• Labour's Capital Gains Tax

    From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Tue Oct 28 12:05:25 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not
    be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing
    and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past
    Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are
    too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mutley@mutley2000@hotmail.com to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 12:04:05 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not
    be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing
    and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past
    Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are
    too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.

    More of Labor's envy taxs. How to stay in opposition without
    really trying.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gordon@Gordon@leaf.net.nz to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 03:25:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-10-27, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    We have to remember that Hipkins is out of the Adern stable. As such the
    Labour ship is still very much on the same course. Except no excuse to spend and borrow as per covid.

    Fueling this is also the fact that Adern is still regarded higly by many people, the legacy of Covid.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not
    be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing
    and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past
    Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are
    too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.

    There is several issuses which seem to have ended up in a chaos discussion/debate.

    The question of the taxation share arose last year, CGT has been on and off
    the table for several years. There is a view that landlords are not of any
    use and just are getting richer.

    What is NZ trying to active with a CGT? I would argue it purpose is to put a very cold lid on the housing market so that housing is no longer seen as a
    fast sure way to make money. The money can be put into something which is productive, increasing the GDP.

    The matter of CGT is a big issue, ideally it would be nice to see a multi
    party approach. This would remove the political aspect some what.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 10:59:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 29 Oct 2025 03:25:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2025-10-27, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    We have to remember that Hipkins is out of the Adern stable. As such the >Labour ship is still very much on the same course. Except no excuse to spend >and borrow as per covid.

    Not quite correct - when Hipkins took over as PM he tried to distance
    himself from Ardern with a 'policy bonfire'. It did not quite work.
    The general direction that Ardern took Labour to are now considered to
    be unwanted legacy policies. No more 'be kind' etc.

    Fueling this is also the fact that Adern is still regarded higly by many >people, the legacy of Covid.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not
    be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing
    and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past
    Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are
    too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.

    There is several issuses which seem to have ended up in a chaos >discussion/debate.

    The question of the taxation share arose last year, CGT has been on and off >the table for several years. There is a view that landlords are not of any >use and just are getting richer.

    Yes - a CGT tax is considered an 'envy' tax to be paid by 'rich
    pricks'.

    What is NZ trying to active with a CGT? I would argue it purpose is to put a >very cold lid on the housing market so that housing is no longer seen as a >fast sure way to make money. The money can be put into something which is >productive, increasing the GDP.

    The matter of CGT is a big issue, ideally it would be nice to see a multi >party approach. This would remove the political aspect some what.

    The CGT proposed by Hipkins is a tax on 'rich pricks' to fund GP
    visits - that includes 'rich pricks' visits to a GP. Duh!! We
    already have a community services card for those on low incomes and
    you would have thought that at least to start with the free GP visits
    would have been restricted to community services cardholders,
    especially given the CGT revenue will be low with gradual increases.
    This is because the CGT applies only to properties sold and only to
    capital gains from a 2027 start date.

    National would never want to have any part of this and for good
    reason.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 15:14:52 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-10-29 21:59:57 +0000, Crash said:

    On 29 Oct 2025 03:25:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2025-10-27, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    We have to remember that Hipkins is out of the Adern stable. As such the
    Labour ship is still very much on the same course. Except no excuse to spend >> and borrow as per covid.

    Not quite correct - when Hipkins took over as PM he tried to distance
    himself from Ardern with a 'policy bonfire'. It did not quite work.
    The general direction that Ardern took Labour to are now considered to
    be unwanted legacy policies. No more 'be kind' etc.

    Fueling this is also the fact that Adern is still regarded higly by many
    people, the legacy of Covid.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not
    be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing
    and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past
    Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are
    too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.

    There is several issuses which seem to have ended up in a chaos
    discussion/debate.

    The question of the taxation share arose last year, CGT has been on and off >> the table for several years. There is a view that landlords are not of any >> use and just are getting richer.

    Yes - a CGT tax is considered an 'envy' tax to be paid by 'rich
    pricks'.

