NZ 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...

[Bjauck]

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that planning for home ownership while there are two incomes and shared expenses is rather more likely to result in home ownership than in life long renting in private or social housing. This is not new.

Feel free to disagree but suggest that first check out the examples and anecdotes in the N&S article, including which organisations have provided them and see if you think there is an agenda running. Ask yourself how many of the thousands of first home owners who buy each and every month were interviewed about how they did it. Apparently "according to one estimate, 70 per cent of first-home buyers need the Bank of Mum and Dad to help with a deposit" - we are not told who estimated this, or based on what.
Are there stats on the average age of first home buyers and on the average age of first time mothers, who own their own home. I suspect aspiring geriatric mothers (age 35+) are more common as result of delayed motherhood becoming more frequent as couples struggle to afford a suitable stable home, without being dependent on a Landlord's agenda. Although only anecdotal I know of several situations like that.

[Aaron]

Wow $1million average. Save a $200,000 deposit and take on an $800,000 mortgage.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/40139

Quotes from the article.

Arthur Grimes, former chairman of the Reserve Bank and a former board member of the Financial Markets Authority, said the situation was “crazy”.

“It’s appalling to pay [$1m] to get an average house in New Zealand, in a country with huge amounts of spare land and not much population,” he said.

“It just comes back to intergenerational inequality. The haves just get richer and the have-nots get poorer and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.”

Focus on building

Nick Tuffley, the ASB’s chief economist, said that for first home buyers, access to the “bank of mum and dad” mattered a lot more.

“That’s where it’s turning it into the fortunate remain fortunate but the unfortunate are finding that bottom rung just keeps lifting away from them,” he said.

A focus needed to be placed on bringing down the cost of building houses, he said, pointing out that other countries were able to mass produce homes much better than we do.


I wonder what Arthur Grimes thinks we can do. He has said take the inflation target back to 0-2%. I wonder if he has any other solutions.

[TeslaGod]

Wow $1million average. Save a $200,000 deposit and take on an $800,000 mortgage.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/40139

Quotes from the article.

Arthur Grimes, former chairman of the Reserve Bank and a former board member of the Financial Markets Authority, said the situation was “crazy”.

“It’s appalling to pay [$1m] to get an average house in New Zealand, in a country with huge amounts of spare land and not much population,” he said.

“It just comes back to intergenerational inequality. The haves just get richer and the have-nots get poorer and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.”

Focus on building

Nick Tuffley, the ASB’s chief economist, said that for first home buyers, access to the “bank of mum and dad” mattered a lot more.

“That’s where it’s turning it into the fortunate remain fortunate but the unfortunate are finding that bottom rung just keeps lifting away from them,” he said.

A focus needed to be placed on bringing down the cost of building houses, he said, pointing out that other countries were able to mass produce homes much better than we do.


I wonder what Arthur Grimes thinks we can do. He has said take the inflation target back to 0-2%. I wonder if he has any other solutions.

He has some good points,I found this doctor he has some even better points.

https://youtu.be/M63C14437rQ

[artemis]

Wow $1million average. Save a $200,000 deposit and take on an $800,000 mortgage.......

Yes it is a bit crazy, but the median sale price across the country is a tad less than a mill (REINZ). That means half sales are under the median. So the first thing is to consider buying a first home in that half. Of course tens of thousands FHBs manage to buy each year.

Household of DINKs in my family, both under 25, have well over $100k (and rising) in Kiwisaver between them. They have a plan.

[TeslaGod]

Wow $1million average. Save a $200,000 deposit and take on an $800,000 mortgage.
.

"Yet, figures from OneRoof’s data partner Valocity show that first home buyers are still active in the market. In fact, their share of new mortgage registrations has barely changed over the last two years, dropping less than two percentage points from their 40.7% share in the third quarter of 2019 to 38.9%."


1mil isn't actually a significant amount compared to M3 money supply in the system.

[dobby41]

For those who don't already own substantial equity in a house, then owning a house with today's valuations is being wealthy?

With the current highly inflated values, unmortgaged home owners may have the option of downsizing and investing or selling, renting and investing. Moreover for those who already own a house and then inherit other ones, that will be where the wealth may also amass.


"Yet, figures from OneRoof’s data partner Valocity show that first home buyers are still active in the market. In fact, their share of new mortgage registrations has barely changed over the last two years, dropping less than two percentage points from their 40.7% share in the third quarter of 2019 to 38.9%."

Of course, not everyone is buying the 'average' home - half are buying below 'average' homes so don't need so much deposit.

[fungus pudding]

"Yet, figures from OneRoof’s data partner Valocity show that first home buyers are still active in the market. In fact, their share of new mortgage registrations has barely changed over the last two years, dropping less than two percentage points from their 40.7% share in the third quarter of 2019 to 38.9%."


1mil isn't actually a significant amount compared to M3 money supply in the system.

That couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant.

[TeslaGod]

That couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant.

It's irrelevant to you because you don't understand how money in the system works.

[TeslaGod]

Of course, not everyone is buying the 'average' home - half are buying below 'average' homes so don't need so much deposit.

Arron want's his first home to be above average with a short walk to Ponsonby cafés.

[Aaron]

That couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant.

I don't know. I thought inflation was always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon(milton friedman)

A graph of the NZ money Supply M3 from 1977 to 2020 (I think)

https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m3#:~:text=Money%20Supply%20M3%20in%20New%20Zealan d%20averaged%20113091.96%20NZD%20Million,Million%2 0in%20March%20of%201977.

A graph of NZ house prices.

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-house-price-values

I think FP is arguing that it is just a matter of supply and demand, and investment in houses has been lagging population growth no doubt, but there also seems to be a correlation between money supply and house prices and an inverse relationship to interest rates. Central banks might be creating significant inflation but not in the CPI.

[Aaron]

Arron want's his first home to be above average with a short walk to Ponsonby cafés.

True, first home buyers should not be expecting to buy the average NZ house they do have to start on the bottom rung provided it hasn't already been taken away. Sadly my first home was a lot less than average.

And as Artemis has pointed out you could forgo having a family to buy a house. Not having kids is a great financial decision. Probably good for climate change as well but misses the point of life IMHO.

[TeslaGod]

Since I obviously own the most property on this forum I believe I have the most insight and expertise on this matter.

1 million for a house in a wealthy developed nation like NZ is a bargain.

As technology advances, productivity will increase, this will drive down consumer price inflation.

As the cost of living becomes cheaper by the end of the decade, the excess cash will flow into asset prices like property, shares.

The average Auckland house price will hit 8 figures over the next few decades.

[Aaron]

Since I obviously own the most property on this forum I believe I have the most insight and expertise on this matter.

1 million for a house in a wealthy developed nation like NZ is a bargain.

As technology advances, productivity will increase, this will drive down consumer price inflation.

As the cost of living becomes cheaper by the end of the decade, the excess cash will flow into asset prices like property, shares.

The average Auckland house price will hit 8 figures over the next few decades.

Sounds like a central bankers wet dream.

What will money supply and interest rates do over the next few decades?

[TeslaGod]

Sounds like a central bankers wet dream.

What will money supply and interest rates do over the next few decades?

Negative interest rates leading to an increase in the money supply and devaluation of the dollar.

[dobby41]

Since I obviously own the most property on this forum I believe I have the most insight and expertise on this matter.

Self-proclaimed but you have no idea really!

[Bjauck]

Since I obviously own the most property on this forum I believe I have the most insight and expertise on this matter. I presume you mean real estate. Certainly you have produced a lot of posts saying you own a lot of property. Move over Narcissus? However, Kudos to you if you built up a portfolio from nothing and if it was based on your particular expertise.

1 million for a house in a wealthy developed nation like NZ is a bargain. Most of that million is for the land. Is NZ really a developed nation if such a great percentage of its people's investment equity ends up paying for land? It sounds like the opposite of a developed nation to me.


As technology advances, productivity will increase, this will drive down consumer price inflation. You have to invest in that technology though - and not discourage it through the fiscal and monetary settings. In NZ the biggest untaxed rewards come from investing in land?


As the cost of living becomes cheaper by the end of the decade, the excess cash will flow into asset prices like property, shares. Certainly at the moment falling and low interest rates and the divergence in the distribution of wealth seem to have enabled the wealthier to invest more into assets.

[artemis]

True, first home buyers should not be expecting to buy the average NZ house they do have to start on the bottom rung provided it hasn't already been taken away. Sadly my first home was a lot less than average.

And as Artemis has pointed out you could forgo having a family to buy a house. Not having kids is a great financial decision. Probably good for climate change as well but misses the point of life IMHO.

Should I have referred to DINKYs? Double income, no kids yet.

[fungus pudding]

True, first home buyers should not be expecting to buy the average NZ house they do have to start on the bottom rung provided it hasn't already been taken away. Sadly my first home was a lot less than average.

And as Artemis has pointed out you could forgo having a family to buy a house. Not having kids is a great financial decision. Probably good for climate change as well but misses the point of life IMHO.

Maybe for you, but certainly not for all.

[TeslaGod]

Great news everyone, I have just finalized property values across my entire Realestate portfolio and they have have increased 42% year on year.

So many options, so many choices and so much freedom (when the borders open).. I wonder how crypto crudes deposit for his first home is going?

[Bjauck]

Great news everyone, I have just finalized property values across my entire Realestate portfolio and they have have increased 42% year on year.

So many options, so many choices and so much freedom (when the borders open).. I wonder how crypto crudes deposit for his first home is going? Good increases. Gross increases or increase in your equity? How were they valued?

[dobby41]

Good increases. Gross increases or increase in your equity? How were they valued?

Are they real and does it matter?

[TeslaGod]

Good increases. Gross increases or increase in your equity? How were they valued?

Equity ,I used Valocity and Valuit for tax purposes , was very impressed by the growth although not that surprised.

[TeslaGod]

Are they real and does it matter?

Just because you own a holiday home in Gore doesn't put you on my level.

[dobby41]

Just because you own a holiday home in Gore doesn't put you on my level.

How did you know that?
The fact that the holiday home is worth a mint being an underground, doomsday, bunker means nothing.

Hollow vessels make the most noise, TeslaGod, and very noisy you are!

[artemis]

Equity ,I used Valocity and Valuit for tax purposes , was very impressed by the growth although not that surprised.

Well done you. I hope most if not all the gains were free of capital gains
tax.

[Bjauck]

How did you know that?
The fact that the holiday home is worth a mint being an underground, doomsday, bunker means nothing.

Hollow vessels make the most noise, TeslaGod, and very noisy you are!

;)
Luxury Bunkers or subterranean phallus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqCjfBaoskI

[SBQ]

Meanwhile in Vancouver:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/15/proposed-eight-storey-89-unit-development-in-west-vancouver-moves-to-public-hearing.html

"A proposal for an eight-storey West Coast modern designed residential building that will “frame the gateway to West Vancouver” and offer rental housing is moving ahead to a public hearing."

C'mon Auckland, where are your multi-story high rise projects? The RMA got you blocked?

[dobby41]

C'mon Auckland, where are your multi-story high rise projects? The RMA got you blocked?

The Ted Mason Foundation managed to build this
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/going-up-in-the-world-out-west/FWDJSDBYLEHZJST6W22XQLMWRE/
The Westlight complex - it can be done.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/441079/auckland-housing-250-new-homes-officially-opened
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2104/S00159/more-aucklanders-get-a-place-to-call-home-as-government-delivers-on-housing.htm

[SBQ]

The Ted Mason Foundation managed to build this
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/going-up-in-the-world-out-west/FWDJSDBYLEHZJST6W22XQLMWRE/
The Westlight complex - it can be done.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/441079/auckland-housing-250-new-homes-officially-opened
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2104/S00159/more-aucklanders-get-a-place-to-call-home-as-government-delivers-on-housing.htm

That is exactly the problem. It can be done but is rarely done in practice. Please excuse my repetitiveness as many new members in the forum do not know how to sift through the pages so here's a re-quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/they-allowed-the-perfect-storm-un-expert-damns-new-zealands-housing-crisis


"When Leilani Farha touches down in a new city, the first thing the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing does is look up.


In Melbourne, Toronto, London and Dublin, the skies above are filled with cranes, Farha says, soaring across the skylineto construct new homes for their booming populations.

Last week Farha arrived in Wellington on a fact-finding mission, lured by the headlines of a housing crisis, chronic homelessness, and motels bulging with desperate families for months at a time – all occurring with a new progressive government at the helm.


