Page 828 of 1292

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:50 pm
by booji boy
not_english wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:33 pm To be honest, landlords have a few years when they can claim tax on interest in decreasing percentages over the next few years, so the change won't be immediately noticed.

They introduced a similar removal of ability to claim mortgage interest tax back on landlords in the UK a few years ago, and there was very little outrage here (the UK law is actually slightly different).

NZ IMHO is the outlier in that property has always been such an easy investment, with no CGT etc. These changes really just bring NZ more in line with the rest of the world.
So at present if you operate a business out of your family home you are entitled to claim a portion of your mortgage interest based on the percentage of the house used for business purposes. e.g. a florist operating out of their basement. Do you think they should close that 'loophole' too? The rest of us don't get to claim it.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:00 pm
by not_english
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:50 pm
not_english wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:33 pm To be honest, landlords have a few years when they can claim tax on interest in decreasing percentages over the next few years, so the change won't be immediately noticed.

They introduced a similar removal of ability to claim mortgage interest tax back on landlords in the UK a few years ago, and there was very little outrage here (the UK law is actually slightly different).

NZ IMHO is the outlier in that property has always been such an easy investment, with no CGT etc. These changes really just bring NZ more in line with the rest of the world.
So at present if you operate a business out of your family home you are entitled to claim a portion of your mortgage interest based on the percentage of the house used for business purposes. e.g. a florist operating out of their basement. Do you think they should close that 'loophole' too? The rest of us don't get to claim it.
Well like I said, I am a landlord too, but I think it is fair enough really. Property investors in NZ have had a pretty good run.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:03 pm
by Enzedder
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:03 am Thing is Enz the builders are going to be building it for either a new home owner or for a landlord like jambanja. Whether it's for a new homeowner or for a rental property there is a need for both.
No matter who they build it for, 99.9% of the time someone will move in who was previously renting or will, down the chain, free up a home to a renter. The problem is a lack of houses for all of us, and this in turn leads to the current position of a lack of houses for sale or rent.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:03 pm
by booji boy
Enzedder wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:03 pm
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:03 am Thing is Enz the builders are going to be building it for either a new home owner or for a landlord like jambanja. Whether it's for a new homeowner or for a rental property there is a need for both.
No matter who they build it for, 99.9% of the time someone will move in who was previously renting or will, down the chain, free up a home to a renter. The problem is a lack of houses for all of us, and this in turn leads to the current position of a lack of houses for sale or rent.
/End Discussion.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:05 pm
by Ghost-Of-Nepia
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:09 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:53 am Rates, insurance and maintenance are all tax deductible. Are you still in a loss making situation with your rental FOG?
Our rental income still doesn't cover our costs, and like you (iirc) it was no where near it in the early days. We've tried to be good landlords. Keep the property as affordable as possible, reward good tenants. Fix any issues quickly, and absorb costs where possible. We've usually been renting out at the lower end of the market scale for our property and location, with the occasional reset when we've changed tenants.

But I'm talking in principle. Not all landlords are in our circumstances. My concern is that these sorts of changes are unworkable in many cases and may lead to decent landlords having to sell up, with the properties ending up with the the larger investors / corporate style landlords who are the source of much of this angst.

I'm pretty similar to you. When I left Dunedin, I held on to my house and have been lucky enough to rent it out to the same tenants that whole time. I don't quite make the mortgage payments from the rent (minus property management fees - too hard to manage it myself from Wellington) - maybe $10-20 a week short and that doesn't include rates and insurance. But I keep my place probably a good $50 under market rates because they're good tenants and I'd rather keep them. I've found my property managers to be really good - even accommodated and negotiated with the tenants around kitchen renovations last year. Like you, I'd suffer guilt too much if I didn't fix issues quickly and luckily the property company is onto it. I'm currently sorting out the Healthy Homes requirements.

I'm also not hugely fussed about not covering my mortgage with the rent because the house's value has more than doubled since I bought it 6 years, so if I do decide to sell it at some point... kaching!!

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:58 pm
by Fat Old Git
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:03 pm
Enzedder wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:03 pm
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:03 am Thing is Enz the builders are going to be building it for either a new home owner or for a landlord like jambanja. Whether it's for a new homeowner or for a rental property there is a need for both.
No matter who they build it for, 99.9% of the time someone will move in who was previously renting or will, down the chain, free up a home to a renter. The problem is a lack of houses for all of us, and this in turn leads to the current position of a lack of houses for sale or rent.
/End Discussion.
Yep, that really is the root cause of the issue, and the main driver of the increased property prices.

I've expressed concern that some of the changes will drive out smaller landlords who are more likely to look after their tenants, and have the larger less connected landlords snap up those properties. But of greater concern is that they get snapped up by investors who are only interested in capital gains. The sort who currently own empty properties all over the country. That would end up reducing availability.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:06 pm
by Fat Old Git
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:05 pm
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:09 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:53 am Rates, insurance and maintenance are all tax deductible. Are you still in a loss making situation with your rental FOG?
Our rental income still doesn't cover our costs, and like you (iirc) it was no where near it in the early days. We've tried to be good landlords. Keep the property as affordable as possible, reward good tenants. Fix any issues quickly, and absorb costs where possible. We've usually been renting out at the lower end of the market scale for our property and location, with the occasional reset when we've changed tenants.

