If National wins ...

[artemis]

Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.

I'm picking you are not a landlord as you are not coming from a position of knowledge. Or if you are, not one of those who lodged 90% of applications against tenants in the Tenancy Tribunal last year. Most for rent arrears and/or damage some of which will never be recovered and some drip fed over years if the landlord is lucky. Not to mention vacancy time while repairs are done, and the significant hassle factor. Landlords have to give 90 days notice (usually) for a periodic tenant at the moment, tenants 21 days which works in the tenant's favour.

IRD has said publicly that residential rental owners are not advantaged for tax compared to commercial / far / business owners. And in fact they are disadvantaged since building depreciation was removed for residential rentals.

[Bjauck]

The landlord is not running a motel business. Surety of income is essential for the low margins in residential market.

It is not a investment in short-stay accommodation but an investment in long-term family homes. Do the low margins include the capital appreciation on their investment? Some investors setting off losses against their other income in the expectation of capital appreciation?

If landlord agrees to a short term - then that is what it is. The tenant can't have it both ways, that is not committing to a term and having the landlord not able to control his investment or plan his next move. Nothing fair about that.

Unlike with investment in a term deposit or a parcel of shares, the Landlords investment becomes someone else's home. If some of the requirements to be able to rent out residential property include 12 month assured tenancy for the tenant, then landlords should take that into account in assessing whether a residential investment is for them. Do you think that would dampen demand by investors for properties? An assured tenancy could actually mean some tenants have extra commitment to the property, which could be an advantage for landowners.

Residential rentals are not among the most unaffordable in the world. Outside of Auckland they are not really expensive. Even Auckland is pretty much in line with the largest cities in most countries. The return to investors is no more 'tax efficient' as you put it than any other investment in spite of persistent claims from many quarters.

NZ does have a high house price to rent ratio but also a high house price to income ratio. Is it because landlords are happy to receive a low yield on their capital in the expectation of capital appreciation (there is no CGT in NZ)? Is it because of the ability of geared landlords to offset losses against other income? The result of landlords accepting a lower rent yield is that house prices are more expensive relative to average incomes making them less affordable for owner occupiers to buy.


http://unconditional.co.nz/michaelfo...income-ratios/

If I were a tenant wanting a lease but not sure about length of tenancy I would negotiate a short term lease with a right, or rights of renewal. Such a lease could be structured at an initial high rental with renewals at a lower rent. That would compensate the landlord if the tenant did not exercise any ROR.

Sounds OK but I would suggest it should be compulsory for the LL to provide such a tenancy for at least a year. Good idea to start of with a higher monthly rent and gradually decrease if the right to renewal is taken up by the tenant.

[Bjauck]

I'm picking you are not a landlord as you are not coming from a position of knowledge. Or if you are, not one of those who lodged 90% of applications against tenants in the Tenancy Tribunal last year. Most for rent arrears and/or damage some of which will never be recovered and some drip fed over years if the landlord is lucky. Not to mention vacancy time while repairs are done, and the significant hassle factor. Landlords have to give 90 days notice (usually) for a periodic tenant at the moment, tenants 21 days which works in the tenant's favour.....

No I do not have any experience of being a landlord. I would definitely not like the hassle. I would prefer term deposits with their lower return and non-existent capital appreciation over the years compared with the average rental property.

As said above, it is the investor's investment but the tenants' home, so isn't it fair enough that the LL has to give the tenants a longer notice period?

[westerly]

Society is quite capable of organising itself, especially if the gummint don't try and 'help'.
Regional development schemes (picking winners) can never deliver the same results as the free market.

I have always thought that by electing a Govt. democratic societies were organising themselves. Perhaps I am mistaken.
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.

westerly

[Bjauck]

...
As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.

westerly

At least the free market has given us pay tv , internet tv, free video streaming sites. The TV licence fee is a thing of the past. Back in the day Kiwis had to pay for the privilege of being able to receive the government owned stations. Whereas TV One had the highbrow UK dramas and documentaries - now you can find some of them on several channels. Good to see that NZ Mastermind and NZ University Challenge are back on the telly - maybe with multi-channels we are starting to get more choice? A good audience for a program these days is considerably less than it used to be.

[neopoleII]

As for the free market, television and private radio in NZ seem to prove that myth completely wrong. The more competition, the more rubbish they offer, and the more their audience declines.
maybe so......... but at least the "free viewers and listeners" have a choice at what to view and listen to....... or we could have state controlled media....... luckily living in this land there is choice.... some lands have state controlled media pumping out state controlled "propaganda".
having said that i might have misunderstood your point of view...... but i dont think so.
freedom of choice and freedom of expression and freedom to vote is the cornerstone of democracy
in my opinion anyway.

[fungus pudding]

The way NZ organises iitself seems to be (in order): Family matriarchy or patriarchy - service clubs/parishes - city council - mayors - House of Reps - PM - GG - Betty Britain - APEC. They all have their spheres of responsibility.

At least the free market has given us pay tv , internet tv, free video streaming sites. The TV licence fee is a thing of the past. Back in the day Kiwis had to pay for the privilege of being able to receive the government owned stations. Whereas TV One had the highbrow UK dramas and documentaries - now you can find some of them on several channels. Good to see that NZ Mastermind and NZ University Challenge are back on the telly .

Yes, except Peter Williams will never be Peter Sinclair - who was possibly our most professional TV presenter ever.

[neopoleII]

please lets not go down the peter sinclair path..... that was when NZ went from presenters were presenters to presenters ARE fair game for sleaze and innuendo and trash gossip.
the innocence of private lives of television presenters was destroyed in that era. and NZ has never been the same since.
not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
but publicity has had it skirt lifted for all time now.

[elZorro]

John Key's old speeches are being purged from the National Party website. Small wonder.

http://thestandard.org.nz/john-key-u...n-new-zealand/

[Bjauck]

Yes, except Peter Williams will never be Peter Sinclair - who was possibly our most professional TV presenter ever.

Angela D'Audney was a good presenter. I thought Peter Williams has been impressive delivering some of the long and technical questions. The new University Challenge presenter was quite difficult to follow when he spoke quickly.