Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Property Tax
#11
I am absolutely confident, without doing any research or caring to back up my point with facts at all, that coming up with a system to determine if a property is legally empty is significantly harder than gaming that law.
[Image: Nsi2Ruz.png]
Reply
#12
(17-08-2018, 09:17 PM)Kalazarc Wrote:  If you reduce income tax and add property tax at worst it will work out even.

Unless you're retired or unemployed mind you.
Reply
#13
(19-08-2018, 02:57 PM)████ Wrote:
(17-08-2018, 09:17 PM)Kalazarc Wrote:  If you reduce income tax and add property tax at worst it will work out even.

Unless you're retired or unemployed mind you.

Yeah, but fuck those guys.

and while we're pitching great ideas, let's have an unemployment tax, too.
[Image: Nsi2Ruz.png]
Reply
#14
(19-08-2018, 02:34 PM)Jargonion Wrote: coming up with a system to determine if a property is legally empty is significantly harder than gaming that law.
Yeah 100%

Having hardcore renter rights like they apparently have in Germany may shift the burden of many of the costs of living to landlords (if these laws limit how fast landlords can up their rent)?

Also, what if we allow squatters to legally occupy properties for up to 6 months if there's no one living there? More as a dick move to landlords than any actually reasonable housing solution
Reply
#15
I would like to make a defense of the current system of GST for everything. If we start making only certain items taxable then we start getting ridiculous situations where the court has to bring in "experts" to decide whether or not something is a cake or not for tax reasons,
Reply
#16
(20-08-2018, 01:42 PM)silentsun Wrote: If we start making only certain items taxable then we start getting ridiculous situations where the court has to bring in "experts" to decide whether or not something is a cake or not for tax reasons,

Totally agree. Either abolish or consistently apply GST, and if you want to subsidise the cost of vegetables then do it through some other means. It's not like 15% off is the magic discount for all items we want to incentivise the purchase of anyway
Reply
#17
Hey here's a way to redistribute wealth: every time a publicly traded business in NZ is found guilty of a crime they forfeit some chunk of their shares which are then given by lottery to random poors. Or conglomerates cede some businesses they own (selected by contracted auditors) to the value of the cost of their crime. These would probably be better deterrents than cash settlements for bad behaviour?
Reply
#18
Idiot, poor people can't smoke shares.
[Image: Nsi2Ruz.png]
Reply
#19
Why limit it to public businesses? I am sure private businesses also get up to some dodgy shit.

(20-08-2018, 03:27 PM)crispier taco Wrote:
(20-08-2018, 01:42 PM)silentsun Wrote: If we start making only certain items taxable then we start getting ridiculous situations where the court has to bring in "experts" to decide whether or not something is a cake or not for tax reasons,

Totally agree. Either abolish or consistently apply GST, and if you want to subsidise the cost of vegetables then do it through some other means. It's not like 15% off is the magic discount for all items we want to incentivise the purchase of anyway

I would say, abolish GST entirely. Having tax on any purchases not only hurts poor people, it encourages everyone to buy outside of the local economy and/or to not spend their money at all. I would have thought the government would want to encourage their populace to spend money to help grow the economy.

(19-08-2018, 02:57 PM)████ Wrote:
(17-08-2018, 09:17 PM)Kalazarc Wrote:  If you reduce income tax and add property tax at worst it will work out even.

Unless you're retired or unemployed mind you.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Although I am not convinced it is a bad thing... I feel like you likely can't afford to own a house and be unemployed for very long unless you are rich anyway, so not too worried about that. And maybe for retirement you should be encouraged to down size anyway. I kinda feel like houses are a limited resources, so you should have to pay to keep it. Kinda like a road users charge, you don't stop taking up space just because you are unemployed or retired.
Reply
#20
(19-08-2018, 02:34 PM)Jargonion Wrote: I am absolutely confident, without doing any research or caring to back up my point with facts at all, that coming up with a system to determine if a property is legally empty is significantly harder than gaming that law.

Could probs just monitor power and water usage. You could definitely get around this by leaving the lights and sprinkler on though, and I don't know that I want to encourage wasting resources as well as hoarding property. And the kinds of people who this is trying to target are most likely cunts, so they wouldn't give a fuck about wasting some resources.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)