All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears thatIRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at
least fixed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >>injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion. >>
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >>tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that >to be the case. The law needs fixing.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that
the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at
least fixed.
On 22 Aug 2023 03:47:23 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >>injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion. >>
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >>tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>least fixed.
What a beat-up!
"Inland Revenue consulted on its interpretation of the main home
exclusion of the bright-line test earlier in the year."
"Taxpayers Union campaigns manager Callum Purves said the bright-line
test was a slippery slope.
Although the test originally only applied to investment properties
sold within two years of being purchased, the National Party opened
the back door for a capital gains tax."
"A spokesperson for Inland Revenue said it had nearly finished its
review of the submissions received and expected to publish its
interpretation in a couple of weeks."
The example given was fairly unusual - Co-owners with one going
overseas and the other staying for two years - even then it depends a
lot on relative incomes etc. This is a theoretical case that appears
to have been put together to be sufficiently unusual to have not been >considered by IRD previously
We will know what will be decided in relation to this consultation
fairly soon; meanwhile this is a political campaign by the right-wing
Nat/ACT supporting "Taxpayers Union" - they must be delighted to have
got it published through a gullible journalist
But the key to it is that this problem was opened up originally by the >National Party, and it doesn't seem to have been a real problem in the
years since . . .
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:52:20 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 22 Aug 2023 03:47:23 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >>>injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion. >>>
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >>>tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>least fixed.
What a beat-up!
"Inland Revenue consulted on its interpretation of the main home
exclusion of the bright-line test earlier in the year."
"Taxpayers Union campaigns manager Callum Purves said the bright-line
test was a slippery slope.
Although the test originally only applied to investment properties
sold within two years of being purchased, the National Party opened
the back door for a capital gains tax."
"A spokesperson for Inland Revenue said it had nearly finished its
review of the submissions received and expected to publish its >>interpretation in a couple of weeks."
The example given was fairly unusual - Co-owners with one going
overseas and the other staying for two years - even then it depends a
lot on relative incomes etc. This is a theoretical case that appears
to have been put together to be sufficiently unusual to have not been >>considered by IRD previously
We will know what will be decided in relation to this consultation
fairly soon; meanwhile this is a political campaign by the right-wing >>Nat/ACT supporting "Taxpayers Union" - they must be delighted to have
got it published through a gullible journalist
But the key to it is that this problem was opened up originally by the >>National Party, and it doesn't seem to have been a real problem in the >>years since . . .
Why on earth did it ever make it out of the back office IRD
administration to public consultation?
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes National have put in place some less than perfect laws, sometimes they were arguably unnecessary. So have Labour and recently some legislation that is undemocratic. Pots and kettles are often equally black.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >>>injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion. >>>
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >>>tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that >>to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National
put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test
as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great >>>injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion. >>>
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and >>>tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that >>to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National
put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test
as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great
injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and
tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that
to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National
put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test
as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
The original bright line test was for 2 years. Labor in their wisdom >increased it to 5 years and then the left's envy groups got it
changed to 10 years and slipped this home owners piece in at the same
time without anyone else seeing it apart from the IRD.
It's all about taxing the so called rich , the home owners.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:33:22 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great
injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold.
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and
tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>>>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that
to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National >>>put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test
as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
The original bright line test was for 2 years. Labor in their wisdom >>increased it to 5 years and then the left's envy groups got it
changed to 10 years and slipped this home owners piece in at the same
time without anyone else seeing it apart from the IRD.
It's all about taxing the so called rich , the home owners.
Yes Labour did increase the bright line test, but the other issue is
inherent in the original legislation; it is not a change Labour made.
I suspect it arose because of a more obvious overseas owner issue
disputing where he or she was resident; it has been tweaked to make it
appear more common that it really is as part of a political campaign.
Yes the issue needs to be resolved. My personal view is that we have
had tax on capital gains for many years; the exemption for personal
homes started when most were lived in by the owners, it has only
become an issue recently when landlords discovered the loophole but
the Key/English governments did nothing about it - it has now
distorted our investment markets, giving us higher than desirable
overseas ownership of shares in NZ companies, and difficulties in
start-ups or medium size companies getting listed. We also have high
private debt compared with other nations; we have kept government debt
low (although National increases it when they have been in
government), but it does mean our overall debt levels are too high. We
would have been better off following Australia, but National (and now
MPs from other parties including Labour) are making too much money
from being landlords with multiple property investments.
