About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

July 7, 2011 1:36pm by David Farrar

How much would a CGT raise?

I’ve blogged at Stuff on how much money might be raised by a capital gains tax on investment property only.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment83

NZ Politics
By the numbers
capital gains tax
Stuff

Comments (83)

Login to comment or vote

hj

Quote from Bruce Sheppard
“The quantum of property gains derived by NZ taxpayers that potentially have a tax consequence and are never reported would reach quite exceptional proportions. If tracked down they would have the potential to transfer to the rest of us via the IRD much of the wealth of some middle class baby boomers and others.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/stirring-the-pot/3263551/What-working-for-IRD-taught-me
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 1:52pm
Adolf Fiinkensein

The answer is dead easy, David. Didn’t need a column. The answer is ZERO.

The proposed CGT tax wlil raise no revenue in at least the first two and probably three years.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 1:54pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

I guess it had to end, but post-hoc congrats on writing such an excellent and even-handed column on Stuff for such an extended period of time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 1:56pm
swan

“At this stage it is unknown if Labour’s new tax will be on all capital gains or only investment properties. Reports suggest the latter.”

….Or not
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 1:58pm
mikenmild

Danyl

You called it!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 1:58pm
Nick K

As I said on Stuff, it’s all academic anyway as Labour is not going to be the government on November 27 and might be in three years time. That means the CGT is at least four years away, and with revenue expected 15yrs after implementation then Labour’s $4.5billion is 20yrs away. Plenty can happen in 20yrs, including change of governments – some of which could repeal this stupid idea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:02pm
Pete George

Nick called it.

If a CGT was applied to rental investment properties there would be uneven effects.

What would be likely to happen in Dunedin where there is an unusually high proportion of student rental housing? The students are never going to buy if landlords choose to exit the market.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:07pm
leftyliberal

I have to agree with Danyl here – that last sentence ruined an otherwise good column DPF (regardless of whether or not it may be true!)

Let’s hope what Labour actually comes out with addresses the quite valid concerns being raised. I fear they won’t, but hope I’m mistaken – we need more credible policy from the main opposition party.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:10pm
alex Masterley

LL I thought the main opposition party was the Greens at the moment. Those sitting in the Labor seats a simply nodding sock-puppets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:12pm
Elaycee

alex Masterley: “Those sitting in the Labor seats… …nodding sock-puppets.”

Haha – how true. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:19pm
toad

DPF, the reports I have seen suggest Labour’s CGT proposal, like the Greens’ one, would be on all assets other than the family home.

Levying it on investment property only would be economic stupidity. Like GST, a CGT has to be comprehensive to be both fair and difficult to avoid. Otherwise the tax accounts and lawyers will just find loopholes to exploit. I doubt Labour will be that stupid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:25pm
krazykiwi

Says lots about our national, myopic focus on property as an investment class when any discussion of CGT is exclusively centered on property. Any taxation scheme should be about encouraging investment in productive, export-centric initiatives… rather than trying to squeeze tax revenue out of Keynesian housing bubbles as they expand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:26pm
lofty

At least I have a fair bit of time to work out how much I need to increase my rents by to compensate for any possible tax I may have to pay.
I will most certainly be passing on as much as I can to the tenants.
Thats how it works folks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:28pm
Peter

Historical precedent means nothing to you, Toad?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:29pm
krazykiwi

@toad – “I doubt Labour will be that stupid”

Tui?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:29pm
alex Masterley

Toad, I’m a lawyer. I would expect a jump in my firm’s activity were CGT to be introduced.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:30pm
Pete George

I thought it was supposed to be a sensible idea to simplify the tax system as much as possible.

Why would people vote for complications?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:36pm
Manolo

I doubt Labour will be that stupid.

A world first! A Luddite doubting Labour stupidity (which is boundless).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:45pm
DavidC

It will be interesting to see if Labour have the balls (and brains) to do it properly. I doubt it, history tells us so.
Certianly will cause a flurry of activity in tax/legal circles as people arrange structures etc and move property around.

