China girl era. He’s uncovered a few stars, Luther Vandross was a backing singer at one point and Stevie Ray Vaughan got his start under Bowie
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start Date
NZWarriors.com
"It was very difficult being a closet heterosexual all those years when you have a career like mine, I couldn't come out until 1984" -Dave Jones
His wife Iman is a bit like Grace Jones, they don’t seem to age
NZWarriors.com
The evidence is in the article unless you don't believe the bloke quoted in there.
But anyway you don't really need evidence to know that if you shut down the emergency housing before you have built the alternative housing there will be more homelessness.
Having stayed at a motel that was being used for emergency housing I can tell you that there were mostly families in need but some assholes taking the piss, so any alternative needs tougher policing.
And the school lunches are a cluster fuck, the kids should be fed properly.
The change to allow granny flats and sheds without a consent is a good move. Council are too slow and to hopeless to do anything useful so if you can remove them from the process that's helpful.
- Thread starter
- #20,546
Labour unveiled their CGT. Smart play done to sucker in the lefty voters
Get it in as a minimal tax and once in only the naive will think they aren’t after your KiwiSaver and personal home next. Evidence: GST and brightline bought in small and ramped up.
And all it takes is promising $100 worth of cheaper doctors visits. Problem is there’s no doctors and Labour doesn’t support the new medical school to get more.
Get it in as a minimal tax and once in only the naive will think they aren’t after your KiwiSaver and personal home next. Evidence: GST and brightline bought in small and ramped up.
And all it takes is promising $100 worth of cheaper doctors visits. Problem is there’s no doctors and Labour doesn’t support the new medical school to get more.
NZWarriors.com
I dont mind the discussion of a CGT, but where is their strategy/budget to tell us what the extra spending is for and who would trust them to deliver on it within budget even if they had one? I would rather they just use what they have today until to pay down debt until we have a sound infrastructure growth strategy.
Also should note that labor introduced gst and increased it initially but the increase from 12.5- 15% was national wasn't it?
Interesting.... how is giving of free doctors visits to everyone going to close the wealth gap? Those with health insurance will just change to a policy which is cheaper and won't include doctors visits.
We've already received an email from a property management company (one we used to use but are still on their database) suggesting that landlords look at putting their rent up to cover the tax when they sell.
Think off it this way.... two parents with small children will have the opportunity to receive $600 of free doctors visits each year (assuming 6 visits @ $100 each based on the figures supplied by Ayesha Verrall). But, a landlord putting their rent up by $10 PW is $520 each year.... and a landlord with a property they sell with even a modest $200,000 capital gain at 33% tax is looking at a tax bill of $66,000. Spread that out over 15 years owning the property, and that's just under $4,500 increase in rent each year to over the CGT.... or an increase in rent of $85 PW.
And, after owning a property 15 years, a landlord would expect it to have doubled in value so a $600,000 property brought 15 years ago and now worth $1.2 million would be paying just under $200,000 with a CGT of 33% (and the portion over $180,000 inc. their salary/wages would be taxed at 38%). To cover the additional tax that's an additional $255 PW rent or $13,200 each year.
What a con!!!! Paying thousands of dollars each year in additional rent to gain $600 free doctors visits.
Labour.... by the rich, for the rich.
According to Cameron Bagrie, Labour expect to bring in $250 mill in the first year of this scheme.... with a population of 5.5 mill, that works out at just over $45 per person which one doctor visit per year.... where is the funding for the other two free visits coming from? The policy isn't self funding as Labour has suggested.
More evidence needed, the first year Australia had a CPT, it produced $410 million NZD. Divide that by a population of 16.5 mill at the time and that's $25 NZD per person in CGT the government collected. Labour is trying to sell us a policy based on nearly twice the revenue ($50 NZD per person) a Capital Gains Tax made in Australia with a CGT with a much narrower base (i.e. less capital gains tax revenue) than Australia.
Yes, Australia's CGT now brings in the equivalent of $750 NZD per person.... but that's taken 40 years to build up.
And before anyone says about a CGT "narrowing the wealth gap", even at $750 per person in Australia, less than 9% of the population paid over 85% of the CGT last year.... yet, their wealth gap is increasing every year. If a CGT is supposed to close the gap, why isn't it?
Share of wealth held by Australia’s poorest falls sharply since 2004 – report
Study by Monash University recommends spending increase to fix inequalities in housing, health and education
But, wait for the left leaning bloggers and economists to call it a game changer.... a tax which, to begin with, won't bring in the revenue to pay for the free doctors visits.... let alone provide additional health funding money.... instead, it will suck money out of the health system. Based on the Australian model, which has a broader base, it won't be until 2034 until there's enough revenue from a CGT just to pay for the free doctors visits.... it's certainly not going to build new schools, or hospitals, or underwater ferry terminals, or pay police, doctors, nurses, teachers any more... let alone, be actually given to the poor to help close the wealth gap.
And it was also National who introduced the Brightline.... can "blame" Labour for the increases in the years covered by it but not for the introduction of it.
