Opinion: Why a capital gains tax is a very, very bad idea

By Rodney Hide*

All taxes are economically damaging but the capital gains tax is easily the worst of the lot.

Taxes on capital gains doubly tax savings and investment, they are brutally unfair, they are complicated and costly to administer, they are easy to avoid, they raise very little money, they choke the economy and harshly penalise entrepreneurship and innovation.

Capital gains taxes double-tax income

The value of say a business is simply the net present value of its expected income stream. The income stream is taxed and so the capital value of the business is after tax. This is a key point.

Cut the tax rate and the business will be worth more. That shows that the capital value of productive assets is always after-tax. Let’s show a simple case.

A business generates $100 a year. The going discount rate is 10 percent. The value of the business is $1,000. That’s if there’s no tax.

Introduce a tax of, say, 30 percent, and the business now yields only $70 a year. The business is worth only $700. The tax liability is capitalised into the value of the business.

Now let’s say I buy the business and fix it up. I double its income to $200. In the absence of any tax the business is now worth $2,000 and I can sell the business and pocket a $1,000 capital gain. However, if there’s an income tax of 30 percent the increase in the business’s value is from $700 to $1,400. My capital gain is now only $700.

My gain is not tax free even though I appear to pay no tax on my gain.

That’s because the capital value reflects the extra tax the extra income the business generates.

A capital gains tax of 30 percent reduces my gain from $700 to $490. I am doubly taxed.

Capital gains aren’t tax free and a capital gains tax doubly tax savings and investment.

Capital gains tax is brutally unfair

There are plenty of ways a capital gains tax is unfair. Imagine a young widow with children whose husband poured his heart and soul into his business. Following his death the young widow has no choice but to sell the business. She has no income and no other assets.

The business was a start up. It generates $200 a year. After tax, that’s $140. The business sells for $1,400 upon which capital gains tax has to be paid at say 30 percent.

She nets $980. In the absence of any tax she would net $2,000.

The widow is taxed at 51 percent. That’s brutal.

Capital gains tax complicated and costly

Capital gains taxes for practical and political reasons are invariably riddled with exemptions and exceptions making them devilishly complicated to administer and to comply with.

We see that with Phil Goff’s proposal with exemption and exceptions already and having to be sent off to an 'expert panel' to be worked out.

The big complication is determining the true capital gain net of inflation after netting out the purchase price and the cost of maintenance and investment in the asset over the years.  It’s hard to do financially let alone in terms of writing and then administering tax law. 

It will be a great tax for tax lawyers, tax accountants, tax consultants and tax bureaucrats. But bad for everyone else.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Phil Goff’s proposal is not to net out inflation. That makes the tax somewhat simpler, but means New Zealanders will be taxed on their nominal gains.

The government-induced inflation rate over which you have no control will determine your tax liability. It’s not a trivial amount.

BERL who provide Phil Goff with his analysis estimate the return on New Zealand shares at 2.6% with inflation at 2%. The bulk of the tax to be raised is on nominal gains, not real gains.

Capital gains tax easy to avoid

The decision to pay a capital gains tax is entirely up to the taxpayer.

It’s the easiest tax to avoid because you just don’t sell your asset.

Besides high-priced consultants will always outwit the complex and complicated law that will always have to be amended and reviewed in the vain attempt to keep up with perfectly legal tax minimisation.

Capital gains tax raises little money

Capital gains taxes don’t raise much money. BERL assume no change in behaviour as a result of a 15 percent tax on the nominal gains in many trades.That’s a heroic assumption.

But even accepting that, they estimate that by 2028 Phil Goff’s capital gains tax will raise $3.7 billion. That’s a lot of money.

In its first year, it only raises $17.5 million – leaving Phil Goff a big hole in his budget.

But Treasury’s Long-Term Fiscal Model estimates the total tax in 2028 as $120 billion.

Phil Goff’s capital gains tax fully matured raises a measly extra 3 percent in tax assuming no change in the number of trades and with the tax taxing nominal gains not real gains.

Capital gains tax chokes the economy

The heart of a vibrant, prospering society is wealth-creating trades that shift productive resources to ever higher valued uses.

A capital gains tax chokes those trades and bungs up the economy. That’s the big problem with a capital gains tax.

Imagine you can an increase the value of a productive asset by ten percent. That’s a big gain that the economy can ill-afford to miss out on.

In the absence of a capital gains tax you would easily make an offer to the present owner in which both of you are better off through the trade and the economy gets a ten percent gain.

That gain won’t happen with a capital gains tax.

The tax at 15 per cent proposed by Labour more than wipes out the gains from trade and the wealth-creating trade does not proceed.

Multiply that result a million times over and the incredible wealth-sapping effect of a capital-gains tax is obvious.

Phil Goff’s capital gains tax will lock up New Zealand resources in low-valued uses. It’s an incredibly damaging tax.

Capital gains tax harshly penalise entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are key to a dynamic and prosperous economy.

The incentive to entrepreneurship and innovation are capital gains. The capital gains tax is a double tax on entrepreneurship and innovation.

Politicians like Phil Goff talk up the need for entrepreneurship and innovation but their policies invariably hobble and hinder them, and there’s no greater disincentive than a capital gains tax.

But what about economists backing a capital gains tax?

Back in the day economic text books used to back a capital gains tax because it was argued capital gains are income and that the absence of a capital gains tax is itself distortionary. The latter point is the important point. It derives from a note Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson wrote in the 1960s.

It showed that a true capital gains tax was neutral alongside a comprehensive income tax. The trick is in the assumptions.

The model assumes perfect information, no entrepreneurship or innovation, a closed economy so that critically the income tax drops the cost of capital rather than grosses it up, and that the capital gains tax is an accruals tax payable every year on gains with all losses netted out.

I wrote to Prof Paul Samuelson about his conclusion and he readily accepted it didn’t apply to an open economy like New Zealand in which the income tax rate here grosses up the cost of capital.

I suspect the New Zealand Treasury now accept that point.

There is a section of the New Zealand population that are always up for taxing the rich and the successful. That’s who Phil Goff is targeting.

It’s certainly not about improving the economy.

The promise of a capital gains tax also allows Phil Goff to bluff and bluster through how he is going to pay for his spending promises which is where he hopes to win his votes.

The great thing about political promises is that the numbers don’t have to add up.

That’s because as H. L. Mencken observed an election is an advance auction in stolen goods.

================

Rodney Hide is Minister of Local Government, Associate Minister of Education Commerce and Minister of Regulatory Reform. He is a member of the ACT Party, and until April 2011 was its leader.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

149 Comments

"Now let’s say I buy the business and fix it up. I double its income to $200. In the absence of any tax the business is now worth $2,000 and I can sell the business and pocket a $1,000 capital gain. However, if there’s an income tax of 30 percent the increase in the business’s value is from $700 to $1,400. My capital gain is now only $700."