Manolo…you didnt happen to do a bit of a wine trip thru South America in ’08 did you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:49pm
Manolo

..you didnt happen to do a bit of a wine trip thru South America in ’08 did you?

Yes, the same one. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:52pm
DavidC

Good Man, keep up the good work!

I will look later for an incriminating photo of you pinching that wine guides arse!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 2:59pm
davidp

Goff is a property investor. Clark owned many investment properties… maybe seven, IIRC. I presume other Labour MPs are in a similar situation.

I think we need to be alert to any of them offloading properties between now and the election. That’d be extremely unethical.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 3:05pm
Pete George

Even though the odds are against Labour implementing their CGT in the next few years how much could all this talk of CGT spook property investors that have already seen a few ghosts over the past few years?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 3:27pm
Elaycee

@davidp says: “I think we need to be alert to any of them offloading properties between now and the election. That’d be extremely unethical.”

It would also be the most optimistic thing witnessed since an ant was spotted crawling up an elephant’s leg hanging on to a piece of confetti, with the intention of wiping the elephant’s arse.

🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 3:29pm
James

The loony left yet again fail to understand the motivating factors of incentives and disincentives that state action engenders in the people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 3:37pm
Murray

Toad wants to lecture us on economic stupidity?

This from the people who want to change the weather with a tax. Well hes certainly qualified to speak on economic stupidity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 3:43pm
Fisiani

Poor people still take out Kiwisaver accounts. The share trades on NZ companies will be subject to Labours CGT. Overseas shares will not. This will mean that Kiwisaver accounts will move overseas or poor people will suffer from Labours CGT
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:01pm
lastmanstanding

The legal and accounting professions alway prifit from more and ever complex legislation. Both rub their hands with glee when they see Gumints coming with up complicated policy.

So the Socialists as they are inclined to do benenfit the rich pricks most of whom dont vote for them every time they are in power.

I have always found this ironic and amusing. And dont forget many Socialist voters will have baches and rentals or aspire to have same.

Do you REALLY think they will be like turkeys and vote for an early Xmas. Dont think so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:01pm
davidp

Is it true that Goff’s investment property is owned by a company which he owns? If so, would that be a way for Goff to avoid his own tax?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:02pm
Manolo

The socialists (Labour and Luddite Greens) thrive on policies of envy and widespread misery. If allowed, these despicable politicians would tax productive New Zealand to the hilt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:12pm
side show bob

Love to see Goofy explaining to the useful idiots why rents have risen beyond their ability’s to pay them. Monies extorted for a CGT would soon have to redistributed to the peasants in order for them to remain housed, back to square one for the socialist suckholes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:23pm
leftyliberal

@side show bob: Assuming rents do rise beyond “the useful idiots” ability to pay, it looks like it’s bad luck for those that own rental property, what with the decreasing demand and all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:35pm
KiwiGreg

“Love to see Goofy explaining to the useful idiots why rents have risen beyond their ability’s to pay them.”

He wont. He’ll just use our money to buy houses and rent them out in accordance with “ability to pay”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:39pm
mikenmild

Is this as simple as assuming that a proposed Labour policy must be a sinister socialist plot to seize more wealth? Are there argument for a CGT? Like this one:
‘Treasury pushes for capital gains tax’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576312
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:43pm
davidp

mikenmild>Are there argument for a CGT? Like this one

That argument is for widening the tax base. If Labour wanted to replace some income taxes with a CGT then I could support it, although there would still be issues around evasion such as the company ownership structure Goff has used for his own property investments. BUT… Labour wants a CGT as well as increases in income tax. Despite all the wasteful spending of the Clark years, they still think they can spend our money better than we can.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 4:50pm
mikenmild

davidp

Yeah, I get that. But given it seems a CGT would have modest impact initally, it’s not really a cash cow for a spending list, is it? I think I’d be concerned if it was rasing billions to increase benefits, abolish tuition fees, [insert rest of Labour wish list], but the concept seems sound enough.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 5:08pm
Inky_the_Red

A CGT maybe not raise much. However it may result in more tax collected from other sources. As some other forms of income exploiting the tax loophole (not taxing capital gains) will no longer be worthwhile to do (eg providing employees discounted shares which are there onsold for a Capital Gain)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 5:50pm
nickb

I guess it had to end, but post-hoc congrats on writing such an excellent and even-handed column on Stuff for such an extended period of time.

