C G T

[mardigras]

12 minutes ago, barryb said:

Firstly the beauty of GST is everyone pays, not everyone pays income tax, a significant portion of NZ pay 5/8ths of fark all for many reasons. The majority of income tax is paid by a small minority of the population as plenty are tax neutral or almost are thanks to the many benefits they receive. 

The type of people penalised by a CGT are small business owners who employ stacks of Kiwis, Mum and Dad Farmer & so on.

We have survived perfectly fine without it and will continue to be perfectly fine without it. Its all about fairness is a crock of shit, its only about jealousy of those who have taken risks, speculated & done well out of it, the only thing it will do is zap the spirit of those who are ambitious.

Hopefully J does introduce it as she will become a 1 term Govt in doing so, its political suicide.

 

I agree with respect to income tax. And that should be addressed. Sort out the myriad loopholes around avoidance. 

And tax evasion should be better identified. And dealt with appropriately as the crime it is.

Can you give me some examples of how a small business owner is going to be disadvantaged by a CGT, that isn't a good thing? I'd say the main people affected by a CGT are people with spare cash/equity. The wealthy. Share investors and property investors.

We have survived fine with out it. We have survived fine without the onus of personal responsibility around superannuation as well. Yet they should scrap the government pension (and should have done so years ago), and put the onus on the individual to sort their own shit out.

It's a country full of people seeking more and more from the government, rather than paying their share and getting away from social welfare so that the government can spend the money where it is needed to help those that want to work and make money.

Spend money on things like infrastructure, not unemployment benefits and pensions.

I can't possibly agree with GST. It's as much abused as Income Tax. People pay for things for personal use and put them in their business books. 

 

[Kopia]

And the argument that 'many other countries have a cgt so why shouldn't we have one' is simplistic. Many other countries have the death penalty, cut peoples hands off for theft, let citizens have access to any firearms they want, legalise damaging substances ( although it looks like this outfit is on the way to do this...I worry about my grandkids!), imprison without trial, restrict overseas travel, etc etc...should we do some of these here too?

[pete]

33% is punitive.

And Scrooge McCullen comes out with the gem that $14 a week will make a huge difference to low income families.

More of the same from the most hypocritical arsehole we've ever had in politics (ok apart from Winnie The Pooh).

Tax the rich pricks (but not me of course says Cullen).

 

[mardigras]

41 minutes ago, pete said:

33% is punitive

 

Sure is. I'd be keener on a level around 20%, or even lower towards 15%. Some income taxation without stifling the behaviour.

Edited February 22, 2019 by mardigras

[Weasel]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

My main objection it is yet another tax from a Government that is closing down revenue creation e.g. Oil and Gas in Taranaki.

quite right, Chief...just another Tax-inda ploy

 

[Newmarket]

I do not agree with most of this report, but i do not see any reason why those making heaps off rentals should not pay tax where required. 

 

[barryb]

Much more important than another bloody tax, catching the sick farks who did this.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110804480/stabbed-miniature-pony-stars-paddock-a-shrine-as-police-hunt-his-killer

Why does a small country with a low pop like us have so many dead beat farking losers who do crap like this, I hope the cops baton the shit of of the pricks.

We are so lucky to have a great Police force here who will hunt these losers down and see some justice done.

Edited February 22, 2019 by barryb

[Newmarket]

I suppose the way i look at is is this. 

Somebody works hard, sometimes two jobs, puts money in the bank and is taxed on interest. 

Somebody sells rental, makes a dollar, pays nothing?? Come on

[Reefton]

31 minutes ago, barryb said:

Much more important than another bloody tax, catching the sick farks who did this.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110804480/stabbed-miniature-pony-stars-paddock-a-shrine-as-police-hunt-his-killer

Why does a small country with a low pop like us have so many dead beat farking losers who do crap like this, I hope the cops baton the shit of of the pricks.

We are so lucky to have a great Police force here who will hunt these losers down and see some justice done.

You're dead right. They should string the bastard up. Poor little horse.

[Reefton]

Re the CGT there will be ways around it. There always is but that is if you can afford the accountants and tax experts to sort it for you.  Someone said the only ones who will get rich are Accountants and,despite the fact I am one myself, that makes me sick.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Reefton

[Newmarket]

5 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Re the CGT there will be ways around it. There always is but that is if you can afford the accountants and tax experts to sort it for you.  Someone said the only ones who will get rich are Accountants and,despite the fact I am one myself, that makes me sick.

 

Watched a programme on tv over Xmas, stated many accountants will be out of work in the future due to a more user friendly tax system. 