“I didn’t see cranes in the sky, which is suggestive of not a lot of development – that struck me right away,” says Farha, a plain-talking Canadian. “They allowed the perfect storm, and that’s successive governments. It’s really a bit tragic. It’s a human rights crisis.”



Meanwhile here in Christchurch we have some anti-competitiveness in the land development going on here:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/126363010/woolworths-housing-and-supermarket-development-approved-by-environment-court


The council largely supported the project if some conditions were met, but two neighbouring landowners, Spreydon Lodge Ltd and Halswell Timber Ltd, objected to it....
Spreydon Lodge is a land developer that owns the land to the north of Woolworths’ site and has resource consent to build shops and food and drink outlets.

It opposed Woolworths’ project on multiple ground, including its scale and location.

The court agreed with Woolworths’ claim that Spreydon Lodge was a competitor, but said it could only consider environmental effects of the project, not commercial effects.


You see even as neighbours where you're both doing land development, you would think all is good for society when land is at a premium for building. How is it so bad when there is such a massive shortage in lots to build houses on? It seems Spreydon Lodge is complaining because they didn't get their shopping complex up and going before the bigger fish 'Countdown' came along and bought the neighbouring section. As a matter of interest, Spreydon Lodge received building consent I think nearly 4 years ago but locals tell me the price of their sections were way too high. So the end result is clear when each time I pass by looking down at their building progress... it's been painfully slow. Too slow that Countdown said OK - we're gonna do something about this. Though the litigation was in the works for nearly 3 years - maybe that was the reason why they did not commence on their shopping complex?

[TeslaGod]

SBQ did I mention that my large real estate portfolio increased in value of 43% year on year?

Oh silly me yes I did say that .

Perhaps you can tell Leilani Farha to Farha off back to the United Nations that nobody really listened too or cares about.

[SBQ]

SBQ did I mention that my large real estate portfolio increased in value of 43% year on year?

Oh silly me yes I did say that .

Perhaps you can tell Leilani Farha to Farha off back to the United Nations that nobody really listened too or cares about.

I don't think anyone really cares how well you've done owning real estate. The point in discussion is how to make houses more affordable for growing families and future generations. The people in your camp are part of the problem that keep houses unaffordable. Fortunately there's more to this world than NZ ; as Bernard Hickey would describe, those in NZ with no hope should move to Australia.

[artemis]

I don't think anyone really cares how well you've done owning real estate. The point in discussion is how to make houses more affordable for growing families and future generations. The people in your camp are part of the problem that keep houses unaffordable. Fortunately there's more to this world than NZ ; as Bernard Hickey would describe, those in NZ with no hope should move to Australia.

Planning for stable housing before the growing family helps.

[iceman]

SBQ did I mention that my large real estate portfolio increased in value of 43% year on year?

Oh silly me yes I did say that .

Perhaps you can tell Leilani Farha to Farha off back to the United Nations that nobody really listened too or cares about.

No you didn't. last time you bragged in a post it was 42%. So which number is right if either of them are ?

[TeslaGod]

No you didn't. last time you bragged in a post it was 42%. So which number is right if either of them are ?
It's actually between 37% and 48% . So pick a number or a property, it doesn't really matter it's all gravy to me.

And I'm not bragging

Ok yes I am !

[Bjauck]

Planning for stable housing before the growing family helps. So given our failure to provide adequate affordable stable healthy housing for nurturing the next generation, then it looks like Aotearoa would have to rely even more heavily on immigration after Covid restrictions are eased. As those young NZ couples who want a family will continue to be forced to move overseas to access affordable quality housing.

And, If people oppose the policy of relying on immigration to cope with failures in housing and fiscal and economic management, they will be labelled racist?

[fungus pudding]

It's actually between 37% and 48% . So pick a number or a property, it doesn't really matter it's all gravy to me.

And I'm not bragging

Ok yes I am !

What steps are you taking with the 39% tax rate about to kick in? Any suggestions?

[TeslaGod]

What steps are you taking with the 39% tax rate about to kick in? Any suggestions?

I don't earn an income, I run an LTC

[dobby41]

I don't earn an income, I run an LTC

So you earn the companies income.

[TeslaGod]

So you earn the companies income.

No the LTC helps pay for outgoings.

I have a 7 figure credit facility, it's not an income.

[fungus pudding]

No the LTC helps pay for outgoings.

I have a 7 figure credit facility, it's not an income.

Somewhere along the line you will be whacked with the extra tax though, unless your or your ltc's company earnings fall short of 180k. Thought you might have a suggestion or two.

[Panda-NZ-]

Somewhere along the line you will be whacked with the extra tax though, unless your or your ltc's company earnings fall short of 180k. Thought you might have a suggestion or two.

I have one, pay your tax obligations.

[fungus pudding]

I have one, pay your tax obligations.

I certainly will as I always have. But I will not pay more than I am legally obliged to. However I'm quite happy for you to pay as much as you like.

[dobby41]

No the LTC helps pay for outgoings.

I have a 7 figure credit facility, it's not an income.

A play on words I think.
Company profit becomes your profit - income.

[TeslaGod]

Somewhere along the line you will be whacked with the extra tax though, unless your or your ltc's company earnings fall short of 180k. Thought you might have a suggestion or two.

Unless they put up the corporate tax rate even if they did, It doesn't worry me so because like I said I don't earn an income.

[Panda-NZ-]

Unless they put up the corporate tax rate even if they did, It doesn't worry me so because like I said I don't earn an income.

Companies don't pay tax on their NZ derived revenue (imputation).

The company tax hike would hit foreign shareholders.

[TeslaGod]

I have one, pay your tax obligations.

The LTC has tax obligations , I don't.

I don't have a job or earn an income.

Credit facilities, margin and capital gains is my (income) and you can't tax it.

[Panda-NZ-]

GST will find you and hunt you down...

It will be a token amount probably but its something.

[dobby41]

The LTC has tax obligations , I don't.


Either you are playing with words or don't understand what a LTC (Look Through Company) is.
Profits and (ringfenced) losses drop to the shareholder.
The tax obligations become the shareholders.
That is the basis of LTCs.

[TeslaGod]

GST will find you and hunt you down...

It will be a token amount probably but its something.

I'll be sure to wipe my crocodile tears with all the new money Adrian Orr just printed.

[TeslaGod]

Tell me something I don't know dobby41

[dobby41]

Tell me something I don't know dobby41

Well, that went around in a circle?
So you have tax obligations and your company doesn't.

[dobby41]

deleted deleted

[TeslaGod]

Well, that went around in a circle?
So you have tax obligations and your company doesn't.

Your over thinking things.

Some years I have tax to pay most years I have none, sometimes I even get tax rebates lol..the point to the original question is your a mug if you're paying 39% and 15% in gst . Thats 54% sent straight to the Wellington coffers.

[dobby41]

Your over thinking things.

Some years I have tax to pay most years I have none, sometimes I even get tax rebates lol..the point to the original question is your a mug if you're paying 39% and 15% in gst . Thats 54% sent straight to the Wellington coffers.

So you do (sometimes) have tax obligations rather than

The LTC has tax obligations , I don't.

[TeslaGod]

So you do (sometimes) have tax obligations rather than

Correct and I don't really on the income.

Although I reiterate, I have access to 7 figures in credit and margin facilities between 2.5% and 5% interest.

No tax, definitely not 39%

[fungus pudding]

Correct and I don't really on the income.

Although I reiterate, I have access to 7 figures in credit and margin facilities between 2.5% and 5% interest.

No tax, definitely not 39%

A LTC will not save you from that marginal tax rate if the income is there, nor will access to credit - which almost everyone has. And I'm not sure what that's got to do with your tax.

[TeslaGod]

A LTC will not save you from that marginal tax rate if the income is there.

I don't earn an income.

[TeslaGod]

I don't earn an income.

Working for an income is sooo 1998

[fungus pudding]

Working for an income is sooo 1998

If you or your LTC earn an income, one or the other will pay tax.

[TeslaGod]

If you or your LTC earn an income, one or the other will pay tax.

Tell that to my accountant.

[fungus pudding]

Tell that to my accountant.

I will. What's his name and email address?


I should add - i enquired from my own accountant some years back about an LTC structure, and while I've forgotten the pros and cons, which weren't all that simple, I couldn't see any advantage, or if any there was any there was a disadvantage outweighing it. But it's all a bit hazy now. Tell your accountant if he can structure my affairs to avoid the new marginal rate then he almost certainly has a new client. 33% - was as much as I could live with, having already been though Muldoon's 66% tax nonsense of a few years back (1982).

[artemis]

Working for an income is sooo 1998

LOL. Since this is a share oriented site I'm sure most here know it is easy enough for a non-trader to bypass taxed income in favour of tax free capital gains. And in recent years same with property / lines of credit. No need to work. Clearly you are well aware TeslaGod!

I do sometimes wonder why some are so keen on divvies, imputed or not. Interested to hear views on that.

[fungus pudding]

LOL. Since this is a share oriented site I'm sure most here know it is easy enough for a non-trader to bypass taxed income in favour of tax free capital gains.


But it isn't that simple if the taxman decides he doesn't like your modus operandi, and he most definitely won't like it if it passes under his nose, as it inevitably will one day according to the law of averages. He draws names out of a barrell - a much smaller one than the lotto man uses with far fewer marbles, and applies a unique checking method know as 'the taxman sniff test'.

[artemis]

But it isn't that simple if the taxman decides he doesn't like your modus operandi, and he most definitely won't like it if it passes under his nose, as it inevitably will one day according to the law of averages. He draws names out of a barrell - a much smaller one than the lotto man uses with far fewer marbles, and applies a unique checking method know as 'the taxman sniff test'.

What is wrong with living off capital, if not a trader in the IRD definition? Very standard financial advice.

[dobby41]

What is wrong with living off capital, if not a trader in the IRD definition? Very standard financial advice.

Ultimately there is some dribbly dividend income to pay tax on.
Of course, this isn't good for the country but GST helps to take care of some of that.

[fungus pudding]

What is wrong with living off capital, if not a trader in the IRD definition? Very standard financial advice.
It might depend how the capital was obtained. Why was original capital invested for little or no return? Don't bother answering. The taxman will do that for you.

[Aaron]

I think what TeslaGod is suggesting is that he pays interest to the banks rather than tax to the govt. Meaning he is highly leveraged and relies on central bank intervention to succeed by pushing up asset prices and inflating away debt. This is funny from someone who sees govt and taxes as evil.
It has been working for over three decades now so no reason to think it will stop.

[TeslaGod]

I think what TeslaGod is suggesting is that he pays interest to the banks rather than tax to the govt. Meaning he is highly leveraged and relies on central bank intervention to succeed by pushing up asset prices and inflating away debt. This is funny from someone who sees govt and taxes as evil.
It has been working for over three decades now so no reason to think it will stop.

You are correct apart from that I am highly leveraged which I am not.

[Aaron]

You are correct apart from that I am highly leveraged which I am not.

Then you must be buying property at ridiculously low yields with interest rates so low.

[fungus pudding]

You are correct apart from that I am highly leveraged which I am not.

So how do you survive week to week, meeting living expenses and avoid tax? Sure, you can borrow against assets, creating a non tax-effective loan, but it opens up the possiblity of some fairly hefty dialogue with the taxman.

[TeslaGod]

Then you must be buying property at ridiculously low yields with interest rates so low.

I built up a large real estate and share portfolio over the last 20 years, no secret and wasn't that hard although I doubt many could do it today with all the regulations.

[TeslaGod]

So how do you survive week to week, meeting living expenses and avoid tax? Sure, you can borrow against assets, creating a non tax-effective loan, but it opens up the possiblity of some fairly hefty dialogue with the taxman.

We have 2 black credit cards which are magically paid off on the 1st of every month.

Which reminds me..

I have far too much airpoints and need an overseas holiday from my early retirement.

[fungus pudding]

We have 2 black credit cards which are magically paid off on the 1st of every month.



That doesn't explain a thing.

[iamaskier]

We have 2 black credit cards which are magically paid off on the 1st of every month.

Which reminds me..

I have far too much airpoints and need an overseas holiday from my early retirement.

Oh look, it's the very stable genius again!

[TeslaGod]

Oh look, it's the very stable genius again!

My net worth is extremely stable

How stable is your job or should I say how stable is your boss.

[fungus pudding]

My net worth is extremely stable

How stable is your job or should I say how stable is your boss.

How about explaining your credit card / tax avoidance theory!

