Election narratives

Written By: - Date published: 11:11 am, May 27th, 2013 - 123 comments
Categories: election 2014, greens, labour, leadership, national - Tags:

National has set out its narrative for the 2014 election.

Election between centre right and far left – Key

National is facing the “notoriously difficult” task of winning a third term against an Opposition increasingly dragged to the “far left” by the Greens, Prime Minister John Key says.

Third terms are not “notoriously difficult” for National governments, every single one of them so far has run for three terms. If Key fails to secure a third term he will be the first National leader to do so.

So basically the strategy is fear mongering about the Greens.

“Normally elections are fought between the centre left and the centre right. That is not what’s going to take place next year. David Shearer has cut his cloth and it is wrapped around Russel Norman.

“But that now becomes an election between the centre right and the far left.”

With nothing positive to run on, the Nats will be campaigning on fear. Same as previous campaigns – remember “the hydra”? (Ironic from a government of National, ACT, Maori Party and Peter Dunne – no?)

So how should Labour and the Greens respond? Like most here I would like to see them “front foot” the issue. Both National and Labour have moved from the centre, and this election offers a choice between clearly right and clearly left alternatives (see Karol’s How far right is John Key’s “centre”?). A Labour / Green coalition will be a government of the Left (KiwiBuild, NZ Power, capital gains tax). This is necessary because the government of the Right (privatisation, pillage the environment, beneficiary bashing) has failed.

But the left also needs to get its own narrative out there. “This is an election between the 98% and 2%”. “This is an election between a fair go and the rich get richer”. “This is an election between building our future and selling it”. I’m sure that you can add your own suggestions…

123 comments on “Election narratives ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1
    27 May 2013 at 11:23 am

    …between a living wage and a living hell.

    …between a river and a sewer.

    …between New Zealand and the National Party.

    …

  2. shorts 2
    27 May 2013 at 11:38 am

    agree with front fronting it – also the Greens and Labour shouldn’t engage with any left vs right type talk – rather stick with the types of subjects mentioned already, that is frame it in language & terms everyone understands

  3. Monty 3
    27 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

    If the election is between the 98% and the 2% then why are the Nats still solid at 48-49 %. Maybe it is because their economic policy is actually benefitting all New Zealanders?

    • Colonial Viper 3.2
      27 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

      That’s a very important comment Monty. And you should keep bringing it up because it demonstrates an inability or short fall of the Left to demonstrate their cause and their philosophy to ordinary people.

      • Monty 3.2.1
        27 May 2013 at 1:09 pm

        Maybe Viper the reality is that the extreme left policies of the greens are scaring off the moderates in Labour who are maintaining their support for National. Just think that for the past six or seven years the Nats have consistently polled in the late forties or early fifties. Nothing has shaken this extraordinary level of polling. This is the problem for Labour who instead of trying to control the centre ground, are sliding to the extreme left policies of the Greens. It is economic policy that controls at the end of the day. Everything else is pretty much a sideshow by comparison.

        The National policies are paying dividends as much as you hate to admit it. That is why Shearer is reluctant to talk about the recent positive economic results, and Parker saying Labour would have returned NZ to surplus in the same timeframe as National are on track to do is just lame. Reality check for the left. The people of NZ trust National more than they trust the greens and Labour.

        • Jackal 3.2.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 1:43 pm

          When you can highlight at least one “extreme policy” of the Greens, then your comment might mean something.

          If it was economic policy that controls how people vote, then why is National polling so high? Their economic track record is atrocious! What recent positive economic results are you talking about?

          BTW, the 2 vs the 98 is a percentage taken from the population. National only gained 24% of the populations vote at the last election. Try not to get these things confused.

          Clearly right wing economic policy isn’t benefitting all New Zealanders. In fact wages in real terms have declined for 16 to 20 year old males. Take into account increases to the cost of living and most Kiwis are a lot worse off since National gained power.

          The problem is that the most adversely affected by Nationals policies don’t typically vote. That’s the real issue (like always) that the left faces… Getting enough people out to vote.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2.1.2
          27 May 2013 at 2:53 pm

          As Jackal said: name one Green policy you consider to be “far Left” and explain why. Put up or shut up.

          • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.2.1
            27 May 2013 at 7:19 pm

            … and a little girl waits.

            Muted silence from Monty.

            *tumbleweed rolls through*

          • aerobubble 3.2.1.2.2
            28 May 2013 at 2:06 pm

            The Mighty River prospectus declared that there were regulatory risks, and everyone knows that only the far left would dare rationally speak to this risk using the free market ideal that mainstream home owners don’t have the opportunity to collect their bargaining power like big companies do and so should also be able to level the free market playing field. This is so wrong, Key was livid, only the far left would use the free market against him, the evil bastards.