I see Wahoo has laid off heaps of staff now that IRD has decided to make it easier for most to do their own returns. Good riddence i say, it was a joke all these companies popping up, making money little. 

[Reefton]

26 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

Watched a programme on tv over Xmas, stated many accountants will be out of work in the future due to a more user friendly tax system. 

I see Wahoo has laid off heaps of staff now that IRD has decided to make it easier for most to do their own returns. Good riddence i say, it was a joke all these companies popping up, making money little. 

You would hardly call Woo-hoo accountants but as for the user friendly tax system that  is a crock of shiite.  Nothing but nothing is user friendly about tax and when you are self employed the tax compliance burden is a frigging nightmare. Don't believe the IRD advertising about automatic assessments either.  You can guarantee there will be colossal cockups cos with government departments there always are.

[Tonkatime!]

1 minute ago, Reefton said:

You would hardly call Woo-hoo accountants but as for the user friendly tax system that  is a crock of shiite.  Nothing but nothing is user friendly about tax and when you are self employed the tax compliance burden is a frigging nightmare. Don't believe the IRD advertising about automatic assessments either.  You can guarantee there will be colossal cockups cos with government departments there always are.

Complete agree Reefton, also a lot of people don’t want to interact or have contact with the Ird no matter how simple the system is to use, they would much rather pay someone to advise them and interact with Ird on there behalf. 

[Brodie]

1 hour ago, Newmarket said:

I suppose the way i look at is is this. 

Somebody works hard, sometimes two jobs, puts money in the bank and is taxed on interest. 

Somebody sells rental, makes a dollar, pays nothing?? Come on

Landlords pay tax on their rental income surplus just like any business.

If they sell a property and makes money then they normally reinvest in another property.

The fact this this loser government wants  to hammer landlords in this country is going to come back to bite them.

The coalition government has not got anyone with any business success whatsoever and it clearly shows.

They are going to be booted out big time next election as they are totally incompetent.

As for CGT it is a dead duck, just like their KiwiBuild!

 

 

 

[mardigras]

8 hours ago, Brodie said:

As for CGT it is a dead duck, just like their KiwiBuild!

You're probably right. Be better just to increase the income tax rates. Let the paye people shoulder the burden of those property and share investors like me.

I am not a labour fan. But none of the choices are any good. And when you have governments so focused on social welfare, they want more money from those not on the social welfare ladder, so let's tax the group less likely to be able to avoid tax, more, to get it.

[Brodie]

Let’s stop people wanting to be on welfare and make it harder to live on it so they want to work.

Many get more for doing nothing than what many get from working, which is blatantly wrong.

We need to change this generational welfare BS now, but this lot in power will only make things worse!

They have no idea on how to run anythinG

Shane Jones giving out millions to business’s that Banks won’t lend to, so that is saying something!

Unbeleivable bunch ofxxxxx.  

[Reefton]

54 minutes ago, mardigras said:

You're probably right. Be better just to increase the income tax rates. Let the paye people shoulder the burden of those property and share investors like me.

I am not a labour fan. But none of the choices are any good. And when you have governments so focused on social welfare, they want more money from those not on the social welfare ladder, so let's tax the group less likely to be able to avoid tax, more, to get it.

The social welfare focus is a big issue all right.  When these unfortunate people can, with a couple of kids, earn a family income of $70k plus and effectively pay no tax(due to working for families credits) it is hard to find ways to help them further.

Now before people jump down my throat and say '$70k isn't much' I appreciate that but the point is how much money can we shove these people's way (and of course who is paying it?).

Actually in some ways it is like the NZ racing Industry.  I am not sure of the exact amounts NZTR puts into these big stake races(can't be bothered looking but no doubt someone will advise)but suspect at least 60%.  So on Herbie Dyke day with a million on offer the industry has pumped say $600k in.  Turnover $1.7m off and say $300k on (Bernard indicated he thought the off course was $1.7m at our meeting here yesterday but not sure of oncourse). So a 30% contribution.  Say the Kumara Saturday meeting with a combined $1m turnover and an NZTR contribution of $120000 or 12%(still too much to be fair).  Where does the NZ industry get better value?  And how much more money can it afford to pump into these lame duck clubs?

Bernard(who I actually think is a pretty decent bloke with a shit of job selling this BS) told us several times yesterday that the industry is broke and that courses had to close.  He seemed to struggle with the concept that the huge money being poured into the KM night for instance was the drain pipe on the funds not the small clubs and industry days(well maybe the old song 'there is none so blind as he who will not see' comes to mind)

But how much more money can we pour into these big stakes while we close down the 'unfashionable' clubs who are paying their way? 