But I'm talking in principle. Not all landlords are in our circumstances. My concern is that these sorts of changes are unworkable in many cases and may lead to decent landlords having to sell up, with the properties ending up with the the larger investors / corporate style landlords who are the source of much of this angst.

I'm pretty similar to you. When I left Dunedin, I held on to my house and have been lucky enough to rent it out to the same tenants that whole time. I don't quite make the mortgage payments from the rent (minus property management fees - too hard to manage it myself from Wellington) - maybe $10-20 a week short and that doesn't include rates and insurance. But I keep my place probably a good $50 under market rates because they're good tenants and I'd rather keep them. I've found my property managers to be really good - even accommodated and negotiated with the tenants around kitchen renovations last year. Like you, I'd suffer guilt too much if I didn't fix issues quickly and luckily the property company is onto it. I'm currently sorting out the Healthy Homes requirements.

I'm also not hugely fussed about not covering my mortgage with the rent because the house's value has more than doubled since I bought it 6 years, so if I do decide to sell it at some point... kaching!!
House values in Chch haven't increased at the same level as elsewhere, but that hasn't really worried us as our original plan was the have the rent as part of our retirement income, with the hope the property would be mortgage free by then.

That might change though given all of the rule changes. Plus we have a property manager now, which we brought in after dealing with a very dishonest and threatening tenant. It has greatly reduced our stress levels. The thought of having to deal with all of that again in retirement is not very appealing.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:07 pm
by booji boy
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:05 pm
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:09 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:53 am Rates, insurance and maintenance are all tax deductible. Are you still in a loss making situation with your rental FOG?
Our rental income still doesn't cover our costs, and like you (iirc) it was no where near it in the early days. We've tried to be good landlords. Keep the property as affordable as possible, reward good tenants. Fix any issues quickly, and absorb costs where possible. We've usually been renting out at the lower end of the market scale for our property and location, with the occasional reset when we've changed tenants.

But I'm talking in principle. Not all landlords are in our circumstances. My concern is that these sorts of changes are unworkable in many cases and may lead to decent landlords having to sell up, with the properties ending up with the the larger investors / corporate style landlords who are the source of much of this angst.

I'm pretty similar to you. When I left Dunedin, I held on to my house and have been lucky enough to rent it out to the same tenants that whole time. I don't quite make the mortgage payments from the rent (minus property management fees - too hard to manage it myself from Wellington) - maybe $10-20 a week short and that doesn't include rates and insurance. But I keep my place probably a good $50 under market rates because they're good tenants and I'd rather keep them. I've found my property managers to be really good - even accommodated and negotiated with the tenants around kitchen renovations last year. Like you, I'd suffer guilt too much if I didn't fix issues quickly and luckily the property company is onto it. I'm currently sorting out the Healthy Homes requirements.

I'm also not hugely fussed about not covering my mortgage with the rent because the house's value has more than doubled since I bought it 6 years, so if I do decide to sell it at some point... kaching!!
Same with me but it's more about maintaining my investment and keeping it in good condition rather than letting it become a rundown hovel for the sake of a few bucks. I've done all the Healthy Homes compliance too mostly in advance of the Govt deadlines. As I've mentioned to FOG previously I lived in the house quite happily for 8 years without all the upgrades the Govt is now demanding. Seems rental accommodation is held to a much higher standard than many owner occupiers enjoy.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:48 pm
by Wignu
Guess it's just another case of the few (slumlords) spoiling it for the many.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:44 am
by booji boy
guy smiley wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:56 am I stopped reading when you said ‘something’.


Any of you guys who are clearly worried for the landlords in this equation have any suggestions for bringing some affordability into the housing market?
You out of MIQ yet Guy? (Can't be assed going back to find your first MIQ post).

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:46 am
by Flockwitt
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:03 pm
Enzedder wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:03 pm
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:03 am Thing is Enz the builders are going to be building it for either a new home owner or for a landlord like jambanja. Whether it's for a new homeowner or for a rental property there is a need for both.
No matter who they build it for, 99.9% of the time someone will move in who was previously renting or will, down the chain, free up a home to a renter. The problem is a lack of houses for all of us, and this in turn leads to the current position of a lack of houses for sale or rent.
/End Discussion.
Unfortunately I suspect that it isn't. Yes, we need to make more housing available and it would be good to see the relative numbers of population growth vs. housing numbers over the last decade or so. Yes, more housing will stabilize the market to a point, but this isn't the be all and end all.

There's a couple of legacy issues to consider that are part and parcel of how we got here in the first place.