  4. ghostrider888 4
    27 May 2013 at 12:31 pm

    David Shearer, “(Labour) are a centre-left party…we’re a broad church…covering (people) from the far-left to the right.” -on Todays mid-day news, which also repeated the Labour / Greens “closing the gap on National”.

    Closing The Gap.Capital Gains Tax.Growing True Community.Taking Green Choices.

    • gobsmacked 4.1
      27 May 2013 at 1:11 pm

      Did he actually say “right”? Which news bulletin was it?

      • ghostrider888 4.1.1
        27 May 2013 at 1:26 pm

        apologies gs, he definitely stated “right”; it is just that, as with all tasks, I alternate programmes, so, for now, I cannot recall, yet you have my word.

  5. Huginn 5
    27 May 2013 at 12:42 pm

    . . . between tech savvy, digital independence and serfdom

    Key’s left/right story overlooks the Blue Greens who left National after listening to Parliament debate the 3strikes legislation.

  6. vto 6
    27 May 2013 at 12:43 pm

    The personal.
    Expose Key’s lies. Call him a liar – someone (then slug it out).

    Attack him personally. Get stuck into thim personally. After all, his policies and lies have a completely direct effect on our personal lives, so return the favour.

    • Monty 6.1
      27 May 2013 at 1:14 pm

      The Labour Party has been doing this for seven years. Has not worked yet. Why do you think it will work going forward?

      On the right we laugh at this failed tactic and call it Key Derangement Syndrome or KDS for short. How about doing what John Key did to Clark. He got good policy in place and essentially ignored Clark. He was positive, and was credible. The left have failed to be positive and seem to be anti every progressive policy and therefore are deemed to have no credibility.

      • McFlock 6.1.1
        27 May 2013 at 1:17 pm

        the nat campaign against clark didn’t get personal? Surely you can’t be serious…

        • lprent 6.1.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 2:05 pm

          “Monty” knows that. He has been around in one guise or another for a very long time and frequently attacked politicians at a personal level. Now I’m sure that he’d argue it was all policy, however that is a rather moth-eaten figleaf bearing in mind some of his comments over the years.

          • Monty 6.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2013 at 10:04 pm

            Lynn, I have only ever commented under the name Monty. Never ever under any other name. I have avoided the standard for a long time as well. I find it something akin to a whole bunch of lefties locked in a sound proof room all shouting what a wanker John Key is and all righties are evil. Problem is that the audience is also very limited and no one has been convinced

            • felix 6.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2013 at 10:24 pm

              lolz

            • lprent 6.1.1.1.1.2
              28 May 2013 at 12:24 am

              I was looking at email addresses. The earliest Monty comments used a different email.

              Noone ever convinces anyone on the nets. They always have a spontaneous shift of opinion on a different subject a few years later. The net is for disagreeing.

              If you are seeing a concerted opinion here then you must have interesting problems with your grip on reality. You do read sort of like the followers of Small Gods in the desert… But that is a bit of a starvation diet.

              Seeing what is actually there is usually more fulfilling. But you’d have to resist your usual technique of painting a shoot me target on your forehead to be able to see past the hail of lead you draw on yourself. Trying to “win points” is a fools game. It is more interesting looking at the diversity of opinion for pinchable ideas….

      • vto 6.1.2
        27 May 2013 at 1:39 pm

        yes i am well aware of all of that and rob’s blackadder scene below … he he.

        but it don’t matter, from this angle it is a version of vengeance for the havoc wrought to date and to follow due to key’s deceiving ways and bad policies. Personal effects deserve personal response.

        best listen to someone who knows how to win elections…

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.3
        27 May 2013 at 2:53 pm

        He got good policy in place

        Bullet points are not policy.
        “The broad similarity to many of the Labour-led government’s main policies has seen National dubbed “Labour-lite”.

        and essentially ignored Clark.

        And that’s outright BS – exactly as what I’ve come to expect from the right. They lie and rewrite history to suit their delusions. It wasn’t a direct attack but it was an attack nonetheless.

    • Rob 6.2
      27 May 2013 at 1:23 pm

      Reminiscent of the at great scene from Black Adder 4 , where the new plan to engage the enemy at the trenches was revealed as being exactly the same as the last 19 plans that preceded it. The defence of this “new” approach is that enemy wouldn’t think that they would be dumb enough to keep repeating it and therefore gaining an element of surprise.