Great contribution there Danyl. I assume you have never worked in the legal or accounting industry?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 5:57pm
Pauleastbay

Labour are not going to win this coming election or the one after it.. or the one after that…. mantra

Is it possible to make a building a company?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 5:59pm
tom hunter

The takeaway message is not the back-and-forth arguments over details but the primary reason that a CGT is finally being proposed: the state is running out of money.

Once you understand that a CGT makes perfect sense – as will every other new tax that will have to be created in the next few years.

It seems quite a gamble to think that the state can somehow – across the decades and many economic cycles – consistently push revenue growth ahead of government expenditure growth.

Personally I think it’s a hell of a bet to run. The safer course would be to slash government spending, especially those programmes that are not discretionary.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 6:12pm
Pauleastbay

And when there’s nothing more to tax?

I can only think of air ( and thats going to change)
and conversation
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 6:20pm
leftyliberal

Looks like Labour aren’t stupid enough to just tax residential investment property after all – it’s more widespread than that according to 3news this evening which is a good thing. Let’s wait for the details before jumping up and down too much…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 6:24pm
Mark

The tax working group suggested $4b pa however did point out it would take 10 years to become effective. It be targeted to one asset class or it will be all but impossible to administer.

In many cases the IRD already has the tools to tax the gains on property transactions as income by determinig whether or not the propoerty was purchased with the intent of resale. If it takes a hard line on this it becomes a bit of a difficult one for home investors. Especially if the propoerty purchase has been structured in such a way that there is no taxable income generated during ownership.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 6:32pm
KH

………. Tom at 6.12.
Fully agree. Slash Government expenditure is the only realistic option.
That would eliminate any need for increasing tax and need for CGT (and CGT is also dumb anyway)
That reduced need for revenue would allow the elimination of Income tax.
Running on GST only would be fairer to all, and helpful to the lower ‘income’ group.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 6:34pm
tom hunter

So, what excites the left-wing in NZ? What gets the happy hormones flowing?

The creation of myriad new businesses from which wealth will flow?

No.

Some random quotes:

I haven’t seen their activist base this happy or excited in years.
…
chunky-wedge issue stuff like this is all good…
Also its been pre-polled so hard and long we know its a winner.

A new tax! Woo hoo.

Of course there’s some stuff about how this will be a business incentive (like carbon tax), possibly re-directing investment into new companies or growing old ones, and yada, yada, yada. But it’s all rather a throwaway sentiment. The aspect that really gets the juices flowing is the prospect of sticking it to people who make money in ways that don’t contribute to society – and electoral advantage.

Poignant, yet deeply funny.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 7:15pm
bhudson

“How much would a CGT raise?”

Three key things really:

1. Lawyers & accountants earnings
2. Delays in court proceedings (as the commercial hearings clog up the system)
3. Emigration
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 8:22pm
toad

@bhudson 8:22 pm

How much would a CGT raise?

To be honest, I don’t give a big rat’s arse how much it raises. I have no idea of the detail of Labour’s policy yet. But from a Green perspective the principal reason for a CGT is not to raise revenue but to divert investment into productive enterprise which employs people, rather than stagnant property speculation which does not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 8:39pm
Pauleastbay

Toad

More than willing to invest in some very productive mining ventures but everytime they are mooted there is outrage.

More than willing to invest in diary but more diary equals outrage.

More than willing to invest in some oil well ventures but………..

I may have missed it but what productive enterprises are the Greens thinking of that all this loot ( not much from me) will be diverted to?

Anything beginning with ” Ministry of ..” is disqualified
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 8:51pm
Nick K

Toad, that is disingenious. Russel Norman said today he wants a comprehensive capital gains tax which taxes gains on all assets. So your diverted productive investments are still taxed.

