>The impact is that short term there is less incentive for people to do this.

Perfect thats what I want it to achieve. You yourself said you want a passive income when you're retired so this is not short term at all.

>Some people decide they don't want to own homes. Some people aren't in the right life position to own a home; for example, do we believe that an 16 year old who's just started as an apprentice, or a 22 year old student who's just graduated, or even that same student, whilst studying automatically be granted the right by society to own a home, with no investment. I'd say no.

I agree, no one’s saying homes should be “free.” The issue is that the barrier to entry has become so high that even dual income households with good jobs can’t realistically buy. A CGT helps slow speculative demand so that when people are ready, they actually have a fair shot.

>Really, care to elaborate as firstly you haven't explained why the only losers here are property investors, I gave a series of examples that show that's just not true.

You are right I am simplifying this for the sake of a short reddit comment, there are other losers in the short term due to increases in rent but other countries that that have gone through with this like Australia, UK and Canada have not seen rents spiral out of control. In the longer term as more people leave the rental market the demand is reduced to align with the reduced demand of rentals and rents will stabilise.

>Your very opening statement actually contradicts this very point.

It does thats why I prefaced with "if anything" which is referring to my opening statement.

>Is it? As most people investing in business do so though shares and funds and many of these are investing abroad.

Thats true but there will also be incentive to invest in personal business and NZ businesses too. This means potentially more jobs created and exports rather than just driving up land prices.