Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Unintended consequences

Since nil depreciation is going to be a laaaaarge factor in the price you pay to rent my rental properties in the future, I look forward to all businesses bearing the brunt of the new taxes. Believe me, my rental business will recoup.

Rental properties will become like the proverbial hen's teeth for while whilst the suddenly underfunded investors take flight, but all the time will be value increasing. Jane and Joe Blow renter has to live somewhere and will pay whatever the market settles on.

For any change in rental property depreciation to be fair as the IRD mantra is 'It's our job to be fair', I look forward to all classes of appreciating assets having depreciation removed.

And a corresponding massive drop in my current land taxes (rates) as the depreciation component is removed from council assets and estates. After all, I have been funding the never ending black hole that was taken for depreciation, but spent on social engineering over recent past decades. Good to see all that will dry up without funds.

Bet the local gummint thieves did not consider this unintended consequence?


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well I'm so pleased.

It's about time I stopped subsidizing your clients though all the extra tax I have to pay because you were getting an advantage.

PM of NZ said...

Adolf, What advantage? I pay taxes just like other 'rich pricks' although I would never class myself as such.

Unfortunately some want me to pay a bit more in an envy tax.

I'll believe it when I see it and adjust to suit. Any changes will probably create a whole new raft of unintended consequences, followed by exploitation via loopholes.

Anonymous said...

Adolf is a bitter nut.

ZenTiger said...

For any change in rental property depreciation to be fair as the IRD mantra is 'It's our job to be fair',

And this is where it all goes off the rails.

The socialist definition of fair is very different to the right wing.

The fairest possible tax system would be a single, broad flat tax on either earnings or consumption (say 20%). Done. The government then budgets to live within that income. Within that would be the ability to charge a range of fees in exchange for selected services (such as council rates)

That would worry socialists who work in the following way:

If you are intelligent, and get better marks at school, you should redistribute those marks to less intelligent (or less motivated) people so that everyone receives a "fair" mark.

They then do the same with money, assuming the product of your work is not really yours, but society's.

The "fairest" thing we could do then would be to provide a *universal* income, a minimum base wage, and fund it out of a license fee applied to the wealth generated from NZ's natural resources: Oil, Gas, Coal, Fish, Forest. We effectively are shareholders in our nation's natural wealth. Your right to a share is based on (a) being resident (b) being a citizen, by birth or by oath. (c) not being in prison for an offense of more than 3 years.

If the dividends are low, we provide soup kitchens and bunk beds, and call on family and whanua; church and charity to help people out of there.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.