ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Jacinda Ardern , New Zealand elections , New Zealand issues , New Zealand politics

Reply
Old 15th October 2020, 09:54 PM   #41
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.
In the case of a family of 5 the "wealth" is divided by 5 and each tax is individual so no tax on a 5 million dollar farm.
However the tax if applied without business destruction has no measurable impact on lifestyles.
I am just describing the tax not advocating for it but my party vote goes to green this year for a range of reasons.
Ardern must not be allowed absolute power because we all know what that leads to.

Last edited by Samson; 15th October 2020 at 09:55 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 10:13 PM   #42
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,469
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the government levy CGT when the gain is realised by the farm being sold? Because that's how it works here. I haven't inherited a farm, but I did shares. They sat there untouched by the government until they were sold.

I agree that if CGT was levied when the asset is inherited it would be unfair. Why is the NZ government proposing to do it this way, and not waiting until the capital gain is realised?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 10:15 PM   #43
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,914
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Ok, so I was wrong on the 100k, but even I can figure that they'd need to be a quarter of the way in the first three years, so it's 600 out of 25,000 rather than 100k.

Still an abject fail.

[quote=Roger Ramjets;13259170]...Rents...[/url]

You're only looking at one year, and the government's been in power for three.

Over three years the difference is about 50%, so I was a little hyperbolic. The numbers are also skewed by Christchurch, where the rents actually fell, still getting fallout from the earthquakes.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018[/url] passed on Dec 20 2018, setting 3 year and 10 year goals. Expecting a 'fix' for such an intractable problem less than 2 years in (including a worldwide pandemic) is a bit too much to ask for IMO.
I don't expect it to be fixed in three years, but I would have expected some positive action, and there hasn't been any, aside from increases in the minimum wage. That's mostly irrelevant due to the way housing and family support works in NZ.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If New Zealand has a long-standing poverty problem, is that the fault of the current government (which has been in power for less than 4 years) or the previous one which spent 9 years selling off state housing, bribing wealthier voters with tax cuts and hoping that 'trickle down' would do the trick?
Nice strawman - I didn't suggest Labour have caused it, but it was Labour who campaigned on fixing it.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Would you choose the party with a proven record of abject failure rather than the one that might be starting to make a difference?
I noted that I voted for Labour, because they're a lot better than the alternative, but I'm bitterly disappointed that they're not pursuing policies to fix the problems.

To me, the greatest indictment was caving in to Winston Peters on capital gains taxes.

As a result, house prices are up 11% in the past 12 months, and Auckland now ranks sixth least-affordable on the planet. And that's insane for a tiny country with unlimited land at the bottom of the planet.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So I hope you are joking.
Not joking, just pointing out the irony of it all. The country would be better off from all aspects if we'd done nothing.

I'm not advocating it, just saying.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But one thing is for sure, genuinely caring more for human lives than money generally leads to a better result for people - which is what really matters.
I remain unconvinced that that's true, and we won't know for at least some years.

Given the effects that will reverberate for many years, it may turn out that fewer lives would have been lost or destroyed by just letting it go.

I made the comment in the economics thread that the economic fallout from Covid hasn't even really started yet. Add to that, we have no idea what the effect of school kids missing vast swathes of school will cause in the longer term.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 10:52 PM   #44
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,121
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the government levy CGT when the gain is realised by the farm being sold? Because that's how it works here. I haven't inherited a farm, but I did shares. They sat there untouched by the government until they were sold.

