Taxing the family home sound In theory but in practice?

Taxing the family home sound In theory but in practice?

This part of the policy was always gong to be difficult for many to accept and in principal it's probably right but you are now dealing with the emotional benefit of having one's own castle and this will be difficult to rationalise. Maybe it will need to be tweaked to exempt the family home but it will need to be policed to stop rorting by those who manage to change their family home at regular intervals and are never domiciled there. The rich never rest finding ways to subvert the rules which is why TOP has tried to keep it simple but compromise might be necessary.

Showing 6 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Tim O’Donnell
      commented 2016-12-08 06:29:44 +1300
      If you limit the “family home” to being a single house owned by people, not trusts, companies or other entity. If you wish to keep it in another form of entity, i.e. Trust, then you pay tax.
    • Tim O’Donnell
      tagged this with good 2016-12-08 06:29:44 +1300
    • Steve Cox
      commented 2016-12-07 19:38:05 +1300
      Hi Peter,
      I may just have to agree with you.
      And I can see Steven Joyce, Winston Peters and co all coming up with the one-liner that will sink this policy as far as most voters go. Say “Taxing pensioners into their grave” or “Death duties by another name”.
      It isn’t necessarily a bad idea; maybe it should have Top7 rather than TOP1.
    • Oliver Krollmann
      followed this page 2016-12-07 17:45:44 +1300
    • Oliver Krollmann
      tagged this with good 2016-12-07 17:45:32 +1300
    • Peter Carey
      published this page in How would you make New Zealand Fair Again? 2016-12-07 17:39:42 +1300