One point is the rich are getting richer. With more people getting access to a global market place there are more people getting a lot richer than the baker whose selling to the passing traffic. These people are prepared to pay more and more for the best properties. This is still happening. And when there is pressure on the top end of the market, everything is dragged up with it - this is the same worldwide. You wonder why there's such pressure on the Auckland market. Well for the last few years 2/3rds of the economic growth in NZ has come from Auckland. People there are making more money, ergo they're prepared to pay more to get what they want. Which snowballs.

Another point is that the pot of money that wants to go into housing has increased greatly from where we were a decade or so ago. The central bank made it very easy for foreign investors to get into property, this was only reined in during 2016. We've had all these local people who have sold the farm, or sold businesses to foreign investors, and the total pot of money on hand to go into local real estate has swelled. There are still a huge number of wealthy investors who can still play the property market with cash, they don't need to worry about leveraging a mortgage.

Getting more housing will hopefully keep the bottom end in reach of the average worker, but there is still powerful upward forces on property. Including the fact in relative terms NZ is still cheaper than many parts of the world.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:53 am
by Monkey Magic
Having been out to flat bush today and seen all the new developments, I'm pretty confident auckland is stuffed.

Huge amounts of housing going up with 5/6 bedroom homes on narrow streets with already clogged arterial roots nearby. And as others have mentioned, little or no carparking except on the narrow street which makes future home based electric car charging impossible.

Can not see public transport getting close to caught up with the growth within 10 years

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:21 am
by booji boy
guy smiley wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:52 am Yes, I've been out since Tuesday evening.

I wandered into my favourite local cafe and was warmly greeted by my favourite waitress... heart skipped a beat, stumbled over my words, my tongue, my feet and her eyes.

Well and truly back :thumbup:
Welcome home. :thumbup:

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:10 am
by Tehui
guy smiley wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:52 am Yes, I've been out since Tuesday evening.

I wandered into my favourite local cafe and was warmly greeted by my favourite waitress... heart skipped a beat, stumbled over my words, my tongue, my feet and her eyes.

Well and truly back :thumbup:
Nau mai, haere mai.

Will you be living in Tauranga again?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:06 am
by Tehui
guy smiley wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:29 am
Tehui wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:10 am
guy smiley wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:52 am Yes, I've been out since Tuesday evening.

I wandered into my favourite local cafe and was warmly greeted by my favourite waitress... heart skipped a beat, stumbled over my words, my tongue, my feet and her eyes.

Well and truly back :thumbup:
Nau mai, haere mai.

Will you be living in Tauranga again?
Yes mate, for now...

I'm officially on three months holiday. I really don't want to go back and I'll look around here for work, depending on that search I could move but I like the Bay.
Sweet. Next time I'm heading to the Mount, I'll drop you a line on here.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:16 am
by UncleFB
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:07 pm
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:05 pm
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:09 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:53 am Rates, insurance and maintenance are all tax deductible. Are you still in a loss making situation with your rental FOG?
Our rental income still doesn't cover our costs, and like you (iirc) it was no where near it in the early days. We've tried to be good landlords. Keep the property as affordable as possible, reward good tenants. Fix any issues quickly, and absorb costs where possible. We've usually been renting out at the lower end of the market scale for our property and location, with the occasional reset when we've changed tenants.

But I'm talking in principle. Not all landlords are in our circumstances. My concern is that these sorts of changes are unworkable in many cases and may lead to decent landlords having to sell up, with the properties ending up with the the larger investors / corporate style landlords who are the source of much of this angst.

I'm pretty similar to you. When I left Dunedin, I held on to my house and have been lucky enough to rent it out to the same tenants that whole time. I don't quite make the mortgage payments from the rent (minus property management fees - too hard to manage it myself from Wellington) - maybe $10-20 a week short and that doesn't include rates and insurance. But I keep my place probably a good $50 under market rates because they're good tenants and I'd rather keep them. I've found my property managers to be really good - even accommodated and negotiated with the tenants around kitchen renovations last year. Like you, I'd suffer guilt too much if I didn't fix issues quickly and luckily the property company is onto it. I'm currently sorting out the Healthy Homes requirements.

I'm also not hugely fussed about not covering my mortgage with the rent because the house's value has more than doubled since I bought it 6 years, so if I do decide to sell it at some point... kaching!!
Same with me but it's more about maintaining my investment and keeping it in good condition rather than letting it become a rundown hovel for the sake of a few bucks. I've done all the Healthy Homes compliance too mostly in advance of the Govt deadlines. As I've mentioned to FOG previously I lived in the house quite happily for 8 years without all the upgrades the Govt is now demanding. Seems rental accommodation is held to a much higher standard than many owner occupiers enjoy.
You seem to mention this in one form or another whenever this topic comes up and I must say I've never really brought into it. This is true of other things that are rightly regulated.

When I go out for dinner I expect that the kitchen will have certain standards of cleanliness regulated by govt before they can provide that service for me. My own kitchen does not need to have these standards, although I can choose (and do) to have the highest standards of cleanliness.

As a landlord don't you think you're operating under a similar system?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:34 am
by Ted.
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:03 am
Monkey Magic wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:28 am Given the extra expense landlords will now face, I do wonder how dilapidated some places are going to end up.