      Smart think Vto, keep that sh*t going!

    • georgecom 6.3
      27 May 2013 at 10:27 pm

      I don’t endorse getting stuck into Key personally.

      But, the framing of his Government and the alternative will paint him in poor terms. Building NZ future vs selling NZ future is a good one. NZ for the many vs NZ for the few. The shonky deals and pocket lining practises of this Government can be brought to focus with framing of a Government for the 5% vs a Government for the rest of us. Paint them as being out of touch, yesterdays thinkers who only really care about their mates.

      That “nice man John Key” may be ok to have a beer with but he isn’t doing the things that lay a foundation for you and your kids future. You may sort oflike him but he’s a light weight when it comes to knowing what needs to be done for your future. Yup, you’ll have a beer with your mate but do you want him dating your sister?

  7. Yes 7
    27 May 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Clark lost the election because everyone saw through the election giveaways. Also the need to get involved in everything NZ ers were doing. Personal freedoms were being watered down..hence the nanny state comments. The general public will all fight when personal freedoms are closed down. Let’s be honest David Parker is so absent and david shearer trust rusty more than david

  8. karol 8
    27 May 2013 at 1:31 pm

    The general public will all fight when personal freedoms are closed down.

    Yep they are out on the streets in ever growing numbers protesting against the current government’s anti-democratic policies and processes.

    • Yes 8.1
      27 May 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Protesting is a mechanism of the left…there was one big protest at the general election. That is the only protest that has stood the test of time. These marches achieve nothing under either government.

      • karol 8.1.1
        27 May 2013 at 2:00 pm

        OK, then we can expect a massive swing away from Key’s government as they protest at the way it’s gradually closing down a lot of democratic freedoms.

      • Lanthanide 8.1.2
        27 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

        “These marches achieve nothing under either government.”

        Seems like National backed down over mining national parks. For a while, anyway.

        • marty mars 8.1.2.1
          27 May 2013 at 2:26 pm

          The gnats are like a homing torpedo on that one, they pretended to change direction but never took their eyes off the target, not even slightly.

          But in terms of marches – their value imo is in showing marchers that they are not alone and that others agree with them thus building momentum for whatever they want changed. I think of the Anti-tour protests – they changed our society and helped people (at that time) realise that they weren’t alone in their concerns and rage, that others were with them and that they didn’t have to just sit there and take it.

  9. Enough is Enough 9
    27 May 2013 at 2:05 pm

    “This is an election between the 98% and 2%”

    Really? That one is a bit silly and just falls flat because evidently a very large proportion of that 98% vote for National.

    Rather than attacking those voters who are part of the 98% but still vote National, why don’t we engage with them and find out why the fuck they support Key?

    They haven’t all been conned. They have legitimate reasons for not wantng Labour. So rather than throwing meaningless slogans about, why don’t we engage with the enemy and find out why they prefer National’s corrupt policies over the Green’s (and to an extent Labour’s) progressive policy platform.

    I am not talking about the super rich here either. I mean Joe Average with 2.4 kinds a massive mortgage, two jobs, National Voter.

  10. Tigger 10
    27 May 2013 at 2:14 pm

    The collapse of the right into National falsely buoys their numbers. I never count Act out and those who ignore the Conservatives will regret it. But Key remains lucky that neither is currently hoovering up his vote. This will change though. National will splinter. It’s not if, it’s when.

  11. unpcnzcougar 11
    27 May 2013 at 3:06 pm

    One of the biggest things for me is a CGT. I don’t want to have worked all my life paying off a mortgage with after tax money to have it stolen from my children in a CGT. Now being clear about this if I leave my house to my children it is not subject to CGT. However, if they decide to sell as they would to pay down their own mortgages then it is subject to CGT. That is my understanding of how the CGT will work. If I am wrong then feel free to correct me.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        27 May 2013 at 3:18 pm

        If that house is left to them in an estate, and is not the childrens primary home but instead could be considered an invetment property, a CGT might very well apply to it using a baseline value starting from when it was no longer a primary home.

        The response to unpc is basically this: if you make a financial gain on a capital asset, you should expect to be taxed on it, just like you would if you made a financial gain from doing work.

        • unpcnzcougar 11.1.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 3:32 pm

          Thank you. It is as I thought.

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2013 at 3:42 pm

            Well, no, you had no idea. Also, the CGT applicable would be zero when your family home first enters the estate because the baseline value of the home would not have changed.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.2
      27 May 2013 at 3:17 pm

      The CGT doesn’t apply to the family home.

