Post by Crash Post by Rich80105 Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
JohnO; your appear to have accidently deleted previous posts - leaving
Post by Rich80105 Post by Gordon Post by Rich80105
Well done to Bill English for pushing for this tax, and on John Key
for having the willingness to implement it.
Trasnslated. Shit the buggers did it first. Mutter, mutter.
Not at all. With National priding itself on giving a priority to
reducing taxes, discourse around sensible taxing of capital gains was
very difficult. for property, our system had developed in such a
stipud way that paying tax was essentially optional for most sales of
real property - the two year "brightline" test enabled systems to be
established to enable IRD to track property sales, and that is
becoming useful in seeing the extent to which tax which should have
been paid was previously beng avoided. Labour improveds the
effectiveness of the tax by extending the term to 5 years, but the
door was effectively 'opened' by National.
It is also an illustration of the truism that many decisions made by
any government are actually supported by the then opposition - the
rabid blind opposition to sensible and uncontroversial legislation is
more a feature of the current oppositions lack of alternatives, and
determination to avoid scrutiny for that weakness by shallow "memes"
that attempt to attack personalities thrugh miosleading slogans and
fale statistics. We should not forget that even National in a previous
era was capable of some good decisions. "
Speculative gains from property flipping were always taxable, regardless of any brightline test.
So do you believe, JohnO, that Bill English and John Key got it all
The reality is that the new tax rules they set in place did increase
tax revenue through taxing capital gains on short term property
flipping. Previously, whether gains were taxable depended on the
intent at the time of purchase - and surprisingly few owners who sold
at a profit in the short term would ever admit that they intended to
do that - changed circumstances cover many different situations.
The plain fact is that the new law did increase tax revenue, and is
now enabling the IRD to investigate patterns of behaviour and deem
other examples of short term "property flipping" and raise additional
tax. The "Bright Line" did represent yet another tax increase by the
then National-led government; but you are partially right in that they
made sure that National MPs were able to receive the "right"advice to
ensure that it never applied to them . . .
Rich, in a roundabout way you concede JohnO was right. Those who
bought real estate with the intention to sell on at a profit always
had the capital gain assessed as income and taxed accordingly.
It was nearly impossible to prove intent under most circumstances -
the change in tax laws was seen at the time as a significant change.
The 2 year period was laughably short of course, but previously very
very few sales incurred tax on the realised profits; and 2 years was
short enough that it was not expected to affect anyone but those
selling for "windfall" profits (such as a few Estate Agents who sold
within 24 hours)
Post by Crash
The bright line test simply tightened the definition of intent, and
was introduced (rightly or wrongly) as an attempt to dampen the
housing market at the time.
So your thread subject is simply a lie -
the bright-line test was simply a refinement of existing tax law. Yes
it raised tax revenue as it was intended to.
A refinement of tax law is what most increases or reductions in tax
are - in this case it took a significant step towards taxing all
profits equally; a major change from the previous situation where
almost no tax was being collected.
Correct - but a tightening of an existing law to more narrowly define
intent. This is not a significant change in itself - the increased
tax collection was the consequence, not the change.
Post by Rich80105
No lie, Crash, this was a
significant policy change by the then government which would have been
much more difficult for a Labour-led Government to have introduced.
Your lie is in the way you described it in the thread subject. This
law was about defining which capital gains are taxable income, not
about a capital gains tax (if you don't understand the difference you
don't understand the issue). Either that or the current government
lied about not introducing a capital gains tax (note the non-partisan
Understandably I think it is you who are the liar.
I have been critical of both Labour and National for sloppy talk
relating to tax on capital gains. Both parties are well aware of the
extent to which New Zealand already has capital gains tax, but many
ordiary people not involved in investments are not affected - or at
least think they are not affected. As has been pointed out, a tax
consists of rules saying what will be taxed, and rules saying what the
rate(s) of tax is. A "new" tax is generally considered to be taxing
something that was not previously taxable, increasing a tax rate is
increasing a tax. Those definitions are of course malleable!
New Zealand has a problem with a system for capital gains taxes that
is arbitrary and inefficient, leading to distortions in the investment
markets. Generally, an individual who owns shares and real property is
unlikely to have to pay capital gains taxes when selling provided some
precautions are taken. However an individual who invests in a pooled
fund managed by a professional investment manager is unable to take
advantage of provisions to avoid tax on capital gains when assets are
sold - for example if I sell some shares tomorrow I do not expect to
pay tax on the capital gains; I trade rarely and usually in accordance
with periodic investment advice or because the proceeds are needed for
some other purpose. However an ïnvestor in Kiwisaver will pay tax on
his or her share of capital gains realised in the fund they invest in,
at the rate they have advised the Kiwisaver fund manager.
Some commentators think that this has distorted our investment
markets, and in particular has distorted the market for residential
property. National has resisted changes for a long time, but clear
examples of short term profit taking prompted them to levy tax on such
transactions, where it had not previously been levied.
Labour had a review of all aspects of taxation and that group
recommended various changes. However it is clear that not all parties
to the current government were in agreement. It was perhaps not helped
by scaremongering about Labour proposing to tax sales of personal
residences, and describing plans to intriduce a new tax doing that.
Introducing a comprehensive tax on capital gains, with clear
exemptions only for personal residences (to be defined), was referred
to as "ïntroducing a capital gains tax" - and I thought Labour did a
poor job of explaining the differences; or that the wealthy were
generally able to avoid paying tax on capital gains, but those
investing in Kiwisaver were at a relative disadvantage. Certainly in
sying that "The Coalition Government will not proceed with the Tax
Working Groups recommendation for a capital gains tax," the prime
minister may have more accurately said that the changes to New
Zealands current capital gains tax regime recommended would not be
I believe that National made a larger change than most realised with
the 2-year 'bright line' test. The length of time and tax rate were
less important than the income captured within the tax net. When
Labour originally introduced GST it was a new tax - the rate has been
changed at least twice since - and those were tax increases rather
than a new tax. In that light, the introduction of the 2 year bright
line was a major change by National - a new tax.