Possible new tax law

[Wainuiguy]

Widely reported.  In fact may have even been mentioned in the article attached to the OP.  And I didn't mention rest home care - you did.

Yes I did mention aged care in the post that this discussion is related to. What else did you construe aged care to mean if not rest home care?

I was referring to the fact you mentioned Super - super is not means or asset tested as you appeared to imply.  Potentially if you work out tax wrong you may have a tax bill to pay at the end of the year but that is different from suggesting a means or asset test.

Did you find the reference to the 5 Mil?  Or too hard to Google again?

---

Wainuiguy
Shit man you better back that up with some links.

how long have you been here?
i dont have links, i dont do research
if its in my head its right.
why would i waste brain cells on misinformation?

ffs then...go on then. fill your boots
but you better fucken read it or im never posting another one.

im too lazy to read it, so im bloody hopeful im on point


https://www.inequality.org.nz/understand...y-pay-tax/

---

its important to differentiate income tax from general tax
taxing the wealthy and taxing the top income earners is two different precepts.
even though the the top earners are by default going to be wealthy, the inverse does not hold
where the wealthy might not be top income earners.
we get the wealthy with estate taxes taxes on interest, taxes on the income of a myriad of sources like shares bonds etc
we get the high earners with paye.

I actually read it - but was only kidding posting a link.  

And yes in some things you are right.  A person with large assets may not have a large income - I.e. asset rich but cash poor.  Many people may be in that situation now with investment income being reduced to nothing.  Meaning they may need to draw on capital to keep their lifestyle.

This review is, as the expert I posted said,  just being set to change to narrative.  Designed to soften the public to allow for other taxes to be introduced so that those who have significant assets and generate wealth via capital gain can be taxed against that.  Trouble is they will talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" which most will say is a good idea except what may happen is a change will be introduced to capture those gains but will also capture others in the mix too, others who you would not define as "Uber wealthy "  or even "wealthy".

A perfect example of this was the changes to the Brightline test.  Taking it from 4 to 10 years created a CGT in all but name and a CGT with  39% tax.  The test was designed to capture those who bought and sold houses quickly such as flippers.  Now it is catching people selling their beach house, people moving for work, estates etc.  This is not what the intent behind the test was ever for.

And now a couple of stories in the last few days where these tax principals if they were in place as Parker broadly outlined may actually mean recent changes to tax laws would violate those very principals- the 2 examples used being the brightline test and the changes to deductibility tor landlords.  Again experts suggested both those things would violate the principals as outlined.  Obviously hard to say as the law has not been written but this was based on what Parker laid out.