Rodney, what people like you fail to realize is that ANY CG comes at the expense of other peoples  taxes, investments, time, wages, and inflation. NO one lives or exists in a 'vacuum' separate too community, no one wishes to pay taxes YET we all want roads to drive on, hospitals, schools, state parks, national parks, police, etc etc etc. 

Well guess what?, as soon as ANY group is seen as "making a killing" (property speculators from 2003-2008) at the expense of the 'community' then it's time to change the tax laws so they must give some back!

Labour are a decade too late with this tax change unfortunately for most young looking for first home buyers. In fact Labour dis-infranchised  the VERY people they now claim to want to help. 

Oh sure, we're going to be able to build dozens of super highways and schools on the $17.5 million that Labour's CGT will bring in in its first year. Gosh, what are we waiting for? Hey at that rate we might even be able to afford the interest bill on one day’s worth of the extra billions in borrowing that Labour will be forced to make to cover the budget deficit it will cause, should it put its gay tax plan through. And Bernard will be happy with that; after all we all know how much he loves New Zealand’s debt.

We'd be real mugs to base tax policy on perceptions, Justice.

I'd try reading what I said again David and maybe step away from your "drama queen" semantics to the argument. Your obviously fearful because you are one of those who got hook, line and sinkered on the global property ponzi scheme.

I just love the attitude of those who want tax free CG's on their property investments while STILL wishing to draw on a pension at 65-(67) even though THEY have contributed F*** all to society by playing a game of "sit on it and do nothing" while others pay my mortgages.

An excellent riposte Justice.

And what you FAIL to realise is that investing in anything is about trying to become independant of a government handout when one retires. 

As I think I have said in before, Justice, I own no rental properties (and brought none during the boom) so I will not be one of the ones who has to pay a CGT if this poisonous Labour Party policy is brought in. Nope, don't have a Trust either. I’m one of the ones who has paid my mortgage and my fair share too, and without a dollar of welfare to boot. It’s a pity that more New Zealanders aren’t like that. So sorry to disappoint you bud, but you're dead wrong on those scores too.

Trouble is there are a lot of people, including on this site, who are not doing business but are trying to tell others how to run their business.  Tomorrow I'm off on a  trip to South Korea, a country that seems to be going places.  My hope for NZ would be that the academic theorists, especially the Labour supporters, got off their backsides and also tried to get developing business opportunities, but fat chance. And would be quite good if people on blogsites stopped wasting too much time talking to themselves and actually got out and did the business, but again probably fat chance.

I don't think CGT is the answer either. What I would like to see is more housing supply & less non-kiwi's buying NZ residential property.

To create more supply;

Sell some of the current state housing stock to kiwi's. Use the funds to build more state housing around transport corridors.

Provide incentives to developers who are currently sitting on land, tax after 3 years if non developement.

Change the land to residential around railway tracks. For Auckland think around Drury & between Waitakere and Helensville. 

To lower the demand for non-kiwi purchases;

Tax non-kiwi buyers. 

Tax non-kiwi buyers 

Absolutely Australia do it for all but new property.

Also make any resale available to NZ residents only or to NZ passport holders.

Residents should qualify only after three years here full time.

THe other thing about CGT is that it comes in too slowly to get immediate revenue.

Instead land or other asset tax is applied each year every year and can be adjusted to the needs of the Budget .

I'll tell you a even better plan Rodney.

How about we slash parliment to 99 members. Scrap any entitlements once a MP leaves parliment. No superanution scheme only kiwisaver like everyone else. How much money would we save if this was to happen. I mean why should you keep getting paid by your employer once you quit or retire from politics. Should I expect the same from my job after I quit after being there for 10 years or retire altogether

Be great to hear a answer on this one.

ps capital gains tax is a great idea and it should have been done years ago. Rather have that than asset sales.

Thanks

   aft

50 should be all we need. Explain how a CGT is going to stop asset sales? 

Can't believe people are debating this with such passion, when it's irrelevant. Focus on some real issues , like forcing political accountability.  

Labour will not sell assets, but will introduce a CGT ergo a CGT will stop asset sales.

Not a chance of the CGT stopping asset sales be they immediately or a few years later.
Its happening or taxes are going way up across the board, because there's no apetite for spending cuts voluntarily. It's like watching a slow motion car crash, expxept more people are going to get badly hurt.
It doesn't matter whose in control , think about it.

One thing (and only one) I can agree with Rodney.

It is a stupid tax because the complications of applying it accurately mean that all CGTs in every country compromise on inflation effects, evenness, dispensations and measurement of values.

The tax base needs to change to capture unearned wealth but it has to be done in a way that is seen to be fair. It should also capture money from those who operate without borders and the only way to do that is to tax the asset and not the owner of the asset

Rodney, you have no point with your example of CGT as a double tax.

If a business generates $1,000 revenue is taxed 30% then profit is $700 and will continue to be $700 per year unless they increase/decrease revenue.

If the business owner then sells the business at the end of the financial year for say $7,000 then the business generates $1,000 trade income + $7,000 sale price. Rodney you are saying that $7,000 should be tax free because why? The purchaser doesn't pay the tax.

I take the case of housing where business people have borrowed to buy property where they have no intention to derive profit from rent. They have rented out, often making a loss or at best a break even investment. This has proved to be financially sound investment for some only because of CGT free status.

The property sector in every country is the largest industry so therefore your example of small  or even large companies having to pay CGT is misleading in terms of there importance to the picture. It would be easy to have CGT tax on second+ properties.

I've read thru this article twice.....  It smacks of a mindset that twists some logic to simply support some rigid world views.... I find some of his thinking , inane.

Why don't u apply your logic to the minimum wage...gosh if we could pay our emplyees $5 per hr... the capital value of our business would skyrocket... shit..goddam it..we are being double taxed because of the minimum wage.!!

Jeez.... Rodney....  Look around you... open your eyes....   For the last 10 yrs all of NZ has been borrowing to invest for capital gains.... Absolutely nothing innovative or entreprenurial about this.

The prize example is the farming sector...  the main reason that returns on investments became so low in the farming sector is because farmers included capital gains in forecasting theirr overall returns....  ( they have the view that they are in 2 businesses... one farming and the other property investment )

The only thing that makes any sense to me...of what you have written.... is that labour wants to tax us on nominal Capital Gains...   This is unfair....

"The incentive to entrepreneurship and innovation are capital gains. "....  Not sure where u got this from....?????   I don't agree with it. ....  (The desire for income and low income taxes would be a better incentive in my view.)

