ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[fungus pudding]

An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like!

Trying to marry Act's policies with Top's, would be like trying to mate a mosquito with a phone book.

[minimoke]

I think if we were totally honest we would admit that we buy rentals on the expectation the capital value will increase even if our intent is to invest to derive a weekly income.

Same with shares in a start up that isnt making a profit.

So the capitalist tax avoider in me says no to cspital gains tax.

But the equitable payment of tax on all gain says CGT may make some sense

There will of course be unintended consequences - like rent rising to cover future tax bill or maitenance deferred to accrue for liability.

[Bjauck]

That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."

It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time..

Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances. Not in NZ however, so kiwis stuff as much as money and credit as possible into the expensive family home. Hardly any money is left over for investing into shares, which has helped to result in a small share market and so many of our successful companies being owned by foreigners.

[fungus pudding]

Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances.

Which countries, and what type of investments?

[Bjauck]

Which countries, and what type of investments?

The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

[fungus pudding]

The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.

https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.a...ed-retirement/

I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.

[hardt]

Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

[minimoke]

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

We should remember are both essentially left to centrist parties. Both want to tax as much as the can. Both want everyone to be beneficiaries. Neither are business friendly. Both dreaming if harming NZérs will change the climate. Both feeding a sense of entitlement, You need to look at the other parties for clear alternatives

[fungus pudding]

Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.

[Bjauck]

S....

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

I think the most "productive capitalism" friendly parties are TOP (for its suggested reforms to try and shift investment away from inflating the price of land) and ACT in that order.