Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Deborah,
Thanks Deborah that’s good enough for me, more than enough to chew on for the next couple of years. Compared to some of the models, one advantage I hope could assist with regards to a more nuanced CGT localisation is New Zealand’s relatively low population.
-
It would be possible to put in some sort of exemption like that, but there are big technical difficulties with doing it.
So you mean Labour won't continue to explore this avenue?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Deborah,
Exactly what collectables are is yet to be defined,
Yes. It is a problem in terms of providing examples that may not be collectables, it was a difficult call whether or not to include “pedigree dog” in mine.
Yes, it could be possible to put in some some of low level exemption. For example, one way of doing it is to say that everyone is entitled to say, $100,000 of capital gains tax free within their lifetime, and once you’ve used up your exemption, that’s it.
Thank you, now you are speaking my language. That sounds great, and in terms of selling the tax to the voter, that’s the one to front foot with. Ben mentioned that in Australia the CGT itself was previously indexed to inflation, so it sounds like there may be a enough data to at least tentatively addressing indexing issues. I really appreciate your patience Deborah, and everyone’s here. Kia Ora.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Thanks Lucy, I hope my post just above further illustrates my thinking, feel free to tear my suggestion apart, as what most interests me here, is how the CGT can be sold to the masses with a built in tax cut/ exemption for those at the bottom of this heap.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Deborah,
Thanks Deborah, I understand you probably feel a bit of regret for offering now, And I have recently gone through the policy on the website in some detail, and now have a degree of familiarity with what is exempt. Perhaps I’m asking the impossible actually. I’m not sure who originally came up with the policy, and I guess, if I were completely honest, I’m probably expecting you to give whoever that was a call and find out why, for example, families on minimum wage or less (at the very least) can’t be exempt from the CGT, unless they earn capital gains over say $20,000($3000 CGT) in any given year. And only gains above that threshold are taxed. But there’s no need to make that call. I’ve troubled you enough.
As you know I’m not thinking of rich people and big things as much as small things e.g. inheriting Dad’s old All Black Jersey, or vintage car (or something that will increase in value) and selling it long after. And again being honest about my motivations, I feel that if there was some kind of line drawn in terms of an exemption like this, that it would help to bolster the tax’s appeal from the bottom up and make very little difference to the actual revenue intake.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Perhaps Craig, but you know, looking at the rules Sacha linked to, I’m impressed by the degree of organisation. These expectations for Party members as stated in the Herald aren’t dissimilar to expectations one might adhere to in most professional meeting environments, and the Herald’s website/Quin combo:
"posted by Phil Quin on his blog at medium.com"
doesn’t provide me with a clean Google search so I can’t even check for myself. Quin helped provide a theatrical Headline, what’s the average reader to make of this?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
So you’re unhappy with the Labour party policy because it would increase the tax take from John Key from under two hundred thousand, to almost a million dollars per year.
No Kyle. I’m not unhappy about that. I’m unsatisfied that there is no notable exemption threshold for those eligible for limited gains and on limited incomes. I believe that a dispensation like that could in its own small way help to reduce wealth disparities, and I consider addressing such an issue by whatever means as being of value to our socialist democracy. However I’m much more unhappy that Cunliffe was unable to adequately explain the policy, and in fact did a vast amount of damage to perceptions of the policy with his “one month” comment after the Christchurch debate.
You started a few days not understanding that it was a tax on capital GAINS. You basically understood nothing about what it was and were slagging it off. Now that people have answered pretty much everything that you’ve raised, you’re still slagging it off.
And that is my point. I passed bursary calculus and English, I watched all the leaders debates and I was unable to fully grasp it until after the election. You are correct I missed some vital details until Alfie corrected me on September 21st:
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.
Regardless of my misapprehension of the quantity, I was still discussing it later that same day with Ben and Michael Homer, my understanding was arguably getting better by that point.
On that thread you said:
I can’t accept there being a ‘comms problem’ when the answer to this question is contained in the name of the tax itself.
And if you’re insinuating that I’m slow, I’ll freely admit it, I’ll take that one on the chin, rather than comms it was my own issues that hindered me grasping the policy before the election Kyle, though I like to kid myself that I wasn’t the only New Zealander who may have missed something, I was confused by some of what I heard.
As is evident to some, I didn’t come on this thread to discuss the CGT. Deborah, seeing me mention the CGT was kind enough to volunteer to answer any questions I might have, and so I asked about Labour’s philosophy/reasoning in not exempting those at the bottom of society who may come into capital gains, and I was carefully nonspecific, as it can apply to all manner of things; a house, small business assets, inherited assets – some of which may be of very low value, the tax still levied uniformly at people of high, low or no income.
I let Deborah know that there’s no rush to answer it, and given that she’s a standing member of the Labour party I think it’s awesome that she extended such an offer as they’re obviously quite busy right now. But it is because she is a standing member of the Labour party that I asked her this question, in fact this is what qualifies her to answer a question about the reasoning/philosophy of the Labour party.
Kyle I do appreciate the effort you and others have gone to in order to answer my question on behalf of Deborah. I also feel your frustration at someone who’s not grasping something that you may find quite rudimentary. However I remain hopeful that Deobrah, perhaps after consultation, will answer in due course.
-
More unwanted headlines, of what benefit to the Party Mr Quin?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Lilith __,
=) Time for a tune:
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Such a demonstrable inability to compromise is a really bad look for a party in the MMP system.
Seconded.