    What is NZ trying to active with a CGT? I would argue it purpose is to put a >> very cold lid on the housing market so that housing is no longer seen as a >> fast sure way to make money. The money can be put into something which is
    productive, increasing the GDP.

    The matter of CGT is a big issue, ideally it would be nice to see a multi
    party approach. This would remove the political aspect some what.

    The CGT proposed by Hipkins is a tax on 'rich pricks' to fund GP
    visits - that includes 'rich pricks' visits to a GP. Duh!! We
    already have a community services card for those on low incomes and
    you would have thought that at least to start with the free GP visits
    would have been restricted to community services cardholders,
    especially given the CGT revenue will be low with gradual increases.
    This is because the CGT applies only to properties sold and only to
    capital gains from a 2027 start date.

    National would never want to have any part of this and for good
    reason.

    In yesterday's newspaper it said only three GP visits per year would be free.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 17:39:48 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 15:14:52 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
    wrote:

    On 2025-10-29 21:59:57 +0000, Crash said:

    On 29 Oct 2025 03:25:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2025-10-27, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/375483wa

    This is so poorly thought out it is laughable.

    We have to remember that Hipkins is out of the Adern stable. As such the >>> Labour ship is still very much on the same course. Except no excuse to spend
    and borrow as per covid.

    Not quite correct - when Hipkins took over as PM he tried to distance
    himself from Ardern with a 'policy bonfire'. It did not quite work.
    The general direction that Ardern took Labour to are now considered to
    be unwanted legacy policies. No more 'be kind' etc.

    Fueling this is also the fact that Adern is still regarded higly by many >>> people, the legacy of Covid.

    It kicks of in 2027. It excludes every asset that hits the private
    homeowner or Kiwisaver account holder with exemptions. It also
    excludes inheritances and ignores the fact that in many circumstances
    capital gains are already assessed as income and taxed accordingly.

    Liability for a CGT occurs only on the sale - so tax revenue from it
    will be microscopically small, probably until at least 2030.

    There is also the consideration that the housing market in general is
    flat or falling - so there will be no prospect of capital gains worth
    taxing.

    So if this is the basis of Medicard funding (3 GP visits a year, no
    mention of means testing this so even 'rich pricks' get this) will not >>>> be in place for many years to come. There is no suggestion that the
    Medicard will not be introduced until the new CGT can fund it, so in
    the meantime Medicard funding will have to come from borrowing or
    reduced Government spending. Labour Governments are good at borrowing >>>> and have never reduced Government spending anywhere. Even the income
    tax reductions introduced with GST were revenue-neutral at the time.

    Hipkins has demonstrated that he has not learned any lessons from past >>>> Labour Governments. That's is probably OK though because National are >>>> too timid to call out Labour's policy for what it is with a well
    thought out rebuttal.

    There is several issuses which seem to have ended up in a chaos
    discussion/debate.

    The question of the taxation share arose last year, CGT has been on and off >>> the table for several years. There is a view that landlords are not of any >>> use and just are getting richer.

    Yes - a CGT tax is considered an 'envy' tax to be paid by 'rich
    pricks'.

    What is NZ trying to active with a CGT? I would argue it purpose is to put a
    very cold lid on the housing market so that housing is no longer seen as a >>> fast sure way to make money. The money can be put into something which is >>> productive, increasing the GDP.

    The matter of CGT is a big issue, ideally it would be nice to see a multi >>> party approach. This would remove the political aspect some what.

    The CGT proposed by Hipkins is a tax on 'rich pricks' to fund GP
    visits - that includes 'rich pricks' visits to a GP. Duh!! We
    already have a community services card for those on low incomes and
    you would have thought that at least to start with the free GP visits
    would have been restricted to community services cardholders,
    especially given the CGT revenue will be low with gradual increases.
    This is because the CGT applies only to properties sold and only to
    capital gains from a 2027 start date.

    National would never want to have any part of this and for good
    reason.

    In yesterday's newspaper it said only three GP visits per year would be free.

    Correct and as I pointed out in my OP. What point are you making?
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2