Which way will the property market go now?

[peetter]

This new rule does seem ridiculous.

However 32% increase in the national median price for a home seems over-inflated too. I would suggest that residential housing investors should provide a deposit of more than 50% plus a stamp duty of 5% or more which could be offset against any future brightline taxes payable.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...ute-data-shows

You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.

I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.

[SBQ]

You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.

I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.

If you think it's not the property investors causing the prices to rise so fast, then who do you think is pushing all the prices up so high?

Just on talk radio after picking kids up at school, there was a man complaining how at a Harcourts auction in their showroom, they wanted to bid on this house. After some fierce bidding, there was as he quoted, "A Chinese a man that informed the auctioneer that he wants to place a 20% HIGHER bid on ALL the listings there on that day". Some months later he was able to get some information on the Chinese bidder and it turned out, he flew in from Australia to buy all the houses to do none other than to rent them out.

If there are NO OTHER demand controls apart from taxation that the NZ gov't has, then what should you suggest the NZ gov't can do to swell the demand away? Specifically dividing those like that overseas buyer and the 1st home buyer group?

And if you think taxation is a horrible tool - what taxation is there on houses in NZ? ; consider how other OECD nations address the demand issue, or let me put it in another way, where else in the OECD has no form of capital gains tax on the sale of multiple houses over the long term? It's clear you know the investment landscape is strongly skewed with the top 10% (as a rough figure) of NZ's richest own nothing but real estate while the top 10% in the US or Canada amass their wealth through equity ownership of shares on the stock exchange.

I'm afraid I strongly disagree - the wealthy in NZ have got away booking huge gains with the excuse that it's their retirement nest egg (at the cost of robbing the next generation when they try to buy their 1st home). There's 1 issue when people make a lot of money in retirement through share ownership in businesses, and another entirely different issue with you turn houses (as an investment asset) into a motive of profiting.

As I mentioned before.. it doesn't matter who Labour or National was in power. The bottom line is NZ's obsession of using houses as tools to profit that spills over into gov't that these politicians themselves don't want to address the issue with real tools and real action. The way I see it, it comes down to bad gov't policy.

Also if you ask any person in the residential investment game, they will say, "It's still the best game in town". Better than any working class person stuck in Kiwi Saver. So for as long as we have this unlevel playing field in terms of taxation, you're never going to fix the house problem in NZ.

If my rants come too strong, my apologies. All I want is to hit it where it hurts to those that are in illusion to the problem.

[peetter]

If you think it's not the property investors causing the prices to rise so fast, then who do you think is pushing all the prices up so high?

Just on talk radio after picking kids up at school, there was a man complaining how at a Harcourts auction in their showroom, they wanted to bid on this house. After some fierce bidding, there was as he quoted, "A Chinese a man that informed the auctioneer that he wants to place a 20% HIGHER bid on ALL the listings there on that day". Some months later he was able to get some information on the Chinese bidder and it turned out, he flew in from Australia to buy all the houses to do none other than to rent them out.

If there are NO OTHER demand controls apart from taxation that the NZ gov't has, then what should you suggest the NZ gov't can do to swell the demand away? Specifically dividing those like that overseas buyer and the 1st home buyer group?

And if you think taxation is a horrible tool - what taxation is there on houses in NZ? ; consider how other OECD nations address the demand issue, or let me put it in another way, where else in the OECD has no form of capital gains tax on the sale of multiple houses over the long term? It's clear you know the investment landscape is strongly skewed with the top 10% (as a rough figure) of NZ's richest own nothing but real estate while the top 10% in the US or Canada amass their wealth through equity ownership of shares on the stock exchange.

I'm afraid I strongly disagree - the wealthy in NZ have got away booking huge gains with the excuse that it's their retirement nest egg (at the cost of robbing the next generation when they try to buy their 1st home). There's 1 issue when people make a lot of money in retirement through share ownership in businesses, and another entirely different issue with you turn houses (as an investment asset) into a motive of profiting.

