Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe
610 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 25 Newer→ Last
-
Jack Harrison, in reply to
The housing market could continue in Auckland for 10 - 20 years. It's seems to be perfectly placed to be blasted by the property industry. The perfect storm.
It's a sure thing with its population projections and it looks good to a government because it gives the image of money doing well. Stuff the major city with punters , the obvious strategy of a small island run by a government bereft of ideas.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
It is significant as a monetary figure, but Labour’s reduction from $5000 to 0 is arguably more so, at least wrt to the political philosophy of the party. Implementing a $2000 tax free threshold appears more realisable in an MMP Government.
Nonetheless, groups advocating $10,000 tax-free threshold following the raise in GST include those inveterate Marxist-Leninists at the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. By which I mean it was a distinct turn to the right to abandon or scale back the measure.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
the obvious strategy of a small island run by a government bereft of ideas.
Perhaps this is being too cynical. but when SH 2 was blocked around the Devil's Elbow in 2012, it occurred to me that rather than making a genuine effort to permanently remedy this ongoing issue, the Government may have done a cost analysis, and reached the conclusion that intermittently requiring the occupants of fifty cars to pay for accommodation in Napier not only offset the cost of the MOW call out but offered tangible employment and economic benefits to the region.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Perhaps this is being too cynical. but when SH 2 was blocked around the Devil's Elbow in 2012, it occurred to me that rather than making a genuine effort to permanently remedy this ongoing issue, the Government may have done a cost analysis, and reached the conclusion that intermittently requiring the occupants of fifty cars to pay for accommodation in Napier not only offset the cost of the MOW call out but offered tangible employment and economic benefits to the region.
Or what economists call the Broken Window Fallacy, or a form of the Shock Doctrine.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
it was a distinct turn to the right to abandon or scale back the measure.
Yes Gio, there’s no question in my mind that the whole spectrum is on a starboard course. On this tack, under MMP, where minor parties can promise the world, compromises like the Greens made may be enough to sneak the legislation in – adjustable later. At least that’s what my last dregs of optimism can muster.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
the Broken Window Fallacy, or a form of the Shock Doctrine.
Thanks Deepred, The East Cape economic miracle.
-
I think the vision is to have a super powerful mega-city that could rival Melbourne or Sydney for capital potential , a political capital with a film industry and farming.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Found it, giving the benefit of the doubt, Russel may have felt Kyle Church had answered, not an ideal exit strategy, but given the platform it’s deft enough, I obviously don’t agree with Ross Sélavy Brighton that it’s “meaningless”, though it could for all intents and purposes be construed that way, or either way for that matter. When the dialogue boils down to the difference between nothing and something, to be sure, we’re already deep in the shadow.
-
“almost of the income of the very wealthy comes from capital gains. That’s why CGT is so progressive.” - marks link
Yes, Capital is (are) your playing card(s).
-
almost of the income of the very wealthy comes from capital gains
In the interests of aiming that weapon more squarely at the very wealthy:
(Capital gain x 50.00%) x marginal tax rate = capital gain tax
Ireland
every person has an exempt band of €1,270 per year.
Lithuania:
These tax exemptions will cease to be valid on 1 January 2014 for annual gains of over 10,000 LTL.
Moldova:
The applicable rate is half (1/2) of the income tax rate
South Africa:
For legal persons in South Africa, 66.6% of their net profit will attract CGT and for natural persons 33.3%. This portion of the net gain will be taxed at their marginal tax rate.
The UK
All individuals are exempt from tax up to a specified amount of capital gains per year. For the 2014/15 tax year this “annual exemption” is £11,000
Another flat-rate tax for the New Zealand population, why would you feel the need?
-
Jack Harrison, in reply to
What policy would you write?
-
Auckland will have a landed class and a non-landed class, the latter never sure of its residency. Until this shocking socially irresponsible economic house price jacking stops. It's time this rort was stopped for the hard reality of renting in Auckland and the obvious generational social reasons.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
What policy would you write?
With only a few minutes to do so:
As well as increasing the top income tax rate, I’d go with something similar to one of those CGTs above that are multiplied with the individual’s marginal tax rate as per SA, Can, Mol.
Ideally in conjunction with the implementation of a reasonable marginal tax-free threshold, say $10,000.In the likelihood of no income tax-free threshold, I’d introduce a reasonably generous exemption, probably somewhere between Ireland’s and the UK’s, designed specifically to handle the inheritance issue.
It’s time this rort was stopped for the hard reality of renting in Auckland and the obvious generational social reasons.
Yes, One issue I can see without an exemption is that say a family member dies and leaves the house to her 3 children. Say 1 child already owns their own home, they’re not going to want to sell the inherited property and lose that taxed portion of the gain if they can help it, they’ll want to rent the property out, though the other 2 may wish to sell, again this may result in the 1st child getting a mortgage to take it off their hands and still renting it out.
-
Jack Harrison, in reply to
Surely its got to the point of rort that would involve a real removal of capital initiative from multiple home owners. This is the real political correctness. You are not allowed to say to the multiple property investor that their investment is a risk.
At some times social concerns and democracy will identify you as a non-productive investor , you may have to answer to the democracy of capitalism and the democracy of capitalism is a blunt weapon . You either turn away or you correct the particular economy with taxes, like cigarettes. Housing sucks our money out of the market.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Surely its got to the point of rort that would involve a real removal of capital initiative from multiple home owners. This is the real political correctness. You are not allowed to say to the multiple property investor that their investment is a risk.
