Chat Forum
It is currently Wed May 27, 2020 12:09 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29431 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 ... 736  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.


Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2172
booji boy wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.


Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?


It's not a real gain though. Effectively, as money has grown less valuable due to inflation, unless your asset value has grown in excess of inflation, you've actually lost money over the period in question.

The overcomplication thing is a bit of an oxymoron though when you're bringing in CGT, which is inherently a massive additional complication to the tax system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
Gordon Bennett wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Anyway, on this CGT thing, I'm reasonably surprised they haven't made the taxable gain the amount gained above the rate of inflation over the period of ownership. I think its unreasonable to pay tax on the rate of inflation. Plenty of other countries have CPI indexing as part of the calculation. Also surprised to see they removed the option of a zero rated income tax band from the final offering, apparently due to the number of wealthy people with zero income (presumably due to their partner raking it in). The same spurious argument would apply to having tax bands at all, I'd think.


Listening to Cullen commenting over the last few months it seems they were trying to avoid any overcomplication of the tax and make it as simple as possible. So no inflationary adjustment, marginal tax rate (33% in most cases) vs a differential rate at say 15%-18% like most other countries.

The inflationary adjustment is interesting. Isn't that exactly what capital gains are?


It's not a real gain though. Effectively, as money has grown less valuable due to inflation, unless your asset value has grown in excess of inflation, you've actually lost money over the period in question.

The overcomplication thing is a bit of an oxymoron though when you're bringing in CGT, which is inherently a massive additional complication to the tax system.


I like your thinking sir. Exactly how I've always felt about CGT. :thumbup:

Cullen is just a complete and utter plum! Too spineless to implement it during his 9 year reign but now it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
deadduck wrote:
Dark wrote:
Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage



That's exactly the sort of speculative property investing that a CGT is intending to mitigate.

Too many people these days consider the only value in owning a rental property to be its potential capital gain, whereas traditionally the value was in the passive income stream it creates.

Unfortunately now the cost of owning these properties is so high that the rental return is considered insignificant and the incentives in the property market are all based around enabling perpetual strong growth in property values which only further exacerbate the problems for everyone.

That's been the case all along.
Capital gain was the only way to entice enough people into investing in rental properties and to keep housing stocks up.
The rental charged to the tenant must be cheaper than what mortgage repayments would be for that property. Otherwise tenants could buy the property themselves.
So most rental owners experienced losses in their first few years.
It's a pity that a housing price bubble in one area of NZ has resulted in kneejerk reactions that impact on the whole country.
I'm not against CGT in principle, it's just that it is a difficult tax to administer and it may not have the effect that it's proponents expect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4821
Location: NZ
deadduck wrote:
Dark wrote:
Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage



That's exactly the sort of speculative property investing that a CGT is intending to mitigate.

Too many people these days consider the only value in owning a rental property to be its potential capital gain, whereas traditionally the value was in the passive income stream it creates.

Unfortunately now the cost of owning these properties is so high that the rental return is considered insignificant and the incentives in the property market are all based around enabling perpetual strong growth in property values which only further exacerbate the problems for everyone.


Not losing money would help

I hate to break your bubble with fact, but not many landlords are getting any where near enough money to cover the mortgage to cover the place.

They take a risk and invest their own money every month to top up the mortgage payments in the vain hope they have enough to cover their retirement, while also giving someone a home to live in.

Take away any chance of this and watch rental availability dive and rents going up even more to try to stop losses.

Edit: Sorry. Re read your post and realised I miss understood your point


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19302
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4821
Location: NZ
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15899
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?


He should put his money in NZ shares so it's a win-win for everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4641
Location: The other side of midnight
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?


He should put his money in NZ shares so it's a win-win for everyone.


Those shares are now also liable for CGT, as will KiwiSaver funds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4821
Location: NZ
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?


He should put his money in NZ shares so it's a win-win for everyone.


This is a good point if it weren't for the fact you can't expect the psyche of NZers to change at the flick of a switch to shares by Labour after generations of govts telling people to buy houses as an investment, and for them to forget the GFC not that long ago, and the one before that...... depending how old they are, when shares went through the floor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.