[TeslaGod]

How about explaining your credit card / tax avoidance theory!
What's theoretical about living off the tax free capital from my assets?

[TeslaGod]

How about explaining your credit card / tax avoidance theory!

And it's not tax avoidance.

You can't tax capital gains of shares

You can't tax a credit or margin facility.

[fungus pudding]

And it's not tax avoidance.

You can't tax capital gains of shares

You can't tax a credit or margin facility.

If you are avoiding tax by legal means, it's tax avoidance. There are many tax avoidance schemes in operation. I was hoping you would describe this credit card scheme which you say avoids tax but now say it isn't tax avoidance. Furthermore the profit made (aka capital gained) on trading by habitual share traders is taxed at traders marginal rates.
Of course you can't tax a crwedit line. It's simply an arrangement with a lender and doesn't even mean there has been any sort of transaction, so there is nothing to tax..

[Bjauck]

I built up a large real estate and share portfolio over the last 20 years, no secret and wasn't that hard although I doubt many could do it today with all the regulations. One certainly wonders how much capital values can increase for this point on. It must have taken a bit of risk taking and skill. Certainly you have posted a lot about it and how much it has returned for you in capital gains on this thread - presumably revelling in a bit of schadenfreude in the 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...thread?

[TeslaGod]

One certainly wonders how much capital values can increase for this point on. It must have taken a bit of risk taking and skill. Certainly you have posted a lot about it and how much it has returned for you in capital gains on this thread - presumably revelling in a bit of schadenfreude in the 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...thread?

Risk? Possibly.

Greed definitely.

First home buyers just need to know the truth.

They need to understand how the world really works

(Or not if they choose)

Unlike lies and teddy bears in the window from Wellington.

If I were a first time home buyer reading my posts, I wouldn't be getting angry I'd be figuring out how to get even .

[Baa_Baa]

Risk? Possibly.

Greed definitely.

First home buyers just need to know the truth.

They need to understand how the world really works

(Or not if they choose)

Unlike lies and teddy bears in the window from Wellington.

If I were a first time home buyer reading my posts, I wouldn't be getting angry I'd be figuring out how to get even .

Although I'm not a first home buyer, or in debt, I'd really like to know those two things, or at least what you think they are.

1. "First home buyers just need to know the truth." What is the truth?

2. "They need to understand how the world really works" How does the world really work?

Might be hard to put in a sound bite, but still interested.

BAA

[TeslaGod]

Bjuack,

I had to Google the meaning of "schadenfreude "

Although my posts seem narcissistic I don't see them in that light.

I prefer to see them as arrogantly confident or honest, which what is lacking in the world today.

We dont celebrate money, we pretend to "care" and "show empathy " with teddy bears in the window.

Which is a fallacy, those who control central banks, control corporations and central government.

What I post is what's really happening, but if you prefer to huddle around the TV for a 1pm update from the middle management of NZ Inc..please by all means do.

[fungus pudding]

Bjuack,



What I post is what's really happening,

[/I]

I'm not surprised you aren't posting the answer to my question.

[Bjauck]

Bjuack,

I had to Google the meaning of "schadenfreude "

Although my posts seem narcissistic I don't see them in that light.

I prefer to see them as arrogantly confident or honest, which what is lacking in the world today.

We dont celebrate money, we pretend to "care" and "show empathy " with teddy bears in the window.

Which is a fallacy, those who control central banks, control corporations and central government.

What I post is what's really happening, but if you prefer to huddle around the TV for a 1pm update from the middle management of NZ Inc..please by all means do.



I am aware of the fiscal and financial system in NZ that has meant the path to building wealth for many NZers has lain with building up real estate portfolios. I agree that the current government has failed, apart from a bit of window dressing, in addressing its supposed intent for housing and social issues. Coronavirus has been a complicating factor.

To me, there does seem to be a disconnection. You seem to encourage the raising of the red standard of outrage, as you describe above. Yet what you have achieved as described in previous posts seem to encourage full exploitation of what you see as the current system.

Edit: I would be interested to read your responses to Baa and Fungus too.

[Aaron]

Maybe govt tinkering is going to make a change.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bay-of-plenty-landlords-selling-up-as-tax-rules-bite-fewer-good-reasons-to-be-a-landlord/WC3EH6WR5WGBXCGZNE3PJPFLQQ/

Even better if land lords sell and reinvest in a new build to get the interest deductibility back. Although the biggest competition to existing landlords is developers building new houses.

Mind you 135,000 new immigrants might boost demand to compensate for any supply increases, although I think most of the 135,000 are already living in NZ.

[Aaron]

In regard to TeslaGod's posts smug and arrogant would be how I would describe them but mostly I think he just likes to wind people up and we keep taking the bait.

As FP is finding out when the debate gets into details the "God" portion of his name becomes relevant as he requires us to "believe" or have "faith" in everything he says.

Sadly I actually think he is right about central bankers and that the system is set up to enrich the already well off and reduce social mobility.

[fungus pudding]

Although I'm not a first home buyer, or in debt, I'd really like to know those two things, or at least what you think they are.

1. "First home buyers just need to know the truth." What is the truth?

2. "They need to understand how the world really works" How does the world really work?

Might be hard to put in a sound bite, but still interested.

BAA

To find out how the world works, I highly recommend a book by Jude Wanniski - written in 1978 and called 'The way the world works'. I haven't read it for years but I suppose it's still available. Covers the Laffer Curve theory well. You'd learn more than TeslaGob is ever going to tell us.

[TeslaGod]

Well perhaps I should stick to my TESLA stock analysis and updates, I'm sure that's extremely rivetting for you all since trying to see the world through my eyes is highly "offensive" .

And to think our forefathers came to this country to work the land and find prosperity..real men and women unlike the snow flakes of today.

[fungus pudding]

Well perhaps I should stick to my TESLA stock analysis and updates, I'm sure that's extremely rivetting for you all since trying to see the world through my eyes is highly "offensive" .

And to think our forefathers came to this country to work the land and find prosperity..real men and women unlike the snow flakes of today.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions re tax avoidance and so are several other posters who have commented on your inability to back up your claims.

[TeslaGod]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions re tax avoidance and so are several other posters who have commented on your inability to back up your claims.

I'm not willing to email you several years of financial statements.

I have posted several times how I take living.

It's not rocket science.

[fungus pudding]

I'm not willing to email you several years of financial statements.

I have posted several times how I take living.

It's not rocket science.

I do not want to see financial statements.
I simply want to know how you avoid paying tax on what you claim is a large income.
You cannot keep declaring a loss and living tax-free off a credit account, unless you are losing money - in which case your credit will dry up.
Furthermore - you run the risk of having the IRD treat your credit drawings as income. In fact it's a dead certainty if you make frequent or regular drawings.

[dobby41]

I do not want to see financial statements.
I simply want to know how you avoid paying tax on what you claim is a large income.
You cannot keep declaring a loss and living tax-free off a credit account, unless you are losing money - in which case your credit will dry up.
Furthermore - you run the risk of having the IRD treat your credit drawings as income. In fact it's a dead certainty if you make frequent or regular drawings.

FP - you are better off to just ignore him (her) and take it all with a grain of salt - see it for the self aggrandising bulldust that it is.
I read his (her) comments for amusement only.

You can live off capital gains and shares are easier than pysical assets.
The CG on shares are non-taxable and you can sell a few shares each year to access them.
In the meantime, you have a little taxable (maybe imputed) dividends to declare (so pay a little tax), live the high life and have a bit of CG left to cover inflation.
Property is harder. Sure you can get a credit facility but you have to pay interest.

[TeslaGod]

FP - you are better off to just ignore him (her) and take it all with a grain of salt - see it for the self aggrandising bulldust that it is.
I read his (her) comments for amusement only.

You can live off capital gains and shares are easier than pysical assets.
The CG on shares are non-taxable and you can sell a few shares each year to access them.
In the meantime, you have a little taxable (maybe imputed) dividends to declare (so pay a little tax), live the high life and have a bit of CG left to cover inflation.
Property is harder. Sure you can get a credit facility but you have to pay interest.

Thanks dobby41

I have both , credit facilities on all real estate which I don't use, and liquidity in shares I also use Margin.

Increasing interest rates don't affect me, sticking to the topic they only affect/effect 1st home buyers.

[fungus pudding]

FP - you are better off to just ignore him (her) and take it all with a grain of salt - see it for the self aggrandising bulldust that it is.
I read his (her) comments for amusement only.

You can live off capital gains and shares are easier than pysical assets.
The CG on shares are non-taxable and you can sell a few shares each year to access them.
In the meantime, you have a little taxable (maybe imputed) dividends to declare (so pay a little tax), live the high life and have a bit of CG left to cover inflation.
Property is harder. Sure you can get a credit facility but you have to pay interest.

But it's not that easy. If you are not showing an income, sufficient to provide basic living, from your activities, and living largely from drawings made through the gain on investments then the taxman will show a lot of interest - and as far as living the high life - forget it. He will find everything about your life style that is possible to discover. He'll go through all your possesions, the clothes in your wardrobe, etc, and value them. He'll know your restaurant visits, your favourite pub - and don't try telling him you stayed with relatives or friends when you were on holiday. it was his sceptical nature that got him into the job. Yes, you can turn a few shares into cash periodically, but be careful that you are doing it 'for the right reason' (which should not be to buy a new car).
Of course you can mortgage a property, but that loan is not tax deductible, and every such move reduces your income.
I do realise that TeslaGob is just a blowhard plonker. Hopefully though others will realise that his (definitely a he) ramblings are simply for his self-gratification. I'm quite sure he'll be well aware of the other ways.

[TeslaGod]

But it's not that easy. If you are not showing an income, sufficient to provide basic living, from your activities, and living largely from drawings made through the gain on investments then the taxman will show a lot of interest - and as far as living the high life - forget it. He will find everything about your life style that is possible to discover. He'll go through all your possesions, the clothes in your wardrobe, etc, and value them. He'll know your restaurant visits, your favourite pub - and don't try telling him you stayed with relatives or friends when you were on holiday. it was his sceptical nature that got him into the job. Yes, you can turn a few shares into cash periodically, but be careful that you are doing it 'for the right reason' (which should not be to buy a new car).
Of course you can mortgage a property, but that loan is not tax deductible, and every such move reduces your income.
I do realise that TeslaGob is just a blowhard plonker. Hopefully though others will realise that his (definitely a he) ramblings are simply for his self-gratification. I'm quite sure he'll be well aware of the other ways.

I'm here to inform, educate and post updates on TSLA stock.

Judge me as you wish.

https://youtu.be/vCpNPaSM2UM

[dobby41]

But it's not that easy. If you are not showing an income, sufficient to provide basic living, from your activities, and living largely from drawings made through the gain on investments then the taxman will show a lot of interest - and as far as living the high life - forget it. He will find everything about your life style that is possible to discover. He'll go through all your possesions, the clothes in your wardrobe, etc, and value them. He'll know your restaurant visits, your favourite pub - and don't try telling him you stayed with relatives or friends when you were on holiday. it was his sceptical nature that got him into the job. Yes, you can turn a few shares into cash periodically, but be careful that you are doing it 'for the right reason' (which should not be to buy a new car).

Will IRD take notice though?
'Intent' is a major factor in the tax law.
If you intended to hold for the long term (and have held for years) could they say that the CG is taxable just because it now drives the majority of your 'income'?
I am told by several financial planners that it is a common tactic and is seem as being acceptable.

It is really a problem with our tax system - we tax 'income' more than we tax wealth.
I think we will have to start taxing wealth because more and more people will use this sort of construct to provide them with a 'living'.

[dobby41]

I'm here to inform, educate and post updates on TSLA stock.

Judge me as you wish.

https://youtu.be/vCpNPaSM2UM

You are in the wrong thread then!

[artemis]

Will IRD take notice though?
'Intent' is a major factor in the tax law.
If you intended to hold for the long term (and have held for years) could they say that the CG is taxable just because it now drives the majority of your 'income'?
I am told by several financial planners that it is a common tactic and is seem as being acceptable.

It is really a problem with our tax system - we tax 'income' more than we tax wealth.
I think we will have to start taxing wealth because more and more people will use this sort of construct to provide them with a 'living'.

Common enough for advisers to propose withdrawing capital at say 4% a year in retirement. A clear intention there and seems most unlikely that this alone would see IRD count the person as a trader. Or as a non-retiree depending on some definition of age, that would in any case be a HR Act breach.