So that argument is a big fat lie. You can’t fool us – the Greens would tax anything that moves even the lifeblood of the universe, Carbon Dioxide, if you had your way.

Oh hang on………..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 8:55pm
toad

@Nick K 8:55 pm

You Actoids really don’t get it.

There should be no fiscal disadvantage to mining, which there is at the moment, because the tax laws encourage investment into property speculation as opposed to mining.

The impediments to environmentally unsustainable mining should be regulatory, rather than fiscal.

Which rules more coal out completely unless someone comes up with a way to address the coal seam methane emissions and CO2 emissions from burning it, but does not necessarily impede other mining operations (such as those for rare earth minerals – or even gold, although the amount of it we have tucked away in vaults doing nothing industrially makes me question the need to mine any more for a few hundred years) if they can demonstrate the benefits outweigh the harms.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 9:30pm
Pauleastbay

Toad

What are we to invest in that will generate income and create employment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 9:34pm
Mary Rose

The argument for CGT on investment properties is to discourage get-rich-quick investors buying up all cheap properties and creating a supply/demand problem that sees prices spiral up, out of the reach of first-time buyers who just want to buy somewhere to live in.

But globally, that horse bolted years ago. And market forces put an end to the spiral. (While governments worldwide chose at the time to ignore the risks of property bubbles because their economies were doing well out of it).

Most places, owning your home gives you security. In NZ, perhaps it’s better to be a tenant? Easier to walk away from the rubble if you want to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 9:56pm
DavidC

A couple of simple things need to be addressed in the CGT rant….

1 – Where are all the alternative investment options that are as safe as housing?
2 – If a property is purchased with intent of flipping/onsell then tax must be paid and not to do so is illegal. How will a CGT change the behaviour of habitual tax cheats? If the “family home” is exempted there will be holes in the rules you can drive a bus thru.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 9:56pm
toad

Pauleastbay 9:34 pm

IT software and hardware, manufacturing, tourism, service industries, sustainable energy, organic agriculture, horticulture, forestry, timber processing, paper production… Hey, I even support the Tiwai Point aluminium plant, only because we can do it with a renewable energy source and if it were to be closed down Rio Tinto would go overseas somewhere and power its repacement with coal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 10:02pm
Pauleastbay

Toad

At least you had an answer

The main trouble is that all those industries mentioned already exist and many are niche to the point of being cottage industry.
Must away
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 10:25pm
bhudson

@toad,

“IT software and hardware, manufacturing, et al…”

But your comprehensive CGT would also apply to investments in those areas Toad – making them as equally unattractive as property. Thus not actually having the desired effect of promoting investment into productive areas.

So your plan wouldn’t promote or incent investment at all – it would simply punish it irrespective of whether it was made in productive or other areas.

Russell’s CGT is, in fact, just a tax switcheroo (to use his turn of phrase)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 7, 2011 10:40pm
mavxp

This is Labours attempt to split the ‘aspirational middle class’ vote in two and peel away votes from National. A CGT affects those who have investment property and spare cash tied up in shares. It does not affect those who are currently saving for their first home, those still paying off their mortgage for their first house, and those with no savings at all. That’s a large sector of NZ Society. This hits Nationals ‘base’ more than Labours, making it politically impractical for National to implement. It therefore must only be a Labour government that can feasibly implement this tax.

Thinking long term here, Labour will one day be back in Government. Maybe not this year, maybe not in 4 years time, but perhaps the following election they will squeak in with the Greens and other minor parties clinging together.

So it is only a matter of time before the CGT becomes a reality in New Zealand.

Question: How would National/ Act modify this kind of tax regime to balance a Labour/Green CGT in say 12 years time?

I assume they would reduce income tax first rather than completely remove a CGT.

Would a tax regime with lower income taxes and a CGT lead to a more balanced economy in terms of investment in productive businesses rather than the ‘dead wood’ of houses?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 8:26am
Peter

The investments Toad mentions don’t share the same risk profile as property. Not even close.

