Let's not make this political. I can rip massive holes in the National position on this based on their own implementation of the bright line test, their extension of the brightline test, and their delayed implementation of other taxation which took place after they weren't re-elected. Criticising Labour for their housing policy is fair, but National doing it is a laugh. National are the party of 'there is no housing problem' - at least Labour are acknowledging it (although not doing a great job of sorting it).
As for tax breaks - that's typically a National carrot, not a Labour one. They trot it out at most elections.
I'm not a massive Labour supporter but National are really pissing me off at the moment. No policy, nothing to contribute, just lots of sniping, whinging, moaning and the like. And some National supporters are seeming increasingly like Trump supporters - they can do no wrong. A friend who was screaming and shouting about Labour introducing taxation on some older aircon refrigerant threw an absolute fit when I raised that National had implemented it in a staged fashion, with a significant tax hike scheduled for earlier this year,. He also compplains about how Labour are only 'in' as a result of other parties backing them and that more people voted for National than voted for Labour, but overlooks that more people didn't vote for National than voted for other parties (collectively).
Damn. Who do I vote for? ?
/politics (We should treat the forum like a pub. No politics. No religion. ? And yes - I can be as bad as anyone else. Apologies to all.)
CGT... Could work. Not if taken in the form of all recommendations by the working group, but the vast majority of 1st world nations have it in one form or another, so saying it won't work is rubbish.
Keep it away from the family home. Yes - that can be abused, but it'll be a tiny number of cases when compared to housesales generally.
If implementing CGT, scrap the brightline test. Anyone want to describe brightline in a different way? Perhaps as a targeted CGT?
I have no specific issue with CGT, but I grew up with it. As I have said, there are currently 33000 homes in Auckland alone which are registered empty, yet we have a housing problem. Those houses, when sold, will mainly garner a huge profit for the seller. That profit is (in effect) unearned income - tax it.
The biggest issue with CGT is addressing what is a reasonable gain, and what is clear profit. I've seen propert investors and speculators (NOT landlords) moaning about CGT, but they are going to. They will pay the most. "Are we supposed to keep track of all our expenditure on these properties?" Yes - you f&%^$%^ well are. It's a business. It's what you're supposed to do. You get a tax break for you expenses on property upkeep - why shouldn't a regular homeowner get the same?
The (investment) property market has been milked at both ends for too long.
Set a threshold on CGT. If you make more than a specified amount in a set period of time, you pay CGT. The amount and the time could be scaled.
CGT on other investment gains? Stocks and shares? Yup.
CGT on pensions and Kiwisaver...? Hmm. More difficult. These are an investment, after all. Perhpas not... Could this mean more investment in pension funds with less likelihood of shortfalls?
CGT on cars...? Don't laugh - look at the price of things like E30 M3s now. Most good ones are now being bought as an investment, not to be driven. In many cases, a threshold would mean these won't be affected, but...?
For me, the most important thing to remember is that CGT is only paid on realisation of a profit. It's a tax on the profit meaning that profit may be reduced, but CGT won't (in itself) cause a loss. And where investment property is concerned, it'll affect less than 5% of people selling in NZ anyway. Put t threshold in and the only loss that will be made will be a result of poor investment or poor management.
Is it a good idea? Take a slightly longer view. If one majority NZ political party (or coaliton) were to implement CGT and then lose the next election, would the incoming party scrap it, or would they happily continue to acquire the billions in tax it is said to bring?