I agree that if CGT was levied when the asset is inherited it would be unfair. Why is the NZ government proposing to do it this way, and not waiting until the capital gain is realised?
In Australia, you have to dispose of the inherited main residence within two years to avoid CGT. If you don't and you use the ex-main residence as an investment property (revenue), you have to independently value the main residence at the time of inheritance and that becomes the new cost base if there is a later disposal by a beneficiary. I guess the question is apportionment if the main residence is also part of a commercial farm and the main residence is still used as a main residence by a beneficiary.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 11:05 PM   #45
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the government levy CGT when the gain is realised by the farm being sold? Because that's how it works here. I haven't inherited a farm, but I did shares. They sat there untouched by the government until they were sold.
The scheme proposed by Labour's "Tax Working Group" (TWG) was that any asset other than a family home would be taxed when it changed hands or ownership. Inheritance would count as a change of ownership. Because the farmhouse is the family's home, the curtilage (an area of 4500m2 - about 1.11 acres - on which the homestead sits) would be exempt.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I agree that if CGT was levied when the asset is inherited it would be unfair. Why is the NZ government proposing to do it this way, and not waiting until the capital gain is realised?
The TWG were very canny about giving an answer to this, but my solicitor thinks it was because the government could see it would never be able to levy tax if a farm kept getting handed down from parents to siblings indefinitely. After Labour became the government in 2017, he says he had a sharp uptick in the number of farmers in our area setting up family trusts. The idea of this is that the Trust owns the farm, and the Family members run the Trust. When the father dies, it is only his share of the farm that changes hands (therefore, only his share can be taxed) but the farm as a whole never changes ownership. Even better, in most of the Trust Schemes my solicitor sets up, the Father gifts his children a part of his Trust share every year (always less than the maximum before gift tax kicks in) so that by the time he reaches retirement age, he has little or no share in the Trust, so there's little if anything to tax.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th October 2020 at 11:11 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 10:35 AM   #46
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.

While I empathize with the sentiment -- I do -- I don't see why a farm should be treated differently than a factory.

There are farms and farms. What size are these? I'd agree with you if they yielded an income more or less in synch with NZ's per capita number, and/or if their asset value were, again, roughly in the region of the country's average (per capita, not just for farms). Otherwise, that is for farms significantly bigger than that, I wouldn't see high inheritence taxes as obscene, or stealing, not even if they forced a sale. On the contrary, I'd see such taxes as equitable.

If there are other factors at play, other than equity, such as optimum farm sizes, etc, one can think of other ways of addressing those. It's not as if all farms necessarily must keep running; and even when they might be thought necessary, vesting ownership with the heirs of the deceased isn't the only way of keeping them running.

Of course, for small farms, yielding incomes not far from the country per capita, like I said I'd agree with you.

(I have little actual knowledge of inheritance law, and less of NZ's economy, so that's no more than my general thoughts on what seems 'fair' as far as your farm scenario.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 10:41 AM   #47
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,360
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.
That's pretty simple to fix if the father just shares ownership prior to death. Create an LLC (or location equivalent) to own the farm and pay the family in shares every year they work on the farm alongside whatever other wages he may pay them such that after 20, 30, or even 40 years the kids already own most of the farm and have earned it over time and paid whatever taxes on those earnings over time.

If the value is increasing then it works much better since the kids paid far less tax in the beginning than they would at the end for the percentage ownership they earned.

The one problem with this is many folks fear their children more than the tax man. And many children make that a legitimate choice. But there are ways to get around that, too, if you are determined.

ETA: Another option is for the father to invest a portion of his proceeds every year in easily convertible assets that don't carry any sentimental value such that they can be liquidated upon death to prevent sale of a portion of the family farm. Again, this is hard because farmers tend to like to buy land, not stocks and bonds.

And one can become sentimentally attached to stocks and bonds.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 16th October 2020 at 10:44 AM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 10:58 AM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In almost all the cases I am talking about here, NZ Farmers, the farm has been run by the family. The wife, the sons and the daughters have worked the farm since they were old enough to drive a tractor (in NZ, that is 12 years old). It is manifestly obscene that on the death of their father, these young folk who have been working the farm for 20, 30, perhaps even 40 years, have the government come along and steal 1/3 of the capital gain on that farm.
Heh. Turns out some taxes are theft.

Is that 1/3 tax rate different from the taxes taken out in other scenarios where capital changes hands? Like if I built up a farming business, and then sold it to someone else, would I have to pay a similar tax?

What about... Huh. In the US, apparently you can give gifts of up to $11million total over your lifetime, without having to pay taxes on the giving:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/gift-tax-rate

What about capital gains realized in the course of operating the farm? Has the family been paying those taxes all along, or is it the transfer upon death that triggers the taxation event?