And what bhudson said.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 8:44am
alex Masterley

The industries that Toad promotes are largely low wage low skill industries.
Paper production and timber processing are some of the highest polluters in New Zealand.
Strange hearing a green promote them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 8:52am
Lance

@toad
Yes set up a high tech business in NZ where you get taxed for being wicked enough to conduct R+D (R+D= capitalized and so paid for from taxed income).
Then after being taxed blind and if you do happen to become successful you can join the ranks of the despised rich pricks. Vilified by a significant portion of the population and political hacks scoring cheap points.

Yes an entrepreneurs paradise.
Not to mention Aus offers heavy subsidies and grants to set up business there.

So the left hate business, treat them like shit and now look to them as the way forward?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 8:55am
Fisiani

We go into the election with a clear choice.
National wants to cut waste and reduce tax and be careful with government spending.
Labour promises to increase waste and increase tax and be reckless with government spending.
If this is a so called circuit breaker it is in fact a fuse……
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 8:59am
Nick K

@ Toad

@Nick K 8:55 pm

You Actoids really don’t get it.

You haven’t even addressed my point at all. You answered Pauleastbay’s point about mining but utterly failed to answer my question. Therefore it is you who doesn’t get it. Answer my concern:

Toad, that is disingenious. Russel Norman said today he wants a comprehensive capital gains tax which taxes gains on all assets. So your diverted productive investments are still taxed

.

Norman said the reason we need a CGT on housing is to divert investment to the productive sector. On RadioNZ he then said that the Greens want a comprehensive CGT across all sectors. So the productive sector asset appreciation would also be taxed.

How do you deal with that hypocricy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 9:01am
Falafulu Fisi

Nick said…
Norman said the reason we need a CGT on housing is to divert investment to the productive sector.

Because Norman is a scum? Why? He is a parasite (someone who doesn’t produce). His living is earned from being an MP. He doesn’t produce anything of real value except acting like a Stalin in proposing to regulate free people who want to be left alone in running their business affairs. That sort of attitude from losers like Normal is unbelievable. Divert investment to the productive sector, who the fuck he think he is? How about he gets out to the real world and get a real job, earn money, then he (& his ilk) can then divert their own resources & money into investing in the productive sectors. It is amazing that the society, just simply sits and accepts the dictatorial commands coming from losers in Parliament as if it is their own resources/properties that they’re issuing command to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 9:32am
Luc Hansen

Gee, Falafula, 9.32, an amazingly literate contribution, for you.

Tell me, does this apply to all 121 MPs, or just the ones who policies you don’t like?

By the way, off topic, sorry, but have you had your seminal work disproving whatever is the flaw you think you have found in the AGW Theory published anywhere other than blogs, yet?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 9:58am
mikenmild

Don’t be mean to Falafulu, Luc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:03am
toad

@Nick K 9:01 am

All assets (other than the family home) would be treated equally. All income, whether earned or realised capital gain, would be treated equally. Yes, productive sector asset appreciation would be taxed as well as property, but that is consistency, not hypocrisy. It is the “level playing field” you guys on the right always seem to be on about (except in this instance, for some reason). If a capital gains tax is not comprehensive, it encourages all sorts of rorts, just as exist today where property investment businesses (which should be taxed under current income tax legislation) hide behind the facade of being residential tenancy businesses to avoid tax.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:05am
RightNow

Ah Luc and mikenmild, cut from the same cloth clearly. Neither of you can hold your own in a debate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:08am
Falafulu Fisi

mikenmild, how much do you get from the dole a week to sit and post messages all day here on Kiwiblog? If you’re working then you’re a parasite . It means that someone is paying for you to do nothing all day, except posting messages here on kiwiblog. If you’re not on the dole, I suspect that you’re just bored at the rest-home and that explains why you post messages here from sunrise to sunset.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:14am
RightNow

“If you’re working then you’re a parasite . It means that someone is paying for you to do nothing all day, except posting messages here on kiwiblog.”
mikenmild claims to be a civil servant on $71k.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:17am
Peter

So it’s just another tax then, Toad? No drop in income tax to compensate? Not tax neutral, and therefore takes away yet more investment income, and diverts it to the usual suspects.