PAYE tax is probably the most unjust tax.....  

Rodney ... u had your chance, as the leader of ACT , to come up with some innovative economic policy....  BUT u didn't.... just the same old tired stuff..  Act should have been a forum for new and thought provoking ideas and policy... 

cheers  Roelof

What tripe....

regards

 

So you don't drive on roads, use a public health service, want educated workers, like the police, wantthe rugby world cup etc etc.

Perhaps one day you might finally make the connection that taxes pay for things we all need to be a good place to live.

 

"Capital gains taxes double-tax income"

When people talk about double taxation, they imply that there is some principle that money ought to be taxed only once. Of course with a bit of thought this can be shown to be nonsense since money circulates continually. Should the fact that I buy a car out of taxed income mean that I pay no GST? Or should the salesman whose bonus is paid with the money I spend on the car pay no tax for the same reason? Of course not.    ‘Double taxation’ is either universal or non-existent.

"Capital gains tax is brutally unfair"

Amongst other benefit to the economy, a CGT helps close a tax dodge in which wealthy people present their income as capital so that they can avoid taxes. 

"Capital gains tax easy to avoid"

If CGT is so easy to avoid, why is it that we have property speculators/investors and others complaing about it?

"Capital gains tax chokes the economy"

It hasn't choked the economy of Australia and the rest of the other countries that have had it for years.

What a load of dribble Hide, hard to take you seriously again after that rubbish.

Looks like a shallow attempt to suck up to the gutless wonders of a government we have.

I see all the Labour Party people are out in force tonight!

Simple, we choose to have and live in a balanced society that's about ppl.  In this our choice we make the decision that to an extent we look after less fortunate and not one where the work house is your end.  Or where those in power/position can abuse that privaledge...though I guess we need to work on that a bit more

Hence why ACT gets about 3%....and the Green's 7%.

regards

Maybe Steven its because some of our best and brightest vote with their FEET.

If some one really has to do a survey then why not have one at the departure gate for  those who are leaving permanantly ask....

"who did you vote for at the last election?.."

i suggest the "green box" would remain fairly empty

One of the biggest reasons they vote with their feet is the cost of buying a home....plus a number of ppl I know decided not to come/stay because housing is so over-valued. Of course its worse in OZ, I have a work friend coming back from sydney because despite earning more the cost of housing is so bad it isnt worth it.

In terms of tax etc NZ is at worst average in tax take for the OECD, so tax being a significant reason for leaving, isnt likely.

Also in terms of brightest quite a few are heading for the mine work, lorry driving doesnt take a huge IQ but pays very well...

Indeed having that breakdown at the agte would be interesting.

I am all for minimalising tax, but part of that is that tax is across the board so everyone pays tax so everyone pays as little as practical.

Green fairly empty, at about 7% of the vote its fairly typical across the world.

regards

 

 

NB you talk drivel, all income/profit should be taxed....and that way aits minimised across the board. but oh wait the few ACT supporters end up paying tax....sad....

regards

Hide needs to learn the value of posting less.!

My five properties return rent and I pay tax on the profit..while I live in a sixth. If I want to sell number one and avoid the Labour theft tax, I will move the tenants out and shift to that property..which is the family home..no CGT when sold...then I buy another or boot tenants out and move to number two.

This is just one of heaps of loopholes that lead to a bloating of the bureaucracy, which eats up the declining revenue stolen by govt.

The road to 'salvation' leads to smaller skinny govt and greater individual effort...reductions in the spending..NZ will not see an across the economy improvement until the bloody splurge and waste are brought to a halt. You will never get that under socialists.

Socialist pollies seek the very opposite of individual effort and personal responsibility....they MUST have benefit dependency or as pollies hunting power and the pig trough, they fail.

That is why Labour have so far and always will, fail to bring economic prosperity.

You are right, Wolly. The Labour Party needs the low paid and welfare beneficiaries, because without them it has no constituency. So it will do whatever it can to maintain policies that promote low wages (tax) and welfare (spend) to keep/grab power.

"The Labour Party needs the low paid and welfare beneficiaries"

I think you'll find the National and Act want them too, they provide cheap labour to the economy, and thinking from a supply-and-demand view, what would happen if we had no beneficaires and full employment? Demand for labour would go up, and with it...

Think it through.

That's not how the world works, dear.

Economists disagree on the percentage but its somewhere between 4-5% unemployment.  It is how the world works.  Companies have to pay wages overseas that would be illeagle here just to keep profits up. 

Argh yes the awful joke of the quarterly analysis reporting structure & the never ending search for improved profits. Well that has to end one way or another.

Thank you sir for filling in the blanks for David B.

Interesting figure Skudiv, 4 - 5 %, I wonder if it's a prediction or based on actual data?

For those of you who have missed what I was meaning, I was referring to Carpetbager's fantasy of a world of full employment and no beneficiaries. That will never happen so there is no point in even suggesting it.

Of course it is....

regards

OOPS Just closed that loop hole.

Hmm my BS detector is reading HIHI Wolly!

"Socialist pollies seek the very opposite of individual effort and personal responsibility....they MUST have benefit dependency or as pollies hunting power and the pig trough, they fail."

I am one of whom you deride (Polly). Are you right about me I ask? I own my own Engineering business of 15 years. Try and fund those who help others out of their dependancy rutt & seek to understand and assist in a smart way rather than Ranting about dole blungers etc!

Me thinks your assesment fails on all counts, often the case with tired grumpy rants.

Instead of ranting against my rant you should be thinking about why your "others" ended up in dependency rutts....!

Doubtless you had no say in what Clark and Cullen cooked up in the way of pork offerings to buy power...but you were there backing them to the hilt and you were happy to leap aboard their bandwagon splurge.

I don't, as you suggest rant about Dole Bludgers....I rant about lying useless pollies who put self promotion ahead of sound economics and financial management.

Gee Wolly thanks for the Tip, I'll go away and do that. Dumpty doo..............

And the dumb peasants with savings accounts to fund your gearing will pay all the taxes.

I guess they will try and close that loophole by a 'sale' being triggered when you boot your tenants out and move in.  However, another loophole will open........

And another 100 bureaucrats will be given state jobs to plug them...and the plugs will lead to more loopholes..and......

 Speculators do the damage not necessary long term owners/ landlords.

Wolly you give a good example. The property industry is too big and therefore, as we all know does a lot of damage, not only for the general public (Kiwis), but for other industries also.

I think the tax should be introduced in targeting a big segment of the industry - the speculators. So, why not base the tax on every property sold, but make the tax graded, so speculators are driven out of the market with massive taxes ?

Purchasing and then selling a property within 1 and 5 years should be taxed much higher, then selling after 5 and 10 years.