It seems to me that the NZ government is justified in levying a capital gains tax on family farms, and that therefore it probably doesn't matter very much exactly when they go about it. People pay a life insurance premium every year to get back a lump sum when they die. Seems like it's basically the same thing to divert some profit every year to pay off the capital gains tax once every generation or so.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 11:22 AM   #49
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,360
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
People pay a life insurance premium every year to get back a lump sum when they die.
That is another option to help save the family farm, BTW.

It is all about planning, really. Its just that most of us don't really plan on dying. It is more of an inconvenience one would prefer to ignore.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 12:36 PM   #50
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
While I empathize with the sentiment -- I do -- I don't see why a farm should be treated differently than a factory.
A family doesn't live in a factory. It isn't their home.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 12:48 PM   #51
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What about capital gains realized in the course of operating the farm? Has the family been paying those taxes all along, or is it the transfer upon death that triggers the taxation event?
They have been paying tax on their income from the farm.

Making them pay a tax on the increased value of the farm; and increase that has been a result of their hard work and expertise is double taxation.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It seems to me that the NZ government is justified in levying a capital gains tax on family farms, and that therefore it probably doesn't matter very much exactly when they go about it.
I don't think CGT on unrealised gains is justifiable at all. You should only be taxed on the real monetary gain, not on a government estimate of what you assets are worth - in other words, you should only be taxed on the real value of an asset, and you can only know that when the asset has been turned into actual, spendable money.


Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
People pay a life insurance premium every year to get back a lump sum when they die. Seems like it's basically the same thing to divert some profit every year to pay off the capital gains tax once every generation or so.
Didn't you say that dead people were not people? If so, explain how a dead person can determine that the insurance payout pays the CGT?
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 12:52 PM   #52
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,360
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A family doesn't live in a factory. It isn't their home.
Nor do they live on most of the farm. But you know this since you already mentioned the exemption for the family home.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 12:56 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A family doesn't live in a factory. It isn't their home.
A family lives in a farm house. Having a working farm in your backyard is no different from having any other kind of business operation in your backyard, in my opinion. And having a family business is no different from having any other kind of business. This is sounding more and more like a "get out of reasonable taxation free" kind of argument.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 01:14 PM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
They have been paying tax on their income from the farm.

Making them pay a tax on the increased value of the farm; and increase that has been a result of their hard work and expertise is double taxation.
I don't see it that way. Employees pay income tax. Investors pay capital gains tax. I doubt the same people are paying both, but if they are, that's on them and their accountant, I think. Why not forgo a salary, take dividends from investment shares, and avoid the whole double-payment problem?

Quote:
I don't think CGT on unrealised gains is justifiable at all. You should only be taxed on the real monetary gain, not on a government estimate of what you assets are worth - in other words, you should only be taxed on the real value of an asset, and you can only know that when the asset has been turned into actual, spendable money.
If a property owner can get a line of credit based on the estimated value of the property, I think it's reasonable for them to get a tax bill on the same basis.

ETA: Also, there's the idea that property that goes unused is a waste of communal resources. It has value if it's put to work. Property taxes are a way of encouraging the owner to put the property to work and extract that value.

Quote:
Didn't you say that dead people were not people? If so, explain how a dead person can determine that the insurance payout pays the CGT?
That isn't what I meant. I meant, set aside money every year to pay the CGT. Put it in account somewhere, and withdraw it all when the taxman comes.

But obviously a life insurance company pays the beneficiary of a policy, from the money they've collected from the insured while they were still alive.

And no, I don't think it's very weird for someone to pay someone else for a service to be rendered on the condition of their death. That's a very specific form of "here's something I want to happen after I'm dead" that involves contracting for a service and paying for it up front, and a third party doing what they promised when they accepted the payments.

