If National wins ...

[artemis]

Perhaps they have been bad tenants or have bad credit records that landlords are not wishing to deal with? And single people are at the end of the queue for social housing.

I am not a landlord, but maybe some of those who advertise their houses for rent, are mainly investing for the tax free capital appreciation; maybe they can advertise their properties at a high rent as they do not need to rent out the property for a full year to be able to claim certain expenses for tax purposes? Maybe someone who has investment real estate can comment.

elZorro suggests that that homelessness is a deliberate policy of the current government. Certainly a bad tenancy or credit record will be of interest to most landlords, and not in a good way. Not sure how that is a deliberate government policy.

Single people at the end of the queue for social housing. Not so, though the demographics of the Social Housing Register have changed. Close to half of applicants are single people or couples with no children, meaning that the properties developed over many years for families (2/3/4 bedrooms) are in shorter supply for those applicants. So they may wait longer, but not because they have lower priority.

As for your last point, that actually makes little sense financially, if you think about it. Although landlords who have been bitten before might prefer to leave places vacant until decent tenants come along. Which is actually a good financial and stress-reduction decision, as even a brief glance at some of the annual tens of thousands of Tenancy Tribunal decisions will demonstrate.

[elZorro]

elZorro suggests that that homelessness is a deliberate policy of the current government. Certainly a bad tenancy or credit record will be of interest to most landlords, and not in a good way. Not sure how that is a deliberate government policy.

Single people at the end of the queue for social housing. Not so, though the demographics of the Social Housing Register have changed. Close to half of applicants are single people or couples with no children, meaning that the properties developed over many years for families (2/3/4 bedrooms) are in shorter supply for those applicants. So they may wait longer, but not because they have lower priority.

As for your last point, that actually makes little sense financially, if you think about it. Although landlords who have been bitten before might prefer to leave places vacant until decent tenants come along. Which is actually a good financial and stress-reduction decision, as even a brief glance at some of the annual tens of thousands of Tenancy Tribunal decisions will demonstrate.

I'm not a landlord either, but over the last few years I suspect the actual rental obtained from tenants would be quite secondary to the tax-free capital gains being made. Especially in places like Auckland. So as long as tenants don't wreck the place, and in that case, having the place vacant would be preferable to the likely cost of damage. I was talking to a landlord three years back, he'd had trouble renting out one of his recently purchased houses, could never find good tenants, and it would have been a tidy property. So he sold the place, and by writing a simple letter to IRD, about how he'd meant it to be long-term, trouble with tenants etc, was able to keep all the capital gain on sale, no tax to pay. The landlord thought that was quite reasonable behaviour, and I was thinking - hang on, you're a long-time Labour Party activist, and we had a capital gain policy back then. So I can understand how a capital gains tax policy won't be popular with anyone who owns rental property. Despite the fact that it would be fairer for the tax base.

Here's a sobering article 30 years on from the start of Rogernomics. This was a painful period in many provincial areas of NZ.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...30-years-later

[iceman]

EZ in my view if we ever introduce a capital gains tax, which I am not opposed to, it needs to be like our brilliant GST (or value added tax), without exemptions. It would also need to be introduced alongside a significant reduction in income tax rates.. It is the only way it will be fair and accepted by voters.

[elZorro]

EZ in my view if we ever introduce a capital gains tax, which I am not opposed to, it needs to be like our brilliant GST (or value added tax), without exemptions. It would also need to be introduced alongside a significant reduction in income tax rates.. It is the only way it will be fair and accepted by voters.

I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. In fact some younger rentiers don't even own their own home, it's seen as wasteful behaviour. So the family home has to be taken out of the loop of capital gains tax, there would be a valid for/against argument about baches though.

[Bjauck]

I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. In fact some younger rentiers don't even own their own home, it's seen as wasteful behaviour. So the family home has to be taken out of the loop of capital gains tax, there would be a valid for/against argument about baches though.

With owner occupied housing I think there are two tax issues:
1. The annual benefit of ownership of the equity is owner occupation, which is untaxed imputed rent income.
2. The Capital Value of the land and building. The change in value is not taxed annually. The Capital gain on sale is not taxed. (Any loss is not deductible).

Re:1. If imputed rent becomes taxable then an allowance would need to be made for mortgage interest, rates and repairs and maintenance etc.
Re:2. If Capital Gains are taxed then capital costs should be deductible. It may be unfair to tax capital gains when the cost of a replacement home would have gone up by the same amount. However, the inflation component of the return from term deposits (& other investments) is already taxed.

[elZorro]

With owner occupied housing I think there are two tax issues:
1. The annual benefit of ownership of the equity is owner occupation, which is untaxed imputed rent income.
2. The Capital Value of the land and building. The change in value is not taxed annually. The Capital gain on sale is not taxed. (Any loss is not deductible).

Re:1. If imputed rent becomes taxable then an allowance would need to be made for mortgage interest, rates and repairs and maintenance etc.
Re:2. If Capital Gains are taxed then capital costs should be deductible. It may be unfair to tax capital gains when the cost of a replacement home would have gone up by the same amount. However, the inflation component of the return from term deposits (& other investments) is already taxed.

Sorry, Bjauck, I'd like to make a rebuttal, I'm not even sure what your comment is about.
When I see the word "imputed", my eyes glaze over

[Bjauck]

Sorry, Bjauck, I'd like to make a rebuttal, I'm not even sure what your comment is about.
When I see the word "imputed", my eyes glaze over

Imputed tax credits on NZ dividends make your eyes glaze over?? Article on imputed rents:
Imputed rent: a big hidden tax break for homeowners - Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/i...16-9?r=US&IR=T

[dobby41]

So he sold the place, and by writing a simple letter to IRD, about how he'd meant it to be long-term, trouble with tenants etc, was able to keep all the capital gain on sale, no tax to pay.

The 'brightline test' has solved that one - he'd pay tax now!

[winner69]

Greens extending their joint venture with Labour into a so called Budget Responsibility regime is a cop out

Haven't they bought into neoliberalism by doing so

So we have Greens / Labour / National with much the same philophosy - only one party will win out of that lot and that's National. Why go with the others

[elZorro]

Greens extending their joint venture with Labour into a so called Budget Responsibility regime is a cop out

Haven't they bought into neoliberalism by doing so

So we have Greens / Labour / National with much the same philophosy - only one party will win out of that lot and that's National. Why go with the others

You're a real stirrer, W69. Must be a quiet day..

The Greens and Labour had to put up a budget responsibility regime to head off National's attack bears. It's a good move.

Don't see what that has to do with neoliberalism. Labour half renounces it, the Greens were never keen on it.

Philosophical differences: suggest you check each party's website and have a look at their policies. There are differences, big ones.

As for National? Toby Manhire very sharp and onto it on Friday in the Herald. Good for a laugh. You know that in most humour there is an element of truth.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11828695