Another idea Walter would be to target one distinct district like Kaikoura to see what impact a CGT on all property sales...everything, including art...would have on that region...such a study would take oh about ten years..what do you think?

 Wolly - such a move would drive Kaikoura and other regions into bartering culture.

 A graded CGT  – would be a fair solution for the general public and shift investment to other industries. What do you think ?

But Walter..Kaikoura is such a go ahead place where property prices shot higher than the ranges to your west...on the back of speculation and spin and cheap credit....so it would be a great district to test out a CGT on all property sales...say at the owners marginal tax rate...that way the rest of the country could watch and see how things pan out...are you in or are you out?

 A graded CGT  – would be a fair solution for the general public and shift investment to other industries. What do you think ?

No Walter is isn't a good idea.

..then explain why not - please.

Because the cost to implement the vote buying pipedream would greatly exceed any value to come from it and the reason is, that there would be loopholes within loopholes inside yet more loopholes.

The answers you seek Walter can be found in reducing the size and cost of the state.

If it is the property bubbles you wish to hammer, there are stamp duty and mortgage registration options open, that would do the job of throttling any bubble at birth.

Of course reduction of government would help. Next to other points I mentioned above a graded CGT would also reduce the number of doggy landlords and would send some incentives to make the industry over time more reliable and respectful.

Here an interesting link:
http://www.ubs.com/1/e/ubs_ch/private/mortgage/homeownership/sale/tax.html

**Of course Switzerland has a CGT, but it is regulated/ administrated not by the state, but by cantons.

(**Listed as no CGT on another issue)

Some CGT  exemptions and reliefs around the principal private residence could be :

1. The house must be individually owned (in your name), not by a trust or company.

2. The owner, or spouse of the owner, must reside in the house and use it as an ordinary residence.  If part of the house is used for business, there should be a pro-rata inclusion for CGT calculations. 

The owner must have occupied the home as their principal private residence for a minimum period of 12 months prior to the date of disposal. And the onus should fall on them to prove (address on the electoral roll, power bills, phone bills ) that they were living in the property if they want to avoid CGT.

A full exemption from CGT should apply for where the property was the deceased's principal place of residence immediately prior to death and the property is sold within 1 year.

Big deal....so I move address 12 months prior to flogging the 'family home'.

Home owners should qualify for relief of CGT on their primary residence only once every 3 years

Gosh FHB....that will go down like a lead balloon!

 My five properties return rent and I pay tax on the profit..while I live in a sixth. If I want to sell number one and avoid the Labour theft tax, I will move the tenants out and shift to that property..which is the family home..no CGT when sold...then I buy another or boot tenants out and move to number two

You might want to understand tax laws first Wolly.  The moment you move that rental property from "business" use to private use a sale is deemed to have taken place.  Of course if you sell all the rental properties now you may still reap tax free capital gains.

Labour and National and the rest of them so far and always will, fail to bring economic prosperity - why, because their policies are only ever designed to bribe the sheeple to keep themselves feeding from the trough.  Note that they can continue feeding even if they aren't in power.

 

Labour is stuck in a birkenstock pipedream, where every dyslectic artiste with Asperger's can be a list MP.  The last century belonged to the statists; Clarke fueled the ultimate going away party before becoming a modern day Gertrude Stein in the salons of Manhattan.  It will take more than one election cycle to trust anything coming from that lot.

Rodney - you say, "All taxes are economically damaging ..." and I guess you would probably agree with Cathy Odgers that tax is theft.

So, let's abolish ALL taxation.

Now what?

Please explain?

Cheers, Les.

RIght wing utopia?

Of course, Les, we could always start by cutting some of Labour's big fat election brides, WFF and the rort, interest free student loans. That would balance the economy too would it not?

If so, why didn't Nationl abolish them? Answer: Because too may people are now dependent upon them to survive daily life. Take them away, and the property market will collapse, ( that's why National hasn't done anyhting about them?) as desperate owners try to release their saving from their houses to live off. "They" are similar to any subsidy ( artificially lower OCR, for instatnce?). Once they are relied upon, the consequences of removal are profound. Are there abuses? Absloutely! Just as there is, and always has been, with any Government programme.

It is very difficult to abolish election bribes once they are established. Of course if Labour had run proper economic policies (a contradiction in terms I know) during one of the countries longest periods of economic growth, then there should have been no need to introduce WWF in the first place. The fact that they did during that period speaks most eloquently about their economic incompetence, and most loudly about the Left's craven lust for power.

So, David B. Do you want to cut WFF and 0% Student Loans, or not? There's no point looking back at what has happened. Life is about figuring out 'what happens next'. And I'd suggest your remedy of cutting out those past policies will have consequences far beyond 'saving' the country welfare payments. 

Yes to both. Students should pay interest on their loans from the moment they stop studying, and it's not the Govts. role to be subsidising wages through the tax system. That’s the employer’s job. You seem to be forgetting, until a few years ago NZ, without any problems, had neither WFF nor interest free student loans. We are not going to fall into the abyss because they get axed now.

Afew years ago, is not now. A few years ago (<10?), property was half the price it is now, and relatively less to both rent and pay the mortgage interest on ( ie: wages were not half, then, what they are today). WFF and Student Loans are a fact of life, that today many base their lives around. Cut out WFF, and with a stagnant wages environment/unemployment high-to-rising, where does the replacement income come from to feed the family/pay the rent/mortgage?

If anyone is basing their lives around welfare, then they are a fool. But that comment perhaps more than any other I have ever read on this blog, nicely encapsulates what is wrong with this country and why it is so poor with respect to its peers.

Maybe so, David. But that's what they have done...and why...as you advocate... things will change...and the property market crumble. It has to :)

The property market will never crumble so long as you have a Labour party prepared to throw welfare at it. And I should add, where is it going to get the money from to do that? CGT

Well David B I suppose you overlooked the pay down of debt that occurred under Cullan, and you certainly won't have noticed the Key-English increase in government debt.

(Government debt as a % of GDP was 20.14% in March 2006, 15.95% in March 2007, 16.62% in March 2008, 18.99% in March 2009, 23.84% in March 2010, and 30.29% in March 2011.)

"That would balance the economy too would it not?"

It would send half ofthe Auckland 30 - 40 group overseas, who rely on WFF and interest-free student loans to keep a roof over their heads in a ridulously inlfated property market.

Think it through.

Well maybe there wouldn't have been a ridiculous inflated property market if these generous subsidies had not of been paid in the first place. I’d suggest it's you who needs to think it through.

All the talk of sending people abroad is pure crap. Many people stay I Nz because they want to be there. Some of those dependencies have to be wound back , or when Nz defaults it will happen anyway, along with tax raises. Nz needs to grow up & fast.