Last edited by theprestige; 16th October 2020 at 01:15 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 05:26 PM   #55
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't see it that way.
Well, I do see it that way. Our philosophies on this are obviously poles apart. We are just going to have to disagree.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If a property owner can get a line of credit based on the estimated value of the property, I think it's reasonable for them to get a tax bill on the same basis.
Lines of credit have nothing to do with capital gains tax

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
ETA: Also, there's the idea that property that goes unused is a waste of communal resources. It has value if it's put to work. Property taxes are a way of encouraging the owner to put the property to work and extract that value.
That is the property owner's decision, not the community's

PS: you're beginning to sound like a communist!

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That isn't what I meant. I meant, set aside money every year to pay the CGT. Put it in account somewhere, and withdraw it all when the taxman comes.
Either a person can make decisions about what will happen to their assets after they die or they can't. You can't have it both ways, or adjust it to suit your argument on a per-argument basis

You said a dead person isn't a dead person, so now can they pay this tax?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And no, I don't think it's very weird for someone to pay someone else for a service to be rendered on the condition of their death. That's a very specific form of "here's something I want to happen after I'm dead" that involves contracting for a service and paying for it up front, and a third party doing what they promised when they accepted the payments.
Ahem...

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And that doesn't seem even a little bit weird to you? The dead having binding opinions on the affairs of the living.
Changed your mind already?
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 05:36 PM   #56
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A family lives in a farm house. Having a working farm in your backyard is no different from having any other kind of business operation in your backyard, in my opinion. And having a family business is no different from having any other kind of business. This is sounding more and more like a "get out of reasonable taxation free" kind of argument.
CGT is not reasonable taxation, and I seriously doubt it will ever be introduced in NZ because the people are against it on every front. Even debating it in this country has done serious harm to the Labour party. Its only the Greens who really want it, and they are a tiny minority (<8%)

"New Zealanders do not want a capital gains tax (CGT) - not on their investment property, not on their farms or businesses, and definitely not on their KiwiSaver."

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-tax-poll.html
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 06:20 PM   #57
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
It is a forgone conclusion.

Labour will win.

Most govts do for a second term.

They haven't actually done anything in the last three years, but when you have her branding I don't think it matters to a lot of people.

Country will probably be screwed, but just have to live with it.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 06:47 PM   #58
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A family doesn't live in a factory. It isn't their home.

Again, I empathize with the sentiment, I agree with the core principle. But I'm afraid we're conflating the residential aspect of the farm here with its business aspect. I think an apt analogy -- theprestige's posting here, so I wonder how he'll respond, to the argument as well as at a meta level about the principle of using this argument at all here! -- might be a boarding house, a motel, or even a hotel, that the family lives in. (Not an Airbnb room, that's more like a small kitchen garden at the back of your house, not a farm.) The taxman will want to suss out, unravel, that conflation, for income tax, as well as capital gains tax; so why not for an inheritence tax as well?

Besides, apart from that conflation, there's the question of equity. If I lived in a palatial mansion with acres of land attached -- another analogy! -- then, even if all I used that property for is to live in (not make money from), from an equity perspective (equitability, I mean to say) that's very different than owning and living in an 'average' house or apartment.

So, even looking to just the question of fairness, I have to ask, what is the size and value of the actual farm, and how does that compare with the country average (per capita, not just for farms of that category, not even all farms in general)?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 07:37 PM   #59
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Again, I empathize with the sentiment, I agree with the core principle. But I'm afraid we're conflating the residential aspect of the farm here with its business aspect. I think an apt analogy -- theprestige's posting here, so I wonder how he'll respond, to the argument as well as at a meta level about the principle of using this argument at all here! -- might be a boarding house, a motel, or even a hotel, that the family lives in. (Not an Airbnb room, that's more like a small kitchen garden at the back of your house, not a farm.) The taxman will want to suss out, unravel, that conflation, for income tax, as well as capital gains tax; so why not for an inheritence tax as well?

Besides, apart from that conflation, there's the question of equity. If I lived in a palatial mansion with acres of land attached -- another analogy! -- then, even if all I used that property for is to live in (not make money from), from an equity perspective (equitability, I mean to say) that's very different than owning and living in an 'average' house or apartment.

So, even looking to just the question of fairness, I have to ask, what is the size and value of the actual farm, and how does that compare with the country average (per capita, not just for farms of that category, not even all farms in general)?
Most farmers owe fricken shed loads.