Taxing wealth as income - it has been proposed - would encourage different behaviour.

I have older rellies in Australia where there is means testing for pensions - income and assets. They have very good advisers.

[fungus pudding]

Will IRD take notice though?
'Intent' is a major factor in the tax law.
If you intended to hold for the long term (and have held for years) could they say that the CG is taxable just because it now drives the majority of your 'income'?
I am told by several financial planners that it is a common tactic and is seem as being acceptable.

It is really a problem with our tax system - we tax 'income' more than we tax wealth.
I think we will have to start taxing wealth because more and more people will use this sort of construct to provide them with a 'living'.

And there are plenty who have found that the IRD consider their conduct to be taxable income. As I said - make a habit of it, or try living off it, and you'll be likely to get a visit from a very nice man for a wee chat. It might even be a woman who turns up. They're equal opportunity employers now. Isn't that nice.

[dobby41]

And there are plenty who have found that the IRD consider their conduct to be taxable income. As I said - make a habit of it, or try living off it, and you'll be likely to get a visit from a very nice man for a wee chat. It might even be a woman who turns up. They're equal opportunity employers now. Isn't that nice.

I do get your point but consider this
You amass, over 10 years say, $2mil in capital.
At 60 you decide to retire and take out $100k/yr for 20 years.
Would that be taxable and why?

If, while taking out that money, growth returned more than the 5%/annum that you are taking out would that make a difference to the scenario?

[TeslaGod]

What steps are you taking with the 39% tax rate about to kick in? Any suggestions?

I answered this question honestly and in return was insulted by several members on this thread.

I think some of you need to take a look at yourself and sort out your tall poppy syndrome.

[artemis]

I answered this question honestly and in return was insulted by several members on this thread.

I think some of you need to take a look at yourself and sort out your tall poppy syndrome.

Plenty of us are open to views we don't hold (yet). Keep posting.

[Bjauck]

I do get your point but consider this
You amass, over 10 years say, $2mil in capital.
At 60 you decide to retire and take out $100k/yr for 20 years.
Would that be taxable and why?

If, while taking out that money, growth returned more than the 5%/annum that you are taking out would that make a difference to the scenario?


If that $2m had been saved in a Kiwisaver, withdrawals past the national retirement age would be tax free, I think. However maybe PIE savings are treated differently.

Some (admittedly probably not many in NZ) may build up assets in businesses and shares and not in owner occupied housing. So when they retire they need to sell some assets each year to go towards paying for rent or rest home fees that their salaries may previously have paid for?

So would those capital withdrawals, as well as actual dividends received, be regarded as income whereas the taxable income foregone by others by investing in owner occupied housing (with its untaxed "dividend" benefit to the equity owner-occupier) would not?

[dobby41]

Some (admittedly probably not many in NZ) may build up assets in businesses and shares and not in owner occupied housing. So when they retire they need to sell some assets each year to go towards paying for rent or rest home fees that their salaries may previously have paid for?

So would those capital withdrawals, as well as actual dividends received, be regarded as income whereas the taxable income foregone by others in investing in owner occupied housing (with its untaxed dividend benefit to the owner-occupier) would not?

Not many? No idea really.
Are you asking me re tax applicability of capital withdrawals? I don't see that they would be (which is what I said).
I'm interested in FPs reasoning though. He may have some insight not considered.

[fungus pudding]

I do get your point but consider this
You amass, over 10 years say, $2mil in capital.
At 60 you decide to retire and take out $100k/yr for 20 years.
Would that be taxable and why?

If, while taking out that money, growth returned more than the 5%/annum that you are taking out would that make a difference to the scenario?

Take your pick from yes, no, it can be, or it depends. That's what my enquiries have revealed, but I've made a point of not asking in too formal a manner. I think intention is probably somewhere in there.
Any opinions on this forum - welcome.

[Aaron]

I answered this question honestly and in return was insulted by several members on this thread.

I think some of you need to take a look at yourself and sort out your tall poppy syndrome.

Apologies for the insult.

You are a bit more thin skinned than I had assumed.

I will try and be more respectful in the future.

[TeslaGod]

You are a bit more thin skinned than I had assumed.



Not really..

It's protected by an 8 figure networth.

[fungus pudding]

Not really..

It's protected by an 8 figure networth.

So what's all the crowing about? This forum is for investors. I'm sure there are a good few members who can make that claim.

[TeslaGod]

So what's all the crowing about? This forum is for investors. I'm sure there are a good few members who can make that claim.

That depends

On the first 2 digits.

[fungus pudding]

That depends

On the first 2 digits.

No it doesn't. The lowest possible no is 10 which makes the grade you burbled about

[SBQ]

Not really..

It's protected by an 8 figure networth.

Interesting to know i'm not the only one sitting with an 8 figure net worth. But as I told you before, I have morals against making massive financial gains from owning houses. I do not want to be part of that camp.

The more important issue is not how much you have by gloating about it but rather, what are you going to do with it? I have the following statement to regard:

“I know people who have a lot of money, and they get testimonial dinners and they get hospital wings named after them. But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them,” said Buffett. “If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is, your life is a disaster.”

I can not help not mentioning what does a person do with all that kind of wealth? You know Mr TeslaGod, if you made all that money from owning houses in NZ, certainly it means it came out of society. Will you give it back?

For myself I give generously, and I make a habit to teach my 2 children, who are on the autism spectrum, how important it is to give back to society. Because daddy's wealth did not come 'poof' out from the sky. One's ability to make wise investments, work hard owning a business, etc. should not come at the cost of society if - 'so and so accountant says you should buy another house again and again to add to the property portfolio'.

[TeslaGod]

Interesting to know i'm not the only one sitting with an 8 figure net worth. But as I told you before, I have morals against making massive financial gains from owning houses. I do not want to be part of that camp.

The more important issue is not how much you have by gloating about it but rather, what are you going to do with it? I have the following statement to regard:

“I know people who have a lot of money, and they get testimonial dinners and they get hospital wings named after them. But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them,” said Buffett. “If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is, your life is a disaster.”

I can not help not mentioning what does a person do with all that kind of wealth? You know Mr TeslaGod, if you made all that money from owning houses in NZ, certainly it means it came out of society. Will you give it back?

For myself I give generously, and I make a habit to teach my 2 children, who are on the autism spectrum, how important it is to give back to society. Because daddy's wealth did not come 'poof' out from the sky. One's ability to make wise investments, work hard owning a business, etc. should not come at the cost of society if - 'so and so accountant says you should buy another house again and again to add to the property portfolio'.

Perhaps you can use your 8 figure networth to bail out your zombie company you said was failing.

But good on you if you want to be Mother Teresa!

Quick fact:

Her practices, and those of the Missionaries of Charity, the order which she founded, were subject to numerous controversies. These include objections to the quality of medical care which they provided, suggestions that some deathbed baptisms constituted forced conversion, and alleged links to colonialism and racism.

[FTG]

Interesting to know i'm not the only one sitting with an 8 figure net worth. But as I told you before, I have morals against making massive financial gains from owning houses. I do not want to be part of that camp.



So SBQ, let's unpack these morals of yours a little so we can understand them better.

- What exactly is it that you find morally abhorrent ? A) Making massive financial gains, or B) Owning houses, or C) Owing a house AND making massive financial gains from those houses?
- Do you own a house(s) or do you rent? Based on your stated claim of having a 8 figure net worth presumably you would own (directly or indirectly) at least one home?
- In your view what is the definition of "massive" financial gains? Is it a % return based figure or a specifically defined amount of dollars?

[SBQ]

Perhaps you can use your 8 figure networth to bail out your zombie company you said was failing.

But good on you if you want to be Mother Teresa!

Quick fact:

Her practices, and those of the Missionaries of Charity, the order which she founded, were subject to numerous controversies. These include objections to the quality of medical care which they provided, suggestions that some deathbed baptisms constituted forced conversion, and alleged links to colonialism and racism.

What company did I refer to in the past that has been 'failing' ? I don't recall making such claims.

[TeslaGod]

What company did I refer to in the past that has been 'failing' ? I don't recall making such claims.

You posted this:

"I don't believe i've formally mentioned my financial situation in regard to "how much is enough". When I married my lovely wife 15 years ago, we assumed that having about $5M net worth (a house of $1M) was enough to see through our retirement. Well I had already achieved that level 10 years ago through my investment portfolio (which does not hold any real estate). The Covid has changed our business for the worse (being tied to tourism"

[SBQ]

So SBQ, let's unpack these morals of yours a little so we can understand them better.

- What exactly is it that you find morally abhorrent ? A) Making massive financial gains, or B) Owning houses, or C) Owing a house AND making massive financial gains from those houses?

Not all asset classes are the same in terms of social impact or it's benefit to society. What is the cost to society when the gov't does nothing to control house prices to a reasonable level? Note I use the term 'massive' financial gains because the NZ gov't has essentially left that asset class untaxed. Certainly a joke when you compare to what the gov't offers instead, Kiwi Saver. This is not to say that house prices abroad, like Aus or Canada have not gone crazy too. However, there's a massive difference. The low income people living in those countries aren't as poor as the ones we see living in cars in S. Auckland (or at least they are able to have social housing at WHO living standards for the past many decades). How may are on the social housing waiting list in NZ per capita vs those in other countries? To me this is the social cost when this asset class houses, has been incentivised in the most abhorrent way.



- Do you own a house(s) or do you rent? Based on your stated claim of having a 8 figure net worth presumably you would own (directly or indirectly) at least one home?

We own our home. To be more specific, I have never taken a mortgage out. I don't see how this is relevant to how much house prices have gone up. My view is every working person, or young family, SHOULD BE able to get into their own home. It does not have to be a 3 or 4 bedroom house, but it should be at least 'obtainable'. The NZ gov't has done nothing. Canada on the other hand has done a hell of a lot more this area. Here's a recent proposed project in ritzy West Vancouver:

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/proposed-eight-storey-89-unit-development-in-west-vancouver-moves-to-public-hearing-4334938

We do not see much of this in Auckland, if any. That's because in NZ, there's a huge movement called the NIMBY. A shame because at prime locations where the demand is highest, the only option is simply to those that have the most money.


- In your view what is the definition of "massive" financial gains? Is it a % return based figure or a specifically defined amount of dollars?

Again, I say "massive" in a return that exceeds all other asset classes for the given level of risk and net of any taxation. The incentives in NZ are wrong. All previous gov'ts in NZ are weak in addressing this issue. Our politicians are deaf when it comes to critics abroad such as delegates from the UN. I'm saying this because the losers aren't you and I that already own a house. The losers are future generations that PAY for all these massive gains when they try to buy a house (because if you have more than 1 child, your house that you live in is only a portion towards their mortgage deposit).

Where as investments in equities, you are taking shareholder ownership in a business which multiplies it's profits. Creates employment, multiplies the $ from hand to hand, without the banks siphoning the profits abroad in a mortgage.

[SBQ]

You posted this:

"I don't believe i've formally mentioned my financial situation in regard to "how much is enough". When I married my lovely wife 15 years ago, we assumed that having about $5M net worth (a house of $1M) was enough to see through our retirement. Well I had already achieved that level 10 years ago through my investment portfolio (which does not hold any real estate). The Covid has changed our business for the worse (being tied to tourism"

Without a doubt those in tourism have been hit hard due to Covid. But that does not mean it's failed - the correct term would be on temporary pause. Nevertheless, we could have easily shifted the business liquid assets into buying multiple and multiple houses all over NZ. Wait 5 years and sell it off one at a time without paying any CGT. Morally I don't accept this because I know NZ has a serious housing problem.

So I ask, what is your end game plan? I know a family in Christchurch that owns over 50 properties. Tight as a vise grip with no knowledge of philanthropy.

[TeslaGod]

Wow that was really a long post SBQ.

I think your asking me what I'm doing moving forward in regards to the moral issues of owning a large amount of real estate?

I don't have an opinion on the Realestate.

I don't see them

I don't go inside them (Many I have never even been inside)

I don't know the individuals who rent or lease them

Honestly they mean nothing to me they are just numbers on a spread sheet in goings and out goings on different Bank accounts and annoying emails I have to reply to now and then.

I couldn't be any more honest.

[fungus pudding]

Wow that was really a long post SBQ.

I think your asking me what I'm doing moving forward in regards to the moral issues of owning a large amount of real estate?

I don't have an opinion on the Realestate.

