The Register of MP’s pecuniary interest came out today. And the clear winner has to be National Party MP Chris Tremain.
The Register reveals Tremain owns 19 different parcels of real estate.
I suspect that the financial arrangements mean he pays no tax on the capital gain on any of them, and never will.
Actually, looking through the register, most MPs own multiple properties, and are creaming it with what is essentially tax-free investment. Which is why most MPs (other than the Green ones who are motivated by principle, rather than pecuniary interest) resist to the hilt a capital gains tax.
Another initial observation of the Register (I’ll look at it in more detail in coming days) is that Roger Douglas has two investments in companies running the gambling industry that rips off the poorest and most desperate in our society.
Not a good look for any MP, from where I’m sitting.
g.blog 
Hey, that smirking face. I know that. He looks just like the guy sho sold me the leaky apartment.
Mr. Tremain also makes sure he handsomely benefits from the Clarkson discount come election time.
Napier isn’t so much an electorate as a feudal feifdom these days.
Tell us more, Tom. This could be fun.
And capital gains tax will affect multi property owners how?
It is only collected at sale time. Never sell, never pay the tax.
Just keep collecting rent and running a property owing business that allows other New Zealanders to free up their money (by not investing in real estate) to invest into job creating businesses.
Modern business practise is to lease not buy property and assets. That way capital is freed up for business expansion.
Envy going on toad?
Are you the lone Green crusader against National? Every posting of yours is anti National.
Still whatever turns you on.
Any interesting multi-property owners in the other parties?
And see now why the LACQ tax will never be abolished and captial gains tax will be foerever on the Greens wish list?
To many of us multi property owners are in power!!!! Even a vote for Labour wont change that.
Gerrit, you are correct about modern business practice being to lease rather than buy property when you require premises to run a productive enterprise from.
But the LAQC tax breaks and the absence of a capital gainst tax mean many people choose to speculate in property rather than invest in productive enterprise.
I just happened to pick Tremain because his property investments stuck out like dogs bollocks. It’s not meant to be an anti-National post – there are MPs from other parties with substantial property investments too.
What about Jenettes interest in Fletchers & the wind company, get all the facts out boyo.
Property has been by far the best place to invest. The returns are the best (or have been).
Until the NZX and the shonky bridgecorps, hanovers, etc. gets sorted out were would you invest toad?
Personally find the ASX a much better proposition. Better regulations, greater transparancies, etc. ASB makes it so easy through their internet brokering service.
Except for property the only other place worthy to invest is bank deposit.
There are some investment companies of repute I would look at (e.g. milford, fishers), otherwise who would invest in New Zealand while we have a toothless watchdog in the commerce commision run by a glory seeking incompetant and a stock exchange run for the ego of one person.
Property is good to invest in because property is less taxed than other investments. Shock horror.
Simplest solution is probably just to exempt capital gains taxes on your cheapest property.
Ari,
it is not just the returns but the risks as well. Buy land and short of an act of war or nature, it is pretty secure.
Without having alternative safe and risk adverse places to invest, property will always be the prefered option.
Yep, I was simplifying to express how dumb property speculation is. As you say Gerrit, and this is a side-effect of the assumption of growth- in a closed system (like the planet) there will be increasing demand for the available resources. (And “land” generally includes all of the resources there, too, so it’s almost never a bad investment)
Take away the assumption of growth and land ownership generally becomes as hit-or-miss as any other investment because it needs to be matched to development or migration demand. Good reason to tax land MORE heavily until we eventually bite the bullet and move away from the growth paradigm. Owning resources isn’t even necessarily great if they’re not the most efficient ones to use at the moment.
So tax land more heavily, which is cool except the onflow effect the cost of goods and services produced on that land (after all everything we do is based on land somewhere)will be higher.
The tax paid has to come from somewhere and it will be the consumers of the goods and services produced by the land owner.
How would you tax land anyway. Unimproved value, improved value, againts the value of the goods produced on the land?
“Owning resources isn’t even necessarily great if they’re not the most efficient ones to use at the moment.”
So are you inclining towards the state telling people what they may or may not do with their own property?
Nice to be here I am follwing your posts since a long time If you are interested in Trading have a look at url.