Sure they may own a 6 million farm. But they are paying a 4-5 million in loans.

There is a thing called big equity but no fluid cash.

Same as a lot of older people.

They theoretically are rich in most people's terms as they are living in a million dollar house.

But all they get to actually live on is superannuation.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 07:42 PM   #60
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,914
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
It is a forgone conclusion.
The only question is whether they get to 50%. I'm picking they'll just miss.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
They haven't actually done anything in the last three years, but when you have her branding I don't think it matters to a lot of people.
The irony will be that Luxon will be leading National by next Saturday, and they'll be +5% in the polls by March next year as people start to realise they've got an empty vessel running the place.

Unless they actually do something this time in.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 07:52 PM   #61
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The only question is whether they get to 50%. I'm picking they'll just miss.







The irony will be that Luxon will be leading National by next Saturday, and they'll be +5% in the polls by March next year as people start to realise they've got an empty vessel running the place.



Unless they actually do something this time in.
Agree but

I am thinking they we will throw in Mitchell first.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 08:58 PM   #62
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,914
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Agree but

I am thinking they we will throw in Mitchell first.
Freudian slip there, mate?

No chance - I'll give you any odds you like on Mitchell.

After going through Bridges, Muller and Collins in no time they'll be looking for stability and longevity, and a bloke who's been in Parliament for almost a decade and done virtually nothing won't do it.

Also too close to Lusk & Slater, who are both well on the outer nowadays.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 09:19 PM   #63
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Most farmers owe fricken shed loads.

Sure they may own a 6 million farm. But they are paying a 4-5 million in loans.

There is a thing called big equity but no fluid cash.

Same as a lot of older people.

They theoretically are rich in most people's terms as they are living in a million dollar house.

But all they get to actually live on is superannuation.

I hear you. You're saying those millions-worth farms yield little income; and are, besides, closer to hovels housing peasants tilling their land than castles with moats and rolling greens.

You haven't made any argument yourself, so I won't strawman you: but that would be two arguments against smartcooky's position.

The first would be the equitability argument I've already presented, given that you're saying these farmers are clearly richer than your average NZer.

And the second would be the efficiency argument, because clearly the RoI here is sub-optimal, inefficient. That capital and that land will likely find better use; else, if farming's necessary to the economy, others might run that farm more efficiently.

Even if you're looking to the comfort of the farmers themselves, given that you're saying they're mostly subsisting on superannuation, they'd probably be better off in some nice neat apartment or small house, rather than their hovels and sheds amidst their land.

What you're saying only makes the case for inheritence tax stronger, as far as those farms.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 09:42 PM   #64
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Of course there is one New Zealander who is uncommonly pleased with what Andrew Little drove through in the Ardern years.

His submissions are now before the CCRC.

National of course bitterly opposed the legislation, evil band of religious nutters.

Last edited by Samson; 16th October 2020 at 09:43 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 10:28 PM   #65
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Of course there is one New Zealander who is uncommonly pleased with what Andrew Little drove through in the Ardern years.

His submissions are now before the CCRC.

National of course bitterly opposed the legislation, evil band of religious nutters.
The "Ardern years" haven't given jack ****.

Every promise they made, they have broken.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2020, 11:06 PM   #66
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,914
Early results (2% count) showing 50.4% for Labour.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:14 AM   #67
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
This election is just astonishing.

Rural seats that have been stalwart Blue for as long as I can remember are flipping to Red all over the country.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:17 AM   #68
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Labour will have the opportunity to impose a land tax.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:18 AM   #69
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Labour will have the opportunity to impose a land tax.
Already stated emphatically that they will not! If they do, they will be gone in 2023

ETA: https://www.labour.org.nz/tax

Labour’s tax plan

1. No income tax changes for 98% of Kiwis
2. On personal income earned over $180,000 a new top tax rate of 39% will apply – this change affects 2% of earners
3. Extra revenue raised will be used to protect health and education, control debt, and support the recovery plan
4. No new taxes, or further increases to income tax next term
5. We also won’t raise fuel taxes
6. We’ll continue closing tax loopholes to make sure multinational corporations pay their fair share
7. We will not introduce a capital gains tax under a Jacinda led Labour government
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 17th October 2020 at 12:26 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:36 AM   #70
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This election is just astonishing.