Previously we have co-owned an investment property with family. When interest rates dropped we saves up the extra money to do improvements to the place with no subsequent rent rise. That is now completely off the cards, there is no way we'd be saving to update the 60s kitchen or the 90s bathroom.
The irony is ths Greens and Labour have both been forcing us to spend money to upgrade our rental properties for the past 4 years to a standard much higher than many home owners enjoy yet they take away the tax deductibility of the interest on the borrowings on these properties.

Grant Robertson, who up until now I've had a bit of time for, is really starting to piss me off. Calling tax deductibility of interest a 'loophole' is getting into Jacinda's realm of spin and is extremely disingenuous. Unless he really is that stupid that he thinks it is a loophole. But I don't think he is that stupid. Jacinda on the other hand ... I'm sure she views it as a loophole.
They're different things and you know it.

There is also nothing wrong with setting standards. That's harder to do to an exiting privately owned home, however it is disingenuous to say that it is either unfair or should not be done to homes that are a essentially a business.

It is also wrong to suggest that, because all homes are not accessible in relation to influencing much needed upgrade to our housing stock, that no homes should be accessible.

For your information, and if you had read or undetr5stood the implications of some of the previous posts on this topic, you would know that, in the relatively near future, new builds are going to be subject to increased standards as far as carbon, energy efficiency and sustainability, which, quite frankly, make what landlords have been asked to do look like chicken feed.

Another point, and using your own rationale, the government could hardly ask our largest social housing providers, HNZC and councils, upgrade their properties without looking at the wider tenanted housing stock. The housing stock in NZ is poor enough without some landlords dragging the anchor, or paying lip service to upgrading their properties with cheap, ill thought, work being done which in some instances exacerbates the problem of poorly insulated, damp, energy gobbling dwellings.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:03 am
by Fat Old Git
We put extra insulation (underfloor, and a top up in the ceiling)in our rental before it became a requirement, as we had a good opportunity to do.

But I understand Booji boy's point. We lived in our property quite happily for years before turning it into a rental. We never thought it was cold, damp or unhealthy despite having a small child.

It's suffered from dampness once since, which was simply due to a tenant deciding to use a free standing portable gas heater indoors instead of the logburner. I still can't get my head around that decision. The same tenants also didn't use the heating provided in the bathroom. They actually taped over the switch to prevent their children from using too much power.

Although there are undoubtedly many substandard properties out there, and I am supportive of the standards that have been put in place, they don't tell the full story. There are a lot of people out there who don't seem to understand how ventilation works, or how to do simple things like occasionally opening a window, or the need to turn on extractors.

Our electrician told us many landlords now get bathroom extractors connected to the light switch to ensure they are used. A trick quire a few motels seem to use as well.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:58 am
by Ted.
It's not about you being happy with it mat all FOG.

I might be happy to take risks at work off a ladder, have done so for years and being quite happy doing it. New laws came in, those laws set much higher standards of work place health and safety and cast a wider net in relation to responsibility and liability. I now don't do goosey things off a ladder, mostly, I set and example, write my SSSPs and task analysis, get buy in.I do that because I see the sense in them fir the industry and society in general, even though I see a lot of box ticking, especially by corporates. The funny thing is, at home I cans do pretty much as I like risk wise, with impunity except to my own person.

I could give you examples under strengthened consumer protections as well. The point is, if you haven't already got it, once you involve other people in your enterprise, higher standards are expected.

There's a very good reason tenants don't ventilate homes. It's very expensive.

Ventilation, opening a window, using an extractor is pretty dumb in the colder months. It negates the shiny new insulation, it will bleed energy far more effectively than insulation can retain it. The best thing you can do is make a home more air tight, that is where the most energy is lost by far, then control moisture by installing an all of house ventilation system with energy recovery (not one of the cruddy systems that are installed in most houses). A decent ventilation system with energy recovery is a better investment than a heat pump as far as energy gains per running cost.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:25 am
by booji boy
UncleFB wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:16 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:07 pm
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:05 pm
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:09 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:53 am Rates, insurance and maintenance are all tax deductible. Are you still in a loss making situation with your rental FOG?
Our rental income still doesn't cover our costs, and like you (iirc) it was no where near it in the early days. We've tried to be good landlords. Keep the property as affordable as possible, reward good tenants. Fix any issues quickly, and absorb costs where possible. We've usually been renting out at the lower end of the market scale for our property and location, with the occasional reset when we've changed tenants.

But I'm talking in principle. Not all landlords are in our circumstances. My concern is that these sorts of changes are unworkable in many cases and may lead to decent landlords having to sell up, with the properties ending up with the the larger investors / corporate style landlords who are the source of much of this angst.

I'm pretty similar to you. When I left Dunedin, I held on to my house and have been lucky enough to rent it out to the same tenants that whole time. I don't quite make the mortgage payments from the rent (minus property management fees - too hard to manage it myself from Wellington) - maybe $10-20 a week short and that doesn't include rates and insurance. But I keep my place probably a good $50 under market rates because they're good tenants and I'd rather keep them. I've found my property managers to be really good - even accommodated and negotiated with the tenants around kitchen renovations last year. Like you, I'd suffer guilt too much if I didn't fix issues quickly and luckily the property company is onto it. I'm currently sorting out the Healthy Homes requirements.