I couldn’t agree more, and this trend is further exacerbated by the deductables on rental income:
The following expenses can be deducted from your rental income:
rates and insurance
interest paid on money borrowed to finance your property
agents fees and commission
repairs and maintenance (except if they substantially improve the property)
motor vehicle and travel expenses
legal fees for arranging the mortgage or finance to buy the property
from the 2010 income year and beyond, legal fees for buying and selling a property can be deducted provided your total legal expenses for the income year, including the fees associated with buying and selling a property, are equal to or less than $10,000. Before the 2010 income year, legal fees for buying and selling a property are not deductible.
mortgage repayment insurance
accounting fees for the preparation of accounts
depreciationMotor vehicle and travel expenses? WTF is that？How does this benefit New Zealand?
The cost of travelling from home to work is not a tax-deductible expense.
It’s a rort as you say. But the CGT does very little to address the long term Land Barons, Counts and Marquis. This also does very little to discourage speculative practices:
legal fees for arranging the mortgage or finance to buy the property
from the 2010 income year and beyond, legal fees for buying and selling a property can be deducted provided your total legal expenses for the income year, including the fees associated with buying and selling a property, are equal to or less than $10,000. Before the 2010 income year, legal fees for buying and selling a property are not deductible. -
If we are going to build up Auckland, the first social housing needs to be in Epsom.
Buy up those inefficient cold villas and put up in brick two-up, two-downs, London style. The best house I’ve ever lived in was in London. Quiet and warm.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
They’d certainly be in keeping with New Zealand’s anglophile climate, with a heck of a lot more soul than what goes on here. As you mentioned earlier, if mega-city is what they want they certainly need to get cracking on something pronto.
-
Jack Harrison, in reply to
The inner city needs to be re developed to accommodate the new chaps. It’s central and is the most efficient place for Aucklanders to live. Capitalism needs organisation. We need skyrise apartments with nice prices and government help in all inner city suburbs. Auckland City. The New York of the pacific.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
If we are going to build up Auckland, the first social housing needs to be in Epsom.
Irrespective of what you think of him, Gareth Morgan is on to something with his piece on why gutting the RMA is attacking the symptom. And the 'commenter on Crampton’s article' is probably me, so I might actually be making a bit of a difference for once. ;)
NZ Initiative economist Eric Crampton’s argument is that the income of the poor has been rising at a reasonable rate, but that has been outstripped by the increase in housing costs. This makes housing affordability a big part of our child poverty story. This is a fair point – housing does suck up a big chunk of a poor family’s income. But the real question is why is housing so expensive, especially in Auckland? This is where Mr Crampton and many others go awry – blaming the regulations that stop more land being used for housing.
...So, the logic follows, we should rezone farmland and turn it into suburbs. This is just dumb – if Auckland is to keep growing, we can’t replicate this old model. It is already one of the largest cities in the world in land terms, with only a fraction of the population of cities of comparable land coverage. Concreting over the Bombay hills – the best land in the country – is not the answer.
...So if Auckland is to sprawl, let the developers face the full cost of the extra roads, congestion, infrastructure and even piping water from the Waikato River.
...If we do reform the RMA as per the Far Right’s vision, we should take the advice of a commenter on Crampton’s article, and test the idea on the ACT seat of Epsom. Take away all the RMA constraints to more intensive land use in this leafiest of suburbs. We can see how the locals like having their trees felled and intensive housing spring up in the sought-after Grammar zones. Watch the hypocritical Far Right NIMBYs come out in force then.
...There is a speculative demand for housing in Auckland that unnecessarily boosts the demand for housing well beyond what the demand for accommodation would imply. This is driven by the toxic mix of a tax break on housing along with the Reserve Bank directive to banks to lend on mortgages as first preference. Get rid of those and the demand will fall back to a level that is commensurate with the demand for accommodation.
...Promising that RMA reform will offer cheaper housing and solve child poverty is simply drivel.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
We need skyrise apartments
Yep, and hopefully catering well to the variety of needs, from experience, at least in terms of inner inner city, 45m2 is more than sufficient for a single individual, 60m2 comfortably accommodates a couple and 90m2 is more than enough for a 3 person family etc. As long as there are good amenities, i.e. a park nearby to stretch the legs and remember the green…If that doesn’t sound like someone’s cup o’ tea, there’s always Opotiki.
at nice prices and government help in all inner city suburbs. Auckland City. The New York of the pacific.
It's important not to neglect that in flourishing mega-cities like New York real-estate appreciates, that's all it does, at least until we see something like happened in Detroit.
-
Jack Harrison, in reply to
Gareth Morgan explains my point incredibly well. It’s maths fuckers, do the maths.
Epsom , do the maths. Enjoy the masses coming your way. -
Jack Harrison, in reply to
We need innercity apartments that are worldclass for warmth and sound isolation and warmth isolation , solely targeted and exclusive to the first home buyer.
-
linger, in reply to
dead dolphin
And it’s just made the news here in Japan (of all places!) that New Zealand is about to face trade sanctions over the lack of measures to protect Maui’s Dolphin and its habitat.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And it's just made the news here in Japan (of all places!) that New Zealand is about to face trade sanctions over the lack of measures to protect Maui's Dolphin and its habitat.
Link to official article:
-
Gareth Morgan explains my point incredibly well. It’s maths fuckers, do the maths.
I particularly liked this:
We might also see people and businesses relocating to other regions in search of a better lifestyle. Now that would be a revolution!
Something that actually could begin to address poverty levels nationwide.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.