I don't see them

I don't go inside them (Many I have never even been inside)

I don't know the individuals who rent or lease them

Honestly they mean nothing to me they are just numbers on a spread sheet in goings and out goings on different Bank accounts and annoying emails I have to reply to now and then.

I couldn't be any more honest.

Why have more than one bank account?

[TeslaGod]

Wow that was really a long post SBQ.

I think your asking me what I'm doing moving forward in regards to the moral issues of owning a large amount of real estate?

I don't have an opinion on the Realestate.

I don't see them

I don't go inside them (Many I have never even been inside)

I don't know the individuals who rent or lease them

Honestly they mean nothing to me they are just numbers on a spread sheet in goings and out goings on different Bank accounts and annoying emails I have to reply to now and then.

I couldn't be any more honest.

I'll add to this post,

There seems to be members on this thread similarly to the NZ public that seem more concerned about the large amount of real estate I own than I do.

And they all seem to have extreme cases of tall poppy syndrome.

Some of my properties I have owned for just under 2 decades I genuinely forget they are there.

They are run by property managers, leased to businesses, community trust, Kaianga Ora etc and rarely do they cross my mind,

Perhaps I should be grateful for my position? No, I don't think like that, I figure out ways to grow my position and protect it .

They don't engross me like those in the media,NZ public and some members on this forum seem to be infatuated with.

They are merely vehicles of wealth to me nothing more.

So I look forward to our borders opening so we can spend some time in Europe, Asia and North America.

While the likes of SBQ complain at me and I honestly couldn't care less.

Merry Christmas.

[FTG]

Sigh.......

SBQ, IMO you would make a good politician! In your case very likely on the left of center and with the strong view that you know what is best for everyone else. But of course, you are a "special case" and are exempt to many of those demands & expectations you have of others.

Just like when Hipkins, Clarke, Little et al get interviewed, you haven't actually succinctly answered the questions!
Instead you have resorted to waffling on & just making a political broadcast which has little or no substance.

However, it also seems unbeknown to you, you have given us a glimpse of the very hypocritical position you take.

Disappointing. Surely you are better than that? :confused:

[Bjauck]

...
We do not see much of this in Auckland, if any. That's because in NZ, there's a huge movement called the NIMBY.
....
I agree with many of your points. I think the rest of your posts explains why NIMBYism is such a force. NZ household investment has to a substantial extent been channelled into residential property (whether as owner occupier or rental investment) for the reasons you state. So it is the main pension plan/nest egg for many and is guarded by owners from any perceived threat to its value, whether from intensification or tax reform. These owners currently participate in the electoral process in numbers to carry elections.

The compensation provisions for public works and any zoning changes, that have an adverse effect on values, are also out of date and inadequate.

[TeslaGod]

I agree with your post. I think the rest of your posts explains why NIMBYism is such a force. NZ household investment has to a substantial extent been channelled into residential property (whether as owner occupier or rental investment) for the reasons you state. So it is the main pension plan/nest egg for many and is guarded by owners from any perceived threat to its value, whether from intensification or tax reform. These owners currently participate in the electoral process in numbers to carry elections.

The compensation provisions for public works and any zoning changes, that have an adverse effect on values, are also out of date and inadequate.

Well informed and very intelligent post.

There are some that complain about me but are happy to protect my wealth while protecting there own.

[fungus pudding]

Not all asset classes are the same in terms of social impact or it's benefit to society. What is the cost to society when the gov't does nothing to control house prices to a reasonable level? Note I use the term 'massive' financial gains because the NZ gov't has essentially left that asset class untaxed. Certainly a joke when you compare to what the gov't offers instead, Kiwi Saver. This is not to say that house prices abroad, like Aus or Canada have not gone crazy too. However, there's a massive difference. The low income people living in those countries aren't as poor as the ones we see living in cars in S. Auckland (or at least they are able to have social housing at WHO living standards for the past many decades). How may are on the social housing waiting list in NZ per capita vs those in other countries? To me this is the social cost when this asset class houses, has been incentivised in the most abhorrent way.



[/I]We own our home. To be more specific, I have never taken a mortgage out. I don't see how this is relevant to how much house prices have gone up. My view is every working person, or young family, SHOULD BE able to get into their own home. It does not have to be a 3 or 4 bedroom house, but it should be at least 'obtainable'. The NZ gov't has done nothing. Canada on the other hand has done a hell of a lot more this area. Here's a recent proposed project in ritzy West Vancouver:

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/proposed-eight-storey-89-unit-development-in-west-vancouver-moves-to-public-hearing-4334938

We do not see much of this in Auckland, if any. That's because in NZ, there's a huge movement called the NIMBY. A shame because at prime locations where the demand is highest, the only option is simply to those that have the most money.



Again, I say "massive" in a return that exceeds all other asset classes for the given level of risk and net of any taxation. The incentives in NZ are wrong. All previous gov'ts in NZ are weak in addressing this issue. Our politicians are deaf when it comes to critics abroad such as delegates from the UN. I'm saying this because the losers aren't you and I that already own a house. The losers are future generations that PAY for all these massive gains when they try to buy a house (because if you have more than 1 child, your house that you live in is only a portion towards their mortgage deposit).

Where as investments in equities, you are taking shareholder ownership in a business which multiplies it's profits. Creates employment, multiplies the $ from hand to hand, without the banks siphoning the profits abroad in a mortgage.

In the 1960s NZ was plagued with shiploads of Poms - coming to the new country to start a new life. They stuck out a mile for all sorts of reasons, but they had two common characteristics that made them unmistakable.
The first was incessant complaining and moaning. They were invariably known as 'whinging Poms' even referred to as whinging poms in newspapers and radio (play the 'whinging pom' clip on this site https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/whinging-poms/zmngscw) That's Australia but so typical.
The second was their non-stop bleating about how we had it all wrong compared to where they had come from- how much better their ways were in the homeland. (Google whinging Poms)
I can't for the life of me think what brings that to mind - must be something or I wouldn't have mentioned it. :p

[Bjauck]

Sigh.......

SBQ, IMO you would make a good politician! In your case very likely on the left of center and with the strong view that you know what is best for everyone else. But of course, you are a "special case" and are exempt to many of those demands & expectations you have of others... How has SBQ self-exempted from the demands made of others?

SBQ is a business owner and has other investments. That sounds like a good capitalist rather than a socialist or left-winger to me. Plenty of those on the right have social consciences and a desire for philanthropy too. Perhaps it is the attitude to the provision of shelter/residential housing that makes SBQ seem a left-winger to some? However I do understand that it does depend on the gauge used.

[Bjauck]

In the 1960s NZ was plagued with shiploads of Poms - coming to the new country to start a new life. They stuck out a mile for all sorts of reasons, but they had two common characteristics that made them unmistakable.
The first was incessant complaining and moaning. They were invariably known as 'whinging Poms' even referred to as whinging poms in newspapers and radio (play the 'whinging pom' clip on this site https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/whinging-poms/zmngscw) That's Australia but so typical.
The second was their non-stop bleating about how we had it all wrong compared to where they had come from- how much better their ways were in the homeland. (Google whinging Poms)
I can't for the life of me think what brings that to mind - must be something or I wouldn't have mentioned it. :p Quite the obnoxious, generalised and bigoted post!

[fungus pudding]

Quite the obnoxious, generalised and bigoted post!

Pretty accurate though. Do you not remember the 60s?

[dobby41]

Well, that all seemed to take a turn for the worst.

[fungus pudding]

Well, that all seemed to take a turn for the worst.

That's called an eggcorn.

[FTG]

How has SBQ self-exempted from the demands made of others?

SBQ is a business owner and has other investments. That sounds like a good capitalist rather than a socialist or left-winger to me. Plenty of those on the right have social consciences and a desire for philanthropy too. Perhaps it is the attitude to the provision of shelter/residential housing that makes SBQ seem a left-winger to some? However I do understand that it does depend on the gauge used.

Yes agreed Bjauck, depending on what gauge is used. But also, how one defines the labels on that gauge.

However, you are inhibiting yourself by viewing the political spectrum & the broad concept of capitalism in binary format only.

The political spectrum is simply a continuum/gauge which in effect loosely measures & labels how much State involvement there is in individual & societal life. It's commonly accepted that the further to the left of the spectrum one looks, the higher the expectation that the State will be involved in, controlling and "taking responsibility" for individual & societal actions & hence outcomes. Move away from the left and the expectation is that individuals (rather than the State) control and are responsible for their own actions and hence outcomes.

Capitalism meanwhile doesn't neatly fit on one specific spot on the political spectrum. Capitalism is ubiquitous, it can be well in-play right across the political spectrum.

Capitalism is the act of attempting to derive benefit from the use of available resources (e.g. human, energy, financial, time etc). We are ALL capitalists to varying degrees, regardless of our view to who should be taking responsibility for actions & outcomes.
Xi Jinping & the CCP act in just as much (possibly even more) a capitalist manner than an Investment Banker in the Canary Islands, or TeslaGod & SBQ, for that matter.

Coming back to your question re SBQ's political broadcast & how he self-exempted himself. Go back, and re-read his answers. There are numerous black holes in his thinking

To assist further, once we cut out all the fluff, ask what do we 'know' so far?

- His net worth is >$10,000,000
- He owns a house which is mortgage free. Presumably this house won't be the cheapest in the lowest value suburb of ChCh? Regardless, he just like TeslaGod, will have experienced "massive financial gains" in recent times.
- He has various other investments, including equities (but not residential housing assets).
- During these "Everything Bubble" times the "massive financial gains" in equity markets have well & truly exceeded that of residential housing assets.
- He owns a Tourism based business, which up-to Covid times has provided good income & likely "massive financial gains".

Question: When he eventually moves that business on, for hopefully also "massive financial gains", will he stand by the standard he expects of residential Landlords and insist to pay a % of those gains to the State?

- He has given himself an Autobahn's width of wriggle room with his argument, by not clearly defining what his "massive financial gains" are in $ or % returns. Where has he drawn that line and which side of that line does he sit one wonders?
- That he hasn't proudly & boldly stated that he has stood by his beliefs & values & already actively acted on his belief that a CGT should be paid on any "massive financial gains" in NZ.

In short, SBQ seems to be in a very very good position financially. Clearly in NZ's top 1%.
And to be clear, I personally have no qualms with that per se, regardless of whether that financial wealth has primarily come through inheritance or through ethical 'hard/smart sweat & toil'. Well done!

But I certainly have issues with sincere or confused lefties (often called Chardonnay drinking socialists), who from their relative "privileged position of financial wealth", continue glibly postering on what standards are best for everyone else. All whilst somehow being exempt to the same standards & principles themselves!

[TeslaGod]

I'll add to the FTG post,

In response to SBQ struggling >$10,000,000 tourism business.

The Tourism industry pays there employees some of the lowest wage's in New Zealand.

Many have laid staff off

landlords still house them.

[Bjauck]

Excellent post. Food for thought.

Yes agreed Bjauck, depending on what gauge is used. But also, how one defines the labels on that gauge.



However, you are inhibiting yourself by viewing the political spectrum & the broad concept of capitalism in binary format only. Fair comment. I was responding to your reference to “left of centre”.





The political spectrum is simply a continuum/gauge which in effect loosely measures & labels how much State involvement there is in individual & societal life. It's commonly accepted that the further to the left of the spectrum one looks, the higher the expectation that the State will be involved in, controlling and "taking responsibility" for individual & societal actions & hence outcomes. Move away from the left and the expectation is that individuals (rather than the State) control and are responsible for their own actions and hence outcomes. I agree the degree to which the state sets products standards, health and safety standards and provides a social welfare safety net is one strand in determining Left and Right.



Capitalism meanwhile doesn't neatly fit on one specific spot on the political spectrum. Capitalism is ubiquitous, it can be well in-play right across the political spectrum.



Capitalism is the act of attempting to derive benefit from the use of available resources (e.g. human, energy, financial, time etc). We are ALL capitalists to varying degrees, regardless of our view to who should be taking responsibility for actions & outcomes.
Xi Jinping & the CCP act in just as much (possibly even more) a capitalist manner than an Investment Banker in the Canary Islands, or TeslaGod & SBQ, for that matter. I think I have quite a different understanding of the term “capitalism”. What you describe as capitalism, I would describe as commercial enterprise or commercialised exploitation. For me capitalism/socialism, as one strand behind the Right and Left comparison, defines more the ownership structure behind that enterprise. Capitalism indicates the private ownership of trade and industry with socialism indicating a socialised (government) ownership of trade and industry.