The developer needs a customer.
It could be new home owner, a landlord, or a home owner upgrading.
It's called supply and demand.

The home owner upgrading needs someone to buy his existing home.
Maybe a homeowner, landlord, or the owner could keep it and rent it out.
In which case he becomes a landlord too.

Why is it so difficult to get through that we need rental stock.
And bugger me the only people that can supply it are landlords.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15899
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4327
jambanja wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?


He should put his money in NZ shares so it's a win-win for everyone.


Those shares are now also liable for CGT, as will KiwiSaver funds


So KiwiSaver is going to be taxed again?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4641
Location: The other side of midnight
Quote:
So KiwiSaver is going to be taxed again?


Well yes but then if you earn $48-70k you will get some sort of tax relief on the employers contribution. On some sort of sliding scale, so I’d imagine that those towards the $70k end will not fare that well, tax on funds with a bit of relief on the other hand, wonder what the net result will be, this all speculation though because we still don’t know if this govt will implement the taxes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3346
Dark wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Dark wrote:
Personally think it is a bit much on landlords, if Labour don't give them negative gearing back after taking it a way and then lumping them with a CGT.

What would be the point in buying something to supply a rental?

You would probably end up selling for a loss, depending on the mortgage



That's exactly the sort of speculative property investing that a CGT is intending to mitigate.

Too many people these days consider the only value in owning a rental property to be its potential capital gain, whereas traditionally the value was in the passive income stream it creates.

Unfortunately now the cost of owning these properties is so high that the rental return is considered insignificant and the incentives in the property market are all based around enabling perpetual strong growth in property values which only further exacerbate the problems for everyone.


Not losing money would help

I hate to break your bubble with fact, but not many landlords are getting any where near enough money to cover the mortgage to cover the place.

They take a risk and invest their own money every month to top up the mortgage payments in the vain hope they have enough to cover their retirement, while also giving someone a home to live in.

Take away any chance of this and watch rental availability dive and rents going up even more to try to stop losses.

Edit: Sorry. Re read your post and realised I miss understood your point


Citation please


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
Tehui wrote:
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.


Why aren't you putting that extra $15 a week into shares to help save for your retirement so it's a win-win for everyone? Squandering it on fish n chips is not what Labour/Greens and the TWG had in mind. Tsk, tsk. :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9900
Location: Texas
BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Dark wrote:
There are suddenly going to be a lot really really nice, renovated to the max "family homes"

Be a good time to be an accountant. Wonder I can train to be one in 2 years.


Just so that you don't waste your time, accountants won't make hay from this. Tax advisors and financial advisors will. Slightly different training regime.

Accountants make the $ every time the International Accounting Standards Board (run by 'Big 4' accountants) change the rules on everyone. A different, but similar rort.

Eh?
Accountants do your accounts.
They have to account for everything.
More paperwork.
More money.
and most accounting firms have Tax Advisory services as part of their service offer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15899
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.


Why aren't you putting that extra $15 a week into shares to help save for your retirement so it's a win-win for everyone? Squandering it on fish n chips is not what Labour/Greens and the TWG had in mind. Tsk, tsk. :uhoh:


It's all about maximising my utility. That's what I learnt studying economics.

:P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9900
Location: Texas
Tehui wrote:
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.

The wealth factor kicking in, fancy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
Tehui wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.


Why aren't you putting that extra $15 a week into shares to help save for your retirement so it's a win-win for everyone? Squandering it on fish n chips is not what Labour/Greens and the TWG had in mind. Tsk, tsk. :uhoh:


It's all about maximising my utility. That's what I learnt studying economics.

:P


The choice between snapper, gurnard or lemon fish will be key. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19302
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?



You are confusing equity with profit, are you not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4821
Location: NZ
Enzedder wrote:
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?



You are confusing equity with profit, are you not?


Nope


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19302
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
30% isn't whacked off the capital - can you understand it is payable on any PROFIT they make after 2010?

