That is in part my point faced with a choice "you" prefer the house over creating the brave new frontier.
How does the Fred the plumber scenario you have laid out provide for growth in the productive base of the economy - Fred is still doing what he was doing before he borrowed the $20,000 – but he has a better work wagon which he can depreciate and perhaps a wider screen TV than he had before- reference to Michael Cullen.
One of the other illustrations you make is:
US found out recently, when homeowners go belly up they tend to do it in droves,
The NZ downturn and the extent of the subprime-lending crisis in the USA although related to a degree are not the same. I note that the USA having a CGT didn't stop the GFC - they are not related.
You previous post, although quite oblique, reads to my minds towards favouring wider diversification across stock and financial markets.
The Labour party conferece this year was about a CGT driving investment to the productive and innovative sector of the economy.
The “free market economy” was never a device that efficiently distributed resources; anyone who believed this never had a grip on reality.
“A capital gains tax was considered to be a vital part of the mix. Too many are doing business for a capital gain rather than development of technology. And change has to occur.”
I found this a bit naive. Who are the “Too many that are doing business for capital gain” and what is the proof? What “technology” did the people at the Labour Party conference and those blogging in Public Address forums in support of CGT want “developed” and what risks were they going to take on to do “it” – whatever “it” was that they considered needed doing?
The statment easier than you think doesn't cut it - Can you tell me how it is going to happen?
I could say something about nerf herding and nerfherders, however, that response doesn't answer the question.
How is owning shares or a stake in financial or stock markets promoting growth in the productive base of the economy - that bit that actually creates and does things?
Bear in mind the greater part of the productive base of he economy is not listed on the stock market.
Blind faith in the mechanism of the stock and financial markets, I don’t share it.
One should only invest in financial markets what you can afford to lose.
The over cooked and bent nature of these markets don't make it an overly productive investment option in my view - Finance company collapse, the bail outs and the GFC.
Two things that distrub me about "this"
Thing One - An "approach" is that in addition to demolition - that there weren't also say "salvage crews" that went into building workign with tenants and owners to get what they could out before it came down.
Thing Two - The lack of protection from looting - and that includes from demolition crews - and how arbitray the whole protection from and appraoch to looting was/is.
More input form the Army me thinks.
All in all the thang about Arie that strikes me is the need to portray the face of looting as a way of saying look we are doing something about it - when in essense the approach was lacking.
Doublespeak for sure.
It is all such a good idea and if you are working self employed and over 55 you can avoid it, you can avoid it if you are savvy.
As you said above
we'd been foolish to psych ourselves up for endless tax cuts and WFF handouts.
Like I said before:
It will introduce structural problems into the tax system with the top personal rate being 39% , the company rate will be 30%, The top trust rate will be 33%, and the CGT will be 15%.. It will be avoided.
Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes. and if Labour get in this will go up,
We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF.
Gosh if they eased the WFF "thang" then they could afford to not sell the power generation and not to bring in a CGT.
Referring to Parker's comments
CGT encourages Kiwis to invest in productive businesses, which means businesses don't have to borrow as much overseas.
Can any one tell me how a CGT will encourage a nation of Welfare addicts in productive businesses, and bearing in mind the rather limited and narrow base of the economy what are these new productive businesses.
How will the 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF become investors in productive businesses?
My thoughts are the problem with the economy is the lack of growth and plans to foster growth.
After 9 years of Labour back pay was not guaranteed and if you are under a collective agreement you lost the right to take industrial action.
Add to this that workers in belonging to a union actually cede their right to be consulted on bargaining and a wide range of measures to union executives.
The political interference from Labour over 9 years really “killed” of the ability of workers to get a fair shake - IMHO.
You have a situation where even if there is a bargaining process agreement, which provided for workers are to be consulted, they do not need to be consulted. The union executive could reach an agreement.
The industrial relations environment was poor under Labour and it is about to get a lot worse under National.
The thing about WFF is that it was sustainable when the economy was fed by the borrowing fuelled growth that underpinned the GFC – but that was then and this is now.
NZ is a small economy which doesn't have a wide base.
Any reform of the tax regime needs to address the over reach of WFF and the depressive effect that it has had on wage bargaining and growth in the economy.
The CGT proposal avoids a lot of structural issues and creates imbalances - it will be ineffective as a result..
It will introduce structual problems into the tax system with the top personal rate being 39% , the company rate will be 30%, The top trust rate will be 33%, and the CGT will be 15%.. It will be avoided.
Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes.and if Labour get in this will go up,
We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF..
It is bold poltical move; but it is also bold nonsense to think that CGT will promote growth in the economy.
CGT will be able to be avoided by passing the said investment ppty/asset onto ones family as part of an inheritance.
So when this all rolls out at the time in the distant future when Labour eventually get re elected - and it is found not to work in the way that "they" want it to - then what next? Poll Tax.
Let us tax our way towards growth - Yeah right. It will appeal to Labour Stalwarts and not be trusted by swinging voters.