• Capital Gains Tax -- About Time

    From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Tue Oct 28 22:51:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    The majority of voters seem to be in favour of a capital gains tax, as a
    way of spreading out the revenue base more evenly. Obviously there are
    certain powerful lobby groups -- the ones benefiting from not having to
    pay tax on that part of their income -- who have successfully kept it out
    of serious discussion for many years.

    So itrCOs quite a big step for Labour to make a move, as small as it is, towards making it a part of their taxation policy. And predictably, we see
    one side saying itrCOs a step too far, while the other side says it doesnrCOt go far enough.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tony@lizandtony@orcon.net.nz to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 01:08:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    The majority of voters seem to be in favour of a capital gains tax
    Cite? I doubt you can find one.
    , as a
    way of spreading out the revenue base more evenly. Obviously there are >certain powerful lobby groups -- the ones benefiting from not having to
    pay tax on that part of their income -- who have successfully kept it out
    of serious discussion for many years.

    So itrCOs quite a big step for Labour to make a move, as small as it is
    There are so many exemptions that it is meningless.
    ,
    towards making it a part of their taxation policy. And predictably, we see >one side saying itrCOs a step too far, while the other side says it doesnrCOt >go far enough.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BR@blah@blah.blah to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 17:36:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    The majority of voters seem to be in favour of a capital gains tax, as a
    way of spreading out the revenue base more evenly. Obviously there are >certain powerful lobby groups -- the ones benefiting from not having to
    pay tax on that part of their income -- who have successfully kept it out
    of serious discussion for many years.

    So itAs quite a big step for Labour to make a move, as small as it is, >towards making it a part of their taxation policy. And predictably, we see >one side saying itAs a step too far, while the other side says it doesnAt
    go far enough.

    It's a damn stupid idea. It's a tax on inflation. It's just another
    tax to add to all the other taxes. Nowhere have the likes of Hipkins
    suggested that some other taxes be reduced in order to keep the tax
    revenue the same.

    We are told that the family home will not be taxed. You believe that?
    Whenever a new tax is introduced it gives politicians an opportunity
    to expand it at a later date. You would have to be a fool to think
    that a CGT would not eventually apply to the family home, and other
    things of value.

    And how about if there is a property crash? Does that entitle taxable
    property owners to receive a capital loss tax rebate?

    No. I thought not.

    Bill.
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 04:52:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Those who benefit from a tax loophole obviously want to keep doing it,
    donrCOt they?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tony@lizandtony@orcon.net.nz to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 06:12:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Those who benefit from a tax loophole obviously want to keep doing it, >donrCOt they?
    Probably, but which imaginary loophole are you fantasising about?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BR@blah@blah.blah to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 05:03:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 04:52:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    Those who benefit from a tax loophole obviously want to keep doing it,
    donAt they?

    Anything that is untaxed is a loophole.

    Have I got that right?

    Bill.
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mutley@mutley2000@hotmail.com to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 08:22:53 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    The majority of voters seem to be in favour of a capital gains tax
    Cite? I doubt you can find one.
    , as a
    way of spreading out the revenue base more evenly. Obviously there are >>certain powerful lobby groups -- the ones benefiting from not having to >>pay tax on that part of their income -- who have successfully kept it out >>of serious discussion for many years.

    So itrCOs quite a big step for Labour to make a move, as small as it is >There are so many exemptions that it is meningless.
    ,
    towards making it a part of their taxation policy. And predictably, we see >>one side saying itrCOs a step too far, while the other side says it doesnrCOt
    go far enough.

    Lawrence D Oliveiro is a diehard marxists and would be in favor of
    anything that killed the economy.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 11:10:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    The majority of voters seem to be in favour of a capital gains tax, as a
    way of spreading out the revenue base more evenly. Obviously there are >certain powerful lobby groups -- the ones benefiting from not having to
    pay tax on that part of their income -- who have successfully kept it out
    of serious discussion for many years.

    So itAs quite a big step for Labour to make a move, as small as it is, >towards making it a part of their taxation policy. And predictably, we see >one side saying itAs a step too far, while the other side says it doesnAt
    go far enough.

    No party advocating a CGT prior to an election has ever been elected
    to government in NZ. Just how many voters are there that own two or
    more residential properties? When people pass away, the executor will
    sell property (including real estate) not explicitly bequeathed - will
    the GCT apply here (when we currently have inheritance taxes set at
    $0)?
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 22:18:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:36:57 +1300, BR wrote:

    It's a tax on inflation.

    But surely, if taxing something that people produce is a discouragement on them producing more, and inflation is not something we want more of, then rCLtaxing inflationrCY must be a good idea?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Wed Oct 29 22:19:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 05:03:01 +1300, BR wrote:

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 04:52:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    Those who benefit from a tax loophole obviously want to keep doing it,
    donrCOt they?

    Anything that is untaxed is a loophole.

    Have I got that right?

    A suitably passive-aggressive response from someone with whom I have
    struck a nerve, obviously.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 11:42:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:18:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:36:57 +1300, BR wrote:

    It's a tax on inflation.

    But surely, if taxing something that people produce is a discouragement on >them producing more, and inflation is not something we want more of, then >otaxing inflationo must be a good idea?

    Are you serious? Inflation is a byproduct of economic activity. There
    is a vast difference between a product and a byproduct.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 15:18:02 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-10-29 22:42:51 +0000, Crash said:
    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:18:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:36:57 +1300, BR wrote:

    It's a tax on inflation.

    But surely, if taxing something that people produce is a discouragement on >> them producing more, and inflation is not something we want more of, then
    otaxing inflationo must be a good idea?

    Are you serious? Inflation is a byproduct of economic activity. There
    is a vast difference between a product and a byproduct.

    "Inflation" is largely a byproduct of pure greed. Some useless moron in management wants a massive pay raise, so the company has to put up
    their prices to cover it. That then causes a snowball effect as
    everywhere else has to put up their prices to be able to buy that now
    more expensive first product.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Thu Oct 30 17:41:38 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 15:18:02 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
    wrote:

    On 2025-10-29 22:42:51 +0000, Crash said:
    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:18:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:36:57 +1300, BR wrote:

    It's a tax on inflation.

    But surely, if taxing something that people produce is a discouragement on >>> them producing more, and inflation is not something we want more of, then >>> otaxing inflationo must be a good idea?

    Are you serious? Inflation is a byproduct of economic activity. There
    is a vast difference between a product and a byproduct.

    "Inflation" is largely a byproduct of pure greed. Some useless moron in >management wants a massive pay raise, so the company has to put up
    their prices to cover it. That then causes a snowball effect as
    everywhere else has to put up their prices to be able to buy that now
    more expensive first product.

    You may or may not be correct. The point is that inflation happens,
    regardless of why, and this makes the impact of a CGT worse.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BR@blah@blah.blah to nz.general on Fri Oct 31 05:03:16 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:19:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 05:03:01 +1300, BR wrote:

    On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 04:52:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    Those who benefit from a tax loophole obviously want to keep doing it,
    donAt they?

    Anything that is untaxed is a loophole.

    Have I got that right?

    A suitably passive-aggressive response from someone with whom I have
    struck a nerve, obviously.

    Great answer to a question that wasn't asked.

    Bill.
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2