David - am all for that too, and people who actually need WFF would still be ok because I'd have either, the tax free allowance higher, or better still - a GMI = 1/2 a Big Kahuna and goodbye associated welfare depts.; plus broader taxation in the form of abolishing the 'Intent Rule' and exempting land based capital gains, because land based assets would be subject to a land tax, all resulting in a uniform rate for paye, corp, trust tax in the low to mid 20's. Recognising of course that tax isn't actually theft and isn't economically damaging when value for money collective services can be provided (let me at em') and tax rates are low and non-distortionary enough not to unduly influence investment directions, as is the case now, and has been the case while NACT sat on their hands this term.

What do you think, would you like to pay less via paye, corp, trust tax? Or are you content with the status quo?

Cheers, Les.

 Oh – I see another of my comments deleted – I must have very, very bad ideas – telling the true about our politicians – sorry Mr. Hide – playing the ballroom and not the ball.

 I now feel very bad –  like a 0 - it is always easy to bully others, then to be the victim – isn’t ?

With some people I don’t debate politics, because I’m always wrong.

CGT taxes those who profit from capital gains, every other form of income is taxed.  Talk to anyone who has made money from property and they all treat capital gains as income, above inflation.  A CGT has no effect on the profitability of a business it only applies to a sale, the example's given have as many holes as the policy itself.

I can understand a libertairian speaking out against tax, I don't understand how paying as low wages as possible fits into the libertairian view of personal property rights which is my main disagreement with modern liberals.

I can understand a libertairian speaking out against tax, I don't understand how paying as low wages as possible fits into the libertairian view of personal property rights which is my main disagreement with modern liberals.

Tweak the sentence slightly and you get:

"I can understand a libertairian speaking out against tax, I don't understand how paying as low a price for food and clothing as possible fits into the libertairian view of personal property rights which is my main disagreement with modern liberals."

This shows why your objection is nonsensical. Unfortunately most New Zealanders share your illogical views. 

Libertarians are not liberals, they are an extremist minority % think 1000 votes in the last election.....I would suggest reading up on Ayn Rand and objectivisim to understand why they are happy to expolit others no matter what the damage is.

However, no one wishes to pay more for a good than you can "profit" from it...same with wages...hence a society which to an extent wishes to care for those less fortunate have rules and regulations that the norm agree with...only the amoral or immoral by the standards of that society are then outside this normal behaviour...

Like I said they are only 1000 odd votes, so they are a non-event and a never will be event....do you really want to spend time on such?

regards

OOPS just closed that loop hole!

Labour and National - like so many on this website - are wedded to ideological standpoints.

I sense I'm a bit like Bernard, basically a pragmatic, non-doctrinaire centrist who can see some good approaches from both the left and right.

So here's my centrist's plan for reform:

- Increase tax to 39c in the dollar for those above 150K

- Introduce a CGT or land tax

- Reduce income tax (excepting the increase above) 

(all the above are essentially Labour policies)

-  Totally remove, or at least substantially reduce, WFF (the pain of this would be offset at least partially through the tax cuts above) 

- Re-introduce interest rates on student loans (not whilst studying)

- Progressively increase the age of supernannuation to 67

- Totally reform the urban planning system

none of this is rocket science!!!!!! 

Right on Matt.

:)

Actually, wrong Matt.  All you would do is appeal to nobody except for a few theorists.

You can't form a government to bring in any policy unless you actually get a lot of people to vote for you.  Sorry, nice try but it's only an academic exercise without any poltical realism.

For those who slag off at politicians like JK, let's see you stand up and deliver, you just might find it a humbling experience and not as simple as you kid yourself it is.

You're joking right. Most people with the amount of spin delivery training, speech training etc he will get , a monkey could do what he does in front of a camera or crowd.
Notice he has improved slightly over the years. Its called practice. The guy doesnt have to think, he is instructed. Next point muzza

The next point is that people like you are experts because you don't have to actually try to put your theories into political practice.  If you did, you might find is tougher going than you expect, but prove me wrong and go for it if you have the stomach to do so (but bet you won't ,as it'seasier to slag off on a blog)

Completely agree with those policies, Matt. Just something I would add re student loans - abolish the student allowance.

What's the loans scheme total at now , around 12+ billion or so. Nah keep it going , we need more people to start life as far in debt as possible
Did I read you correctly. Perhaps you may have it backwards ?

Hey Matt what would you do about corporate welfare then?

Absolute rubbish Rodney.

You should have stuck to the oil rigs.

A Question; has there been any discussion/clarifiacation from Labour on how any depreciation recovered would be treated under their CGT proposal?

For example, I have a couple of commercial properties that have had depreciation claimed in the past. This (depreciation recovered) would be treated as taxable income should I chose to sell, I would also, presumebly, be liable for CGT on anything above the assesed value after "V day"

This could create a substantial double tax liability, potentially eqivilent to several years of my total income and would be a huge disincentive to sell at all - even if there were better business opportunities. So I can see that this aspect - trapped capital - is a possible negative for a proposal that has a lot going for it from a fairness POV.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Good point ;-<

"Totally reform the urban planning system"

More on this please. I like your plan, a mix of reform, austerity, & pragmatism.

Could we add commitment to R&D?

R&D if by govt grant or tax write off is a subsidy and the money hole plugged by taxpayers!....benefit dependency for business!...on top of tax write offs for 'depreciation'...another business benefit....! Will Pureant disclose the value of his engineering business writeoffs?

Anyone wanting to know why Labour's CGT idea is already dead on gone..need only go here and read for themselves. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/5294686/Accountants-expect-capital-gains-bonanza

A stupendous OWN GOAL by the socialists..who still haven't said sorry for making a bloody stuff up of the economy and wasting 9 years.

Commitment to R&D means that we support those start ups in the short term that provide innovation & jobs in the medium term. NZ has traditionaly been ok in these areas, but tend to grow then sell.

Its a simple recogniton Wolly that the trad industries (property etc) do not need much in the way of smarts to start them up as there are numerous examples to copy.

You didn't answer my question pureant!

R&D amounts to a benefit and you know it.

The expansion of the list of allowable depreciation items has been nothing short of a grand rort supporting an army of accountants. Another benefit scheme!

Wolly that was so embarrasing for me! Hook baited.........and wham!

Cant beleive it!

$0- claimed on depreciation.

I take your word on that pureant...but you said you owned an engineering business..if so and if you have never claimed depreciation as a cost..what is the judgement on your business financial management skills! Surely an engineering business has capital good that wear out!

A capital gains tax would make the tax system more equitable. It is not fair that a worker earning $50,000 is taxed on every cent while someone who sells an investment property for a $50,000 profit pays nothing.

