Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[juju]

That's your opinion and that has nothing to do with my reply.

Can you explain how it could be anything more than Costello being a Tobacco party shill.
Look at that evidence...

I would respect mored as a leader if he fixed that particular situation. The Tobacco industry directly influencing health policy.

The thing is his coalition partners walk all over him and can't fix it till it blows up more.

 

[Inruin]

Can you explain how it could be anything more than Costello being a Tobacco party shill.
Look at that evidence...

I would respect mored as a leader if he fixed that particular situation. The Tobacco industry directly influencing health policy.

The thing is his coalition partners walk all over him and can't fix it till it blows up more.

Again, your opinion and nothing to do with my reply.

 

[juju]

Again, your opinion and nothing to do with my reply.

He's not "getting better" if he's letting this fester.

A strong leader wouldn't allow a heavily compromised associate health minister. Its a terrible look.

 

[Inruin]

He's not "getting better" if he's letting this fester.

A strong leader wouldn't allow a heavily compromised associate health minister. Its a terrible look.

Cool, again, and I'm not sure what part you are struggling here with, that's your opinion and has nothing to do with my reply

 

[juju]

Cool, again, and I'm not sure what part you are struggling here with, that's your opinion and has nothing to do with my reply

It's directly in reply to the fan fiction you wrote on why Luxon won the election and how much better he's getting.
Good prime ministers don't allow compromised associate health ministers in their cabinets.

Kind cute you're so one eyed you can't acknowledge it's just a bit not right.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Labour couldn’t bring in a CGT when they had campaigned on it for 10 years and had a clear majority to push it through.

They fell back to extending the brightline which ended up a clumsy and inefficient attempt at a capital gains tax bought in through the back door as it was politically easy.

A CGT is preferable to the brightline as it allows for inflation (by using a lower tax rate), clarified what assets are included and doesn’t have a 10 year cut off. The brightline a dog.
If we’re going to bring in a CGT do it properly.

 

[Inruin]

It's directly in reply to the fan fiction you wrote on why Luxon won the election and how much better he's getting.
Good prime ministers don't allow compromised associate health ministers in their cabinets.

Kind cute you're so one eyed you can't acknowledge it's just a bit not right.

No it's not. My reply was to your comment that you would consider him a leader if he did this. I simply said no you wouldn't. Carrying on like you are doesn't change that. But then you revert to type, instead of just saying yeah I would or no, you're right I wouldn't and continue to try and hammer home a point that still is just your opinion, which you are entitled to, but still isn't what I replied to.

 

[juju]

No it's not. My reply was to your comment that you would consider him a leader if he did this. I simply said no you wouldn't. Carrying on like you are doesn't change that. But then you revert to type, instead of just saying yeah I would or no, you're right I wouldn't and continue to try and hammer home a point that still is just your opinion, which you are entitled to, but still isn't what I replied to.

Interesting you would rather get into a "yes I would" "no you wouldn't" exchange than just acknowledge really weak leadership.

He's the PM so naturally a leader. I would respect him more if he made the change. He hasn't.

How is it even opinion at this point - I would love to hear a defence of this minister.

 

[juju]

We're really all ok with NZ's Associate Minister Of Health changing smoking legislation using evidence co-authored by Phillip Morris? - all the while ignoring advice from actual health professionals?

This isn't how a good government operates at all.

Costello releases 'independent advice' on heated tobacco decisions

1News understands one study the minister used for advice relies on data from Philip Morris, while another cited sources where all authors worked for the tobacco giant.

www.1news.co.nz

 

[Inruin]

There is a wide aknowledgement that the previous government had it's spending out of control and was quite wasteful, and pretty much all the key areas that people are concerned about were declining badly.

This coalition government is definitely getting things done. A mix of really good stuff, some not good stuff and a bit of in between as well.

The polls haven't really changed much since the election, possibly even strengthened the coalition position slightly. I see a number of reasons why this could be happening. People are happy in general with the decisions and direction. There is actually some action happening and whether you agree with some, all or none of them, they are making it happen. Take education as an example, with one simple policy of banning cell phones they have already changed things for the better more than any policy, if you can even think of one, that the previous lot did. And there was push back against it, lots of reasons given why it can't be done, yet it's in and working and without many, if any issues that had been said would or could occur. Action and urgency. Almost the polar opposite of the previous. Another aspect is the money spent. I think most wouldn't or didn't mind the borrowing and the spending if there were tangible results or assets to show for it. We are seeing more controlled, accountable spending already and I think the feeling from those continuing to support them is that this is the case - sure, you can argue whether the priorities are right or not but it would be a hard ask to contend it's anywhere near, let alone worse than what we had. Now, let's assume, as a few one eyed posters on here would suggest, that the coalition is bad, corrupt, etc etc. why would the polls remain as high as they are? Why would consumer and business confidence be up and the later as high as it's been since 2016? One can only conclude either one or a mix of the majority agree with for the most part what the government are doing, it's better than what was there previously and that's fresh in the mind, and the alternative offer to this lot doesn't resonate or provide a better option.

