Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Re rental housing and depreciation deductions, Matthew's right (and were he a student in my Tax paper, I would be giving him marks for his answer). Residential rents are somewhat driven by landlords' underlying cost structures, but the much greater influence is the market price that landlords can charge. So in general the people who ended up paying more when depreciation deductions disappeared were landlords, who had to pay more tax (although strictly speaking, in the longer term, it all evens out [and even more strictly speaking, you still need to take the time value of money into account]).
Rentals in our two main cities (Auckland and Christchurch) have been increasing, but that seems to be due to demand. In places where demand has not really increased, rents haven't increased either, even though landlords' tax costs have increased.
-
Southerly: Continuing After A Short Interruption, in reply to David Haywood,
Today she managed to borrow Bob’s scissors and give herself a haircut. She does not, I fear, show any natural talent for the hairdressing trade.
In similar fashion, one of our daughters once found that shaving takes considerable skill.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Sure. I'd be worried too, except that in this case, there are probably some sound technical reasons for going down the CGT route. Ie. it's an achieveable thing to do, not just a pie-in-the-sky promise.
One of the things about a CGT is that if you exempt family homes, which is a fairly standard exemption worldwide, then the people who tend to end up paying it are those who own holiday homes and second homes and boats and share portfolios and so on. All typically owned by wealthier and higher income people. So instituting a CGT is a tax on richer people. It's just not quite as obviously a tax on richer people in comparison to a straight rates hike.
Long story short: in this case, going down the CGT route looks reassuringly practical and achievable to me.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
To add a little more, the tax system is kind of complicated. Raising a rate here means creating pressures there, or a loophole yonder. Last time we had a top tax rate of 39%, but the trust rate was 33%, we had masses of wealthier people channeling money through trusts, rather than pay the top rate. But if you set the trust rate at the same rate as the top tax rate, then you have a problem with respect to ensuring that all trusts are taxed fairly. For example, you run into problems with testamentary trusts (trusts created by wills) held for the benefit of children. Do we really want those trusts taxed at the highest possible rate? And yes, you can write exceptions into the law, except that everything gets terribly complicated, and usually, exceptions create more loopholes.
I wrote something more-or-less on point a couple of months ago: Tax avoidance by well-off a rort.
It's very, very easy to shift money around in the tax system, and it's not at all clear how to minimise it.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
David Cunliffe has been Revenue spokesperson for the past 10 months or so, and he's become very familiar with the issues in the portfolio. So it's hardly surprising that he's got a clear view on what changes can be made within the tax system.
Pandering vs pragmatic? Hard to know which is what sometimes.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
I read it that way too, Stephen. Equally nasty, and directed at men who allowed (?) themselves to be ruled by women.
-
Our fellow lift-traveller, an elderly lady, felt moved to interject a question. “Has Daddy taken you to the hairdressers?” she asked.
Bob paused in his monologue. “No,” he said sorrowfully. “Rats ate my hair.”
Aren't kids great!
Although clearly the rats ate Polly's clothes too.
-
There's this in the Green's Health Policy:
Have particular regard to the potential public health risks of excessive fluoride consumption via community water supplies.
The science around floridation so clear (PDF - Ministry of Health epidemiological survey): the risks are minimal or non-existent, and the benefits are stonkingly clear.
It's the anti-science / anti-evidence tendency of (some) Green poiicy that puts me off. As someone said up-thread, I don't think the Greens can shout "Science!" when it comes to climate change, and then ignore it when they (some of their members) don't like the results.
By way of disclosure, I'm pretty active in the Labour Party too: I'm at the Women's Sector conference this weekend.
-
Great post, Emma.
A point of clarification, because I think I’ve got the Missing Stair concept right, but I’m not quite sure. I’ve come across people who from time to time say nasty sexist racist homophobic classist body policing things (sometimes all in one utterance which is a very impressive feat) as a (really not very funny at all) joke, because they know it’s offensive and horrid, and that it will upset me, and I’ve come across people who from time to time say nasty racist homophobic classist body policing things because they really, really believe them. (This latter type I’ve only ever come across in social groups not of my choosing.) Do both sorts of arseholes fit into the Missing Stair concept, or is one of them kind of just a pretender, like those wicked half steps onto a deck or something like that?
-
Hard News: Fluency, ease of manner - and…, in reply to BenWilson,
But I’ll admit it’s a hard ask for him to perform well in a debate he wasn’t even in.
Yes... 'though the worry is not that David Shearer did or didn't perform well in a debate that he wasn't in. It's that Key turned on a stunning performance, and we've not yet seen David Shearer turn on a performance that could match it. Or maybe he has, but we're just not aware of it.