On 2023-08-23, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:33:22 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great
injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that >>>>>>the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own >>>>>>shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold. >>>>>>
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and
tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at >>>>>>least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that
to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National >>>>put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test
as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
The original bright line test was for 2 years. Labor in their wisdom >>>increased it to 5 years and then the left's envy groups got it
changed to 10 years and slipped this home owners piece in at the same >>>time without anyone else seeing it apart from the IRD.
It's all about taxing the so called rich , the home owners.
Yes Labour did increase the bright line test, but the other issue is
inherent in the original legislation; it is not a change Labour made.
I suspect it arose because of a more obvious overseas owner issue
disputing where he or she was resident; it has been tweaked to make it
appear more common that it really is as part of a political campaign.
Yes the issue needs to be resolved. My personal view is that we have
had tax on capital gains for many years; the exemption for personal
homes started when most were lived in by the owners, it has only
become an issue recently when landlords discovered the loophole but
the Key/English governments did nothing about it - it has now
distorted our investment markets, giving us higher than desirable
overseas ownership of shares in NZ companies, and difficulties in
start-ups or medium size companies getting listed. We also have high
private debt compared with other nations; we have kept government debt
low (although National increases it when they have been in
government), but it does mean our overall debt levels are too high. We
would have been better off following Australia, but National (and now
MPs from other parties including Labour) are making too much money
from being landlords with multiple property investments.
We have a very strange society when we hit on Landlords who are in a
business which supplies one of the basics of life. Shelter. And yet until >recently we have not done the same with supermarket operators.
Why do we as a society not value shelter as high as it should be.
Sure the Government should keep the playing field even so the market can do >its thing.
On 24 Aug 2023 03:10:56 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:There you go again twisting reality Rich! If landlords traded property Rich, they'd be real estate agents NOT landlords! They rent properties to provide shelter for people. something your inglorious left hate because they some how manage to make a profit
On 2023-08-23, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:33:22 +1200, Mutley <mutle...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300955280/heres-how-your-home-could-be-taxed-even-if-youre-not-an-investor
IRD is doing the jopb it is paid to do.
All of a rush with out thinking it through looks like there could be a great
injustice done by the court of public opinion. Once again it appears that
the Government was cautioned by just ignored the wisdom of a second opinion.
Surely a family (or person) is allowed to purchase a house for their own
shelter with out being taxed on the increase in the price when sold. >>>>>>
Let us hope that the N/ACT Government can get some claririty for the IRD and
tell them this idea is off the table. Another law to be repealed, or at
least fixed.
The legislation would appear to be defective and IRD is actually showing that
to be the case. The law needs fixing.
Indeed, if it is even a real problem in the first place (when National >>>>put the original legislation in and then put in the bright-line test >>>>as it became clear estate agents were walking around it . . .)).
The original bright line test was for 2 years. Labor in their wisdom >>>increased it to 5 years and then the left's envy groups got it
changed to 10 years and slipped this home owners piece in at the same >>>time without anyone else seeing it apart from the IRD.
It's all about taxing the so called rich , the home owners.
Yes Labour did increase the bright line test, but the other issue is
inherent in the original legislation; it is not a change Labour made.
I suspect it arose because of a more obvious overseas owner issue
disputing where he or she was resident; it has been tweaked to make it
appear more common that it really is as part of a political campaign.
Yes the issue needs to be resolved. My personal view is that we have
had tax on capital gains for many years; the exemption for personal
homes started when most were lived in by the owners, it has only
become an issue recently when landlords discovered the loophole but
the Key/English governments did nothing about it - it has now
distorted our investment markets, giving us higher than desirable
overseas ownership of shares in NZ companies, and difficulties in
start-ups or medium size companies getting listed. We also have high
private debt compared with other nations; we have kept government debt
low (although National increases it when they have been in
government), but it does mean our overall debt levels are too high. We
would have been better off following Australia, but National (and now
MPs from other parties including Labour) are making too much money
from being landlords with multiple property investments.
We have a very strange society when we hit on Landlords who are in a >business which supplies one of the basics of life. Shelter. And yet until >recently we have not done the same with supermarket operators.
Why do we as a society not value shelter as high as it should be.
Sure the Government should keep the playing field even so the market can do >its thing.Share trading results in tax on capital gains with some exemptions -
why is trading in property, where as you say landlords are in a
business, not treated the same way - I would like the government to
make the playing field even - it clearly is not at present.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:55:28 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,693 |