Of course with democracy, the answer, if this government is so bad, is to vote in a new one. The problem is that you have the Greens who are largely a mess. James Shaw looks like he was holding them together but smart enough to realize it was time to get out. They have had shop lifting, bullying complaints, Darlene Tana situation carrying on and on.... (If you want to talk about leadership, how long has that been going on for) currently they appear unable to manage anything other than organise marches for Palestine and even that seems to have dropped away now it's not flavour of the month. What do they stand for other than that because their message, if they have one, has been lost. Then you have Labour who no one knows what they stand for and squandered a govern alone position where they had the chance to back themselves but didn't. Hipkins I'm for CGT, no I'm not, but now I am simply can't be the leader that takes them in to the next election. And they really need a rebuild after losing a lot of experience last election. Then you only have the Maori party left who seem on the face of it to be the yin to Acts yang with both being equally as divisive IMO. It will be interesting to see if the supporter base for this party continues to grow particularly if they aren't in a position to be in government after the next election. It's interesting to me that the original Maori party went in to government with National and probably achieved more doing so, but got decimated for it with Labour essentially picking up the Maori seats but delivering nothing, and now back to a basically activist Maori party, good at organizing a protest or two. Sitting outside of government and unwilling to work with anyone other than Labour/Greens. Interesting to that they were the only party to vote against the EU free trade deal. I feel a coalition government with them in it would struggle to get much done in a timely fashion. Essentially leaving a left and right block of parties. The current coalition looks stable at this point in time and the left look a mess. Until that left block can sort themselves out and provide a coherent and clear idea of what they actually stand for and that provides an alternative to compete with this coalition, why would voters other than the party faithful look to them?

 

[miket12]

It's quite a different scenario though isn't it.

Hickey was not making a capital gain on a 2nd or 3rd or 4th property - a capital gain on a free hold property he attempted to have the tax payer pay him $50k for, after changing the bright line... after preaching about wasteful government spending.

Whether it’s one or two or three properties, it’s still an untaxed capital gain.

Personally, I think the reversal from ten years to two for the “Brightline” test was too far and would rather it had gone back to five years. I think that would have provided a better differentiation between an “investor” (in it for the long haul) and a “speculator” (who is really a trader and should be paying income tax on the profit). Yes, circumstances can change meaning some may have to sell before five years is up, but they would be few and far between compared to “flippers” avoiding tax.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Whether it’s one or two or three properties, it’s still an untaxed capital gain.

Personally, I think the reversal from ten years to two for the “Brightline” test was too far and would rather it had gone back to five years. I think that would have provided a better differentiation between an “investor” (in it for the long haul) and a “speculator” (who is really a trader and should be paying income tax on the profit). Yes, circumstances can change meaning some may have to sell before five years is up, but they would be few and far between compared to “flippers” avoiding tax.

Again the brightline taxes inflation. Over 2 years inflation isn’t a big issue to a speculator.

Over 5 years inflation could be say 20% and so 20% of your gain isn’t income, yet you pay tax on it, most times at the highest rate.

The brightline is a speculation tax that was converted to a CGT by a lazy government with no real leadership..

 

[miket12]

Again the brightline taxes inflation. Over 2 years inflation isn’t a big issue to a speculator.

Over 5 years inflation could be say 20% and so 20% of your gain isn’t income, yet you pay tax on it, most times at the highest rate.

The brightline is a speculation tax that was converted to a CGT by a lazy government with no real leadership..

Before the Brightline test came in, short term land holding (and tax on the profit) was based on intention…. something that’s really hard for the IRD to prove. For flippers, there could be a pattern emerging as to how many “main residences” they flipped within a two year period, but for the rest, it was pretty much impossible to differentiate between a long term investor, a speculator or just a change in circumstances.

And let’s face it, most investors with a mortgage are never going to make a profit if it’s a negatively geared property…. they’re in it for the capital gain…. it’s just hard for the IRD to prove the intent of the purchase. “I sorry I intended to keep the property for entire the 25 year mortgage but my circumstances changed” was pretty much the standard reply to any inquiry from the IRD.

Or the other reply to the IRD was, “I was going too keep it longer but I discovered I don’t really like being a landlord”.

So, National brought in the Brightline test to provide a period which did away with the intention side off things. Labour then campaigned on not changing it….. and then did so twice, changing it from a way to identify speculators to a lite-CGT.

 

[defensivebomb]

If we’re going to bring in a CGT do it properly.

I remember the last time Labour was working on their CGT with the tax working group, there were a whole bunch of carveouts that kept various parts of their electorate sheltered from the proposed tax.

I don’t think NZ would have a huge problem with a CGT if it was applied to everyone was tax-system neutral

The only carveout that I think is reasonable to keep is the main home exemption

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The only carveout that I think is reasonable to keep is the main home exemption

The batch?
Business? (1 man band Painters?)
Shares?
KiwiSaver?
Art collection?
Engagement/ wedding ring?

Lots of places to navigate?

 

[miket12]

The batch?
Business? (1 man band Painters?)
Shares?
KiwiSaver?
Art collection?
Engagement/ wedding ring?

Lots of places to navigate?

No, shares were included which then would have included any capital gains in KiwiSaver and other managed funds. The shock when people drew back on their KiwiSaver accounts when they retired or for their first home, would have been huge because the balance they thought they’d be receiving to what they would have received could have been as much as 20% less (or another few years of saving for the deposit for your house).

Because individual share holdings under $10k weren’t included, that would have led to a large increase in people using apps like Sharesy to keep their holdings in anyone company under $10000. But, managed funds are different in that, although the company may have only “allocated” $150 of say Apple shares to you, they would have to pay on the rise in the $300,000 Apples shares they own for their 6000 clients. That then reduces the balance down when those shares are “sold” to another client when you withdraw your money.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The only carveout that I think is reasonable to keep is the main home exemption

So property investors will buy a house in each of their children’s names.

Each child could potentially save them 100’s of thousands in tax.

Im predicting a baby boom from property investors