Thumbs up!

Sure there are pleanty of loopholes in it, but outright tax free capital gains is the loophole that is being closed, at least partially.

Landlords have already become so afraid of a capital gains tax that an industry leader says they are bowing out of the market.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10736829

That's a crock of shit.  Who actually believes that an unlikely* capital gains tax has affected the property market?  

I say UNLIKELY because it seems that with nationals current popularity, this capital gains tax wont be coming into effect.

It's already be tossed on the political scrapheap of failed pork offerings wakey. The 3 Amigos will go through the usual BS routine for a couple of weeks and then the whole sorry episode in economic idiocy will be forgotten about.

But don't you get $2 back from Government for every $1 you pay in tax?

This might come as a shock to you FHB but we already have CGT on the sale of investment properties...it is up to the IRD to decide on the intent of the property owner..and the CGT is at the owners marginal tax rate. It applies to all property FHB. Every bloody thing.

But remember, once the IRD play that card, they are trapped into allowing that owner to claim when selling at a price that brings a capital loss....a two edged sword. Apply this to the USA, on Labour's list as a CGT nation!....the property losses have been staggering...what is the projected tax loss?

Nil. The CGT proposal by Labour would allow losses to only be applied against future capital gains, not income or profit. Until such future time that a capital gain is realised,  any realised loss is quarantined.

How much tax are property investors paying at the moment? 

Tax the poor less and the rich more.

Wealth is built upon exploitation.  It is allowed because of the lie, being that wealth can be achieved by anyone and everyone.  It's the story of money.

Rule 2 - By excessive rates and taxes, destroy all small business.
Merge all big business until about 6 companies control the commerce of each country.

This is called 'centralisation of control'. Thus merge, merge, merge, is the name of the game.

Rule 3 -

The first area to be privatised in each country and sold overseas to agents of the planners must be telecommunications (Telecom in New Zealand, Telstra in Australia, Telekom in Malaysia etc). Sell it for a song if necessary but get rid of it. This is so that a global dossier on every individual can be set up.
Footnotes

1 The Listener N.Z.; 19th December 1987
2 The Christchurch 'Press'; 26 June 1987

Labour’s capital gains tax a breath of fresh air for manufacturing

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1107/S00172/labours-cgt-a-breath-of-fresh-air-for-manufacturing.htm

Talk Back Radio & now Internet 

It is absolutely mind-boggling to listen, whenever I have a spare moment, to these talk-back radio shows where both host and callers do their best to put a handle on what is going on. Each talk-back station in New Zealand will receive a free copy of this book, so they may discuss things intelligently in the future. God bless them all.

Some years ago, New Zealand had a very authoritarian Prime Minister called S..r R.......t M.......n. He was deposed from his position through a situation which developed, yet never seemed to actively try to get back into power. I found that the reason was that he was one of the 6 governors of the World Bank, and regularly took overseas trips in this capacity.

Many people longed to have an authoritarian figure back in power and started a group called the "Sunday Club". Believe it or not, the Sunday Club listed our books as recommended reading.

Well did this cause an uproar in Parliament? A friend of mine named Bill, (now deceased), called me excitedly on the phone and said "Tune in to Parliament on the radio. They are arguing about your books."

It was great as they all started to fight and accuse each other of making certain statements. I couldn't help laughing when the speaker of the House rapped his gavel and shouted "Order, order. None of you made those statements. It was this man Smith."

Some days later, we received an invitation to visit the 'Beehive' (New Zealand's Parliament building) to have discussions with the Prime Minister.

Ethics prevent me from ever making public what was discussed in his office that day but when we emerged, his secretary whispered "How did you last in there for one and a half hours? He always ushers people out after 20 minutes." I replied "If you knew what information I had to share, you would know why the visit was for one and a half hours."

LloydM1...the Beehive is an office building....it is not Parliament.

Parliament is the mess next door made to look Greeky at the front.

That's correct. Glad youre reading the posts.

and it has a leaky roof. Drips are falling on the drips!

New Zealand 'Sunday Star', 27th January 1987. (See 'Final Notice', page 245.) Mr M.....n in this article spoke of 45 different representatives meeting in Rome.

"...to see what we could do to mobilise public opinion in our various spheres of influence to give political support to the difficult decisions that have to be taken by the governments of the G7 to implement the policies that are seen to be necessary.....

The G7 proposal involves some loss of sovereignty by the participants and that is where the political difficulty arises."

(Author's note - In other words, once the people of the country find out what you are up to, they won't let you continue with your plan. In fact, if the facility was still in the law books, they might even insist that you be hung outside Parliament building for treason, as when entering this noble institution, you took a vow strongly implying that you would protect and look after the sovereignty of this nation. Now you are secretly and nefariously selling it out.

THE EX-PENALTY FOR TREASON     

What used to be called "Treason" is now called "Privatisation" .

I wonder what would happen in New Zealand if all its citizens read this book, and discovered to their horror, that in the year 1993, 40% of this country was already in overseas hands. Of course, in 1996, the situation is far worse.)

Gradual Colonialisation by Multi-Nationals

A recent television documentary revealed that at the time of printing this book, more than 51% of our Stock Market is overseas owned.

Many foreign owners don't live in the community. Apparently New Zealand is to become an exclusive playground for the world's wealthy. Foreign owners will ultimately try to change New Zealand law.

Continue quote - "If the public, or more correctly, the electorate of those countries can be persuaded that the result of that loss of sovereignty is higher standards of living for all the people of the world, the political difficulty will be overcome...." End quote.

Fully agree with the idea of getting rid of interest on loans. Better yet, get rid of the loans all together. Like it used to be until it no longer suited a certain generation. 

What should be done to solve a few woes is a one off retrospective charge on the generation that went through free education, healthcare, school milk, etc. that then began asset sales under the free market guise.

After receiving all of these benefits and more they have consistently brought the drawbridge up behind them.  

Anything that targets this generation is met with howls of disgust. There is so much noise about how this generation built NZ.

Bollocks.

The BB generation was raised on the teat of the generation before it, everything the pre-baby boomers  set up has been systematically dismantled to feed the greed of the BB. 

Its time the for new generation to just say "NO" to them. 

Cut the Pension for anybody with assets in either a trust, property etc. CGT for everything including the current residence. Get rid of Trusts. 

Its time for the younger generations to start putting in some big MF'ing road blocks in. Instead of the young people leaving to overseas, lets get rid of a large bloated sector that has left a legacy of greed, selfishness, and waste behind it.

I'd stand at the departure gate and happily wave goodbye. 

Start cutting the throats of the real drains on society.