NZWarriors.com
Who would of thought National fail at costing out infrastructure spending
greaterauckland.substack.com
Reality bites: RoNS will bankrupt the nation
The government’s mega-roads programme is now looking to cost an astonishing $40-50 billion, based on new documents released yesterday by the NZTA.On Monday, Transport Minister Chris Bishop touted the fact that $1.2 billion would be spent towards funding for design, consenting and property...
greaterauckland.substack.com
The announcement was weak as piss. 3 free doctor visits per year? For a CGT that excludes most things and adds a bunch of complexity? No thanks
I think landlords would probably prefer to just pay 3 peoples' doctor visits to them directly each year. The compliance costs alone would be less than $300 per annum
I think landlords would probably prefer to just pay 3 peoples' doctor visits to them directly each year. The compliance costs alone would be less than $300 per annum
Still think the $250,000,000 raised in the first year is going to make a difference at the bottom of our wealth ladder? It's estimated that, once housing expenses are paid, just over 200,000 children in NZ live in poverty. That works out at less than $25 per week for every child. How is that going to increase the net wealth of those families?
When NZ last had an Inheritance Tax along with gift duty, it brought in over $5 billion PA in today's money. Slightly better than Labour's $250,000,000 .... well, 25 times better!!! Or the equivalent of $480 per week for every child.... now, THAT is how you reduce poverty and increase net worth!!!
When NZ last had an Inheritance Tax along with gift duty, it brought in over $5 billion PA in today's money. Slightly better than Labour's $250,000,000 .... well, 25 times better!!! Or the equivalent of $480 per week for every child.... now, THAT is how you reduce poverty and increase net worth!!!
NZWarriors.com
So are you an advocate for going back to the inheritance tax with gift duty you mention?
I am.... as well as cracking down on "profit making" charities (such as the tax the Sallies don't pay on their rental income, the Anglican church on the leasehold properties in East Auckland, the Open Brethren on their Kiwifruit orchards and dairy farms, and the Seven Day Adventists on Sanitarium) and on people "hiding" incomes and assets in trusts. Even the original purchases of the rights to bring McDonalds to NZ was a non-taxed charity.
I'd also like for company profits being sent overseas to be taxed properly but also "giving" to the JW's and Mormons which is sent untaxed overseas.
Yes religion has largely been untouched over the years regarding the revenue they garner. Would like to something set up alternative to government too regarding housing and most aspects with my view of many of their invested interests in parliament unwilling to make necessary changes
NZWarriors.com
Whats your thoughts on Govt subsidies to these same charities like Gumboot Friday ? Seems to be some dusty stuff going on with directors/managers salaries.
TBF, trust income is taxed at 39% now, and there is nothing wrong with protecting assets in trusts. They've been around since the Romans
In fact, without trusts, we wouldn't have nearly as many entrepreneurs and innovation
I think we need to disinsentivise investing in property by removing the ability for a landlord to be able to combine the value of an investment property with their private residence enabling them to buy the investment property without a deposit by using the equity in their private residence as the "deposit". The ability to do this gives an investor an unfair advantage over a first home buyer who has to spend years saving the deposit and then outbid the FHB because of the advantages they have with using the equity in another property.
Instead, I'd like the investor to be able to buy the property with a 15-20% deposit like a first home buyer.
Investors property also gets an advantage over others through leaverage.
Say, an investor buys a $600,000 property using the equity in their private house, so they borrow the whole $600K from the bank. Using the BNZ's mortgage calculator, they would also pay back an additional $530,000 in interest at 4.79% PA for a 30-year mortgage. Say their expenses (mortgage, insurance, line water fees, rates and maintenance) each month was $4,000 but the rent only generated $3,000 PM, they would need to put in an additional $1,000 themselves.
Over the 30 years, the property doubles in value every 15 years, meaning, when the mortgage has been paid off, the property in then worth $2.4 million. Since they've contributed $360,000 over the life of the mortgage, their net gain in value for their investment is $2,040,000.
His next-door neighbour doesn't want to be a neo-lib landlord so instead puts $1,000 PM into a managed fund earning a return of 5% average PA after fees and tax. After thirty years, his investment has grown in value to $840,000 giving him a total investment gain in value of $480,000 after you subtract his $1,000 per month.
Who has done better? Obviously, the landlord.
But requiring the landlord to actually save a deposit while reducing the tax on PIE managed funds would close that gap between the two considerably.
NZWarriors.com
Don't like it at all. While I like the work Mike King does, we're putting too much faith in that organisation. They shouldn't be receiving the lions share of the funding they are.
I was approached by a man who had set up a charity that was "hidden" in a trust where it would provide "emergency" housing while not paying tax. The beneficiaries of the trust were his children. Once there that been enough equity built up in the houses through government funding, he was going to close the charity, sell off the houses and "give" the money to his kids. All the time, his children were going to be employed by the trust to "manage" the houses.
I told him I wasn't interested in doing the documentation necessary for the project.
Similar threads
Politics
🤡 Donald Trump