      One question: how did you come to the false belief that it did? Did you make it up yourself or has someone made a fool of you? Liar, or dupe?

      Now you’ve been brought up to speed you’ll know not to repeat the lie, I’m sure.

      • unpcnzcougar 11.2.1
        27 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

        Yes it does say no CGT on family home. What happens if the children (which they will) sell that family home? This is a legitimate question. I can’t find anything that says it is not taxable if they sell to pay down their own mortgages.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.2.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 3:22 pm

          As opposed to making it their family home do you mean? The policy is pretty straightforward, do you need it spelled out for you?

          • unpcnzcougar 11.2.1.1.1
            27 May 2013 at 3:25 pm

            Actually yes. But preferably without the undertone of rudeness.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.2.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2013 at 3:36 pm

              You post a comment conflating taxation and theft and expect not to get treated with contempt?

              Grow a thicker skin and don’t be so PC.

              The CGT will only apply to gains made after the law is passed.

              • unpcnzcougar …
                27 May 2013 at 3:42 pm

                Dude, my assumption was correct. It is not a lie. The question was posed as to how to get former Labour party voters back from the Nats. I answered with a legitimate concern that lots of people have.
                I am not being PC – simply asking for politeness. This is a problem as people view Labour and supporters as being quite nasty. So maybe you – yes you – could start by unhardening your attitude towards someone who was a Labour voter who simply asked a question.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  27 May 2013 at 3:44 pm

                  Simply put, people don’t trust the motives for your question, Miss Sweetness and Light.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  27 May 2013 at 3:55 pm

                  So, what was it that stopped you from using Google to find the policy and read it for yourself? What was it that stopped you from doing that to gain your “understanding of how the GCT will work” ?

                  If you didn’t bother looking at the policy, where did your “understanding” come from, and why are you rude enough to think people should do your Google searches for you? Oh, and, if you’re so un-PC, why are you whining about rudeness?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  27 May 2013 at 4:09 pm

                  Oh, so you want people to be polite to you? What exactly do you think political correctness is?

                  When you say “people” view Labour as “nasty”, those are called “weasel words”, a particularly nasty way to tell lies.

                  This is a problem as many people think that calling yourself a cougar is a sign of ugliness, desperation, or both, but haha don’t be so politically correct, where’s your sense of humour?

                  • weka …
                    27 May 2013 at 4:51 pm

                    Actually, leaving aside content in this thread, I can’t see a good reason for the rudeness either, except as a way of getting people to shut up. Sometimes the debate culture here is very poor, other times it’s tedious.

                    There are people who don’t post here because of the rudeness and the outright attacks and even bullying. To an extent I like the rough and tumble of the place, but I also think we would have more fun if we engaged the issues more rather than being mean to people who say stupid things, or weasel words, or whatever.

                    I also think it’s completely acceptable for people to ask for explanations for things rather than having to go look everything up on google. We are a community of people, and most of us come here for human engagement.

                    • weka …
                      27 May 2013 at 4:56 pm

                      Having reread cougar’s comments, I find their questions completely valid. That they can’t ask them here and get straight answers without ridicule is bullshit. For god’s sake, how many people do you think get put of ts by this kind of shit?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      27 May 2013 at 5:37 pm

                      Yeah, it was a straight question, which by some amazing coincidence exactly mimicked wingnut spin, asked by someone who says taxation is theft.

                      What charming naivety.

                    • weka …
                      27 May 2013 at 6:54 pm

                      I wasn’t talking about their behaviour, I was talking about yours.

                      oh, and btw, not everyone fits into your notions of political boxes.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      27 May 2013 at 7:45 pm

                      I wasn’t talking about their naivety. I was talking about yours.

                    • infused …
                      27 May 2013 at 9:32 pm

                      I love when OAK posts. A true reflection of why people don’t vote for labour.

                    • weka …
                      28 May 2013 at 5:21 am

                      “I wasn’t talking about their naivety. I was talking about yours.”

                      Obviously. But what is your point? That you think it’s ok to be rude to anyone you judge as rightwing? The original question was valid, there were things about CGT I didn’t understand and could have learned from, I’m sure that is true for other readers, and all you did was practice your ‘I’m so cool at rudeness’ spiel. It’s getting boring, having ts be such an in club.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      28 May 2013 at 5:57 am

                      The answers you and my poor disingenuous* victim are looking for have been provided.