 

student loan

If Labour wins I will sell all my rental properties immediately. No CGT for me. Not going to pay a cent.

Indeed, given the likelyhood of a depression and a bursting property bubble I wonder why you have not sold....November is a way off yet....then of course you will have to invest elsewhere, and pay tax, somewhere even if not NZ.

regards

In 130 years nobody alive today will be around on these shakey islands...certain regions will be mainly 'new immigrants' and there will be little to prevent major changes to the political structure of the country. NZ today may not survive into the 22nd century.

If you consider that alarmist crap...place yourself in NZ circa 1911..would you say NZ 2011 is the same sort of place as 1911..not on your friggin life.

And if Labour were to slither back into power...just how soon post the election do you think it will be, before the 'economic refugee' boatloads drive up the beaches north of Auckland. I reckon on a few months at the latest.

130... There will be an awful lot of people round today who will be here in 130 years. I'm willing to bet on that. Prob for my son to collect though but. 130 will be nothing special.

Yeah sure monty...and they will still be playing Rugby and waiting to reach the pension age.

1 in 6 expected to live past 100. Plus there's a few major medical breakthroughs that will be announced before 2015. 130 will be nothing to look sideways at. Just like centurians now are not remarkable.

You sound certain about the breakthroughs.. my bet would be any  tech/advances in industry from military to health is far ahead of anything the average person sees now, or is going to see access to, unless its being used to kill people.

Money talks for now I guess, whatever form it takes in 100 years

Never understood the obsession to keep hanging around...

well off track now, but...

Blindness, Ordering Organs, Brain Repair, Eradication of Genetic Conditions, Nanotechnology, Cures for Neurological Diseases, Stem Cells and Heart Disease, Treatments for certain types of cancer. 

Im not saving for a house now.  I'm saving for a new heart, kidneys and lungs!

I plan to live for ever or die trying.

Too late for me, but for my great-grandson—barring accidents—death may be optional:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-...

This is not just about delaying the aging process, it's reversing it. It's not such a huge leap from repairing the DNA of a mouse to doing the same for a human. There won't  be a shortage of venture capital for this research.

On the one hand we'll have the poor and ignorant obese carking it at 50, on the other the affluent living indefinitely in a world which is already being depleted at 5 times its capacity.

A recipe for disaster every way you look at it.

1) Look up AGW....in 130 years we are far more likely to be extinct.

2) We wont have the oil to support our present population and complexity, so its likely the world's population wil be under 2billion by 2050....and without fossil fuels modern oil dependant medicine wont be around in the abundance it is now......

130? I think 60 will be doing very well.

regards

If you are in to conspiracy theories you may want to look at the average age. News I have had is that it is descending fast in the West due to all the crap food we eat.

Medical intervention can't make up for poor lifestyle choices. Modern medicine is amazing in some instances, but by and large it is keep us alive but not increasing the quality of life.

The pockets of population that are 100+ are not in the west.

The National Party  should consider offering a Land Tax alternative to their Asset Sales proposal as it gets ready to fight the election. This would deflate the momentum gained by the Labour Party and assure National a win in this election.

Better CGT than a Land Tax. Lesser of two evils.

The world's largest and most advanced experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor and will be constructed in Europe, at Cadarache in the south of France.

The fusion reactor itself has been designed to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power, or ten times the amount of energy put in.

Latest poll results...Labour down to just 27%....yesssir the CGT was a "very very bad idea"....

Lucky you weren't in Sherwood Forest, Wolly. You draw a very warped bow.

The Greens are at 10%.

That's where it has gone.

That's not because of  CGT.

That's because folk are thinking it out for themselves. Some other folk though,  think Aunty Helen is still around - go figure! Time they shuffled off th a rest home, methinks.

Well I spose yes, the pinky green polling perked up but I doubt it's due to the pinky reds CGT blunder.

It might well point to younger dreamers seeing salvation through the pinky greens and that they have recognised how much rot exists in the pinky red leadership.

That the CGT pipedream has turned out to be an own goal bringing the final end of the Labour motly lot was never in doubt. The mistake the Three Amigos made was to believe swinging voters were themselves not aiming to avoid being victims of govt tax theft even if the loot was to become benefit pork offerings.

Now Labour are in total collapse as far as policy is concerned. Goofy cunliffe klinger king and parker to name but a few are history..they are gone for all money. Little will have little difficulty in rolling the lot of them....and in the process moving the Labour lot over to a Marxist unionist bed of troublemakers.

Wolly I think its time someone put you in the old ppls home and threw away the key, this is just a mad rant.

CGT is nothing more than pork barrel....invest in something that gives capital gains and pay no tax....if that isnt pork barrel what is?  That's exactly how the rich make their money, yet produce no good(s)....the rest of us pay PAYE and business tax and do produce good(s). What we need for a strong economy is ppl working and making a decent wage, this means real businesses producing a good and employing ppl and with high wages/productivity is where we want to be....mad property specualtion is where we are and its hurting us.

Labour - total collapse? I doubt it.....lets see the next few polls.  Bear in mind before this Labour was probably toast anyway so they hadd nothing to lose....and ppl dont want the SOE's sold...personally I like it, it fixes a huge rort that no other Nationa allows.

Now ACT's % you can get a feel for.....still not showing much of a move....Brash wants 10% but is still 2~3%....no trend up there...

Green's polling 5.5% to 9.5%.....seems pretty constant.....

The Roy Morgan poll is due shortly I think...

regards

The point needs to be made in terms of property rights. That is, NACT are willing to compromise the property rights of the whole nation in terms of asset sales, all for the sake of protecting those of a core support group of their's. A small group of little more than 280,000 people, primarily made up of property investors and farmers - who as Labour's Stuart Nash has found, pay nothing like their fair share.

Why should the whole nation lose out for the sake of this small, Association of Cockies and Tax-avoiders (ACT)?

[The 'taxpayer' part of ACT the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, has always drawn a wry smile with me. They have lost my vote for this November. Dismal.]

Cheers, Les.

www.nzmea.org.nz

 

My own highly scientific polling of people around me at home and at work puts Labour ahead by around 23 zillion % due almost entirely to their plan to kill the property ponzi schemes.

The margin for error is +/- 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 %.

Wolly - which poll was that? Was it closed before Labour's announcements about their taxation package?

It was on one news. Poll closed on Wednesday before labour announcement... but most of the info was leaked prior anyway for the previous week

Tax attacks misplaced

"Because we tax income but not capital, investors are massively motivated to put their money into assets they hope will grow in value rather than those that produce income.

We talk a lot about the unproductive boost this gives the housing market. But we rarely consider the negative impact on the productive economy. Dairy farming is one of the most debilitating examples.

