Te Standard has a round-up of supportive links and lordy it's broad.
Yeh, the charlies sales is a remarkable story, a company with some dramas but ultimately a pretty decent product.The sale is not really great for the nation long term as far as i understand.
It finally got into Aussie , the goldmine for a local company, which is what we need companies to do .Yet like Manchester United seeing a great potential talent , the big boys snap it up to ensure they stay big .
Stefan is to be applauded for his vision, the dude seems to have grown up within a FMCG industry,seen a few seasons, he understands the market numbers.
He was very educated to the turnover you can gain by taking even small market share of FMCG giants. Get enough credit, take shelf space for a long period and ultimately some CEO of a multinational will quite rationally buy that space back
Having been in debt to the New Zealand Government since before I could vote, owning even a first property never seemed a likely prospect for me either way.
I pretty much view anyone who suggests any kind of tax increase whatsoever to be something of a toady (something of, not full blown). The selling off of prime assets like electricity and telecommunications, was it not an admission of managerial incompetence and lack of relevance? more money=less service. + a little bit more.
Having recently been recategorized into a tax free threshold I’m emboldened to counter that such a threshold is quite possibly the most credible starting point for decreasing the gap between the rich and poor and could lend Labour’s other tax policy – a CGT – more credibility.
As 43% of this site’s readers live in households with an income of $100,000 or more, and given that a couple of days back this thread almost (almost mind) had the semblance a "what car I own” pissing contest, the voice of a simple hand washer is hardly going to leave much of a carbon footprint in this debate.
And no disrespect there Ben, I only disagree with you when I don’t agree with you. My advice re:
"I’ve only got so much brainpower, which I need for my work, so I’ll only put a small amount of it into this ‘side investment’"
The selling off of prime assets like electricity and telecommunications, was it not an admission of managerial incompetence
Managerial incomptence is a symptom of organisational incomptence, we now can say it is a sad condition of all potential organisations, regardless of who owns them.
At least with public ownership there is an ability to apply a level opf transparency that only gets seen in the private sector moments before a major, scareaming crash. The selling off of assets was a short term boost to the economy, a boost which has long fucking gone. Telecommunications are very expensive.
and Toady,that sounds weird. Whats' the opposite of a toady? What the fuck is a toady? It doesn't sound good. You the toady man .
Opposite I guess could be an orange polisher, head-kisser, chest scratcher, front slapper, glove licker, purple noser, door bell, deerer, groupo, hanger-off, kiss-down, pet's teacher's, no-person
I have never licked a glove, yet my flattery is hardly strategic, more excitable, spontaneous. I must exist outside this political world of toadys and no persons. i have left the matrix :)
The Matrix needs you Jeremy, nice to see you back here.
Ah and after reading Damien's thread I see what happened there Jeremy. My initial post here was not in relation to your post but to the idea of introducing yet another tax. In saying "I pretty much view anyone who suggests any kind of tax increase whatsoever to be something of a toady" I was referring specifically to the CGT- and meant increasing in the number of taxes = more funnels of money to the government.
Having now read what you posted on Another capital idea, the misunderstanding clarified, I'm in total agreement with you regarding education, and tax increases for the upper threshold. The best place to start to address the distribution of wealth issue is at the bottom of the financial heap. Implementing any new tax in addition to rather than as a prerequisite for a tax exemption threshold.
At no point was there any intention of implying that you are anything remotely amphibious Jeremy.
Indeed. And from that point of view, the “family home” is more productive than rental property, because home ownership generally improves tenure security/reduces residential mobility; and both tenure security and reduced residential mobility are associated with improved social outcomes.
This discussion that houses are part of the productive economy feels bizarre to me. The definition is fairly standard, houses aren't part of it, and redefining the word doesn't seem particularly useful. Houses are many things - important, useful, central to NZ culture, they're not "productive" in economics speak.
Say, you have a property which you’re renting out, for which you set the rental such that you end up making a net $10,000 loss for the year. I know that you can arrange your affairs so that this loss counts against your tax liability: so on a personal income of $80k, say, you end up paying tax on $70k. Righto? What I don’t get it how this is so tempting. Yes, you’ve got $10k of your income upon which you avoid paying any tax (which you would otherwise have paid at the top tax rate); but you’ve still lost $10k. At the end of the day, you’re more out of pocket than you would have been if you’d broken even on the rental and just paid your full whack of personal tax. The ability to claim back the loss against your tax helps soften the blow, but certainly doesn’t eliminate it.
My understanding (no one else seems to have answered this fully) is:
1. You collect rent for the year - say $20,000.
2. You pay your costs - mortgage, rates - say $15,000.
3. In order to avoid paying taxes on the $5,000 in between, you spend the money on the house (or quite likely, you own 10, and you take all the $50,000, and do one house a year on a cycle).
4. Some of your spending is on maintenance, but some includes capital improvements - maybe you install a new fireplace or heat pump, add a garage, deck, etc.
5. When you sell the house, your captial investments which you haven't paid tax on, mean you sell the house for more that you would have if you hadn't added the fireplace etc to it. No capital gains tax is currently paid on this profit.