                      *”BM you are bang on. I would never consider a vote for Labour with Shearer as leader. However, what is more frightening to me are the potential coalition partners. The Greens and Mana would demand too much that I don’t think a lot of people could stomach, and the potential for chaos is huge. ”

                      “Shearer’s income from the UN was tax free. He also received free accommodation and meals, transport etc. Which begs the question – how much do you think it is possible to save over 10 years with no tax and living expenses. I think that is why he won’t disclose how much is in that US bank account.”

                      ” It can get tiresome for european middle class males here in the Women’s Republic Of New Zealand.”

                      “As a parent I want to know how my child compares with the rest of the country. If he was doing badly then I would want to help get him back up to standards. Having standards gives a benchmark and something to aim for. Without them it is simply a race to the bottom.”

                      PS: Infused, why would a rude Green voter put someone off ticking the Labour box?

                    • weka …
                      28 May 2013 at 11:53 am

                      “The answers you and my poor disingenuous* victim are looking for have been provided.”

                      Eventually, after much rudeness and dismissiveness, and not by you.

                      You do realise that I understand the politics of the person asking the question. I’m not debating that*. I’m saying that there is nothing wrong with the questions themselves and telling people to go google the answers themselves, as well as being mean to them, is anti-social.

                      *I also don’t see them as a poor victim, you are the one bandying around the pejorative labels here, because, IMO, it suits your predilection for meanness and your need to display your wit. I’m just saying that while sometimes that is entertaining, other times it gets in the way of useful and meaningful conversation.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      28 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                      I answered it in my very first response, and repeatedly thereafter.

                      But sure, I get it, you think my tone was inappropriate on this occasion. Must do better.

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      28 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

                      you are ‘in’ that ‘club’ weka.

                    • weka …
                      28 May 2013 at 11:30 pm

                      I don’t think you did answer in your first response. You gave an answer for sure, but it didn’t tell me what I needed to know and was wondering from the original question (how CGT worked with inheritance). It probably seems all very obvious to you, but it wasn’t to me.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

                      The short answer is weka that the legislation and associated regulations would still have to be discussed, formulated and finalised before you know for sure.

        • Ed 11.2.1.2
          27 May 2013 at 5:09 pm

          If it is sold within a reasonably short time of the death of the parents their would be no capital gains tax paid – it is only from that time on that CGT wold accrue on increases in value after the date the ownership changes. If the beneficiaries of teh will ask for it to be sold the trustewes would pass on cash proceeds without payment of CGT. Clear now?

          • weka 11.2.1.2.1
            27 May 2013 at 6:57 pm

            Ok, so if that is true, then surely the period of time is defined…

            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.2.1.1
              28 May 2013 at 1:43 pm

              Does it really matter if that time is 0.1s after the parents are buried?

              The valuation of the house is not going to move appreciably in the two or three months between the funeral and them selling the property so CGT would be negligible to zero.

              But I agree with you weka, this stuff should be clarified, and probably would be clarified by the IRD in regulation.

              Nevertheless, I feel that this is pretty much an edge case which would affect only a few percent of residential sales (the ones which were estate liquidations).

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                28 May 2013 at 1:56 pm

                How would the market value be calculated? Obviously, by the sale price, but the amount of CGT paid would be reliant (say) on the value at the time the property passed to the deceased’s estate.

                I think there might be some issues there.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.3
      27 May 2013 at 3:25 pm

      Taxes aren’t theft no matter how much you like to think they are.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.3.1
        27 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

        Yeah, good point Draco.

        Has anyone else had a gutsful of cry-baby wingnuts whining about having to pay their taxes?

        • unpcnzcougar 11.3.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 3:28 pm

          So answer the question. If the kids sell the family home, is it subject to CGT?

          • Colonial Viper 11.3.1.1.1
            27 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

            The only capital gains which apply will be those which occur from the day you passed the house into your estate.

        • scotty 11.3.1.2
          27 May 2013 at 4:29 pm

          Its as if Rightoids go into business assuming they won’t have to pay tax.
          Then get all righteous, when the IRD steals ‘their’ money.

      • unpcnzcougar 11.3.2
        27 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

        Actually they are theft if you’ve already paid them. ie paid a mortgage with after tax money. I don’t have a problem paying tax – I pay more than most and am happy to. I am worried about double tax which is what I see if the family home is then sold by the children so they can pay down their mortgages.

        • Colonial Viper 11.3.2.1
          27 May 2013 at 3:47 pm

          Now you’re being deliberately disingenuous.

          The CGT only affects brand new capital gains on an investment asset, there is no “double tax”.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.3.2.2
          27 May 2013 at 3:47 pm

          The. Capital. Gains. Tax. Will. Not. Apply. To. The. Family. Home. And. Will. Only. Apply. To. Capital. Gains. Made. After. The. Law. Is. Passed.