Well, that’s encouraging.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:25am
Luc Hansen

Peter, the correct response to the fix almost the entire western world finds itself in is a mixture of increasing government revenue and controlling spending. An increase in tax is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, even in the face of data showing his trickle down economic beliefs don’t work, in fact, the make things much worse, our Minister of Finance continues to hand out tax cuts to the better off while cutting incomes of the less so.

We also need infrastructure spending, with an emphasis on green projects eg solar, wind and geothermal energy projects, mass transit, more dense cities, and energy efficiency projects, all of which at the very least will reduce our current account deficit by reducing our dependence on oil.

Why the west continues to needlessly enrich the east will be one of the great mysteries for future historians to ponder.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:36am
Luc Hansen

RN

An ongoing torrent of abuse and misinformation is not debate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:38am
georgebolwing

I am puzzled by Labour’s tactics here.

They are clearly leaking well in advance of the announcement, but don’t seem to be doing anything about trying to manage the inevitable circus. The Government is getting a free run in criticising the unreleased plans, and aren’t burdened by having to discuss the actual plans, since they haven’t been released. And the Greens are getting a lot of air time explaining what has been their policy for a long time. Labour leaders are left to look stupid by not commenting.

My conclusions are that either:

a) Labour, and Trevor Mallard as campaign manager, are incompetent and this is a complete cock-up, showing that they have few ideas and have neither the resources or the brains to run a proper launch;
b) They really do believe that there are a large number of people who voted National at the last election who really do want to see the country lurch to the left and are thus going to switch parties on the promise of more redistributive policies; or
c) They have a cunning plan that involves actually announcing a different tax policy to the one they are leaking.

(b) and (c) are really variants on (a), and I suspect that (b) is the right answer. Labour continue to act as if the 2008 election was a mistake and they are waiting for the population to come to its senses and realise that they actually want Labour’s polices and thus return Labour to its natural state of leadership.

It will only when those members of the Labour caucus who believe this line retire that the party might have a hope of winning the election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:39am
RightNow

Luc, now you understand that you’re a step closer to being able to debate. Keep up the work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 10:41am
toad

@Peter 10:25 am

The Greens propose over $3 billion in income tax cuts to compensate for the introduction of a CGT by introduction of a tax-free threshold of $10K.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 11:16am
Rufus

Here’s a funny one

From Stuff: Stuff

In a joint statement yesterday, Auckland University of Technology academics said a capital gains tax was “absolutely necessary” to better direct investment across the economy.

The average New Zealander would not be affected by the tax because most did not have investment properties.

“Introducing this policy would force the serious investors to put their money into markets that will stimulate economic growth,” the academics said.

Hmmm… I personally know plenty of people who have an investment property – either a rental, or a bach, or a house for the kids to live in while they study, etc etc.

They’re most definitely just ordinary Kiwis. They’re not “rich pricks”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 11:36am
RRM

As I attempt to put together a deposit to buy my first home, I pay tax on the interest that my investment returns.

Why should the growth of one kind of investment in particular (net profit from the sale of rental properties) enjoy any sort of special tax-free status that no other form of investment does?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 11:42am
Pete George

They’re most definitely just ordinary Kiwis. They’re not “rich pricks”.

It’s not just property investors that could be influenced by this.

A couple of elections ago the student loan policy only directly affected a small proportion of voters, but there were many family connections that also vote and were influenced by it.

Many property investors will have parents and kids and grandkids, many of whom will have an interest how the investments will perform and how tax changes may impact on the timing of realisation, inheritance and other things.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 12:31pm
Grendel

why do the greens hate builders, real estate agents, property managers and others who benefit from a strong property market/economy?