Rural seats that have been stalwart Blue for as long as I can remember are flipping to Red all over the country.
Mhhh

Covid was always going to screw the other side
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:43 AM   #71
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Already stated emphatically that they will not! If they do, they will be gone in 2023

ETA: https://www.labour.org.nz/tax

Labour’s tax plan

1. No income tax changes for 98% of Kiwis
2. On personal income earned over $180,000 a new top tax rate of 39% will apply – this change affects 2% of earners
3. Extra revenue raised will be used to protect health and education, control debt, and support the recovery plan
4. No new taxes, or further increases to income tax next term
5. We also won’t raise fuel taxes
6. We’ll continue closing tax loopholes to make sure multinational corporations pay their fair share
7. We will not introduce a capital gains tax under a Jacinda led Labour government
Taxing minimum wage workers will not gain enough revenue
The trees of the landowners and land bankers are laden with low hanging fruit.
Ardern is now the most powerful politician in New Zealand and happy to retire at short notice.
A land tax is clean and completely unevadable.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:47 AM   #72
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,469
Well at least those ACT libertarian dickheads won’t get a look in.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:49 AM   #73
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Mhhh

Covid was always going to screw the other side
I do not believe the rural vote has much to do with Covid... some but not a lot.

Its no accident that National's party vote (25%) is running close to the preferred PM polling for Crusher Collins (19%)

Collins is unpopular. She comes across as snooty, arrogant and uncaring.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:52 AM   #74
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Taxing minimum wage workers will not gain enough revenue
The trees of the landowners and land bankers are laden with low hanging fruit.
Ardern is now the most powerful politician in New Zealand and happy to retire at short notice.
A land tax is clean and completely unevadable.
Land tax won't happen in the next three years... care to have a wager about that?
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:55 AM   #75
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well at least those ACT libertarian dickheads won’t get a look in.
They will get about 10 seats in Parliament.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 12:55 AM   #76
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Land tax won't happen in the next three years... care to have a wager about that?
My reasoning is that she can do it, and it will generate revenue that all parties will become addicted to.
But I am guessing. It just looks a no brainer to me from the cheap seats, but no bet or pistols at dawn.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 01:09 AM   #77
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,438
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
My reasoning is that she can do it, and it will generate revenue that all parties will become addicted to.
But I am guessing. It just looks a no brainer to me from the cheap seats, but no bet or pistols at dawn.
Here's my view.

The only way it could happen is if Labour end up with less than 50%, and the Greens (who are very pro CGT) sitting on the cross benches without Winston being the handbrake on policy. In this case, the Greens might try to force the issue with the threat of withdrawing support on other Labour policy.

There is certainly no way that Ardern will push through CGT. It is very unpopular nationally, and any party that did this will get the archer at the next election.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 01:10 AM   #78
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,469
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
They will get about 10 seats in Parliament.
All taken off the Nationals I reckon. So no influence.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 01:10 AM   #79
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,072
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I do not believe the rural vote has much to do with Covid... some but not a lot.



Its no accident that National's party vote (25%) is running close to the preferred PM polling for Crusher Collins (19%)



Collins is unpopular. She comes across as snooty, arrogant and uncaring.
Rural people own as many TVs as others and got just as many 1pm daily politic free adverts from Ardern as everyone else.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2020, 01:15 AM   #80
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,143
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here's my view.

The only way it could happen is if Labour end up with less than 50%, and the Greens (who are very pro CGT) sitting on the cross benches without Winston being the handbrake on policy. In this case, the Greens might try to force the issue with the threat of withdrawing support on other Labour policy.

There is certainly no way that Ardern will push through CGT. It is very unpopular nationally, and any party that did this will get the archer at the next election.
A land tax is not a wealth tax or a CGT.
It can be formatted in a variety of ways but there is no escape.
It will deliver many appropriate market signals.
It could involve easily described exclusions.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.