Most farmers load up with debt to buy land. They work hard, take minimum income out of the business and repay debt as fast as they can. Many keep growing this way, getting their big payoff tax-free when they sell.

Playing this game, the dairy sector quadrupled its debt to $43 billion in the decade before the current recession. This drove land prices to uneconomic levels compared with competing farms overseas – for example, good US pastoral land is one-quarter of the price here. The debt-fuelled binge did little to improve industry performance.

Farming for capital gains is changing ownership patterns. Young farmers are finding it even harder to own a farm. This is why a growing number of farms are foreign-owned. For example, Chinese buyers with much lower cost of capital don't worry about farm profits. They reap their rewards selling dairy products directly to consumers at home.

The absence of a capital gains tax also damages the tax base. For example, tax is due on gains from assets traded short-term rather than held for investment. Under CGT, the distinction would remain, but its 15% tax rate would partially close the loophole."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/5292756/Tax-attacks-misplaced

WFF: good US pastoral land is one-quarter of the price here 
The land maybe cheaper but for the average USA dairy farmer, even at the cheaper land prices, they are losing money:

This year’s agriculture boom is a bust for U.S. dairy farmers as surging costs for cattle feed compound a glut of milk products.

While the 27 percent jump in wheat prices and 48 percent gain in cotton may send farm income to a record, dairies will lose money in 2011 for the second time in three years, said Mike Brown, an economist at Glanbia Foods Inc., which processes milk in Idaho and New Mexico. Corn, a feed ingredient, jumped 33 percent in the two months ended Oct. 31, almost three times the gain in wholesale-milk prices. Futures slumped 11 percent.

Farmers lost $2.50 to $4 on average for every 100 pounds (45.4 kilograms) of milk last year, and the deficit may be $1 to $3 in the first half of 2011, Brown of Glanbia Foods said. The company’s three plants in Idaho and a joint venture in New Mexico process a combined 22 million pounds a day and make cheese and whey.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/milk-glut-ruins-u-s-dairy-farm-...

 

What is wrong with foreign investment in productive assets like our dairy farms?

Overseas investors export the dairy products which cant be bad for the economy.

Do you really want the next generation New Zealanders to be tenants in their own country?

Ever been to Cuba landlord? One of the reasons Castro got a foothold was because non-nationals owned all the sugar, the tourist hotels and whatever wasn't nailed down. then of course there was the scum of the earth, the Mafia involved in prostitution and the gambling casino's. I am far from a lefty my friend, but I had to sympathise with the poor old Cubans on their plight, like lets be a little fair boys. I am not sure  how long this nation has been paying tariffs on our exports, with most if not all, going to sudsidise overseas farmers in their incompetent farming endeavours. Those subsidies then created a completely false value of the farmland, our dollar is driven into the basement, either by design or poor management, the overseas farmer cashes up his false valued land, comes to NZ with a huge monetary advantage, and bumps up the price of land on the Kiwis, Landlord, we have just paid the overseas investor to buy our own land. Not to mention the huge tax advantage many overseas countries had on us, If goofy Goff wanted to raise a popular tax, bring back the absentee owner tax, if you don't live on the property mate, you pay say 2% of capital value, that would raise more than Goffs paltry 17.8 million the first year. Then probably the overseas owner would bugger off, thus reducing the price of land, maybe. One further question Landlord, if this overseas investment is so good for this nation, then how come we are borrowing 10s of millions a week to stay afloat.

Apparently the only time its wrong is when money is being invested from certain specific countries..

I really can't understand how a CGT can stop the so called housing bubble ? 

It won’t stop a bubble, but it will take the sharp edges off the next bubble.

The Savings Working Group that recently reported to the government said that the last housing bubble would have been half as big if we had a Capital Gains Tax.

 Careful Ivan – make sure to play the ball and not the ballroom – otherwise he’s deleting you - like me.

He is the kind who believes in two rules.. one rule which says let my house be hoarded even if it is not my money.. second rule i wouldn't allow others to be paid even if it their land and they are the rightful owners of it.

The CGT is likely to be the defining issue for the election.

It will certainly affect my vote.  I was as ready as anyone to see Auntie Helen out the door.  But closing the glaring loophole in our tax system is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. 

So at this stage either Labour or the Greens for me.  It is a pity as I don't want to see endless extensions to WFF etc.  However if the Nats won't even consider it, they take away my options. 

Impassioned rants against a CGT, based on self-interest or the interests of the propertied elite, aren't impressing me at all.  Sorry Rodney.

Cheers to all.

There seems to be a wealth of information on these posts Rodney's for example.I only wish that I could understand it. Don't tell me Rodney doesn't understand economics after all of this time!

Have I got it right that its still basically as its always been commonly known that National policy targets the better off and consequently the 'trickle down theory" and the Labour aims repeatedly at the achievers and better off's wealth and distributing it amongst the others.

The point that strikes me is that Phil is assuming that this 'better off' section of NZ citizens will stay put in this country while  being continually unrewarded.

If they don't we will all be finally in big trouble. I liked the Canadians post about the group of men in the drinking school at the pub.

Same thing I reckon! if we beat up the achievers there will be no money for any benefits

full stop. The difficulty is I feel that those that will be affected won't agree with me.

Regarding this CGT I don't like the idea of applying the concept in this country blatantly right across the board.I buy an old house and provide a home at a reasonable rental for different people over a period and at a different age it is wise for me to sell it.This is surely different to a person who buys a house rapidly tidies it up and re sells it for $10.000.oo tax free profit before the first mortgage repayment becomes due.

Go after the speculators I say they in my opinion are the ones that have done the damage.

Justice, i think Rodney lives in the Epsom bubble, a bubble that houses all of New Zealand and where all 5 finers are equal. It is little suprise then that apart from Epsom he wouldn't get elected from anywhere else. Come this election he wouldn't have a ticket from Epsom either. I wonder why interest and Bernard agreed upon carrying an opinion by such a loser!!!

Something to counter-balance the scare mongering by the Association of Cockies and Taxdodgers (ACT):

http://www.realeconomy.co.nz/194-selwyn_pellett_some_facts_on_l.aspx

"Those opposed to Labour restructuring of the tax system have come out with a bunch of emotive statements which does little for their cause and has tended to expose the pockets of self interest in this country.

We seem to be in a near religious debate about what’s right and wrong, so in the absence of a science to prove either case let’s at least revert to some known facts to at least balance the arguments.

The biggest argument in favour of changing our tax base is to signal the need to change our investment behaviour into the productive sector ie those that are job generating, export earning, debt reducing, tax paying businesses and away from inflation seeking/causing, debt creating, tax avoiding investments that are largely land and property based."

and read on.

Cheers, Les.

www.nzmea.org.nz