Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

The Third Way

This topic contains 54 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of jens jens > 7 days ago.

Discussions Politics Today The Third Way

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 55 total)
  • #1672719
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4335
    halcyon

    Jens, you seem to have missed my point. The point I am making is that there should be that tax on assets should be at the same rate regardless if the wealth is tied up in the family home or a mixture of family home and investment. In other words make the first $1 million tax free regardless if it is the family home or not. Anything above whatever figure is selected should be taxed regardless if the family home is a mansion or not

    You appear to be looking at the issue from a city perspective. It is true that in the regions one may not pay the same level of rates but that is offset by other costs like freight costs and no public transport.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Profile photo of halcyon halcyon. Reason: Add second paragraph
    #1672736
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    halcyon  –  do I understand you  correctly then, that  you  propose  for  consideration a pure wealth ownership tax  on wealth above the  value of $1 million  or  whatever, with income  taxation on what assets  earn  (through interest, rents  and  dividends) remaining as it is ?

    Well, if the capital ownership tax  is at a very modest and  not a  wealth  ownership creation destructive rate  –  and starts at a substantially  higher  capital  ownership level than $1 million (perhaps at a $10 or $50 million ownership level  at current  values?) –

    then I might  agree with you and not oppose it-

    if the extra  revenue  is not  for immediate  extra  consumption,  but to raise  our  universal (retirement) wealth accumulation  rate, widening  ownership levels, and the  increased  productivity and  earning (and  consumption)  potential thereby.

    Agreed in principle ?

    #1672739
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4335
    halcyon

    Sorry Jens, but all I am saying is that the tax needs to be fair to all and not favour those who have multi-million dollar family homes. If Labour want to exclude the family home from the wealth tax then there needs to be a set figure that allows an accumulation of assets to that value. Otherwise Bill with his $250,000 family home in Okaihau and $750,000 invested in ANZ would pay more tax than Jim with his $3 million family home in Remuera.

    #1672808
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    halcyon –  are you not somewhat  unrealistic in your assessment  of fairness,  when  thinking it is  unfair that a mansion owner without  taxable income pays  no income tax, while a modest  house  owner with $750,000.-   earning  interest  income  has  to pay   income tax ?

    Obviously, the  mansion owner  without taxable income – unless a  welfare or NZ Super   beneficiary – would   have  to survive on his/her  capital ( mansion)  consumption – and would  that  not be  really  unfair,  to be taxed on that, halcyone ?

    To  save for  your  own welfare and  pleasure of owning a mansion (or  an expensive diamond or a bar of  gold) – and then being  taxed for it because you think it is  unfair that those  earning income  from  even smaller amounts  of  wealth (or  actually – owning  no wealth at all ??)  are expected to pay income tax ?

    #1673110
    Profile photo of TedETedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1983
    TedE

    Are rates to be classed as Property tax. If so should they be at a similar rate to income tax?
    If you lived in a mansion and had a sizeable mortgage would you then need to pay tax/rates on the whole value or would the other party holding the mortgage be liable for the tax acruing on the portion that they hold?
    Would that not solve some of the council problems of insufficient income to update there infrastructure.

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1673111
    Profile photo of TedETedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1983
    TedE

    Are rates to be classed as Property tax. If so should they be at a similar rate to income tax?
    If you lived in a mansion and had a sizeable mortgage would you then need to pay tax/rates on the whole value or would the other party holding the mortgage be liable for the tax accruing on the portion that they hold?

    Would that not solve some of the council problems of insufficient income to update there infrastructure.

    What is the just way to solve this?

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1673121
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    TedE  – perhaps halcyon can  clarify  those matters.

    The  destination of the Third Way is to achieve at least some  personal wealth  ownership by all, and  it is proposed  to achieve that  through  participation in the effort  by all,  as the  most effective and  fairest  way.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Profile photo of jens jens.
    #1674002
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    As for  progress along the Third Way it is  essential to raise the national (retirement) capital savings  and  ownership rate per head  of  citizen, and this is most effectively  done through the taxation system –

    an increase in  taxation revenue for that wealth creation is in the interests  of all of us.

    Perhaps  the re-introduction of a  kind of “stamp duty” in the  form  of  a capital (or financial?) transactions tax would be  a fair and  effective way  of  more taxation  revenue, and reduce  pressure for the  complexities of  a  capital  gains tax ?

    #1674662
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    TedE –  as  halcyon  evades clarifying  his case  of fair taxation  between ownership of a modest flow  of income  producing assets   and  ownership of no taxable income  flow  producing   mansion, I herewith  try  to  answer  your  question and  explain  it according  to my understanding..

    If it is true, that regardless  of incomes earned  by  their owners,  a mansion  on the same  value of  unimproved land as a modest  house next to it, pays a higher  sum of rates, then it is  clear, that  close to that  extent (except  for  perhaps some more costly  council  services delivered to the  mansion?) – there is a component of  property  tax  in a rates  bill – which in my opinion  should  not be  in any relationship  with taxes  on   income earned  by assets or  services by the property owners.

    If you  own the mansion, you are responsible for the  rates  regardless of your income – but you can  claim I believe  50%  of rates as  a tax deductible  business expense,  if 50% of the  mansion is  rented out  for  earning taxable income  ?

    If there is a mortgage on the  mansion, the  mortgage holder pays income tax on the interest earned, and  has normally not responsible for  paying rates.

    And if that is all true, I am strongly in  favour of maintaining that  simplicity and straightforwardness, unless  someone — including  you TedE or  halcyon  –  can come  up with  something more simple and fair on  property ownership.

    #1677294
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7178
    jens

    At last  –  the article  “New style of reform way out of growing inequality  divide”  (NZ  Herald  today, 24.04.18, page A18) by Robert MacCulloch  –

    comes  up with a proposition for the third way  upwards for all to replace the  combative  “left versus  right”   economic  (“class”) struggle  between  the sectional  interests  based on labour and capital  –

    whereas   actually  they  need  each other  and are  “crippled”  without one of them.

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close this Window
 
GrownUps

GrownUps, New Zealand’s best lifestyle website, social club & brain training hub for 50+.

Join 145,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site.  We can’t wait to meet you.

Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!