All capitalists (and socialist) systems operate in countries which provide the limits (regulations, statutes, standards) within which commercial enterprises operate. How far these government regulations and statutes extend is another strand helping to define Left and Right.



Coming back to your question re SBQ's political broadcast & how he self-exempted himself. Go back, and re-read his answers. There are numerous black holes in his thinking



To assist further, once we cut out all the fluff, ask what do we 'know' so far?


- His net worth is >$10,000,000
- He owns a house which is mortgage free. Presumably this house won't be the cheapest in the lowest value suburb of ChCh? Regardless, he just like TeslaGod, will have experienced "massive financial gains" in recent times.
- He has various other investments, including equities (but not residential housing assets).
- During these "Everything Bubble" times the "massive financial gains" in equity markets have well & truly exceeded that of residential housing assets.
- He owns a Tourism based business, which up-to Covid times has provided good income & likely "massive financial gains".


Question: When he eventually moves that business on, for hopefully also "massive financial gains", will he stand by the standard he expects of residential Landlords and insist to pay a % of those gains to the State?


- He has given himself an Autobahn's width of wriggle room with his argument, by not clearly defining what his "massive financial gains" are in $ or % returns. Where has he drawn that line and which side of that line does he sit one wonders?
- That he hasn't proudly & boldly stated that he has stood by his beliefs & values & already actively acted on his belief that a CGT should be paid on any "massive financial gains" in NZ.


In short, SBQ seems to be in a very very good position financially. Clearly in NZ's top 1%.
And to be clear, I personally have no qualms with that per se, regardless of whether that financial wealth has primarily come through inheritance or through ethical 'hard/smart sweat & toil'. Well done!


But I certainly have issues with sincere or confused lefties (often called Chardonnay drinking socialists), who from their relative "privildged position of financial wealth", continue glibly postering on what standards are best for everyone else. All whilst somehow being exempt to the same standards & principles themselves!


As I understand it, SBQ has not bought more houses than he needs for housing his family. He has invested his investable equity into shares and business. As for the relative percentage paid in tax (both directly and indirectly) from the returns in investor housing versus the percentage paid in tax from a business or share investment, I cannot hazard a guess. It depends on the leverage involved, profits made, the numbers of people employed by the company and the reliance on returns from untaxed gains. It would certainly be interesting to know how much $100 invested in a typical NX50 company would produce annually in tax revenues (GST, income tax, etc) compared with $100 equity invested in a typical investment rental house, with its maintenance and servicing requirements)

Is an investment in a business accretive whereas an investment in a rental house just out-bids and replaces a potential owner-occupier and therefore non accretive?


I guess the relative weight NZ households have in investment housing versus share and business investment will indicate where the NZ fiscal and financial environment investment provides the best returns for risk involved.

[SBQ]

In response to TeslaGod's last post. My wealth was not inherited. The business has entirely been a father and son business for the past 2+ decades, and never had the need to employ anyone. We were fortunate to move product with a decent level of profit margin while having limited risk of new competitors coming in.

In your previous previous post, your motive of "I don't care who is affected" profit mind is spoken like a George Soros. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Well for most of NZ, that's what they have done and quite simply they don't care about the # of homeless who sleep in cars around NZ.

So my end game may not have a NZ in the picture as, one voice is not going to change much. I've seen too many rich people in NZ do nothing and gloat about their wealth. I can't change their minds. Retirement for my family so far is pointing to a Canadian outcome (because i'm biased) as the saying goes, you can't remove the stripes off a zebra and call it a horse. So I ask again Mr TeslaGod, what is your end game plan? Amass more wealth from your rental properties and give it all to the next generation? If so, that's a real pity. Even Gareth Morgan is a weasel by philanthropic standards.

[TeslaGod]

2 man team to grow >$10 million dollar company.. you must have did a lot of over time, or sold some dam expensive tourism gift cards and tikis.

I earned my 8 figure net worth with the help of our Central Bank and the middle class voter's..all 60% of them!

Any who , I've already stated my end goal in the " how much is enough thread" and for some reason I upset a lot of people..hmmm me thinks I need to work on my communication a bit better.

I'm always trying to be a better version of myself.. Cheerio my fellow capitalists!

[artemis]

.....In your previous previous post, your motive of "I don't care who is affected" profit mind is spoken like a George Soros. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Well for most of NZ, that's what they have done and quite simply they don't care about the # of homeless who sleep in cars around NZ.....


Fortunately we have a socialist government that has quadrupled the social housing waiting list, is all good to place the homeless in motels etc, build more and more social housing. Billions in ingoing and ongoing costs. And that's just housing.

I wonder who is paying for all that. I would say taxpayers will care. A lot.

[FTG]

I think I have quite a different understanding of the term “capitalism”. What you describe as capitalism, I would describe as commercial enterprise or commercialised exploitation. For me capitalism/socialism, as one strand behind the Right and Left comparison, defines more the ownership structure behind that enterprise. Capitalism indicates the private ownership of trade and industry with socialism indicating a socialised (government) ownership of trade and industry.

It's ok, you aren't the only one who has had a muddled view of pure capitalism in the context of the political spectrum. Previously & for many years, students of political sciences at Uni were getting incorrectly taught capitalists were always right-wingers!

As an aside George Soros, mentioned in posts below, is a classic example of a left winger operating as a capitalist. Arguably one of the most successful & "ruthless" capitalists to operate in the last 30 years, but also openly a strong advocate & supporter of socialist ideology.

Yes as you put it, there may be some indication, but in reality capitalism & private ownership aren't necessarily joined at the hip. Yes, In a free-market economy that may be a more natural outcome, but the further left you go on the political spectrum, the less significance given to "ownership" of capital/property. In left leaning jurisdictions the far more significant influencing factor is who actually controls the property/capital.
Example: Think, China - Jack Ma

In NZ we are now more regularly seeing the left Labour government screwing the scrum for property (commercial & residential) landlords. "Sure, you own the property, but we will control what you capitalists can do or not do with the property". Examples: Fixed rents, interest deductibility, forced rent negotiations with commercial tenants etc etc.

[Bjauck]

It's ok, you aren't the only one who has had a muddled view of pure capitalism in the context of the political spectrum. I know previously for many years, students of political sciences at Uni were getting incorrectly taught capitalists were always right-wingers! …
Just to be clear, I do not agree that I have had a muddled view with respect to capitalism or socialism on the political spectrum. The support of private ownership, as opposed to state ownership, of business and trade is one clear indicator of being right wing, certainly with respect to economic policy.

One can be “right wing” with respect to business control and economic policy, whilst being “left wing” with respect to social policy. Some Liberal Parties can have policies that reflect that. Muldoon was perhaps an example of a “right wing” socially conservative politician who supported “left wing” state involvement in the economy.

[fungus pudding]

Just to be clear, I do not agree that I have had a muddled view with respect to capitalism or socialism on the political spectrum. The support of private ownership, as opposed to state ownership, of business and trade is one clear indicator of being right wing, certainly with respect to economic policy.

One can be “right wing” with respect to business control and economic policy, whilst being “left wing” with respect to social policy. Some Liberal Parties can have policies that reflect that. Muldoon was perhaps an example of a “right wing” socially conservative politician who supported “left wing” state involvement in the economy.

Right wing - left wing, and other political labels have become so muddled, often almost interchangable - that there is no way of knowing what the user means half the time.

[FTG]

Right wing - left wing, and other political labels have become so muddled, often almost interchangable - that there is no way of knowing what the user means half the time.

Agreed, and as for anyone that holds muddled views on any given area of study or discipline, we are often quite unaware of the weak epistemological framework we hold.

[Panda-NZ-]

Just to be clear, I do not agree that I have had a muddled view with respect to capitalism or socialism on the political spectrum. The support of private ownership, as opposed to state ownership, of business and trade is one clear indicator of being right wing, certainly with respect to economic policy.

One can be “right wing” with respect to business control and economic policy, whilst being “left wing” with respect to social policy. Some Liberal Parties can have policies that reflect that. Muldoon was perhaps an example of a “right wing” socially conservative politician who supported “left wing” state involvement in the economy.

The response to corona is an interesting case.
Some have called for business subsidies (right wing mainly)
Others for consumer subsidies.

What is that considered to be? In the first case businesses are paid to produce nothing, rather than have it based on consumer demands.

[fungus pudding]

The response to corona is an interesting case.
Some have called for business subsidies (right wing mainly)
Others for consumer subsidies.

What is that? In the first case businesses are paid to produce nothing, rather than have it based on consumer demands.
In the second case you could just as easily claim that consumers are paid to buy things they don't need, which come to think of it, is far more likely.

[dobby41]

In the second case you could just as easily claim that consumers are paid to buy things they don't need, which come to think of it, is far more likely.

Or buy things that they needed but maybe weren't sure they could afford.

[Bjauck]

The response to corona is an interesting case.
Some have called for business subsidies (right wing mainly)
Others for consumer subsidies.

What is that considered to be? In the first case businesses are paid to produce nothing, rather than have it based on consumer demands. Similar to the old top rate income tax cuts (& trickle down theory) or minimum wage increase / welfare benefit payment boost (& trickle up?) dichotomy.

[Crypto Crude]

2 man team to grow >$10 million dollar company.. you must have did a lot of over time, or sold some dam expensive tourism gift cards and tikis.

I earned my 8 figure net worth with the help of our Central Bank and the middle class voter's..all 60% of them!

Any who , I've already stated my end goal in the " how much is enough thread" and for some reason I upset a lot of people..hmmm me thinks I need to work on my communication a bit better.

I'm always trying to be a better version of myself.. Cheerio my fellow capitalists!

You are less than $99million ...
That's no that much for the level of your self endowment

[TeslaGod]

You are less than $99million ...
That's no that much for the level of your self endowment

I own residential real estate across all the main centre's in New Zealand

If you ever need a place to rent contact me I accept BTC.

In fact I'll do something I never do, I'll personally do my 3 month inspection on you..to see if you made your bed and mowed my lawns.

[SBQ]

I'm keen to see the outcome of the new gov't scheme:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/126581320/government-launches-shared-home-ownership-scheme-for-families-that-cant-save-a-deposit

"Under the First Home Partner scheme, Kāinga Ora would take an ownership share of the home it helped families buy.


Over time new households would buy those shares back to become homeowners.

Applicants would need to have a minimum five per cent​ deposit, and the maximum contribution Kāinga Ora would make to the home purchase would be 25​ per cent of the purchase price or $200,000,​ whichever was lower."

This is similar to Canada's 'First Time Home Buyer Incentive" program.

As for TeslaGod's achievement, you've earned your 90% of your wealth at the cost of society. Hardly comparable to the hustle and bustle of venturing all over NZ for the past 20+ years in our business.

In Canada there's an accepted saying for those in TeslaGod's camp. They call them 'slumlords'.

[TeslaGod]

I believe slumlord is a common saying in New Zealand used by the ignorant.

The schemes you have just mentioned in the above posts have been around forever.

The problem is who is willing to lend debt on these individuals.

Many can't pay there phone bills let alone a mortgage, rates, insurance, maintenance and be committed to it for the next 20 years.

The ones that do are already buying there first home as first home buyers make up the largest buyers in the market today.

[Bjauck]

…

The ones that do are already buying there first home as first home buyers make up the largest buyers in the market today.

Maybe you mean owner-occupiers including those shifting into their second or subsequent homes? First home buyers are about 22% of the market. Maybe even less as prices went higher over Winter….

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/125154151/first-home-buyer-fatigue-their-share-of-purchases-drop-to-lowest-since-2018

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/126444041/buying-a-first-home-has-become-even-harder-as-prices-of-cheap-houses-bolt-ahead-over-winter

[TeslaGod]

13036
I prefer doing my own research than what the left wing drivel the Dom Post releases.



Maybe you mean owner-occupiers including those shifting into their second or subsequent homes? First home buyers are about 22% of the market. Maybe even less as prices went higher over Winter….

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/125154151/first-home-buyer-fatigue-their-share-of-purchases-drop-to-lowest-since-2018

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/126444041/buying-a-first-home-has-become-even-harder-as-prices-of-cheap-houses-bolt-ahead-over-winter

[TeslaGod]

13036
I prefer doing my own research than what the left wing drivel the Dom Post releases.
Fyi I represent the purple line.

[dobby41]

Fyi I represent the purple line.

So the line of credit that you have isn't a mortgage?
I certainly understood from your very opaque posts that you had borrowings on your property so you would be in the light blue line?
Maybe I got that wrong - or do you speak with a forked tongue?

