tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post8780382594608741026..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Christchurch and Cuba – Moving In Different DirectionsPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-63529296795433490052010-09-15T19:15:14.071+12:002010-09-15T19:15:14.071+12:00Regarding the LAQC's though, Richard, as I sta...Regarding the LAQC's though, Richard, as I stated, there are over 130,000 in the country, of which I suspect only a tiny percentage contain residential rentals. For example I have a lot of LAQC's on my client base, not one is a residential rental operation, and there's a very prudent reason for using every one of those LAQC's or QC's. So, to 'punish' a minority, English has taken out an entire legal structure that had an appropriate use across all industries. All he needed to do was ring fence rental losses no matter what the structure; instead to get at rental property operators he's nuc'ed an entire, useful - that's why QC's were legislated originally - legal structure.Mark Hubbardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-32908670250956196142010-09-15T18:56:25.024+12:002010-09-15T18:56:25.024+12:00Sean: You're right. I think the Greens were tr...Sean: You're right. I think the Greens were trying to have a bob each way.<br /><br />Mark: Thanks for the comments. I used to have a LAQC for the very reason that there were tax advantages. Thankfully I let it lapse into deregisteration a few years back once its advantage to me was lost. <br /><br />If I remember correctly rental property owners will be hit with a double whammy with the demise of LAQCs + inability to claim depreciation on builings thanks to English's budgetary measures.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9783822923541452382010-09-15T12:49:33.094+12:002010-09-15T12:49:33.094+12:00Um, and another thought regarding the draconian pr...Um, and another thought regarding the draconian propensity of this government. In his budget over May, English made a breath taking change to the legal structures known as Qualifying Companies and Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies. In a few strokes of his pen he has said if you have such a company (there are over 130,000 LAQC's) then from April next year it is not a company, it is a partnership (a very different structure tax-wise). Orwellian, and the uninitiated won't understand the significance of it - and I suspect English didn't fully comprehend what he had done also - but it's 'huge'. It'll put a lot of taxpayers in an unenviable position that due to the reckless pace this legislation seems to be taking, they have no way to prudently redress.<br /><br />When governments can make such wide-sweeping changes on whim, structuring businesses now becomes something between impossible and a nightmare.Mark Hubbardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15289038485919459162010-09-15T12:48:35.943+12:002010-09-15T12:48:35.943+12:00Bouquet: To the Greens, for questioning the effect...Bouquet: To the Greens, for questioning the effect these emergency laws will have on our civil liberties, and whether such a concentration of power in the hands of a few is a good thing. But then why the hell did they end up voting for it?<br /><br />Answer - because they like to be seen to be the friend of civil liberties while actively working to erode them in the cause of their own assumption of 'we know best'. Classic Orwellian double-speak.Sean Fitzpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-20542712882401038222010-09-15T12:43:36.639+12:002010-09-15T12:43:36.639+12:00Mark Hubbard,
It's good that you get engage i...Mark Hubbard,<br /><br />It's good that you get engage in the discussion at interest.co.nz but really, you're wasting your time over there as the main resident blogger, Berny Hickey is a socialist and also a daft commentator.Pro-Capitalistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53671541050417728362010-09-15T12:32:55.173+12:002010-09-15T12:32:55.173+12:00... how many generations do we ...... how many generations <b>do</b> we ...Mark Hubbardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-45851158169814015952010-09-15T12:31:47.467+12:002010-09-15T12:31:47.467+12:00Nice points Richard ... I brought up the Cuban dev...Nice points Richard ... I brought up the Cuban development on interest.co.nz: one of the most important stories today - further proof of the pain of planned economies/societies, and how they will never trump markets/freedom, but how many generations to we have to keep throwing into this proof?<br /><br />Regarding the 'draconian power grab' through the emergency legislation out of the earthquake, that is the second blatant example of how little respect this government has for what they no doubt think of as that quaint notion of individual freedom.<br /><br />No matter what you think of Ecan - and that's a whole subset of other issues - never forget that Nick Smith unilaterally fired all elected councillors and installed his own Commissars who wield wide-ranging authoritarian powers. [Again, we all know the fallacy vis vis freedom of 'elected' officials; the Commissars may get much more done as far as irrigating Canterbury is concerned; but the precedent of appointing officials without consultation and whom hold a high degree of centralised power, is starting to become more and more alarming with National. This government needs to take a philosophy course, starting with the ideas coming from the Declaration of Independence.]Mark Hubbardnoreply@blogger.com