Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to BenWilson,
Lending shitloads to property speculators. In this country it was a field day, because all those capital gains were tax free.
Where is the proof that capital gains are tax free and what is the figure?
People engaged in the development of property as their principal activity if they buy say a section and sell it say 10 years later without developing it they pay tax on that gain.
Banks don't lend shitloads to speculators - you don't appear to know the difference between investment and speculation.
A speculator buys an asset without any analysis as to what it will produce and takes a punt it will produce a return – it is usually with ones own money and it is the speculators risk..
An example of how the tax regime on tax works in realtion to ppty - I purchased an apartment in Auckland with the intention of living in it – things transpired and I ended up working elsewhere when I moved into the apartment some 7 years after owning it I had to in that year pay income tax on the difference between the price I bought it for and the value of the ppty on the date I moved into it.
You need to learn more about how things actually work – you opinions on things are ill founded and appear to me to be based on your belief in political spin doctoring.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to BenWilson,
Refer to the earlier miss posting.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Apologies - That was meant to be posted in reply to Ben Wilson.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Jezz Ben, I have had to get up off my self-composting toilet and stop rolling up perfumed candles such is the extent of correction your delusional perspective requires.
I have not said the sun goes up, so rent goes up - you might not have noticed that the sun goes up and down.
Depreciation and CGT are not correlated. If you remove one, depreciation, and the other, CGT, doesn't exist - then they don't exist.
My point of view simplified to help you understand it is that if the inputs (+ve) to the rent cost equation are increased above the product of that equation, which is the rent people pay, will also increase.
In the interests of being positive the vision for self-composting toilets and perfumed candles (SCT & PC) will take off,
The financial institutions and capital markets have created the shit that lead to the GFC and if it was made mandatory that they, the financial people, have to deal with their shit through the introduction of self composting toilets then what you would find is that they would have less money to spend on luxury good like Ferraris, Wide Screen TVs and partying like Charlie Sheen. They would however have enough coin to purchase perfumed candles, which they would now most certainly need. A CGT won't clean up the shit from the GFC or 11 years of toss..
Self-composting toilets and perfumed candles will take off; it is safe for me to say that Key is close to pulling off support from Obama who is waiting to see how Keys fares in 2011 before endorsing the concept. Russell Norman and all the best people have one; Tony Veitch is never far from his and takes it into the studio.
Kindly send your cheque made payable to cash and stop your incessant bleating, which frankly isn’t helping with the recovery. I don’t want to have to come down off my throne and correct your limited viewpoint.
The answer does not lie in CGT, selling SOE – the answer is stop bleating like little lamb lost and get on with SCT & PCs and other such stuff.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Sacha,
It is weird I remember, it may have been in the lead up to the election Labour lost, Michael Cullen was blaming those naughty NZers who had bought wide screens TVs.
The problem with a lot of the approaches to the thang that is the problem is that people look for someone to blame and then as a solution they look for someone to tax or levy to cure what they perceive the problem was and what they perceive the problem was wasn't actually the problem.
If the problem wasn’t the lack of regulation in capital markets globally, governments coasting along on consumption taxes and not fulfilling their function then a Widescreen TV Tax is in order.
If NZ is living beyond its means then it has to increase it earnings and reduce it spending on Widescreen TVs. Exporting composting toilets and perfumed candles is a go, to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity please send a personal cheque for $500 made payable to CASH, after all we need to invest in ……………...
National has in two years hoped for a recovery, it didn't happen, I don't know perhaps they have set the economy on implode and are now plotting a course that will take us to the centre of the sun.
I said this before:
The justification for the sale of power generation is to raise capital from Mum and Dad investors for the purpose of funding infrastructure development in schools hospitals etc.
If that is what this govt really want to do they could issue limited amounts of government stock that can only be subscribed to by private individuals in amounts of say $5,000 up to $50,000, that are non tradeable and tied to fund the a specific project.
I hold the view that investing Kiwisaver funds in NZ makes sense, but I also hold the rather distorted view that the purpose of the economy is to provide goods and services for the people, but I may be wrong.
In conclusion I am against the sale of power generation and a CGT - I don't see that either will be of benefit to anyone. If I had to chose between these bleak alternatives I would vote against a CGT.
This is my last post I on this topic; I am off to sit on my composting toilet and roll perfumed candles both of which I intend to export, I do look forward to receiving your cheques and hope that there will be a development subsidy in the next budget so that even those that don't send the cheques can enjoy investing in the creation of my wealth.
Thanking you all in anticipation.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Steve Parks,
Removing the depreciation from ppty has resulted in rents increasing and CGT will have a similar effect - that is my view - I don't have to research this the same way I don't have to research the fact that the sun comes up each morning.
By and large increasing the cost on an item eventually gets passed on to the end user in this instance of CGT and the remocal of depreciation this is the tenant.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Sacha,
I don't agree that "Flasher houses are a diversion and a prime reason our private sector owes the world so much."
The underlying problem was the growth of debt/credit and that was fuelled by the banking/finance sector and resulted in the sub prime situation and the GFC.
People who own/build/live in houses aren't the problem.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Islander,
Yep - I agree The growth of bureaucracy was one of there main thangs - I am surprised Wellington didn't crumble and fall into the sea under the weight of it all.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Its not what I came up with it is what happened, WFF made a lot of people welfare dependant – in my view the extent of people given support over reached the mark, people on pretty high incomes got support.
You mentioned earlier in this thread about CGT stopping speculation, I am interested in why you are against speculation – consider a builder/developer buys some sections and builds a series of spec houses and on sells them that is not a drag on the economy or the tax pay, like wise if an individual buys a house does it up sells it an buys, for themselves, a better house or a smaller house with less of a mortgage for themselves both of these scenarios have a positive effect on the economy.
It is interesting that an effect of removing depreciation on ppty has been that rental stock has become scarce and rentals have risen, ppty prices have remained static or increased. There was a front-page article in the Herald this week along these lines. It is likely that CGT will IMHO also push up rents.
I asked you a question in this thread awhile back about what you would do to grow the economy; your answer was along the lines of what you expected others should do. It is interesting to consider ones own situation and how one can work in that situation to promote a growth in the economy.
I feel one has to factor the government out of the equation, don’t rely on them and get on with what ever it is one does, do it well and make sure it works.
The last election descended into a tax cut promise contest, bearing in mind this topic is Election 2011: GO. What happens next is going to be critically important.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Paul Williams,
One of the tragedies of the three term Labour Government the "depressive effect" that working for families had on workers seeking a living wage through the bargaining process.
What you had was working people through the tax take subsiding the income support of working people with families.
An obscene aspect of income support matrix/paradigm is that a lot of “NZ Business” is propped up by local body and or government subsidy and these concerns didn’t really pay what you would consider is a living wage to other than management – so if you take family support out of the equation a lot of these people will be screwed.
Taking family support out of the equation is what will likely happen next and the real low level of wages bites.
It is interesting that Cullen fits a demographic that would be the prime target of an Investment Advisor/Financial Services conglomerate and that Key is a former higher order boffin in a Financial Services conglomerate.
IMHO the three term Labour govt squandered its time in office and the lost opportunity will be all they will be remembered for as the coming crisis hits home very hard.