I'm also not hugely fussed about not covering my mortgage with the rent because the house's value has more than doubled since I bought it 6 years, so if I do decide to sell it at some point... kaching!!
Same with me but it's more about maintaining my investment and keeping it in good condition rather than letting it become a rundown hovel for the sake of a few bucks. I've done all the Healthy Homes compliance too mostly in advance of the Govt deadlines. As I've mentioned to FOG previously I lived in the house quite happily for 8 years without all the upgrades the Govt is now demanding. Seems rental accommodation is held to a much higher standard than many owner occupiers enjoy.
You seem to mention this in one form or another whenever this topic comes up and I must say I've never really brought into it. This is true of other things that are rightly regulated.

When I go out for dinner I expect that the kitchen will have certain standards of cleanliness regulated by govt before they can provide that service for me. My own kitchen does not need to have these standards, although I can choose (and do) to have the highest standards of cleanliness.

As a landlord don't you think you're operating under a similar system?
I think that is a really crap analogy actually. My house is catering for one family to live in it just the same as when I lived in it with my family. My kitchen feeds one family. A commercial kitchen on the other hand serves hundreds of different guests each week, served by a team of staff members and obviously requires much higher standards of hygiene, food handling, storage etc.

Not an apples with apples comparison at all.

It's residential accommodation for a single family to furnish, decorate and treat as their own. It's not a hotel.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:29 am
by booji boy
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:34 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:03 am
Monkey Magic wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:28 am Given the extra expense landlords will now face, I do wonder how dilapidated some places are going to end up.

Previously we have co-owned an investment property with family. When interest rates dropped we saves up the extra money to do improvements to the place with no subsequent rent rise. That is now completely off the cards, there is no way we'd be saving to update the 60s kitchen or the 90s bathroom.
The irony is ths Greens and Labour have both been forcing us to spend money to upgrade our rental properties for the past 4 years to a standard much higher than many home owners enjoy yet they take away the tax deductibility of the interest on the borrowings on these properties.

Grant Robertson, who up until now I've had a bit of time for, is really starting to piss me off. Calling tax deductibility of interest a 'loophole' is getting into Jacinda's realm of spin and is extremely disingenuous. Unless he really is that stupid that he thinks it is a loophole. But I don't think he is that stupid. Jacinda on the other hand ... I'm sure she views it as a loophole.
They're different things and you know it.

There is also nothing wrong with setting standards. That's harder to do to an exiting privately owned home, however it is disingenuous to say that it is either unfair or should not be done to homes that are a essentially a business.

It is also wrong to suggest that, because all homes are not accessible in relation to influencing much needed upgrade to our housing stock, that no homes should be accessible.

For your information, and if you had read or undetr5stood the implications of some of the previous posts on this topic, you would know that, in the relatively near future, new builds are going to be subject to increased standards as far as carbon, energy efficiency and sustainability, which, quite frankly, make what landlords have been asked to do look like chicken feed.

Another point, and using your own rationale, the government could hardly ask our largest social housing providers, HNZC and councils, upgrade their properties without looking at the wider tenanted housing stock. The housing stock in NZ is poor enough without some landlords dragging the anchor, or paying lip service to upgrading their properties with cheap, ill thought, work being done which in some instances exacerbates the problem of poorly insulated, damp, energy gobbling dwellings.
Wait a minute! I thought you said in an earlier post that providing a home isn't a business. Grant and Jacinda seem to agree by closing a 'loophole', the deductibility on interest costs, that is allowable in every other 'business'.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:31 am
by booji boy
Edit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:14 pm
by UncleFB
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 am What UncleFB is saying is that, just as a commercial kitchen is required to meet a minimum standard deemed reasonable for health, so is a landlord.

The fact that you may be prepared to accept a lower standard for yourself and your family suggests more about you than it does the standard.
Yep, this is a much more concise version of what I was saying. :)

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm
by Sonny Blount
People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:41 pm
by Enzedder
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.
And in some cases that would work well.

But, there are too may rogues who would take advantage of such a situation and to hell with the consequences.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:45 pm
by Fat Old Git
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:58 am It's not about you being happy with it mat all FOG.

I might be happy to take risks at work off a ladder, have done so for years and being quite happy doing it. New laws came in, those laws set much higher standards of work place health and safety and cast a wider net in relation to responsibility and liability. I now don't do goosey things off a ladder, mostly, I set and example, write my SSSPs and task analysis, get buy in.I do that because I see the sense in them fir the industry and society in general, even though I see a lot of box ticking, especially by corporates. The funny thing is, at home I cans do pretty much as I like risk wise, with impunity except to my own person.

I could give you examples under strengthened consumer protections as well. The point is, if you haven't already got it, once you involve other people in your enterprise, higher standards are expected.