And in similar fashion getting back to social welfare how much longer can small time businessmen(like me) who earn a modest living go on subsidising this massive payouts to people who, in many cases, appear to be not prepared to try to help themselves?

[Weasel]

13 hours ago, mardigras said:

I agree with respect to income tax. And that should be addressed. Sort out the myriad loopholes around avoidance. 

And tax evasion should be better identified. And dealt with appropriately as the crime it is.

Can you give me some examples of how a small business owner is going to be disadvantaged by a CGT, that isn't a good thing? I'd say the main people affected by a CGT are people with spare cash/equity. The wealthy. Share investors and property investors.

We have survived fine with out it. We have survived fine without the onus of personal responsibility around superannuation as well. Yet they should scrap the government pension (and should have done so years ago), and put the onus on the individual to sort their own shit out.

It's a country full of people seeking more and more from the government, rather than paying their share and getting away from social welfare so that the government can spend the money where it is needed to help those that want to work and make money.

Spend money on things like infrastructure, not unemployment benefits and pensions.

I can't possibly agree with GST. It's as much abused as Income Tax. People pay for things for personal use and put them in their business books. 

 

Taxinda is not stupid. She has no intention of introducing a CGT - if implemented at all it will be renamed and a watered-down version of some of the Cullen recommendations. If she is smart, she will leave businesses alone and only ping speculative property investments, which most Kiwis see as unfair gains if untaxed.

[Reefton]

Actually I have just looked up and it appears to me the NZTR contribution is probably more like 75% than 60% to these whopping great stakes.

[The Diceman's Been]

Copied from another website but undoubtedly the best description of the situation that I have read:

 

It is widely known John Key, through his childhood, was raised by his solo parent mother within the security of a state house then shook off the shackles of state support to became a very successful and wealthy business man and eventually one of NZ’s most popular Prime Ministers. The “chair and author” of the report from the Tax Working Group, Sir Michael Cullen once called him, “A working class scab” clearly with reference to his motivated abandonment of social dependency in his pursuit of self determination. And we can all recall Cullen's “rich prick" gibe and his reference to Key as a “scumbag". So it is clear, that in Cullen views, successful motivated people as significant roadblocks in the promotion of socialism.

Sir Michael Cullen received a fully funded scholarship to Christ College in Christchurch. In his maiden speech in parliament he had this to say:
"I'm proud of the fact that my secondary education was not paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand but by the farmers of Canterbury and Hawke's Bay. I ripped them off for five years then, and I shall get stuck into them again in the next few years”.

Cullen has the entrenched hatred of anyone who has the audacity to dismiss the state from their lives. His claim that taxing the investments of the perceived wealthy then redistributing it to those with no investment or savings is an act of fairness. This is a deliberate and manipulative lie. Some call it “envy tax" but I call it “dependency tax" Cullen has no reason for envy. His, not insignificant wealth, has been accumulated through a lifetime of state employment whether as a university lecturer, MP or appointments to Government working committees. Never once has he risked his own capital in a venture that provided productivity, employment or income. His accumulated wealth is entirely from the trough. And the trough is never deep enough for socialists.

This trough is their indoctrination fund. Dependence on the State is their ultimate goal. They need money to harvest more towards the entrapment of socialism. And there is no other person more qualified than Cullen to implement this progression. That is why I view the taxes as dependency taxes. Cullen is a very dangerous and manipulative socialist and his focus is firmly set on the discouragement of independence through socialist legislation and taxation.

We must never surrender our will to take risks, to trust our instincts, and to pursue our dreams. If it all comes crumbling down, just do it again, but differently. Socialist can go to hell. Socialism is the personification of cowardice. I would rather sleep under a bridge than sell my soul to socialism. If you think we got rid of Clarke and Cullen ten years ago your mistaken. Like a cancer in remission, they're back with their puppet child Ardern. They had unfinished business. They don't know how to move on. They don't even know that they are also the victims of socialism, brainwashed into submission.

 

[mardigras]

I don't support CGT for socialist reasons. I support CGT for having a well funded and more appropriately funded government. The governments are going to fund social welfare programs to various degrees. I'd rather we didn't have the majority of social welfare aspects that we do. But they are going to continue no matter who is in government.

The people that want to make money in an economy like NZ, require the government to spend money in other areas as well. If there isn't enough because it's all spent on social welfare, the people that don't want a CGT are also some of the ones being restricted in their potential due to lack of investment in other areas by that very same government.