          Do we need to start looking through the dictionary to help you understand any of these terms?

          • unpcnzcougar 11.3.2.2.1
            27 May 2013 at 3:51 pm

            It. Does. If. The. Family. Home. Is. Sold. By. The. Children.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.3.2.2.1.1
              27 May 2013 at 3:56 pm

              Cognition isn’t your strong point is it?

              It doesn’t if the children use the family home as a family home, and it won’t apply to any property bought before the policy comes into effect.

              Please try and keep up.

            • Colonial Viper 11.3.2.2.1.2
              27 May 2013 at 3:56 pm

              Why would the children want to sell the family home? Where will they live?

            • karol 11.3.2.2.1.3
              27 May 2013 at 3:58 pm

              If the home was passed to the children, I would have assumed the usual rules would apply – GST on any home other than the family home. So, once the children/child took ownership of the home it’d depend on whether that became their family home, or was a second home for them.

              If the children jointly owned the home, and wanted to sell it for the money to split between them, I’d have thought CGT would apply at the time of sale.

              • Colonial Viper …
                27 May 2013 at 4:06 pm

                Another important factor is what/when the baseline price of the house is calculated from, and therefore what the capital gain (if any) at the time of sale is.

                • unpcnzcougar …
                  27 May 2013 at 4:16 pm

                  They want to sell because they have left home and bought houses of their own. So I would want them to sell and take the money to pay off their own mortgages.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    27 May 2013 at 4:20 pm

                    So, you’d sell your family home – exempt from CGT – then hand out the cash to the offspring. Where would you live?

            • Ed 11.3.2.2.1.4
              27 May 2013 at 5:11 pm

              But only on the increase in value since the date they took ownership – if they sell immediately that amount would be zero.

        • Pascal's bookie 11.3.2.3
          27 May 2013 at 3:54 pm

          Is GST theft too?

          What about taxes on interest and dividends?

          Work hard, save some capital, start a business and what they do? Turn around and tax you on the profit! Outrage, when you alreafy paid income tax when you were saving that capital. Egads!

          • unpcnzcougar 11.3.2.3.1
            27 May 2013 at 4:18 pm

            Pascal, that is a bit of a simplistic point of view for you. My question was solely on tax paid if kids sold the family home after I died.
            As stated I don’t have problems paying tax on anything – I do have problems with tax already paid being retaxed.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.3.2.3.1.1
              27 May 2013 at 4:25 pm

              “The only capital gains which apply will be those which occur from the day you passed the house into your estate.”

              “Now you’re being deliberately disingenuous.The CGT only affects brand new capital gains on an investment asset, there is no “double tax”.”

              CV.

              Ignoring the answers to your questions is another example of your rudeness and mendacity, you piece of trash. Haha where’s your sense of humour don’t be so PC.

            • karol 11.3.2.3.1.2
              27 May 2013 at 4:53 pm

              This is what happens in the UK where there is no CGT on the first home, but on any others.

              They also have an inheritance tax, which I believe we don’t have here right now. In the UK how much CGT a person pays depends on the value/profit gained by selling the home:

              Being given a home

              Your parents may want you eventually to have their home. If they leave their home to you in their wills, you inherit the property at its market value at the time of death. There is no capital gains tax payable on death, but the value will be included in the estate, and inheritance tax may be payable instead.

              If you sell the property without having made it your own home, there could be CGT to pay, and this will be based on the increase in value between the date of death and the date when you sell.

              Your parents might give you the home during their lifetime but carry on living there. For inheritance tax purposes, this counts as a gift with reservation so the home will still count as part of your parents’ estates when they die.

              You may have to pay CGT when you eventually sell the home, and this will be based on the increase in value between the date they gave you the property and the date you sell. This is the case even though there may be inheritance tax to pay on the home at the time of your parents’ deaths.

              Home example

              For example, you inherit your father’s home when he died in August 2012.

              At the date of death, it was worth £200,000.
              You sell it six months later for £205,000 and can deduct selling costs of £3,000.
              You have made a gain of £205,000 – £200,000 – £3,000 = £2,000 which falls comfortably within your annual allowance, so no CGT is due.

              Imagine instead your father gave you the home 10 years earlier while he was still alive and continuing to live there.

              At the date of the gift, the home was worth £140,000.
              Again you sell six months after his death. In this case, you have made a gain of £205,000 – £140,000 – £3,000 = £62,000.