There's a very good reason tenants don't ventilate homes. It's very expensive.

Ventilation, opening a window, using an extractor is pretty dumb in the colder months. It negates the shiny new insulation, it will bleed energy far more effectively than insulation can retain it. The best thing you can do is make a home more air tight, that is where the most energy is lost by far, then control moisture by installing an all of house ventilation system with energy recovery (not one of the cruddy systems that are installed in most houses). A decent ventilation system with energy recovery is a better investment than a heat pump as far as energy gains per running cost.
I think you've missed my point Ted. Especially as I did say I was supportive of the introduction of the standards.

However, to clarify, I wasn't happy to put up with a cold damp house. The point was that the house wasn't cold or damp because of the way we managed it.

And you're comments re ventilation are just silly. You don't need to have windows open for long, or extraction on all the time to prevent a home from being damp, so you're not really negating the insulation. If you have a shower on, or a pot boiling on the stove putting lots of moisture into the air than using the extraction system while you are doing that is just sensible. HVS systems are great, but are you really suggesting that any home that doesn't have one is unhealthy? That would be the vast majority of houses in NZ, including the one I currently live in, and our rental property. Both of which are warm and dry.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:49 pm
by jambanja
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 am What UncleFB is saying is that, just as a commercial kitchen is required to meet a minimum standard deemed reasonable for health, so is a landlord.

Does the commercial kitchen get to offset its costs against the tax it pays, is the rent said kitchen pays a tax deductible cost

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:34 pm
by jambanja
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:01 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:49 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 am What UncleFB is saying is that, just as a commercial kitchen is required to meet a minimum standard deemed reasonable for health, so is a landlord.

Does the commercial kitchen get to offset its costs against the tax it pays, is the rent said kitchen pays a tax deductible cost
Landlords have extensive tax deductions for expenses still available to them.
Extensive? Really, like what for example?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:04 pm
by UncleFB
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.
Sometimes you need to live in the real world Sonny. ;)

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:09 pm
by Fat Old Git
That appears a little out of date. Pretty sure you can't claim depreciation on capital expenses anymore, although you might be able to claim the up front cost as maintenance as it's usually replacing something like curtains, worn carpet, or re-painting a room, which you couldn't do before they removed it as they were considered a capital investment.

Still, the biggest expense most landlords have is interest on the mortgage. But hey, they're all evil so that doesn't matter.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:11 pm
by jambanja
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:50 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:34 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:01 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:49 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 am What UncleFB is saying is that, just as a commercial kitchen is required to meet a minimum standard deemed reasonable for health, so is a landlord.

Does the commercial kitchen get to offset its costs against the tax it pays, is the rent said kitchen pays a tax deductible cost
Landlords have extensive tax deductions for expenses still available to them.
Extensive? Really, like what for example?
Really?

https://www.ird.govt.nz/property/rentin ... deductions
the cost of insuring your rental property
the rates for the property
payments to agents who collect rent, maintain your rental, or find tenants for you
fees paid to an accountant for managing accounts, preparing tax returns and advice
repair and maintenance costs
fees for arranging a mortgage to finance the rental property
fees for drawing up a tenancy agreement
the cost of getting a valuation required to get a mortgage, but not insurance valuations
the costs of taking legal action to recover unpaid rent
the costs for evicting a tenant
mortgage repayment insurance
depreciation on capital expenses
travel expenses for travelling to inspect your property or to do repairs
legal fees involved in buying a rental property, as long as the expense is $10,000 or less.
So all told what figure would you put those costs at, because when you put them up against the interest paid on a mortgage they are 1 5th of fuckall and that's before we even begin to discuss the actual mortgage itself. So saying extensive is a bit disingenuous don't you think?
Yes there will be a return when you sell the property, but under the new system, that will also be taxed.

So landlords are being told that they have to have standards that are comparable to, to use your example, a commercial kitchen (something I agree with whole heartedly), a business, but are then being told that unlike a normal business they are not allowed to offset their most significant costs, just the minor ones, whereas the kitchen gets to offset ALL their costs, why the difference?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:26 pm
by Sonny Blount
UncleFB wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:04 pm
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.
Sometimes you need to live in the real world Sonny. ;)
I do.

The flats I rented for $50 pw at uni wouldn't pass the current regulations.

I'd still like to be able to choose the trade offs that suited me at the time, rather than have someone else make those decisions for me.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:29 pm
by Sonny Blount
Enzedder wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:41 pm
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.
And in some cases that would work well.

But, there are too may rogues who would take advantage of such a situation and to hell with the consequences.
You mean make a choice that you wouldn't.

I might see your 'rogue' situation as an opportunity. In fact I surely did as a student and I bet many others on here also rented in places that would not pass regulations now.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:39 pm
by Ted.
booji boy wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:29 am
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:34 am
booji boy wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:03 am
Monkey Magic wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:28 am Given the extra expense landlords will now face, I do wonder how dilapidated some places are going to end up.