It could be 17% of bugger all if property prices stabilise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5436
You’re only taxed on profit Dark, so your imaginary couple would’ve made a profit if the CGT affects them, so no money wasted.

More importantly, it gets to the heart of what dead duck was talking about. We want landlords to be seeking profit from rental income, with any capital gain being a bonus. Not the other way around. In your example, if they are not making a decent profit off the rental income then turf the property and put your investment somewhere more productive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
Enzedder wrote:
30% isn't whacked off the capital - can you understand it is payable on any PROFIT they make after 2010?

It could be 17% of bugger all if property prices stabilise


Yeah I'd expect it to be SFA in the next 5 years especially in markets like Auckland where the market has peaked and is likely to flatten over the next few years. At least I know my tax free CG's of the last ten years are locked down and secure. Good old Cully. Looking after us rich prices. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19302
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Also, if you are selling a rental, you wouldn't do it up prior to sale and end up paying tax on the increase in price.

Cheaper do-ups for all folks. Gotta vote for it

(May not be actually true - I still would)


Last edited by Enzedder on Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9900
Location: Texas
Enzedder wrote:
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
But the house will still exist and if they have to sell it, someone will move into it (owner or tenant) and this will create a space elsewhere.

The house won't cease to exist. As stated earlier, landlords have no effect of supply of houses, developers do.

This could (I doubt it) reduce the price of houses but eventually people will realise that they will still be making a bloody nice profit; they will just lose some of it.

It is a tax dodge being closed and about bloody time.



If an existing home owner buys a rental with say 20% deposit', backed with their own house. On say a 20 year mortgage

Pays off the mortgage every month with their own say 1000 a month plus rent, whilst paying for rental fees, upkeep, with no negative gearing etc etc

Wants to sell it in say fifteen years when they retire.

How much is left when 30% is whacked off any capital and the bank take the left over mortgage and how much money did they waste?

You are confusing equity with profit, are you not?

Looks that way. The tax should only be payable on “gain” above the cost of acquisition and allowable improvements, so costs of sale, certain improvements and repayment of outstanding mortgages (if used to purchase that property or to finance improvements) would reduce the taxable “gain”. At least that is how it worked in jurisdictions I am familiar with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4821
Location: NZ
Enzedder wrote:
30% isn't whacked off the capital - can you understand it is payable on any PROFIT they make after 2010?

It could be 17% of bugger all if property prices stabilise



Forgot to write the word gain after the word capital


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19302
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
30% isn't whacked off the capital - can you understand it is payable on any PROFIT they make after 2010?

It could be 17% of bugger all if property prices stabilise



Forgot to write the word gain after the word capital


That makes sense - you got it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15899
Mr Mike wrote:
Tehui wrote:
I wonder what I'll spend my extra money on due to the income tax reduction. Fish n Chips every Friday night should do it. Oh, and some sauce.

The wealth factor kicking in, fancy


Living the dream mate, living the dream.

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8230
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12206703

TBF I'm sure my house in Auckland is compliant except for the extractor fan in the kitchen. What makes me laugh is that I lived in the house just fine and dandy for 8 years without all the things I've since added:

Underfloor insulation
Additional ceiling insulation (already had ceiling insulation but deemed not good enough)
Domestic ventilation system
Heat pump

I've also supplied the tenants with a dehumidifier (I always used one as Auckland can be very damp) for use by the tenants if they choose.

Funny how as owner, occupier it's perfectly Ok but if you're letting it out to tenants you are held to a much higher standard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3346
^straight up. My house is probably worse than most dog kennels yet i don't get asthma or sick. Can't help but feel alot of people bring most accommodation related illnesses upon themselves. How many people are actually going to use extractor fans provided when heaps ignore the ones they already have?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:20 am
Posts: 1543
Location: From the Hutt bro.
booji boy wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12206703

TBF I'm sure my house in Auckland is compliant except for the extractor fan in the kitchen. What makes me laugh is that I lived in the house just fine and dandy for 8 years without all the things I've since added:

Underfloor insulation
Additional ceiling insulation (already had ceiling insulation but deemed not good enough)
Domestic ventilation system
Heat pump

I've also supplied the tenants with a dehumidifier (I always used one as Auckland can be very damp) for use by the tenants if they choose.

