Mapital Mains Max

Written By: - Date published: 5:26 pm, May 18th, 2015 - 14 comments
Categories: john key - Tags:

John Key is now arguing that black is white – that a Tax on Capital Gains isn’t a Capital Gains Tax.

“Typical politician” many will say – and that shows how far John Key’s skills have fallen.

When he first arrived on the scene he was hailed as the straight-talking “anti-politician”.  In fact his highly polished act was that of a master politician, merely filling the latest required guise.  But now he’s lost the knack.

Just like his evasive answers over GCSB surveillance, and his lack of credibility over Dirty Politics and his many hats, he’s looking every bit the tired third-term politician.  The pony-tail pulling may mark him out, but not in a good way.

How long will people remember first-term jokey, relaxed John rather than third-term creepy, evasive John?

In the meantime, if he’s going to argue black is white, he should concentrate on not getting run over at zebra crossings.

14 comments on “Mapital Mains Max”

  1. NZJester 1

    Some might say John Key is right about it not being a tax.
    It is a half arsed attempt at a tax that is unlikely to fix the problem.

    • CnrJoe 1.1

      a minuscular tax then

    • Weepus beard 1.2

      Apparently he has coined it himself this morning on Breakfast, shortly after blaming Helen Clark for all NZ’s problems, yet again.

      It’s a new tax, which will horrify the small government advocating right.

      It is an “Intentions Tax”.

  2. creepy hair fiddler
    i am flummoxed and bewildered
    black is white key is right

    tax is left, labour is bad
    unless its key, upping GST
    implementing CGT

    kiwis must believe
    the oily words of key
    the master of sleaze

  3. Colonial Rawshark 3

    John Key should just front foot the bloody thing. He’s fucking the PR introduction of this measure big time. Ah well, small mercies I guess.

    • Weepus beard 3.1

      He cannot bring himself to front foot it because it’s against everything he stands for, which is people doing each other over for profit.

  4. John 4

    We’ve had tax on sale of secondary houses sold within two years, for a very long time.

    The left has always argued that this is NOT capital gains tax. A slight tightening of the rules on the exact same tax to stop avoidance, and all of a sudden they’re arguing the same tax IS a capital gains tax.

    But this only reason they’re taking this argument, is because they think they can score brownie points because they can say there’s been a u-turn. But who is really u turning about CGT to the point they’re in a spin.

    Back in 2010 the govt gave the IRD $120 million to clamp down on tax avoidance an in particular property speculators who were buying and selling houses within two years (as well as clamping down on LAQCs and depreciation deductions)

    A year ago they signalled a further clamp down on the two year rule.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1404/S00211/government-clamping-down-on-tax-dodgers.htm.

    As more than one political commentator has said, with Labour having just dropped their CGT like a hot potato, this move has totally outflanked them, made their criticisms look empty, and left them in a spin.

  5. Mark 5

    You cant be serious. Key on TV explaining (1st sign you have lost the battle) why it wasn’t a capital gains tax looked like a badly constipated man trying to pass a huge turd which is not a surprise when he keeps putting his body through so many 180 degree turns day after day.

    • John 5.1

      Yet the left have been arguing for years that a tax on buying and selling houses within two years (as we’ve had for many many years) is NOT a CGT.

      Now they’re trying to say it is – go figure.

      • Crashcart 5.1.1

        No the left has been arguing that the current capital gains tax is not enforcable. It would appear that John Key has decided to agree with them and try and make it enforcable.

  6. Policy Parrot 6

    This maneouvre – is not a comprehensive Capital Gains Tax.

    Why?
    1. It is strictly limited to residential property – farmland, land zoned industrial or commercial, and non-real assets (i.e. sale of PPE, or a business as a going concern) – are not captured by this clause.

    2. It exempts those who occupy their property, inherited it, or are forced to sell under a relationship property settlement.

    3. It simply alters the existing rules slightly, from compliance with a declared intention, i.e. “I choose to tell IRD that this property was bought with the intention of resale for capital gains”; to assume that all investor property sold within two years of purchase are bought for capital gains, and thus subject to income tax as part of one’s annual income. Outside of the two year limit, the original largely voluntary compliance still applies.

    This measure is unlikely to raise much revenue, probably be cost-neutral, i.e. the extra cost of monitoring will probably soak any extra tax take.

    As I have said before, I am personally more in favour of a differentiated land tax, with rates based on land use, and total estate valuations have a $500k tax-free threshold for individual taxpayers only (legal persons and ordinary trusts have no exemption). Equity held is irrelevant for total estate purposes.
    (Just to clarify – total estate valuation means that a person who owns say three properties, $500k, $700k and $200k, their total estate would be worth $1400k – and the taxable amount over the exempt amount would be $900k).

Recent Comments

Recent Posts