[SBQ]

So the line of credit that you have isn't a mortgage?
I certainly understood from your very opaque posts that you had borrowings on your property so you would be in the light blue line?
Maybe I got that wrong - or do you speak with a forked tongue?

Don't worry, those in the TeslaGod's camp will never allude others to believe any different. He's only telling half of the story.

To me that chart tells me (with my basic math of 24.3% + 12.4% = 36.7%) that existing multiple owners who buy cash or mortgage, represents the largest share of house purchases in NZ - regardless of which year. A real sad case.

[Bjauck]

13036
I prefer doing my own research than what the left wing drivel the Dom Post releases.

It depends what you mean by “largest buyers”. It also depends on how you segment the categories of buyers. “First Home Buyers” in that graph not being further segmented, whereas multiple property owners were sub-divided into cash purchasers and those who took out a mortgage. Multi-home owners comprising 36.7% of purchasers.

[artemis]

13036
I prefer doing my own research than what the left wing drivel the Dom Post releases.

There is also the Reserve Bank's monthly C31 report. It includes bank lending amounts and actual borrower numbers, both by type of borrower (OO, FHB, investor, business). Not the same data as CoreLogic reports but interesting in part because it goes back years so shows trends.

For example, the % of rental investor borrowers has been dropping, down about 4% this year so far. A trend.

[TeslaGod]

13036
I prefer doing my own research than what the left wing drivel the Dom Post releases.

I stand by my statement and the facts.

First home buyers are not struggling it's a myth exaggerated by left wing media.

First home buyers are over paying for property through fear and greed.

That is why the RBNZ is stepping in to reign FHBs in with further restrictions.

[dobby41]

I stand by my statement and the facts.

But no answer to this?

So the line of credit that you have isn't a mortgage?
I certainly understood from your very opaque posts that you had borrowings on your property so you would be in the light blue line?
Maybe I got that wrong - or do you speak with a forked tongue?

[TeslaGod]

But no answer to this?

Read the chart

Your embarrassing yourself.

[TeslaGod]

Don't worry, those in the TeslaGod's camp will never allude others to believe any different. He's only telling half of the story.

To me that chart tells me (with my basic math of 24.3% + 12.4% = 36.7%) that existing multiple owners who buy cash or mortgage, represents the largest share of house purchases in NZ - regardless of which year. A real sad case.

I thought the thread was "First home buyers are SreweD".

Not " I have tall poppy syndrome because someone has more money than me"

[Bjauck]

It depends what you mean by “largest buyers”. It also depends on how you segment the categories of buyers. “First Home Buyers” in that graph not being further segmented, whereas multiple property owners were sub-divided into cash purchasers and those who took out a mortgage. Multi-home owners comprising 36.7% of purchasers.


I thought the thread was "First home buyers are SreweD".

Not " I have tall poppy syndrome because someone has more money than me"
From your chart, First home buyers are clearly outnumbered by buyers with multiple homes. SBQ was pointing that out.

As you may have alluded to before, I do think that there is a bit of fear or more specifically, FOMO, with some buyers fearful that they will forever be outpriced and shut out of home ownership. Perhaps that FOMO was stoked by early pandemic forecasts suggesting that house prices were going to drop instead of which they have materially increased! However unlike you I do not think that fear is out of greed, but rather, out of the fear that the natural desire to provide for a home with security of tenure, and not subject to a Landlord’s agenda, will be frustrated.

[TeslaGod]

From your chart, First home buyers are clearly outnumbered by buyers with multiple homes. SBQ was pointing that out.


From my point of view I'm in the minority and most disadvantaged with most of the market over paying for property that just doesn't make sense.

Have you ever been to an auction and some selfish greedy millennial FHB out bids you, pays far too much for the property and neighborhood then drive's up the prices of the whole street?

Then to rub it in do a tik tok celebration dance??

FHB lack dignity and class.

They have ruined a stable market and deserved to be reigned in by the RBNZ.

[Bjauck]

From my point of view I'm in the minority and most disadvantaged with most of the market over paying for property that just doesn't make sense.

Have you ever been to an auction and some selfish greedy millennial FHB out bids you, pays far too much for the property and neighborhood then drive's up the prices of the whole street?

Then to rub it in do a tik tok celebration dance??

FHB lack dignity and class.

They have ruined a stable market and deserved to be reigned in by the RBNZ.
I do see your point. NZ’s house investment market is being spoiled by those wanting a home. They should stick to their cappuccini and crushed avocado and not crush the dreams of investors.

[SBQ]

I do see your point. NZ’s house investment market is being spoiled by those wanting a home. They should stick to their cappuccini and crushed avocado and not crush the dreams of investors.

:lol::lol::lol:

As a Harcourts real estate agent told me, "It only takes 2 keen bidders to make a real win for the seller of the house". Mr T would say, "I pity the fool of those FHB ruining my investment returns".

[TeslaGod]

:lol::lol::lol:

As a Harcourts real estate agent told me, "It only takes 2 keen bidders to make a real win for the seller of the house". Mr T would say, "I pity the fool of those FHB ruining my investment returns".

Wise word's from the agent.

Don't forget FHB pushing up house prices are also pushing up my net worth.$$$

All I do is win.

[TeslaGod]

One thing I should highlight and forgot to mention is the data from Corelogic shows FHBs 2021 share of purchases(>26.3%) on a quarterly basis is actually the highest its been 15 years(2006)..hmmm go figure, it's amazing what you can find through the lies of mainstream media and there blind followers 13042

And this thread was started in 2007 so to respond Crypto Crudes original statement "NZ first home buyers screwed "

No.

15 years of data proves that.

After all these years I think the moderators need to finally close this thread

[Bjauck]

One thing I should highlight and forgot to mention is the data from Corelogic shows FHBs 2021 share of purchases(>26.3%) on a quarterly basis is actually the highest its been 15 years(2006)..hmmm go figure, it's amazing what you can find through the lies of mainstream media and there blind followers 13042

And this thread was started in 2007 so to respond Crypto Crudes original statement "NZ first home buyers screwed "

No.

15 years of data proves that.

After all these years I think the moderators need to finally close this thread
During the same period FHB’s as a % of Buyers has been materially higher than NZ’s every year in the USA - varying from 31% to 50%pa. It just indicates how effectively NZ FHBs have been squeezed over the years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/208072/share-of-first-time-home-buyers-usa/

[dobby41]

After all these years I think the moderators need to finally close this thread

You could just stop posting in it!

[101nick101]

Is it even worth buying into Auckland or should I just move to Aus already (asking as a FHB who will be bent over by LVR changes)

[TeslaGod]

Is it even worth buying into Auckland or should I just move to Aus already (asking as a FHB who will be bent over by LVR changes)
Real estate in both countries is always a wise investment, more long-term than short.

As in New Zealand, be wary of buying in the regions of Australia.

Both countries regional real estate can stay flat for up to15 years after a boom, and we are in the middle of a big one.

Yes ,Auckland is still a good buy long-term.

[fungus pudding]

Is it even worth buying into Auckland or should I just move to Aus already (asking as a FHB who will be bent over by LVR changes)

Where do you want to be? Only you know the answer to that.

[Bjauck]

Where do you want to be? Only you know the answer to that. That would depend on priorities. If one of them is to be able to buy a suitable home, the it sounds that Auckland will be priced out for the poster.

The poster would not be the first. Over the years I wonder how many potential Auckland FHBs have moved overseas with one of the main reasons being unaffordable home ownership.

[TeslaGod]

You could just stop posting in it!

Some like your self may ponder how TeslaGod acquires his insight and knowledge.

All I can say is TeslaGod is a God amongst mere mortals.

[TeslaGod]

One thing I should highlight and forgot to mention is the data from Corelogic shows FHBs 2021 share of purchases(>26.3%) on a quarterly basis is actually the highest its been 15 years(2006)..hmmm go figure, it's amazing what you can find through the lies of mainstream media and there blind followers 13042

And this thread was started in 2007 so to respond Crypto Crudes original statement "NZ first home buyers screwed "

No.

15 years of data proves that.

After all these years I think the moderators need to finally close this thread

13073

This survey shows investors are being over regulated out of the market most likely since New tax rules, LVRs,loss of individual property rights and genuine hate towards property investors.

What are you waiting for FHBs?

It's your time to shine, or are you waiting for investors to return to the market.

[Bjauck]

13073

This survey shows investors are being over regulated out of the market most likely since New tax rules,
The Survey was about whether property investors planned to spend more on investment property - i.e whether they were going to add to their portfolio. So I am not sure how you can conclude from this that they are moving out of the market.

LVRs,loss of individual property rights and genuine hate towards property investors. How have "individual property rights" been affected?

"Genuine" hate towards investors? What differentiates "hate" from "genuine hate"?

Sure there will be some conflict of interests when one family's home is another person's investment. Realignment of the tax environment will cause resentment too amongst those who may have more tax to pay. Using this terminology, NZ must really hate income earners and really love those who earn untaxed capital gains - if the tax system is anything to go by...


What are you waiting for FHBs?

It's your time to shine, or are you waiting for investors to return to the market.

The expensive, dogs dinner of a property market is a scary place?

[TeslaGod]

The expensive, dogs dinner of a property market is a scary place?

Advising young FHBs against one of the safest investment classes in the world, the NZ property market show's your lack of understanding of our financial markets.

Your not taking into account rents that are going to o start spiking, even further if National gets in 2023.

It shows you invest on emotions not fact

Or perhaps you will just like complaining when the average house price reaches 2m at the end of the decade.

Remind me not to take any stock tips from you.

[Bjauck]

Advising young FHBs against one of the safest investment classes in the world, the NZ property market show's your lack of understanding of our financial markets.. None of my posts is advice. Moreover, Sharetrader is a forum for the exchange of opinions and not a place to dispense advice.


Your not taking into account rents that are going to o start spiking, even further if National gets in 2023.. I wouldn't be surprised. Various factors may make it even more expensive - Undersupply, building costs, tradie shortages, tax reform, depreciation deductions no longer allowed etc.


It shows you invest on emotions not fact . I do not invest in rental real estate.

Allthough I have bought a house to provide my family with a home. So that involved some emotion as the home is the focus of family life. As a general rule there is no emotional attachment to my share investments. Although there are some exceptions!


Or perhaps you will just like complaining when the average house price reaches 2m at the end of the decade.. I am not sure if I would like it as I think it would be an indictment on NZ's investment, banking and fiscal environment. I probably would pass comment should it occur.


Remind me not to take any stock tips from you. I have not given any, and I am not giving any. I am not qualified to give any and this is not the right place to give any.

[artemis]

..... I wouldn't be surprised. Various factors may make it even more expensive - Undersupply, building costs, tradie shortages, tax reform, depreciation deductions no longer allowed etc. ......

There are other factors encouraging increasing rents, and they are mostly the effect of government policies. Including increased risk from less than optimal tenants, convoluted and complex new rules on a number of fronts, tax changes, more compliance costs, including some rules acknowledged by the government as unfit for purpose but no urgency to do anything about them, big new fines.

Some are saying sod this for a game of soldiers and making decisions some of which will increase costs/rents or remove properties from the rental pool contributing to shortages (and increased rents).

ECON101.

[Bjauck]

There are other factors encouraging increasing rents, and they are mostly the effect of government policies. Including increased risk from less than optimal tenants, convoluted and complex new rules on a number of fronts, tax changes, more compliance costs, including some rules acknowledged by the government as unfit for purpose but no urgency to do anything about them, big new fines.

Some are saying sod this for a game of soldiers and making decisions some of which will increase costs/rents or remove properties from the rental pool contributing to shortages (and increased rents).

ECON101. As I said previously I think the residential property market is expensive and a dog’s dinner! That is not too say it could yet become even more expensive. It depends on how much credit continues to be made available, the alternatives for investors and suitable alternatives for those wanting a home…

[Aaron]

Interesting article, Australia has the same issue. Home ownership is becoming hereditary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/home-prices-affordability-soar-supply-government-inquiry-flawed/100532574

Great news for those who own homes.

[dobby41]

Interesting article, Australia has the same issue. Home ownership is becoming hereditary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/home-prices-affordability-soar-supply-government-inquiry-flawed/100532574

Great news for those who own homes.

A lot of the world is complaining of runaway house prices.

[Panda-NZ-]

Interesting article, Australia has the same issue. Home ownership is becoming hereditary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/home-prices-affordability-soar-supply-government-inquiry-flawed/100532574

Great news for those who own homes.

