"
-
05-02-2018, 12:43 PM
#352
Originally Posted by winner69
Pity tomorrow is celebrated by just a minority — for the rest of us it’s just a day off
Why is that a pity?
-
05-02-2018, 06:12 PM
#353
Originally Posted by iceman
You have to pay for that link, Iceman. The gist of it was?
-
05-02-2018, 06:14 PM
#354
Originally Posted by winner69
Pity tomorrow is celebrated by just a minority — for the rest of us it’s just a day off
As long as Jacinda having a good time up North it’ll we OK
Looks like Labour had a good day again, best feeling there in 40 years. Maybe it was well planned in advance, they're not making the normal mistakes. A bit of humility.
-
05-02-2018, 06:20 PM
#355
[QUOTE=minimoke;702092]
Originally Posted by elZorro
That will suit the wealthy very well. They will have a vehicle to store capital that can survive downturns in the property market. (These downturns are likely to be less than the same cost associated with a tax). Then they are sitting pretty for whenth property market improves - which it always does after a downturn.
If you are going to have a CGT (and I'm not advocating one), then to be fair it has to apply to the family home.
Easily sorted with a policy that looks at the capital value relative to other properties in the area. If it's exceeded by a big percentage and the costs to get there weren't large, then maybe there would be a cutoff on the family home. Maybe. But in most cases, the expenses to keep a family home tidy or to improve it, plus pay the interest, exceed or make up a large proportion the capital return. Why do rentiers buy basic low-maintenance homes or block flats? Low overheads, and then they claim back the interest costs. So it's not the same situation at all.
So to be fair, a CGT must exclude the family home in almost all cases.
-
05-02-2018, 06:22 PM
#356
Originally Posted by elZorro
Looks like Labour had a good day again, best feeling there in 40 years. Maybe it was well planned in advance, they're not making the normal mistakes. A bit of humility.
Whose going to abuse a pregnant woman?
Last edited by minimoke; 05-02-2018 at 06:24 PM.
-
05-02-2018, 06:23 PM
#357
Originally Posted by elZorro
Easily sorted with a policy that looks at the capital value relative to other properties in the area.
Well thats not going to work. Even Rating Valuations are a made up number
Last edited by minimoke; 05-02-2018 at 06:25 PM.
-
05-02-2018, 06:40 PM
#358
Originally Posted by minimoke
Whose going to abuse a pregnant woman?
Exactly. Fortuitous timing.
-
05-02-2018, 06:40 PM
#359
Originally Posted by minimoke
Well thats not going to work. Even Rating Valuations are a made up number
True but they are broadly relative and there is an objection process. The family home has been excluded from the Tax Working Group, as we know, but what other assets will be excluded from the WG's recommendations.
The Labour Party fell foul of this at the 2011 and 2014 elections, as they scrambled to add exceptions in response to public feedback. Rules around how the family home was to be defined. The bach. The family business under some circumstances. Not sure we ever found out how assets in trusts were to be dealt with.
And many other assets that are usually the province of the well off were excluded - art, jewellery, boats, classic cars ....
Labour canned it as policy - an election loser. Good chance it will be back in in 2020. Learning from history?
-
05-02-2018, 06:42 PM
#360
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
My head's on the block too. I'd rather politicians tackle their duties with life experience, facts and logic rather than blind faith and mythology.
Absolutely - you get my vote!
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks