Friday, November 30, 2018

ON LANDCORP

So Landcorp, the 'governments' farmer, comes out in support of a CGT on farms (among other things).

Well they would wouldn't they because it would have zero effect on their operation ... unlike (real) farmers for whom their farms are their livelihood and retirement nest egg.

Landcorp ... lackey government mouthpiece.

35 comments:

Noel said...


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=12167060

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/landcorp-slammed-welcoming-environmental-taxes-agriculture

Gerald said...

"We have SOEs that essentially are businesses, entitled to make submissions to the Tax Working Group."

But Mr Peters' wasn't told about it and New Zealand First MP Shane Jones said he thinks "if entities like that are going to do it they need to check with the Minister's office".

Landcorp says it regrets not informing the Minister."

and

"Landcorp ... lackey government mouthpiece".

The Veteran said...

Gerald ... Labour & the Greens are all for a CGT. Landcorp is running their line ... that NZF was left out in the cold is hardly surprising ... they're opposed.

I suspect Labour & the Greens will campaign on this in 2020. National and ACT are opposed. It could well be a make or break issue for NZF.

Noel said...

https://taxworkinggroup.govt.nz/resources/public-submissions-tax-working-group-pamu-farms-new-zealand

david said...

I just don't see the problem with taxing capital gains, just like all other forms of income are taxed. The problem the Right sees with CG is that it removes a rort they have used for too long.

Earn a wage increase, pay more tax.

Earn income from shares, pay tax.

Earn interest on bank deposits, pay tax.

Convert a capital asset into cash, pay no tax.

Inheritance taxes also need to be re-introduced.





Noel said...

Oops Fed farmers
file:///C:/Users/Noel/Downloads/180430%20Tax%20Working%20Group%20Final%20Submission.pdf

Noel said...

Ahhh...lets try that again;
http://www.fedfarm.org.nz/FFPublic/Policy2/National/2018/Submission_to_the_Tax_Working_Group.aspx

The Veteran said...

David articulating the losers meme.

David said...

Veteran incapable of articulating why some income should be exempt from tax.

Johno said...

Capital gains are taxed if the gain is earned by intent. If you make a capital gain by trading and speculating then it is already taxable.

It is manifestly unfair to tax the gain on anything else. That is effectively a tax on inflation FFS!

If I have a business and sell it, and buy another business, then I would be taxed on the capital gain of the sold business but suffer the increased price in the purchased business. I still own a business that is potentially worth the same is the business I just sold, but have gone backwards over the tax amount. Such a tax kills incentives to invest in businesses. Typical envy driven politics.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David incapable of understanding why capital gain is not income. Most lefties are thick.

Read Johno

David said...

That is effectively a tax on inflation FFS

FFS indeed. Not everything is measured to gauge inflation. Some items appreciate faster in value than others. That appreciation in value is not due to inflation, but increases in supply and demand.

say, for example, there are 5 paintings by "world's best artist" in existence, each valued at $1 million. One is destroyed by fire, the value of the others increases as there is now a greater scarcity. On what basis can you possibly claim this is a "tax on inflation" if the capital gain is taxed?

Both you and Adolf are arguing that one for of income is sacred and should be exempt from tax.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David

Please stop bullshitting. I am arguing nothing of the sort.

Capital gain is not income until it is realised and when it is, it already is taxed.

If you were a man of principle you would insist that the family home be subject to such a tax but, like all lefties, you want to have two bob each way.

I suggest any windfall which arises from the purchase of lotto tickets should be taxed at 33%.

There you go, just fucked your business for you. You'll have a capital loss. I hope you'll enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/living-in-nz/money-tax/nz-tax-system

David said...

Capital gain is not income until it is realised and when it is, it already is taxed.

No, it's not. It is, in most cases, tax free. I bought a flat in Rangiora, rented it to my step daughter, then sold it 2 years later for a $45,000 profit. Tax paid - $0.00

I suggest any windfall which arises from the purchase of lotto tickets should be taxed at 33%.

There you go, just fucked your business for you. You'll have a capital loss. I hope you'll enjoy it.


Once again, you prove how little you understand of La condition humaine; Australians will gamble, no matter what. My business is sound.

And look, I have even adhered to Rule 3. You should try it sometime, after all, it is your rule.

Johno said...

Your flat capital gain is taxable under both National and Labour bright line tests. You are a self confessed tax fraud. Shall we dob you into the IRD?

The Veteran said...

Johno to David ... ouch and double ouch.

David said...

The Brightline test only applies to property sold within two years of its purchase, at 2 years 1 day that test no longer applies. Therefore my CG was non traxable.

Would you like to withdraw your allegation and admit to your ignorance?

Johno said...

Dancing on the head of a pin, now David?

From the IRD:

"The two year bright-line period generally starts at the point a person has title for the property transferred to them and ends at the time the person enters into a contract to sell the property."

Oh dear, David, the two year period ends at the time you enter into a contract to sell, not when you settle. That's because the legislation is based around the concept of "intent". You owe the IRD 33% of $45K. Would you like to admit your ignorance now?

By the way, Labour's bright line test is 5 years, you dirty capitalist tax cheat.

Shame on you David. Stop bludging, stop avoiding your social responsibilities and pay your tax! Own up now to the IRD and you will reduce your risk of imprisonment and can settle for a punitive financial settlement with them.





David said...

Johnno, pin dancing does not become you. All you have done is reinforced what I wrote above.

