The enrolment stats are over here, so one could do some maths against the election results for turnout
I make it %62 turnout but Im on my phone cant research it just yet.
The split vote esp on Chch mystifies me. But it's probably over-thinking to call it anything more than -kinda like Labour and esp this local person who knocked on the door the other day and really seemed to care. But I really want the Rt Hon Key and his 'strong stable government. '
OK, so I’m not exactly sure how the calculation of turnout is usually done, but here are the base numbers:
From the Election Results page:
Total votes counted: 2,112,522
Special vote: 254,630
From David’s link, the enrolment stats:
Est Eligible Population: 3,391,100
Total Enrolled: 3,096,247
I’m not sure if the special votes are votes yet to be counted. If they are, and if the guess at turnout is based on enrolled population, then it is
(2,112,522 + 254,630)/ 3,096,247 = %76.4
If the usual basis is the eligible population it’s
(2,112,522 + 254,630)/ 3,391,100 = %69.8
Neither of those is a good number. Neither speaks to the Get Out The Vote drive having made a difference. To me the more sensible number is the second, that there is little difference between enrolling-and-not-voting and not-enrolling-and-not-voting in terms of measuring meaningful interaction with the democratic process.
One comment on the "Labour needs to show they have a host of good leaders, not just one" and "Labour needs to x" in general - Show me where the now FPP again National government does that. Is crusher a good leader? Joyce? I'll give you English, but not Key.
Yet another vintage text
we may all need a copy of…
Had one of those back in the day. Ate bracken fiddleheads like it recommended, Only years later did I learn that they're carcinogenic. Probably an analogy for something there.
Ok, here’s the plan. based on the democratic enthusiasm the Scottish referendum generated. I propose we drive a citizens initiated referendum, that we invite the United States of America to annex New Zealand. This might get people out of bed in the morning.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Yeah there will be a small number of people who actually would have lost significant wealth to the CGT but far far fewer than the number of voters who turned away from Labour this year again. The farmers may well have uniformly opposed the CGT for purely financial reasons but again it’s a lower number than explains the massive failure in the Labour vote.
I'll explain my thinking here, and sorry again for yesterday Bart, I was out of my mind. I'm not talking about a small number of people, I'm talking about the majority of middle class New Zealanders, not particularly wealthy, just with a willingness to live the New Zealand dream, either by buying a bach, or a rental property. The CGT meant if they ever had to sell that second property then 15% of the sale price went to the government. I think this may be difficult to grasp for anyone living in Auckland with it's inflated house prices, but say someone lives in, I don't know, Gisborne, where people can still afford a house for less than $150,000, then the possibility of one day owning a second property isn't that far fetched. Perhaps after 10-15 years they pay off their mortgage, staying safe, they may want to buy a rental somewhere with population growth like Napier, where something like that will have $200p/w income.
As for the baches. Well there's a fair few on the market lately, In a place like Mahia where there are a lot of would be vendors right now, people are looking for about $300,000 for their baches, and if Labour had won last night, they'd have just lost $45,000 to the Government. No one with 2 properties is going to vote away a percentage of the value of that property to the Government, and no one with a dream or realisable ambition is going to forgo that dream.
It's not wealthy people and farmers who have these kinds of dreams, it's middle class New Zealanders, It's not about 70 pages of policy, it's about having the best policy. And just because a million New Zealanders live in Auckland doesn't mean the rest don't, that's the maths of it. These are the reasons why I was against this on the CGT thread.
people are looking at about $300,000 for their baches, and if Labour had won last night, they’d have just lost $45.000 to the Government
15% of the gain right? I don't think they would have got the hypothetical holiday home for free.
I’ll put it this way Greg, if you’d owned a 300k holiday home yesterday morning, would you have voted up to $45,000 off it’s value yesterday afternoon?
I’ll say it again Greg, if you owned a 300k holiday home yesterday morning, would you have voted $45,000 off it’s value yesterday afternoon?
I don't think I works like that.
Buy a holiday home for $300k, sell it later for (say) $400k... you only pay 15% of the CAPITAL GAIN, not the sale price. In other words you'd pay $15k.
Well there we have it, I don’t understand the policy, But still, same thing applies, many baches have been in families for decades, I know my grandad bought my granny her bach there in the 1950s for less than $100,000 and most of the neighbours are the same. Regardless, more simply, if you’d owned a 300k holiday home or second property yesterday morning, would you have voted to reduce its value yesterday afternoon?