              After deducting your annual allowance of £10,900, you have a taxable gain of £51,100. If you are already a higher rate taxpayer, the tax bill on this would be 28% x £51,100 = £14,308. If you are a standard rate taxpayer, you would pay CGT at 18% on the amount of gain that takes you to the higher-rate threshold and 28% on the rest.

              In addition, the value at the date of your father’s death (£200,000) will be included in his estate for inheritance tax purposes, rather than the value at the date he gave it to you (£140,000).

            • georgecom 11.3.2.3.1.3
              27 May 2013 at 10:39 pm

              So the “family home” ceases to be a family home, it is now an asset that your children will sell. So, the nature of the asset has changed eh. That point cleared up.

              You paid your mortgage from your income. You owned the house not for capital gain but as something different, to raise a family, a point of security, a place to be etc etc. Whilst the house remains that, no CGT.

              BUT, when the house becomes an asset for sale a CGT will apply. This isn’t ‘theft’ or any other silly such name. It is tax on a capital gain, the CAPITAL GAIN will be taxed. The value (tangible and intangible) gains you got from having the house as a family home remains untaxed. BUT, when becoming an asset that makes a winfall profit, a CGT will apply. Nothing like theft or such silliness. A dollar earnt is a dollar earnt and tax accordingly.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.3.2.4
          27 May 2013 at 6:10 pm

          You wouldn’t be paying double tax as you’d only be paying on the income of the sale of the house, i.e, the difference between the purchase price and and the sale price is income.

      • unpcnzcougar 11.3.3
        27 May 2013 at 3:47 pm

        Fine. Carry on.

        • scotty 11.3.3.1
          27 May 2013 at 4:58 pm

          Unpcnzcougar.
          Your kids will benefit from the tax free ‘capital gain’ you had during the ownership of your house.

          If they sold up immediately upon your death ,there would be no capital gains tax due .

          If they however kept your house for say 3 years (as an investment property) then sold up ,they would pay tax on the CG they enjoyed ,over the 3 years it was held as an ‘ investment’ property.

          Just to be clear ,the tax is a portion of the capital gains, not the whole lot.

          Not sure what the CG tax rate will be .(15% ?)

          I stand to be corrected tho.

    • georgecom 11.4
      27 May 2013 at 10:31 pm

      A CGT won’t apply on YOUR family home. If the home passes to someone else who already owns their OWN family home then the original home, your family home, ceases to be the family home. It may be a rental or a home sold on the market for a windfall profit.

  12. BLiP 12
    27 May 2013 at 3:55 pm

    ‘

    The “Spirit Level” should be compulsory reading for all Labour candidates in the next election. The data is there, it doesn’t lie and its got pictures. Also, even the very rich do better under a more equal society. The right need saving from themselves as well.

  13. Blue 13
    27 May 2013 at 4:30 pm

    For the average voter, the election will be a choice between John Key and David Shearer.

    If Key doesn’t get a third term it will be a miracle.

  14. weka 14
    27 May 2013 at 4:59 pm

    btw, I read all the questions and answers and still don’t quite fully understand the CGT issue raised here. I vote Green. Are you going to give me shit now too? Or am I exempt because I have the right politics?

    • Arfamo 14.1
      27 May 2013 at 5:54 pm

      I don’t know. I’ve been looking on Red Alert and the Labour Party website to see if I can find anything on the question of what capital gains tax except on the family home means but haven’t had any luck finding the answer. My assumption was always that Labour means anyone who buys their own home and lives in it themselves (their family’s home) won’t have to pay CGT on it if & when they sell it (eg to buy another home if still working, or to retire into a retirement village).

      My assumption was that if someone dies and leaves their home to their adult children, who are living elsewhere in their own homes, the children would, if they sell their deceased parents’ home inherited in the will, probably have to pay CGT on it.

  15. Ad 15
    27 May 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Personally I’m waiting for a stunning economic development policy from Labour.

    One that can reconcile the fishing interests of Shane Jones and the fishing policy of David Cunliffe.
    And reconcile every one of those Pure Advantage players in the NZHerald this morning, with the West Coasters’ need for jobs as they reacted to the Dennison Plateau open cast coal mine.
    …With any concerete policy results out of the manufacturing inquiry that was held recently.

    Basincally something that says there will be good jobs, with escalating careers to be had, in durable and sustainable industries that require our savings to build in our sharemarket and our young people to build a life here.

    Labour needs to be the jobs party. And show us how.