The funds have to come from somewhere. And currently, it is the people that have no choice but to pay, that pay it. And when there isn't enough, they pay more.

If any government was serious about where their tax revenue was coming from, they would close the loopholes and address the tax evasion that exists. That applies to both National and Labour. But they don't.

CGT is one way to address one of the loopholes. So long as it has appropriate compliance checks.

The issue of a CGT and welfare is unrelated. One should happen irrespective of the other imo. With no social welfare, there should still be a CGT. It's just a tax loophole otherwise.

[barryb]

One way to make it more palatable is to adopt the same as Australia and make any assets acquired before CGT is introduced exempt.

• Any asset acquired before 20 September 1985, known as a pre-CGT asset. But an asset loses its pre-CGT status if substantial changes are made to it (e.g. major additions to a building), or on the death of the original owner.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

I don't support CGT for socialist reasons. I support CGT for having a well funded and more appropriately funded government. The governments are going to fund social welfare programs to various degrees. I'd rather we didn't have the majority of social welfare aspects that we do. But they are going to continue no matter who is in government.

The people that want to make money in an economy like NZ, require the government to spend money in other areas as well. If there isn't enough because it's all spent on social welfare, the people that don't want a CGT are also some of the ones being restricted in their potential due to lack of investment in other areas by that very same government.

The funds have to come from somewhere. And currently, it is the people that have no choice but to pay, that pay it. And when there isn't enough, they pay more.

If any government was serious about where their tax revenue was coming from, they would close the loopholes and address the tax evasion that exists. That applies to both National and Labour. But they don't.

CGT is one way to address one of the loopholes. So long as it has appropriate compliance checks.

The issue of a CGT and welfare is unrelated. One should happen irrespective of the other imo. With no social welfare, there should still be a CGT. It's just a tax loophole otherwise.

If the Government needs more money to fund infrastructure then well and good.  However it seems ludicrous to on the one hand reduce the real revenue earning side while taking more and more of a smaller pie.  For example what impact does the virtue signalling decision to stop oil and gas exploration have on the economy and privately funded investment in infrastructure?  

One estimate is a $30 billion loss to the economy - even the Taxinda and her mob agree that it is north of $8 billion.

So lets go set up another tax and hammer those who actually do invest in the economy and have built their own infrastructure.  I don't disagree that there is a degree of equity in having a CGT but to use the revenue gained to fund more socialist policies is sheer folly.  

I see a corollary with the racing industry.  Do you see any attempt by the Government to spend more efficiently and cut costs and so have more money to invest in revenue making infrastructure?  Just like the NZRB.

 

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

If the Government needs more money to fund infrastructure then well and good.  However it seems ludicrous to on the one hand reduce the real revenue earning side while taking more and more of a smaller pie.  For example what impact does the virtue signalling decision to stop oil and gas exploration have on the economy and privately funded investment in infrastructure?  

One estimate is a $30 billion loss to the economy - even the Taxinda and her mob agree that it is north of $8 billion.

So lets go set up another tax and hammer those who actually do invest in the economy and have built their own infrastructure.  I don't disagree that there is a degree of equity in having a CGT but to use the revenue gained to fund more socialist policies is sheer folly.  

I see a corollary with the racing industry.  Do you see any attempt by the Government to spend more efficiently and cut costs and so have more money to invest in revenue making infrastructure?  Just like the NZRB.

 

But they are different decisions. Just because they make poor decisions elsewhere, doesn't mean other decisions are necessarily poor. CGT is not a negative tax. It's a tax on income.  The norm of the people is they pay tax on income, yet people get up in arms because some that don't become the target for actually paying. I don't understand it. You don't pay CGT on losses and I understood they weren't charging CGT on unrealised profits (perhaps unless you emigrate). What's the issue?

Who said they were going to use the CGT to fund social welfare policy? And once the government changes, the CGT would be used for whatever the government at the time decided.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, mardigras said:

But they are different decisions. Just because they make poor decisions elsewhere, doesn't mean other decisions are necessarily poor. CGT is not a negative tax. It's a tax on income.  The norm of the people is they pay tax on income, yet people get up in arms because some that don't become the target for actually paying. I don't understand it. You don't pay CGT on losses and I understood they weren't charging CGT on unrealised profits (perhaps unless you emigrate). What's the issue?

Who said they were going to use the CGT to fund social welfare policy? And once the government changes, the CGT would be used for whatever the government at the time decided.

Don't you think they tax us all enough now as it is?