It’s not about the monetary figure, it’s simply about the principle. I’m not sure how many people own a bach or even access to one, it’s simply that it complicated the dreams and aspirations of too many people. It’s easy to say:
Get in the while the iron is hot, all stock must go, sale ends Saturday "you only pay” $15,000!!!
but that’s not a turn of phrase I’ve ever had the luxury of issuing let alone acting on.
It all depends on the detail of the law, too. There are many ways to implement CGT, some of them indexing to inflation. If the gain was only inflation, then there is no tax to pay at all. Of course we would have to include property prices in our inflation statistics, which for some reason we don't, despite them being by far the biggest cost in our lives. More than 60% of our household income services our mortgage on our modest house worth roughly the national median and much less than the Auckland one, and we have 40% equity.
It's not about the monetary figure, it's simply about the principle.
I understand what you're saying Mark. But a better example might take a foreign investor... the classsic Belgian dentist will do. He has loads of spare cash and buys 5 homes in Auckland for $800k* each. He rents them out but his declared outgoings exceed the rental income so he pays no tax on that money. Three years later he flicks them on for a mill each and pockets $1m in cash, tax free. Thanks New Zealand!
* These figures are off the top of my head
While the Nats successfully put the frighteners on those who own or aspire to family cribs (or "baches" if you live north of Oamaru), it's the big money people who are distorting our housing market and they are the people a CGT should be targeting.
But a better example might take a foreign investor
Foreign investors didn’t tick National for their party vote, I’m not really here to debate the merits of the policy as quite obviously my understanding is too vague =), but I’d imagine I’m not alone, I’d wager there were quite a few who couldn’t quite grasp it. And yes, definitely it is the big money people that should be targeted, but my reckoning is, the way to target big money people is to go after trusts almost exclusively.
It’s not about the monetary figure, it’s simply about the principle. I’m not sure how many people own a bach or even access to one, it’s simply that it complicated the dreams and aspirations of too many people.
Its a comms problem, like most things. I bet you can outweigh bach owners with renters - who would love to see a slowdown in the massive rent increases of the last decade, but probably don't realise/believe that a CGT would help with that.
And yes, definitely it is the big money people that should be targetted, but my reckoning is, the way to target big money people is to go after trusts almost exclusively.
Still not convinced we can achieve that in a country where the "money people" with trusts overlaps entirely with the set of "elected people".
Yep, comms, for sure, I've glanced over the policy, I've read articles on the policy and even still I thought that tax was on the full resale value of the property. With renters still their is that curtailment of the dream. But yeah, looking at the margin of victory in the election, outside the centers, after 2 election defeats, it does look to be a dead duck, at least under that name.
Still not convinced we can achieve that in a country where the “money people” with trusts overlaps entirely with the set of “elected people”.
I agree with that. If Labour had replaced their CGT with a policy of cutting GST and increasing the tax rate in the top bracket, they could have won this I believe. John Key mentioned “5 new taxes”. Never having been bothered to verify this, can anyone list these?
Basically, despite what the media may say about dirty politics, or Kim Dot Com, or left wing factions, At the end of the day I believe that the average kiwi voter, and maybe this applies everywhere, is always going to vote with one hand on their wallet. Any threat to the wallet, no matter how big or small, is a massive election risk.
Coming back to your example Alfie, I strongly agree that this is a problem and there need to be limits on foreign speculation, e.g in China, as you’d expect they are ruthless; if a foreigner wants to buy a property they must prove they are residing there (this may have changed). I’m not sure how to write policy for New Zealand, but there’s a sense that everyone get’s a bit nervy when people start debating this, someone inadvertently mentions the Chinese, someone calls someone a racist,, people return to their corners. David Cunliffe was good in the first debate when he explained very clearly that it’s about all foreigners and reeled of a list of countries, including Belgium coincidentally, but the problem was that the CGT wasn’t just for foreigners. If a policy specifically targeting foreign speculation were proposed, it would be an easy sell:
Non-residents who are not New Zealand citizens would be ineligible for home ownership except if a genuine need to do so can be demonstrated.
Anyway, just my opinion. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of the CGT.
I’m not sure how to write policy for New Zealand, but there’s a sense that everyone get’s a bit nervy when people start debating this, someone mentions Chinese, someone calls someone a racist.
Notice how I cleverly avoiding accusations of xenophobia by refering to Belgium? ;-)
There are lots of examples of countries successfully restricting land sales to foreigners. Some of these refer to larger blocks of land but the principle is the same.
It is possible to pass legislation which puts off speculators without scaring kiwis who own baches. Recent polls on farm sales suggest that the majority of kiwis support this approach. It comes down to how well you sell the message; something which Labour failed at spectacularly.