  16. Yes 16
    27 May 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Guys this capital tax discussion doesn’t make sense. You want to build 100,000 homes then tax them when they sell making it more expensive for the next generation. So completely defeats the purpose. This policy doesn’t make sense.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      27 May 2013 at 8:46 pm

      What doesn’t make sense is your idiocy/carefully constructed lies.

      Do you even understand what a tax on capital gains is?

      It is a tax which dissuades people from trying to speculate on property and prevents them from making tax free capital gains out of house price increases.

      A CGT is one preliminary measure which can help suppress the flow of hot money into housing price bubbles.

      • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1
        27 May 2013 at 9:24 pm

        Jebus, CV, I admire your patience. I’d have just pointed out that a 15% CGT is peanuts compared to the tax rate that should apply to the profits of houses owned as an income generating business. Most rental property owners don’t pay any significant tax on the rental income, and they get the capital gain untaxed when they sell. That’s what’s stuffing the future of the next generation and squeezing the current crop of young adults out of home ownership.

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          27 May 2013 at 9:29 pm

          Yes, what you said too 🙂

          • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2013 at 9:49 pm

            I find it weird that righties think capital gains is so totes different from a profit generated on any other form of speculative enterprise. If all property is theft, capital gains is the bag the robbers hide the loot in.

            • kiwicommie 16.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2013 at 9:55 pm

              They claim ‘taxation is theft’, but when times are tough on their corporate mates, they are all too enthusiastic to give them hand outs at taxpayers expense.

              • Yes …
                28 May 2013 at 2:17 am

                Does the heavy burden on student loans interest free non repayments not a hand out

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  28 May 2013 at 6:01 am

                  Yes, but the point is that you whinge and whine about handouts unless they go to businesses, when suddenly, your objections miraculously vanish. In other words, you’re a hypocrite, aka National Party supporter.

                  • Yes …
                    28 May 2013 at 6:51 am

                    But businesses provide tax by corporate tax and employee tax. Governments spend it. GST is a freedom of choice tax ..if you want something then you pay.

                    Capital gain tax will burden the next generation of home buyers.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      28 May 2013 at 7:02 am

                      What part of “family home” are you having trouble with, you mendacious wretch?

                      Keep whining, cry-baby.

                • kiwicommie …
                  29 May 2013 at 8:57 am

                  Nowhere near the cost of the corporate handouts so far mate. 😛

  17. Yes 17
    28 May 2013 at 8:29 am

    Thanks knucklehead…my question is what is the impact of capital gains tax on homes for the next generation when it is only going to increase the affordability price. It might be ok this time but in 40 years time when the new owners want to sell.

    Why do people on here abuse people.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1
      28 May 2013 at 8:37 am

      The policy will not apply to “homes”.

      pol·i·cy 1 (pl-s)
      n. pl. pol·i·cies
      1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters:

      ap·ply (-pl)
      v. ap·plied, ap·ply·ing, ap·plies
      1. To be pertinent or relevant

      home (hm)
      n.
      1. A place where one lives; a residence.

      Further explanation will require pictures.

      • Yes 17.1.1
        28 May 2013 at 9:40 am

        yes it will – if a family cant buy a house and has to rent then that rental will be subject to capital gains tax. Rent goes up!

        Why do people quote the dictionary – it is a stupid old school debating technique

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1.1.1
          28 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

          Rental increases are one projected feature of a CGT. They are also expected to increase home ownership rates, increase the stock of smaller house, etc.

          It’s fairly easy to predict these things though, because so many countries (on which the sky has not fallen) have a CGT of some sort.

  18. peterlepaysan 18
    28 May 2013 at 10:31 pm

    Ahem!

    Labours problems are based in the the “no shows” at the last two elections.

    No show.

    No vote.

    No power.

    Political campaigns require rather lots of money.

    Business interests have rather lots of money.

    Joe and Joanna six pack have trouble finding spare cash for a six pack a week between them.

    Guess where political parties go to for money for campaigns?

    Guess who political parties do not offend?

    A broke underclass cannot afford to buy the goodies that business touts.

    Shonkey gives away billions in tax cuts to the wealthy and then runs a ‘slash and burn” operation on government expenditure.

    There is a Hollywood epic yet to arrive portraying Shonkey as Gordon Gecko saving little old new zealand as a county of Hawaii of which he is Governor. Something he once told bronnie what he wanted to do.

    • Olwyn 18.1
      28 May 2013 at 11:16 pm

      A better way is to galvanise the troops, so that your rising popularity poses a threat. Then businesses will part with money to stop you from going too far. Doing it the other way round; kowtowing to business and hoping that the troops will just get in behind despite their lack of representation, is the road to irrelevancy.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.