The opportunities party seemed to have the best take on this particular problem: they would not have allowed an investment to proceed unless the investor could put a 100% of the purchase price as a deposit.
Of course, if there was a capital gain tax in NZ, just as there is in many countries, there would a broader tax base and there would be money to spend on nice things. This of course goes without saying. The introduction of any new tax is likely to produce ...
New builds have always had interest deductibility. That was because a new build would have been sold immediately to the subsequent owner. The builder would have deducted interest involved in the house's construction much in the same way that interest would...
I have generally suspected, though I cannot produce evidence, that the rush by boomers to purchase investment properties is probably one factors driving up house prices - it increases the demand for houses. Of course borrowing to make those investments ...
Interest is probably treated as deductible throughout the capitalist world, I doubt if any tax authority, least of all our IRD, is going to to stick its neck out and say otherwise, even if they considered deductibilty to be irrational.
It was was an actual provision in the Income Tax Act. But that was a long time ago, and whilst I haven't really kept up with changes to the Act, I doubt whether that bit would have changed, at least as the first part of your contention is concerned. On the...
"For example, if I borrow money to purchase a business (a capital asset akin to a residential rental), I can claim the interest cost of those borrowings. If I later sell that business, I pay no CGT on any capital gain. In that regard, the return of ...
"Interest cannot be a cost of "deriving income" if that income can be derived in its absence." That is not a valid test. If borrowing is required to fund the means by which income is derived, then that income will not be generated unless that borrowing ...
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but now you appear to be arguing that no interest should be deductible in any business setting? Apart from not agreeing with your logic, that would have serious consequences for investment and ultimately employment." You are not ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but now you appear to be arguing that no interest should be deductible in any business setting? Apart from not agreeing with your logic, that would have serious consequences for investment and ultimately employment. You are not ...
Income is income That's true of course. But, so what; a capital gain is not income; how can it be; no-one sells capital gains, they sell assets. Income has to have a source. That source is the production and sale of goods and services. All other sources ...
"Interest does not contribute in any way to actual gaining of revenue. " Not true. If a business borrows to buy a machine to produce widgets for sale, the interest on the loan is contributing to gaining assessable income. That's why that cost is deductible...
The loan (mortgage) was taken out for the purpose of deriving business income (rent) from the asset. Gaining business income may well have been the motivation for the loan, but clearly the purpose of a loan is the raising of capital. The income doesn't ...
The cost of an asset is apportioned annually as a charge against revenue: i.e. as depreciation. Interest does not contribute in any way to actual gaining of revenue. If a property is freehold the revenue will be the same. What interest does is furnish the ...
It is not against the law to make political statements. Your employer should pull his bloody head in and mind his own business.
I think the Income Tax Act regards an expense as deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of gaining taxable income. The purpose of borrowing however is to gain capital, in the form of cash; capital is not income so interest, being the cost of ...
I think the US would like to "rule over them" as well.
I suspect there were sound fiscal reasons for not letting people "keep their own income" - something to do with avoiding inflation; and there has always been a suspicion that the country would not be able to afford national super once the boomers started ...
This is probably why the banks favour capital gains taxes. The point being that a cgt is not levied until after a property is sold and the bank in question no longer has any financial interest in it. Wealth and land taxes, on the other hand, are paid on a ...
[ To make the socio-economic progress that the left wing of New Zealand want us to, we need a Capital Gains Tax or a Land Value Tax. ] A land value tax would be better than a capital gains tax since it can be collected on a regular basis: annually, half ...
Without a (visible) stop sign, or traffic lights, a bit more caution is needed at intersections.
I have always thought that the purpose of roads was the movement of traffic. Not for stationary vehicles to park on. Motorists should not be using public spaces as their own private carparks. If they want to do that they should at least pay for the ...
What about this, what about that, What about the other. Is that the only logic you know?
Did she deserve to be attacked by Russia? You are quite right to ask that. At seven years of age she could hardly be considered a supporter of Uncle Sam. Don't ask silly out of context questions.
that Europe "deserved" to be attacked by Russia? Given that they are supporting Uncle Sam and his evil empire they probably do deserve to be attacked by Russia. Still, I wouldn't want to see that happen, and it probably won't.
Did they just happen, too? Sure. Lots of wars all over the place. Africa, the Middle East, South America, China.
NATO, the EEC and the EU have brought he longest period of continuous peace to Western Europe since Pax Romana. It probably would have happened anyway, even without the assistance of the EEC, the EU, and NATO.
Additionally, the withdrawl of US support for NATO would make a general European war between Russia and rump NATO powers almost inevitable should Ukraine be overrun, With no more proxy wars to be fought against NATO, I would think it more likely peace ...
The US has kept a standing army of ~100,000 in Europe for eighty years – thats the price of peace in Europe. How beneficent of them. I trust you don't mind a bit of sarcasm, now and then.
Prophylaxis, probably, rather than anticipation. I don't see Poland attacking Russia any time soon, despite any lack of "friendliness" on Russia's part.
It is more likely Europeans would seek a new friendly relationship with Russia, similar to that which was recently, until foolishly abandoned, enjoyed by Finland. They might well seek to include Russia in the EU, perhaps bringing in Ukraine as well.
Recent Comments