If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

You're happy with CGT as long as it includes the house you're living in, and if you can roll over investments as you sell them, thus avoiding CGT altogether in your lifetime. So, no to CGT - be honest FP.

You're paying taxes, but they'd have been a lot higher if you couldn't claim back all your interest and investment costs against income.

What a completely dopey remark. I don't know of any country that taxes on turnover rather than profit. Neither do you.

[elZorro]

What a completely dopey remark. I don't know of any country that taxes on turnover rather than profit. Neither do you.

Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income. That makes your proviso on CGT 'dopey'.

[fungus pudding]

Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income.

Don't be silly. Businesses can't be taxed on turnover. It could not work. Even a simple example, say a one man band plumber with some plant and a van has costs like interest, depreciation, maintenance etc. and would be out of business in a week if those costs were treated as profit and taxed. Self employed cannot claim interest on money borrowed to buy a house, or on maintenance. Now be a good boy and go and have that shower.

[elZorro]

Don't be silly. Businesses can't be taxed on turnover. It could not work. Even a simple example, say a one man band plumber with some plant and a van has costs like interest, depreciation, maintenance etc. and would be out of business in a week if those costs were treated as profit and taxed. Self employed cannot claim interest on money borrowed to buy a house, or on maintenance. Now be a good boy and go and have that shower.

If you take what I said out of context, as you seem determined to do, you can reach stupid conclusions. I'm not sure if that means you're stupid, or just conniving. I run a long-standing business with employees, so don't patronise me, FP.

[fungus pudding]

If you take what I said out of context, as you seem determined to do, you can reach stupid conclusions. I'm not sure if that means you're stupid, or just conniving. I run a long-standing business with employees, so don't patronise me, FP.

Stop and think how your life might improve if you weren't driven by hatred and envy. There you go - nothing patronising about a bit of advice.

[elZorro]

Stop and think how your life might improve if you weren't driven by hatred and envy. There you go - nothing patronising about a bit of advice.

I don't like the way this country is going, that's for sure. It could be so much better. I guess you're doing your bit to make sure it stays that way, you're just protecting your position. That doesn't mean you can accuse me of anything, hurl abuse at me repeatedly over the web. How about you destroy my arguments carefully, if you think you can, FP. Otherwise, just don't reply.

[artemis]

Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income. That makes your proviso on CGT 'dopey'.

They can claim interest and maintenance against the income produced by that house, if any. Same as any business owner.

Or are you suggesting home owners should be able to claim interest / maintenance regardless of income derived from the property, if any?

[BlackPeter]

I don't like the way this country is going, that's for sure. It could be so much better. I guess you're doing your bit to make sure it stays that way, you're just protecting your position. That doesn't mean you can accuse me of anything, hurl abuse at me repeatedly over the web. How about you destroy my arguments carefully, if you think you can, FP. Otherwise, just don't reply.

Hmm - you mean the majority disagrees with you and this is not to your liking. I guess you are saying the people should stop thinking and just do what the Labour politburo suggests? Maybe they could, but please don't call this "good" or "better".

Sure - if we listen to your constant nagging, than the Labour party seems to push for a New Zealand occupied by a bunch of welfare dependant people without own opinion but shaped by the messages of the dear Labour Leader?

Not my view of good or better - and neither the view of a majority of New Zealanders. Lets hope that it stays this way for a long time to come. This country is great!

[elZorro]

They can claim interest and maintenance against the income produced by that house, if any. Same as any business owner.

Or are you suggesting home owners should be able to claim interest / maintenance regardless of income derived from the property, if any?

Not at all, Artemis. FP has a misguided thought that if he ever has to register his commercial properties as liable to a CGT, then so should every home owner. Despite the fact that private homeowners cannot claim back any interest or expenses on their own property they're living in, unless they gain some income from part of it. Most don't, of course. That's why, in any CGT that might occur later, private homes would generally be exempt. You could argue the same for a bach that is never rented out. FP continues to trot out this plainly unacceptable line, thinking it will help National's argument about not levying a CGT.

[fungus pudding]

Not at all, Artemis. FP has a misguided thought that if he ever has to register his commercial properties as liable to a CGT, then so should every home owner. Despite the fact that private homeowners cannot claim back any interest or expenses on their own property they're living in, unless they gain some income from part of it. Most don't, of course. That's why, in any CGT that might occur later, private homes would generally be exempt. You could argue the same for a bach that is never rented out. FP continues to trot out this plainly unacceptable line, thinking it will help National's argument about not levying a CGT.

Wrong again eZ. I can't be bothered going through it all again - you harped on and on about this when Cunliffe was embarrassing himself as your temporary god and I raised many points to think about. Suffice to say once again a CGT has many pros and cons. If I accept any politician's view on CGT it is Roger Douglas's.