Previously we have co-owned an investment property with family. When interest rates dropped we saves up the extra money to do improvements to the place with no subsequent rent rise. That is now completely off the cards, there is no way we'd be saving to update the 60s kitchen or the 90s bathroom.
The irony is ths Greens and Labour have both been forcing us to spend money to upgrade our rental properties for the past 4 years to a standard much higher than many home owners enjoy yet they take away the tax deductibility of the interest on the borrowings on these properties.

Grant Robertson, who up until now I've had a bit of time for, is really starting to piss me off. Calling tax deductibility of interest a 'loophole' is getting into Jacinda's realm of spin and is extremely disingenuous. Unless he really is that stupid that he thinks it is a loophole. But I don't think he is that stupid. Jacinda on the other hand ... I'm sure she views it as a loophole.
They're different things and you know it.

There is also nothing wrong with setting standards. That's harder to do to an exiting privately owned home, however it is disingenuous to say that it is either unfair or should not be done to homes that are a essentially a business.

It is also wrong to suggest that, because all homes are not accessible in relation to influencing much needed upgrade to our housing stock, that no homes should be accessible.

For your information, and if you had read or undetr5stood the implications of some of the previous posts on this topic, you would know that, in the relatively near future, new builds are going to be subject to increased standards as far as carbon, energy efficiency and sustainability, which, quite frankly, make what landlords have been asked to do look like chicken feed.

Another point, and using your own rationale, the government could hardly ask our largest social housing providers, HNZC and councils, upgrade their properties without looking at the wider tenanted housing stock. The housing stock in NZ is poor enough without some landlords dragging the anchor, or paying lip service to upgrading their properties with cheap, ill thought, work being done which in some instances exacerbates the problem of poorly insulated, damp, energy gobbling dwellings.
Wait a minute! I thought you said in an earlier post that providing a home isn't a business. Grant and Jacinda seem to agree by closing a 'loophole', the deductibility on interest costs, that is allowable in every other 'business'.
This is not a political discussion per se, all parties have been poor in this area. All parties are complicit in the mess we currently find ourselves in.

For your information, while I don't recall exactly what I said, I said housing (shelter) is a human right that should not be subsumed by business, or words to that effect. Taking those words out of context might seem clever but do nothing to address the issues.

You are most welcome to reply to the content of the post.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:40 pm
by jambanja
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:34 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:11 pm

So landlords are being told that they have to have standards that are comparable to, to use your example, a commercial kitchen (something I agree with whole heartedly), a business, but are then being told that unlike a normal business they are not allowed to offset their most significant costs, just the minor ones, whereas the kitchen gets to offset ALL their costs, why the difference?
Is being a landlord a business?
Yep, what else would it be?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:42 pm
by Ted.
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:29 pm
Enzedder wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:41 pm
Sonny Blount wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:17 pm People should be able to work to and choose their own standards.
And in some cases that would work well.

But, there are too may rogues who would take advantage of such a situation and to hell with the consequences.
You mean make a choice that you wouldn't.

I might see your 'rogue' situation as an opportunity. In fact I surely did as a student and I bet many others on here also rented in places that would not pass regulations now.
That's ok for those that have a choice. Unfortunately, applying a cut-off to those that can makes informed choices and those that are forced to accept something that is not ideal, or even unhealthy, is something that civilised governments tend to seek to influence if not apply outright control. Welcome to the real world....

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:44 pm
by jambanja
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:41 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:40 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:34 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:11 pm

So landlords are being told that they have to have standards that are comparable to, to use your example, a commercial kitchen (something I agree with whole heartedly), a business, but are then being told that unlike a normal business they are not allowed to offset their most significant costs, just the minor ones, whereas the kitchen gets to offset ALL their costs, why the difference?
Is being a landlord a business?
Yep, what else would it be?
A private investment.
So why then the- you can claim on this but not that, why are some expenses tax deductible and others not?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:52 pm
by Ted.
Fat Old Git wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:45 pm
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:58 am It's not about you being happy with it mat all FOG.

I might be happy to take risks at work off a ladder, have done so for years and being quite happy doing it. New laws came in, those laws set much higher standards of work place health and safety and cast a wider net in relation to responsibility and liability. I now don't do goosey things off a ladder, mostly, I set and example, write my SSSPs and task analysis, get buy in.I do that because I see the sense in them fir the industry and society in general, even though I see a lot of box ticking, especially by corporates. The funny thing is, at home I cans do pretty much as I like risk wise, with impunity except to my own person.

I could give you examples under strengthened consumer protections as well. The point is, if you haven't already got it, once you involve other people in your enterprise, higher standards are expected.

There's a very good reason tenants don't ventilate homes. It's very expensive.

Ventilation, opening a window, using an extractor is pretty dumb in the colder months. It negates the shiny new insulation, it will bleed energy far more effectively than insulation can retain it. The best thing you can do is make a home more air tight, that is where the most energy is lost by far, then control moisture by installing an all of house ventilation system with energy recovery (not one of the cruddy systems that are installed in most houses). A decent ventilation system with energy recovery is a better investment than a heat pump as far as energy gains per running cost.
I think you've missed my point Ted. Especially as I did say I was supportive of the introduction of the standards.