Say, you have a property
Say, you don't.
The thing for me is that "we do not in my view need another tax" - it will come in as one thing and morph into something entirely different. The effect will be ultimately to make it harder for the lower paid and vulnerable.
It will be able to be avoided and passed down.
It is interesting that some of he countries promoted as having CGT in many cases also have a poll taxes, federal taxes, death duty and stamp duty.
Removing LAQC's and the depreciation claim was enough.
The problem with removing LAQCs across the broad spectrum is that it will now be harder for "small business" to start up and to endure the recession we are passing through or any other similar downturn event.
I feel it is a diversion of no real moment at present and a disguise for failing to deal with a raft of real issues responsibly by both the present and past govt.
I am more concerned about the growth of “Text a Loan” and other dodgy things like “Pay Day Loans” really taking off with no specific legal framework, the govt cutting back on allowances to budgetary service providers, and a whole range of other things.
The govt has been borrowing more than it needs, the economy is forecast to expand - which I think is likely and with that expansion the tax take will increase.
Where a CGT is answer – what again was the question?
The answer is growth and not more types of tax.
Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens: “New Zealanders are incentivised to borrow money to buy land rather than invest in productive assets. If we introduced a capital gains tax that incentive would be diminished and there would be a greater incentive for people to save via bank deposits or productive business ownership”t
Um, Farms are land and productive business assets - that is the base of the economy.
What are these other productive assets to which he refers, and prodcutive business owernship is? ( working for yourself)
The best way to save is to borrow and retire debt early or to go to Oz or Overseas and earn a real wage and then come back to NZ when it suits you.
What are these other productive assets to which he refers, and prodcutive business owernship is? ( working for yourself)
He was likely referring to people like Grant Straker, who have been forced to seek overseas VC to successfully export their products because property speculators won’t back them. The local banks, being obsessed with mortgages, are complicit too, but that’s largely out of the BNZ bailout experience 20 years ago.
DFC filled such a role many years ago, but made the fatal mistake of jumping on the ChaseCorp bandwagon in the 1980s, among other dodgy speculative glamour corporates of the day.
And while I don’t agree with everything Bruce Simpson says, he does have a point about the mediocrity of local investors:
Even when some bright Kiwi comes up with a fantastic "million dollar idea" they find themselves faced with a total lack of interest from the local investor community.
"Too risky", "I don't understand it", "no thanks, property prices are rising", "we'll need your house as security"... that's what Kiwi entrepreneurs hear all too often when pitching for funding to develop a really good hi-tech idea.
As a result, most of our really good ideas get exported for a pittance, long before they're actually realising their full potential.
the base of the economy
Only about 25% of exports and 7% of the economy overall. Not that you'll hear farmers or the National party owning up to that reality.
The answer is growth and not more types of tax
Any non-CGT suggestions for incentivising productive investment rather than houses?
Agriculture in NZ is the largest portion of the export economy, contributing about two-thirds of exported goods.
You might be referring to dairy products as only being 25%.
Ah, quite. Sorry about that.
Yes - I covered that sort of stuff in the threads "Election 2011 Go" and "Everything has changed until 2014".
Some of it is as follows:
The economy will recover and it will be based on better and more sensible infrastructure and Tourism, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – these are the areas where the investment in technological innovation needs to be developed and it needs to extend to all aspects of the chain that gets those products to markets
if you get a concern that is exporting you encourage it by providing it with a tax break as regards the amount of reinvestment and development and what you get is more growth - that concern by virtue of the reinvestment able to increase their activity, the people they employee and the export receipts they bring back into the country.
The rate of growth in a concern is directly related to the level of reinvestment.
Providing a tax incentive is not a handout - the concern still has to go out and earn the money it reinvests in its operation it isn't getting a grant.
There is also the ability to target bonds issues at inovation investment and make Kiwi Saver fund available for this.
The expectation that a CGT will encourage investment innovation in the export sector is ill founded - it really is BS..
The expectation that a CGT will encourage investment innovation in the export sector is ill founded – it really is BS..
It's not about that. It's about having a fairer taxation system. Everything else is a bonus.
That has been the thrust of what the economists and bankers reported in the press have been banging on about of late.
Guppy’s up against the glass after Goff taps the walls of the fish tank - in my view.
With the RWC I think that we could get a delegation of economists and bankers set their feet in concrete and link them together with chains and use them for parking barricades that can provide directions and offer free advice.
With the tax system IMHO – removing the depreciation claim and the LAQC thing in residential property investment was all that needed to be done – they did it.
Removing LAQC against all other activities and small business was a wrong move and will lead to the banks and the IRD taking more bankrupt petitions against small business owners than would otherwise have been necessary.
Not being able to offset a business loss against what you have drawn out will send some people to the wall.
I think Dr Brash, after you set his feet in concrete, would make a fine Bollard.
Brash could be chained to Goff, the upper Labour echelon and the Act party carcas.
It could be called the Bollard coalition - A bunch of weak minded individuals past their best arranged in a line to obstruct progress.