Funny how as owner, occupier it's perfectly Ok but if you're letting it out to tenants you are held to a much higher standard.

Fairly obvious really, as an owner/occupier you have the choice to install these things and if you don't for whatever reason you are affected by the choice. However as a tenant you don't have the ability to make these improvements and in the past couldn't get a landlord to make these changes and unfortunately due to a lot of shitcvnt landlords out there, you're obviously not one of them, people have been forced to live in substandard housing. And just in case anyone comes up with the 'if you don't like it move' argument that's easier said than done in a lot of places.

Were you able to claim back the costs for the insulation, DVS etc in the house?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3346
Oh alright I'll just go renovate my house with over priced materials, labour and consents with the loan the bank refuses to give me :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:20 am
Posts: 1543
Location: From the Hutt bro.
Kahu wrote:
Oh alright I'll just go renovate my house with over priced materials, labour and consents with the loan the bank refuses to give me :lol:

You go gurl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32540
Location: in transit
So this is the attitude that seems prevalent in NZ now... that somehow, enacting standards is unfair and must lead to financial ruin or plague upon the children of your children and their children also.

It doesn’t compare well with Australia in that regard where standards are generally complied with in a just get on with it manner and anyone trying to avoid that hounded as a criminal and the idea that tenants should receive some degree of protection is universally understood and applied, although there are cases of abuse that pop up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20416
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Wignu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12206703

TBF I'm sure my house in Auckland is compliant except for the extractor fan in the kitchen. What makes me laugh is that I lived in the house just fine and dandy for 8 years without all the things I've since added:

Underfloor insulation
Additional ceiling insulation (already had ceiling insulation but deemed not good enough)
Domestic ventilation system
Heat pump

I've also supplied the tenants with a dehumidifier (I always used one as Auckland can be very damp) for use by the tenants if they choose.

Funny how as owner, occupier it's perfectly Ok but if you're letting it out to tenants you are held to a much higher standard.

Fairly obvious really, as an owner/occupier you have the choice to install these things and if you don't for whatever reason you are affected by the choice. However as a tenant you don't have the ability to make these improvements and in the past couldn't get a landlord to make these changes and unfortunately due to a lot of shitcvnt landlords out there, you're obviously not one of them, people have been forced to live in substandard housing. And just in case anyone comes up with the 'if you don't like it move' argument that's easier said than done in a lot of places.

Were you able to claim back the costs for the insulation, DVS etc in the house?


I think they would be classed as upgrades rather than maintenance so unlikely to able to claim for them. Probably be taxed for them later as they will have added a capital "gain".

My personal experience is that I've had tenants that won't use whats provided as it costs them power. One even disabled the switch to the heat lamps and extractor in the bathroom so his kids wouldn't switch it on.

Another didn't seem to use the extractors provided or open any windows over the winter and the claimed it was our fault that the house ended up being damp because we hadn't spent thousands of dollars on a DVS system (although if we had he probably would have complained about power bills as well, given his reaction to the logburner possibly being replaced with a heat pump, but that's another story). Like BB, we used to live in the house and it was never damp despite having significantly less insulation at the time.

We've had some excellent tenants who have looked after the property well, but we're had some "interesting" tenants as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1518
The laughably misnamed Tax Working Group is under fire.

They need to come clean and name themselves honestly ie The Capital Gain Tax Working Group.

Not that I have any major disagreement about implementing Capital Gains Tax as part of our Taxation system , long overdue ,IMO.

What peeves me is that some serious attention was not given to other regressive taxation options such as FTT , Financial transaction Tax, which would impact the "Finance or money fiddling" economy and could also be extended to capture taxation [ almost totally unpaid] by the likes of Uber, Air bnb , Amazon , Alibaba etc, etc.

