Sounds like amateur, token, sleuthing here, put in the too hard /awkward basket, someone could get a private investigator to trace to the source and verify if Oravida was the culprit.
Printable View
Sounds like amateur, token, sleuthing here, put in the too hard /awkward basket, someone could get a private investigator to trace to the source and verify if Oravida was the culprit.
Sure not nominating fp lol, semantics in a pile of "rubbish".
wow up to $400 million of swamp kauri thats big and greedy and motivational!
You are both wrong. It's fundamentally because with private dwellings, the owner cannot offset property costs and interest against income while they own the asset, whereas the rentier can. Both have the same problem of possibly needing most of the capital to put into another asset, but equally they could bank the money. Rentiers will generally still get all of their original capital back on an asset sale, plus the large majority of their capital gain. Private dwelling owners deserve all of the capital gain in the eye of the taxman, because they've been at a tremendous disadvantage compared to rentiers.
There is no good reason for the taxman to wait a lifetime for CGT payments under a repatriation system. It will do the country no good to have inefficient property money being recycled, simply to save a comparatively small amount of tax. Maybe if property capital was moved into a business operation that employed people, then it could be worthwhile to offer a tax rebate of some kind. How would you like that, FP?
At least we can have confidence in our Min of Finance ... he seems to be up with the play
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/101...rns-about-debt
You are missing one of the fundamentals of being a land lord. What you should be aiming for is a rent that exceeds expenses (interest costs, maintenance depreciation etc) with a view to making a profit on with the tax man will grab a portion. So lets just say, for simplicity, that a landlord breaks even. He is still up for "capital gains" particularly if he falls under the bright line test. Thus he is at a disadvantage compared to the private home owner.
Incidentally I see both the land lord and home owner as productive users of capital in that they are both putting a roof over someones head.
I think out system of applying income tax based on intent is quite suffficient without having separate systems and tax rates.
If there is a fault, it is simply that IRD do not seem to enforce their own rules very often.
CGT can be a monster. Careful design is essential.