As I mentioned before.. it doesn't matter who Labour or National was in power. The bottom line is NZ's obsession of using houses as tools to profit that spills over into gov't that these politicians themselves don't want to address the issue with real tools and real action. The way I see it, it comes down to bad gov't policy.

Also if you ask any person in the residential investment game, they will say, "It's still the best game in town". Better than any working class person stuck in Kiwi Saver. So for as long as we have this unlevel playing field in terms of taxation, you're never going to fix the house problem in NZ.

If my rants come too strong, my apologies. All I want is to hit it where it hurts to those that are in illusion to the problem.

I have no problem with proper CGT adjusted to inflation.

As for what government should do, there's plenty of better ways to deal with the issue than taxation. And if they were started 4 years ago, the rise in prices would now probably be much lower.

Rich vs poor debate - you'll never make poor rich by taking money of the rich. It has been tried many times, never worked and never will.

[Bjauck]

You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.


I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.

Tax is not the answer to everything - although an increase in tax revenue would help to boost government revenue and help repay Covid expenses and debt.


I do not think the government is blaming property investors. However they may be trying to rectify some of the imbalances in the NZ investment environment. Real estate Property investors have been acting rationally by seeking out the best investment in the NZ tax and investment environment that will provide the best after-tax returns for their risk tolerance.


Many property investors, who have been investing in residential real estate, may well have received handsome leveraged capital gains on the equity they invested. That is why I am also suggesting the non-tax rule that investors should be expected to provide a deposit of over 50% of the purchase price of their investment real estate purchases.


It would be unrealistic to expect this government to fix NZ's chronic property market malaise within a few years during a Covid pandemic. This crisis has been building up for generations and had been ignored by previous governments of red, blue and purple shades!

[fungus pudding]

Tax is not the answer to everything - although an increase in tax revenue would help to boost government revenue and help repay Covid expenses and debt.

Easily said, but it very much depends where we sit on the Laffer curve. Seems to me we are very near the peak.

[Bjauck]

Easily said, but it very much depends where we sit on the Laffer curve. Seems to me we are very near the peak.

With respect to taxation on Investor returns from residential real estate, we are nowhere near the peak. With respect to taxation of wage and salary earnings then we are more likely to be near the peak.

[winner69]

OMG bringing the Laffer Curve into the discussion.

“How high should the top personal income tax rate be?”

“Well, the Laffer curve says its got to be between 0% and 100%”

[fungus pudding]

OMG bringing the Laffer Curve into the discussion.

“How high should the top personal income tax rate be?”

“Well, the Laffer curve says its got to be between 0% and 100%”

That's a silly remark. The trick is to find the point on the curve that is most efficient; or more importantly, to recognise that raising taxes (or prices in business) does not necessarily make for increased revenue (or turnover).

P.S. Laffer sees 0% and 100% as the two known points that produce the same result. There is always a high figure and a low figure that will produce equal revenue.

[SBQ]

OMG bringing the Laffer Curve into the discussion.

“How high should the top personal income tax rate be?”

“Well, the Laffer curve says its got to be between 0% and 100%”

Capital gain on houses in NZ is not considered income and therefore, does not form in part of the tax revenue by IRD.

However, what matters to the person investing is what after tax benefit do they see? A) Buy houses or B) Kiwi Saver funds ? Historically it's always been the former that has the choice for making $ - and therefore taxation being of moot interest in the Laffer Curve (maximising efficiency).

[SBQ]

OMG bringing the Laffer Curve into the discussion.

“How high should the top personal income tax rate be?”

“Well, the Laffer curve says its got to be between 0% and 100%”

Capital gain on houses in NZ is not considered income and therefore, does not form in part of the tax revenue by IRD.

However, what matters to the person investing is what after tax benefit do they see? A) Buy houses or B) Kiwi Saver funds ? Historically it's always been the former that has the choice for making $ - and therefore taxation being of moot interest in the Laffer Curve (maximising efficiency).