Capital Gains Tax

[Jay]

GCT may apply to the family home - as it stands at present

if you use a room(s) as an "office" and claim the expenses for it, you have a choice, don't claim the expenses and no GCT or claim them and you pay GCT - albeit based on the % of your home used say 1 room = 20% so you would pay GCT on 20% of the gain I presume - something like that
More detail here https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12207150 ... if they have it right!

[minimoke]

GCT may apply to the family home - as it stands at present

if you use a room(s) as an "office" and claim the expenses for it, you have a choice, don't claim the expenses and no GCT or claim them and you pay GCT - albeit based on the % of your home used say 1 room = 20% so you would pay GCT on 20% of the gain I presume - something like that
More detail here https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12207150 ... if they have it right!

Also if you take in flatmates. Which is an ideal way for getting people onto the property ladder - they can get others in to help with costs.

Labour clearly dont want people to own their own homes

[Bjauck]

Also if you take in flatmates. Which is an ideal way for getting people onto the property ladder - they can get others in to help with costs.

Labour clearly dont want people to own their own homes

What is or is not a family home makes the family home exclusion a nightmare. Near where I live there are plenty of lifestyle blocks bigger than the 4500m threshold. Many have panted their sections with native bush - and to have smaller sections would spoil the environment. Many are newly reitired and would not want the hassle of having to value and apportion costs between exempt and non-exempt areas of their property.

it would be better to have no exemption and then to give a generous threshold to taxpayers.

[Bjauck]

Labour clearly dont want people to own their own homes

Au contraire - A big part of the reason for investigating a CGT was because home ownership rates have been falling due to rising prices. One of the big reasons for that is that investors have been prepared to receive low taxable net rent returns in the expectation that they will receive untaxed capiital gains.

[minimoke]

Au contraire - A big part of the reason for investigating a CGT was because home ownership rates have been falling due to rising prices. One of the big reasons for that is that investors have been prepared to receive low taxable net rent returns in the expectation that they will receive untaxed capiital gains.

Which is why the Brightline test was bought in. If IRD couldn't enforce it, that hardly seems to be the fault of every other taxpayer who may be faced with a CGT.

[iceman]

Au contraire - A big part of the reason for investigating a CGT was because home ownership rates have been falling due to rising prices. One of the big reasons for that is that investors have been prepared to receive low taxable net rent returns in the expectation that they will receive untaxed capiital gains.

We are the only country in the OECD that does not have a formal CGT although we have the Brightline tax which of course is CGT in disguise. Most of other OECD have a CGT with many exemptions and lower rates than normal income tax. But it has not stopped them from having exactly the same issues as NZ with run away house prices and high rents. The idea that CGT will be a guarantee to lower house prices and lower rent is simply not supported by any evidence

[macduffy]

I've probably missed something here but do the TWG recommendations include allowing tax deductions in respect of capital losses? Tax loss selling of doggy shares in the weeks leading up to the end of the financial year is a feature of the Aussie market.

[fungus pudding]

I've probably missed something here but do the TWG recommendations include allowing tax deductions in respect of capital losses? Tax loss selling of doggy shares in the weeks leading up to the end of the financial year is a feature of the Aussie market.

Proposal from TWG is to allow losses to offset future gains in same asset class, as I understand it.

[macduffy]

Proposal from TWG is to allow losses to offset future gains in same asset class, as I understand it.

Thanks, fungus. But offsetting future gains isn't quite the same thing as allowing losses to offset current year's tax on current other realised capital gains which is what I think the Aussie system is.

In any case, I expect the coalition to cherry-pick what suits it from the recommendations.

[minimoke]

We are the only country in the OECD that does not have a formal CGT although we have the Brightline tax which of course is CGT in disguise.

We dont have stamp duty either, or inheritance tax. There musty be loads of taxes we don't have in NZ. Doesn't make introducing new one right.

There is only thing to consider. Does the current tax regime raise enough revenue to cover govt expenditure. If so then no change required.

From there you ask how efficiently you can raise those taxes and look for improvements (whole also trying to reduce govt expenditure)

And then from there you try to figure out a relatively fair scheme where each person pays there fair share. This is where it gets hard because nothing in life is fair. No point trying to make it dead fair cos such a thing is impossible.

In any tax system there will be winners and losers. Is it fair that those on minimum incomes and pay less tax get to enjoy most of the government expenditure. No. But that's the way it is.

Is it fair that people work hard and invest in the hope of bettering themselves (and paying taxes along the way) reap some capital gain (when times are good). No. but that helps offset the other unfairnesses.