Without you knowing the dates, you have insufficient information to support your lie. I will keep taking the advice of my lawyer over yours any day.

Now, bugger off, I am sure there is traffic that needs a silly little boy to play in it.

Johno said...

LOL. Backslide and run away, little boy.

And pay your tax!

Snowflake said...

Johno is a well-respected physicist and expert in climate science. That’s why he knows climate change is a myth. Everyone should accept his word on tax law also, as he no doubt is an eminent tax accountant. Or maybe he’s just a wanker?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Funniest thing I've seen for years.

'Crusading atheist socialist exposed as capitalist tax evader.'

And he did it all himself.

Snowflake said...

Yes, it’s hilarious (although not as funny as Adolt predicting the Republicans would hold the House). Completely fabricated, of course, but that’s the way of the right these days innit?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I'm grateful to David for providing this day's ration of amusement.

He engages in an argument with Johno over the IRD's 'bright line test' as it might apply to his own property dealings. Of course he fails to realise that if the purchase and subsequent sale took place before 2015 then the bright line test does not apply. It did not exist.

So dear David has rendered himself open to the real jeopardy of an IRD which simply needs to decide for itself that David's motive for buying the property was to make a quick capital gain within two years. He wont be protected by a bright line test which was not yet in existence.

Now here's the rub. IRD doesn't have to prove it it right. David would have to appeal the ruling in court and that, dear friends will cost him more than the tax he evaded.

Better get your cheque book out David. It will be cheaper to grovel and pay the tax than it will be to go to court. How much did you say it was? Fifteen grand? Naaaah. They'll add use of money interest and you'll be up for more like $100k. But don't worry, it would have cost you twice that to appeal your case.

You'd better flog yourself a winning Lotto ticket.

Snowflake said...

Thanks for that fantastic parody of how a right-wing paranoid thinks the world works, Adolt. The only thing in jeopardy is your last remaining semblance of a brain cell.

I’m sure IRD investigators are prowling your site right now looking for dodgy leads to follow up on. That’s how it works on your planet eh? Oh and for someone who used to sell insurance for a “living” your maths is excreble. Explain exactly how many years and 8% uomi it would take to turn $15k into $100k. Hint; longer than you think, obviously.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Snowflake

You should learn to speak English before you burst into print.

I'm quite sure you will never have heard of the 'rule of 72.' Most illiterate rubes are unaware of it.

The IRD use of money rate was, until recently, a little over 9%. David has been out of NZ for some years and I'll assume the sale occurred twenty years ago. At 9%, his fifteen thousand dollars would be worth $90,000 after twenty years. Interest rates were higher some years ago, so $100,00 is very close to the mark.

Now, kindly go and drown yourself.

Snowflake said...

I can speak English, Adolt. It’s not my fault you can’t understand it.

Introducing an irrelevant piece of jargon to try and sound clever never works. Now, in order to pretend your maths wasn’t wrong, you’ve resorted to suggesting the minor property transaction took place decades ago; something for which you have no evidence. However, were that true it would make your suggestion that David is in “real jeopardy” even more ridiculous. Now we have IRD compliance staff trawling right-wing blogs for comments which may suggest tax owing (but probably don’t) on tiny property transactions from decades ago in order to track down individuals and undertake audits. Have I summed your position up correctly? Maybe read it a couple of times to make sure, I know you have comprehension issues.

David said...

You're all just pissed off that an atheist socialist muslim balck bastad can game the system better than yourselves. :-)

Like I said, not tax was payable according to my lawyer. And I'll take his word over a few internet numpties any day.

The tax system is in need of fixing and a true CGT and death duties are the best way to achieve that.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David

Out of your own mouth you are convicted. The fact you sought legal advice on the taxability of this profit clearly demonstrates intent in which IRD will be very interested.

Isn't it funny you you've morphed from a paragon of righteousness into a black bastard who games the system. (i.e. steals from all those who do pay their fair share of taxes.)

David said...

It's not funny Adolf, it's fucking hilarious, the way people believe everything on the internet. :-)

And in what strange world is seeking legal advice an admission of guilt?
Jesusonapogostick, corporations have huge legal departments - are they all criminals? I guess the government must also be criminal as they employ a Crown Solicitor to provide legal advice.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Now now David.

Avoiding the question again. In fact, squirming.

Snowflake said...

Adolt proves again why he was a soulless drone of an insurance salesman and not anything in any way useful to anyone. Ever. On his planet obtaining the professional services of a lawyer, which everyone who has ever purchased a property will have done, is evidence of a fraudulent intent. Genius.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Snowflake

When your comments are stripped of abuse there is nothing left. You appear too dimwitted to know the difference between seeking legal advice on a sale and purchase agreement on one hand and seeking legal advice on ways to evade the payment of capital gains tax, on the other. One shows common sense and the other shows intent to evade.

Oh and by the way, in my time I was responsible for providing the families of deceased bread winners with over a hundred million dollars for the maintenance of their life styles.

What, if anything useful, have you done in your misbegotten life?

Snowflake said...

Wrong again, Adolt. Obtaining legal advice reveals an intent to stay within the law. Otherwise why bother? Try telling a lawyer you are wanting advice on how defraud and see where that gets you. Retard.

And you spent several decades selling useless, expensive insurance products to people who didn't need them for over stuffed commission. Stop pretending you're some sort of humanitarian, wanker.