However, to clarify, I wasn't happy to put up with a cold damp house. The point was that the house wasn't cold or damp because of the way we managed it.

And you're comments re ventilation are just silly. You don't need to have windows open for long, or extraction on all the time to prevent a home from being damp, so you're not really negating the insulation. If you have a shower on, or a pot boiling on the stove putting lots of moisture into the air than using the extraction system while you are doing that is just sensible. HVS systems are great, but are you really suggesting that any home that doesn't have one is unhealthy? That would be the vast majority of houses in NZ, including the one I currently live in, and our rental property. Both of which are warm and dry.
They are not silly comments. Sure, you can rid most moisture from a house in 20 minutes of or so of ventilation, but you need to know what that does for energy loss how and effective that is in different times of the year/temperature+humidity=energy flow direction & moisture loading. Some research on hourly air change rates for the average house per era of construction would be enlightening.

When a house has not been specifically designed to be energy efficient, without serious modification there will be a trade off between energy use (heating in the main) and a healthy environment.

It's no surprise we as a country rate poorly on the health of our homes, our very high asthma rates are one example, along with overcrowding our high rates of rheumatic fever is another. That's not some bullshit spouted on a forum, but a researched fact. So yes, any home that doesn't have an effective ventilation and energy recovery system is potentially unhealthy or overly expensive to run.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:55 pm
by Ted.
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:44 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:41 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:40 pm
guy smiley wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:34 pm
jambanja wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:11 pm

So landlords are being told that they have to have standards that are comparable to, to use your example, a commercial kitchen (something I agree with whole heartedly), a business, but are then being told that unlike a normal business they are not allowed to offset their most significant costs, just the minor ones, whereas the kitchen gets to offset ALL their costs, why the difference?
Is being a landlord a business?
Yep, what else would it be?
A private investment.
So why then the- you can claim on this but not that, why are some expenses tax deductible and others not?

Good point. There seem to be some anomalies that need to be tidied up. Make all expenses non-deductible costs and tax all income and gains at the top rate. Job done. No really, I am not serious...

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:09 am
by Fat Old Git
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:52 pm
Fat Old Git wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:45 pm
Ted. wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:58 am It's not about you being happy with it mat all FOG.

I might be happy to take risks at work off a ladder, have done so for years and being quite happy doing it. New laws came in, those laws set much higher standards of work place health and safety and cast a wider net in relation to responsibility and liability. I now don't do goosey things off a ladder, mostly, I set and example, write my SSSPs and task analysis, get buy in.I do that because I see the sense in them fir the industry and society in general, even though I see a lot of box ticking, especially by corporates. The funny thing is, at home I cans do pretty much as I like risk wise, with impunity except to my own person.

I could give you examples under strengthened consumer protections as well. The point is, if you haven't already got it, once you involve other people in your enterprise, higher standards are expected.

There's a very good reason tenants don't ventilate homes. It's very expensive.

Ventilation, opening a window, using an extractor is pretty dumb in the colder months. It negates the shiny new insulation, it will bleed energy far more effectively than insulation can retain it. The best thing you can do is make a home more air tight, that is where the most energy is lost by far, then control moisture by installing an all of house ventilation system with energy recovery (not one of the cruddy systems that are installed in most houses). A decent ventilation system with energy recovery is a better investment than a heat pump as far as energy gains per running cost.
I think you've missed my point Ted. Especially as I did say I was supportive of the introduction of the standards.

However, to clarify, I wasn't happy to put up with a cold damp house. The point was that the house wasn't cold or damp because of the way we managed it.

And you're comments re ventilation are just silly. You don't need to have windows open for long, or extraction on all the time to prevent a home from being damp, so you're not really negating the insulation. If you have a shower on, or a pot boiling on the stove putting lots of moisture into the air than using the extraction system while you are doing that is just sensible. HVS systems are great, but are you really suggesting that any home that doesn't have one is unhealthy? That would be the vast majority of houses in NZ, including the one I currently live in, and our rental property. Both of which are warm and dry.
They are not silly comments. Sure, you can rid most moisture from a house in 20 minutes of or so of ventilation, but you need to know what that does for energy loss how and effective that is in different times of the year/temperature+humidity=energy flow direction & moisture loading. Some research on hourly air change rates for the average house per era of construction would be enlightening.

When a house has not been specifically designed to be energy efficient, without serious modification there will be a trade off between energy use (heating in the main) and a healthy environment. It's no surprise we as a country rate poorly on the health of our homes. That's not some bullshit spouted on a forum, but a researched fact.
Ted, I haven't argued that HVS isn't the best solution or the gold standard. I'm not disputing that at all. Just that occasionally opening a window or using extraction is "pretty dumb in the colder months". The alternative is having a damp house which is much dumber than using a little bit more heating.

I've lived in both my rental property when it had less insulation than it does now, and my current home. Neither has HVS and neither were / are cold and damp. Even in winter.