GST needs to reduced back to 10% , removed from basic foods and Rates [ Land Tax] and applied only to non-excise component of fuel[ tax on tax].

Small chance with the Neo-lib lite faction controlling the Labour Party.

this cheered me up though.
Martin Bradbury at his best.
Quote:
Simon Bridges has been savaged on social media for his assertion of the ‘Kiwi way of life’…

…this nod to selfishness has been roasted by those who believe the Kiwi way of life is some type of egalitarian utopia of hope and promise.

Bullshit.

Bridges is far closer to the grim rotten tooth of these shaky Isles than we wish to believe.

The ‘Kiwi way of life’ is a low imagination horizon anti intellectualism based on exploitation of confiscated indigenous resources where ignorance & malice is celebrated by the rural volk while middle class attention is engulfed between school rankings & property speculation.

A country with 295 000 kids in poverty, 40 000 homeless, 668 suicides per year making it one of the highest rates in the world and an appalling domestic violence rate; a country with generations locked out of home ownership and job security on deunionised wage levels that lock us into insecurity, desperation and subservience; a country undermined by exploited migrant labour and speculation where primary industries get to pollute and rape the environment without remorse or punishment ; a country that refused to feed the kids because it was ‘the parents fault’ and who re-lected Key despite dirty politics, abuse of political power and mass surveillance lies; a country that could only apologise for the atrocity at Parihaka 140 years after it happened; a country with social services who chase and hound beneficiaries to death and persecute them; a country whose bloated private prison complex locks up as many people as America and we release men back into the community more damaged than when they went in; a country whose politics are owned by vested big business interests and petty corruptions; this is a country where The Project and Seven Sharp are considered current affairs with all the intellectual curiosity of the ZM and Edge Breakfast shows.

Whatever noble lineage that existed within our egalitarian roots has long been killed off by the 30 year neoliberal experiment and you can see that by the passionate intensity those who have profited by exploiting capital gains tax scream their hatred at the mere mention they might have to pay money on a gain they haven’t even realised yet.

We are a juvenile country with all the cultural maturity of a can of day old coke.

The pretensions of our ‘kiwi way of life’ will shatter under the weight of climate change, it will only be in the shards of our delusion we recognise what we have always truly known on these cragged lonely shores, that we only have each other to rely upon and the sooner we begin to respect and collaborate with one another, the sooner we survive.

There isn’t going to be a kiwi way of life that doesn’t understand that once the impacts of extreme climate change becomes an annual event.

Your f**king Capital Gains Tax is the least of our worries.



PS – I also do childrens parties and bar mitzvahs.]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20416
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
guy smiley wrote:
So this is the attitude that seems prevalent in NZ now... that somehow, enacting standards is unfair and must lead to financial ruin or plague upon the children of your children and their children also.

It doesn’t compare well with Australia in that regard where standards are generally complied with in a just get on with it manner and anyone trying to avoid that hounded as a criminal and the idea that tenants should receive some degree of protection is universally understood and applied, although there are cases of abuse that pop up.


I'm not sure it's prevalent. Many (most if we look at the market as a whole and not just the bottom end?) landlords, myself included, and BB by the sounds of it, have just quietly got on with it, spent the money, and have compliant properties. We are somewhat bemused though to hear that the homes that in many cases we lived in happily and comfortably ourselves before renting them out are now considered some kind of hell hole health risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32540
Location: in transit
I like that quote Grouch just posted an awful lot. I’d like to have babies with it if you know what I mean.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29431 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 ... 736  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anonymous_joe, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Blackrock Bullet, camroc1, chart_monkey, dpedin, DraadkarD, earl the beaver, feckwanker, Google Adsense [Bot], iarmhiman, inactionman, Keith, lorcanoworms, MungoMan, Newsome, Nolanator, obelixtim, ovalball, P in VG, Raggs, Rinkals, Saint, Sefton, tc27, Ted., Ulsters Red Hand, Winnie, Womack and 125 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group