All the work created in that industry is surely not unproductive?

another question, if all the people with investment property get rid of them becuase the greens in their ‘intelligence’ want investment in other areas, who is going to buy these properties? the people that will never afford property now, will never afford property no matter how much the greens try to interfere.

also, why of the greens and labour hate middle class NZers who own property? If a CGT causes the rush away from property that they want, this will reduce the value of average homes, why do the greens and labour want average new zealanders to lose value in their homes?

So there you have it:

the greens and labour hate everyone who works in the property sector and consider them unproductive and

the greens and labour hate nzers who own an average home becuase they want it to lose value when they bring in a CGT.

“the greens and labour – hating hardworking nzers for years”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 1:32pm
bhudson

@toad (11:16am)

“The Greens propose over $3 billion in income tax cuts to compensate for the introduction of a CGT by introduction of a tax-free threshold of $10K.”

Another switcheroo – a triple-take switcheroo in fact…

Tax the ‘rich pricks’ more in the first place (as they are now.) Then increase the top income tax rate for same. Then hit them again with CGT on any form of investment they might choose to make with the disposable income you allow them to have. Then switcheroo the gouged funds to another group.

What is more, your plan doesn’t actually increase country revenues at all – it merely redistributes existing income in a one-sided merry-go-round. Where is your plan to grow GDP?

Norman’s talk of increasing revenue is disingenuous nonsense – he is not creating more money – just taking potential investment money off one group so the Govt can spend it on another – which also reduces the amount of money available for investment, thus reducing investment and, in effect, contracting the economy relative to other countries.

toad – you can only redistribute other people’s money if they are able to earn it in the first place. In order to continue your tax and spend game you actually have to help the ‘rich pricks’ earn more in the first place.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 2:37pm
nickb

It says much about Labour’s intended CGT that they still admit they would borrow more in spite of introducing a new tax they say will raise 4.5 billion per year:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10737071
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 5:42pm
krazykiwi

“The average New Zealander would not be affected by the tax because most did not have investment properties.”

The economic-illiteracy-o-meter is redlining on that statement.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2011 6:28pm
Paulus

I shall look forward to reviewing the many ways to legally avoid this tax on my assets. I can see a few immediately – the balance will be for my Accountants.

Initial reply from them is “Easy – we will send you the bill accordingly”.

Its nothing new, really as there are many ways already of incurring CGT.

Its up to the IRD to persue this more vigorously than at present.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2011 11:17am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Perigo and Kerr

The Chawners »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 02 November 2024
Guest Post: Thoughts on New Zealands Power Supply
General Debate 03 November 2024
Keep them away from GST
You can target men's issues, without it being at the expense of women
Save Kiwis, not feathers
Kemi wins
General Debate 01 November 2024
Bezos on endorsements
Meet a peace activist

Recent Posts

Kemi wins 3 November 2024
General Debate 03 November 2024 3 November 2024
Nate Silver’s 24 reasons Trump could win 3 November 2024
You can target men’s issues, without it being at the expense of women 2 November 2024
Guest Post: Thoughts on New Zealands Power Supply 2 November 2024
General Debate 02 November 2024 2 November 2024
Keep them away from GST 2 November 2024
Save Kiwis, not feathers 1 November 2024
Bezos on endorsements 1 November 2024
Meet a peace activist 1 November 2024
General Debate 01 November 2024 1 November 2024
ERO on chronically absent students 1 November 2024

Recent Comments

General Debate 03 November 2024
Matt Long
General Debate 03 November 2024
Jack5
General Debate 03 November 2024
vand
General Debate 03 November 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
Kemi wins
Matt Long
Kemi wins
Matt Long
Kemi wins
Swifty
General Debate 03 November 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
Kemi wins
Matt Long
General Debate 03 November 2024
Flossie
General Debate 03 November 2024
Grumpy Silver Top
General Debate 03 November 2024
mandk
Kemi wins
fightingtemeraire
General Debate 03 November 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
Guest Post: Thoughts on New Zealands Power Supply
alloytoo

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The strange case of the I am Hope funding
The Standard
You Read It here First – I bet you’re sorry about that
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d