Investors with loans can just buy more and more properties, using the previous ones as security.

[SBQ]

Investors with loans can just buy more and more properties, using the previous ones as security.

I prefer the greater picture. What % of wealth is tied up in houses? I see NZ having similar parallels as China where 2/3rd of the wealth is tied up in real estate. Over in N. America, this is a very different mixed as I discussed before in other threads. Even the small guy in N. America can diversify and attain some level of wealth through investments in equities which attract preferential tax treatments. In NZ, the small guys gets a lousy Kiwi Saver that has well... no tax benefits when compared to the wealthier that can mortgage / leverage / and experience tax free capital gains.

I would believe with the size of Australia's many pension schemes, people there have less invested in houses than NZ does.

[fungus pudding]

I prefer the greater picture. What % of wealth is tied up in houses? I see NZ having similar parallels as China where 2/3rd of the wealth is tied up in real estate. Over in N. America, this is a very different mixed as I discussed before in other threads. Even the small guy in N. America can diversify and attain some level of wealth through investments in equities which attract preferential tax treatments. In NZ, the small guys gets a lousy Kiwi Saver that has well... no tax benefits when compared to the wealthier that can mortgage / leverage / and experience tax free capital gains.


If you want to start the hoi-poloi moaning their guts out, tell them you are going to tax them on the nominal increase in their house's value. The vast majority will tell you they only want it for those who have more than the property they occupy. IOW everyone but them. I've yet to hear one of these envy driven woofters agree that even owner occupied property that is bigger (therefore more expensive) than they need should be taxed.

[Bjauck]

If you want to start the hoi-poloi moaning their guts out, tell them you are going to tax them on the nominal increase in their house's value. The vast majority will tell you they only want it for those who have more than the property they occupy. IOW everyone but them. I've yet to hear one of these envy driven woofters agree that even owner occupied property that is bigger (therefore more expensive) than they need should be taxed. What do you mean by woofter? Why are the vast majority "woofters" for wanting homes to be exempt?

Some see the difference between a home and an investment.

Also, given the inflation in values in recent years, I would think that being a NZ home owner these days is a sign of being privileged rather than one of the hoipoloi..

[TeslaGod]

What do you mean by woofter? Why are the vast majority "woofters" for wanting homes to be exempt?

Some see the difference between a home and an investment.

Also, given the inflation in values in recent years, I would think that being a NZ home owner these days is a sign of being privileged rather than one of the hoipoloi..

Just because someone has

- Made wise decisions
- Inherited
- Married into

Or a number of other reasons to acquire realestate doesn't make them privileged.

Standing on a podium everyday giving daily updates on what people can and cannot do with their lives is the pinnacle of "privileged".

[fungus pudding]

What do you mean by woofter? Why are the vast majority "woofters" for wanting homes to be exempt?

Some see the difference between a home and an investment.

Also, given the inflation in values in recent years, I would think that being a NZ home owner these days is a sign of being privileged rather than one of the hoipoloi..

Given that over 60% of homes are owner occupied, the hoi-poloi by definition must fit in there somewhere. After all, we all form the hoi-poloi - we can't not be part of it.. The reason so many calling for CGT want their own homes to be exempt is simply self-interest. 'Tax is a great idea - as long as it catches the other fella.'

[Bjauck]

Given that over 60% of homes are owner occupied, the hoi-poloi by definition must fit in there somewhere. After all, we all form the hoi-poloi - we can't not be part of it.. The reason so many calling for CGT want their own homes to be exempt is simply self-interest. 'Tax is a great idea - as long as it catches the other fella.' Sure there are competing vested interests. It is why income is taxed and capital gains in general, with some exceptions, are not.

[Bjauck]

Just because someone has

- Made wise decisions
- Inherited
- Married into

Or a number of other reasons to acquire realestate doesn't make them privileged.

Standing on a podium everyday giving daily updates on what people can and cannot do with their lives is the pinnacle of "privileged". You have a very different understanding of privilege than I do, if inheriting wealth is not a privilege.

If you are referring to the PM updating Covid restrictions, then Yep she has a privilege: She is privileged with the power the voters via MPs delegated to her, and which they can take away from her next election.

[dobby41]

Standing on a podium everyday giving daily updates on what people can and cannot do with their lives is the pinnacle of "privileged".

I would have thought that having to make decisions like that that affect people's freedoms, livelihoods and even lives was more a burden than a privilege.
While people here offer their opinion on what should be done that have no accountability - if they are wrong then they are just wrong.

[TeslaGod]

I would have thought that having to make decisions like that that affect people's freedoms, livelihoods and even lives was more a burden than a privilege.
While people here offer their opinion on what should be done that have no accountability - if they are wrong then they are just wrong.

Well you thought wrong, were all adults, take the jab and get on with life.

If you die from the virus then that's your decision, I don't need to be told what to do from there.

[TeslaGod]

Bjuack

Im a political atheist, I don't vote for any bureaucratic leechers lining there own pocket.

[dobby41]

Well you thought wrong, were all adults, take the jab and get on with life.

If you die from the virus then that's your decision, I don't need to be told what to do from there.

Nothing at all to do with my argument!

[Bjauck]

Bjuack

Im a political atheist, I don't vote for any bureaucratic leechers lining there own pocket. Do you think elected politicians should perform their duties unpaid? Also not all politicians have the intent to corrupt.

It is why there is the full disclosure of MPs pecuniary and property interests - to see where vested interests may lie.

Does that mean you do not vote in elections, accepting without complaint whichever party is elected into office?

[TeslaGod]

Do you think elected politicians should perform their duties unpaid? Also not all politicians have the intent to corrupt.

It is why there is the full disclosure of MPs pecuniary and property interests - to see where vested interests may lie.

Does that mean you do not vote in elections, accepting without complaint whichever party is elected into office?

I do not vote

I do not accept any political party as my controller

I do not earn an income

I pay very little tax compared to my wealth and appreciation on my assets , I don't sell unless I'm rebalancing portfolio's.

I believe I am as free as I can be from your political master's.

Well in my heart and mind I am, which is as good as real freedom.

[RTM]

Matthew Hooton: Why MMP is our worst mistake
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12478919

Another contributor to the housing issue…MMP. Bit simplistic, but nevertheless.

[TeslaGod]

As a pure capitalist I believe National has lost its way since changing it's original founding principles.

“To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”.

[Bjauck]

As a pure capitalist I believe National has lost its way since changing it's original founding principles.

“To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”. If you never vote as a matter of principle, then surely it is irrelevant what any political party stands for or its policies, whether any of them try to safeguard your privilege of ownership?

Perhaps though you like big state involvement when it comes to the legal framework, judicial system and the enforcement and protection of your asset ownership? Do you like to rely on the socio-political system of private property rights and legal protection and enforcement without taking any responsibility for maintaining that system?

[arekaywhy]

...

Perhaps though you like big state involvement when it comes to the legal framework, judicial system and the enforcement and protection of your asset ownership? Do you like to rely on the socio-political system of private property rights and legal protection and enforcement without taking any responsibility for maintaining that system?

Isn't this "small" government?

Big government is that which tells us which light bulbs we are allowed, and how much more tax we should take from successful people

[Bjauck]

Isn't this "small" government?

Big government is that which tells us which light bulbs we are allowed, and how much more tax we should take from successful peopleNo. I am not sure how you can label it “small” government, when it can fine and incarcerate you. The state looms large in protecting property rights, so why only call it big when it introduces product and safety standards and introduces taxes you may not like.

Many successful people earn capital gains which, recent amendments notwithstanding, remain untaxed. NZ has a regressive tax system.

[arekaywhy]

No. I am not sure how you can label it “small” government, when it can fine and incarcerate you. The state looms large in protecting property rights, so why only call it big when it introduces product and safety standards and introduces taxes you may not like.

Many successful people earn capital gains which, recent amendments notwithstanding, remain untaxed. NZ has a regressive tax system.

Miss-read your post it seems, my bad.

I do however think that the state should be a small entity, enforcing property rights, sure, but not infiltrating every facet of life.

For tax, I think you are right, it should be far simpler, with a flat tax, no exception, and some form of income exemption to a limit.

[dobby41]

I thought of this thread when I say this
13116

From this article
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/112764/treasury-rbnz-say-government-will-eventually-have-consider-raising-taxes-or-cutting

[fungus pudding]

Miss-read your post it seems, my bad.

I do however think that the state should be a small entity, enforcing property rights, sure, but not infiltrating every facet of life.

For tax, I think you are right, it should be far simpler, with a flat tax, no exception, and some form of income exemption to a limit.

Not possible to fulfill that order. An income exemption, whether a dollar limit or a percentage limit, immediately stops it being a flat tax.
But keep thinking along those lines.

[Aaron]

I thought of this thread when I say this
13116

From this article
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/112764/treasury-rbnz-say-government-will-eventually-have-consider-raising-taxes-or-cutting

If I read that chart correctly it looks a lot like intergenerational theft. Not only that but the next generation will pick up the tab for their national super and increased health costs.

[dobby41]

If I read that chart correctly it looks a lot like intergenerational theft. Not only that but the next generation will pick up the tab for their national super and increased health costs.

It looks that way, doesn't it.
As they say - the gap is probably a lot bigger now.

[Bjauck]

Miss-read your post it seems, my bad.

I do however think that the state should be a small entity, enforcing property rights, sure, but not infiltrating every facet of life.

For tax, I think you are right, it should be far simpler, with a flat tax, no exception, and some form of income exemption to a limit.
I support a flat tax too. A flat tax on all gains, whether income or capital gains, with an annual tax free allowance.

I also think that NZ should have a pension scheme, which is tax deductible (up to a certain amount of contribution each year) and does not incur annual tax until distributions are made from it after retirement.

With respect to the state. It should enforce property rights, but it should also ensure that the property which has been afforded protection by the state (or society)be accumulated fairly or in a manner acceptable to society or“the state”. So product and environmental regulation is needed, along with marketing and employment standards.

[Bjauck]

It looks that way, doesn't it.
As they say - the gap is probably a lot bigger now. It is interesting how in 2018 wealth continues to increase until the age of about 75. Whereas in 2001 it started to decrease from the age of about 58 onwards.

So there will be more wealthier deceased estates or family trusts.

I guess back in the day earning income was relatively more important so that when someone retired, and had less income, their wealth would drop too. Whereas today wealth creation (and wealth maintenance in retirement) is much more reliant on the capital gains from exisiting assets (which to a great extent means residential property ownership in NZ).

[fungus pudding]

I support a flat tax too. A flat tax on all gains, whether income or capital gains, with an annual tax free allowance.


As pointed out earlier, an annual tax free allowance prevents a flat tax. You cannot have both - impossible.

[Bjauck]

As pointed out earlier, an annual tax free allowance prevents a flat tax. You cannot have both - impossible. No, every amount over the threshold would be taxed at a flat rate.

Especially important if you have no tax free threshold with respect to income/gains, we would need to look at GST as well. A continued flat tax regime on outgoings would need to be extended. So GST should be extended to asset purchases such as real estate and share purchases ( a stamp duty). To determine if you have an assessable capital gain, you could deduct the flat rate Stamp duty on the outlay in determining any gain.

[fungus pudding]

No, every amount over the threshold is taxed at a flat rate.

Otherwise if you had no tax free threshold, you would need either to do away with GST, or keep GST and introduce stamp duty at the same rate as GST on asset purchases such as real estate and share purchases.

Yes, but that produces a progressive tax. Compare someone on 200k a year with the first 10k exempt with someone on 15k a year with the first 10k exempt - you work it out, but you will find they pay vastly different percentages. IOW progressive - not flat, but you knew that. You just forgot.
I think a tax free threshold is possibly the best solution for the problems that any tax proposal has. I'm not necessarily against it. I am simply against using the misnomer 'flat-tax' when it is no-such-thing.

[arekaywhy]

Yes, but that produces a progressive tax. Compare someone on 200k a year with the first 10k exempt with someone on 15k a year with the first 10k exempt - you work it out, but you will find they pay vastly different percentages. IOW progressive - not flat, but you knew that. You just forgot.
I think a tax free threshold is possibly the best solution for the problems that any tax proposal has. I'm not necessarily against it. I am simply against using the misnomer 'flat-tax' when it is no-such-thing.

Ok, I'll change it to single tax rate then, with tax free threshold, that is essentially what I think will be best for society, and the most fair way of robbing people at gunpoint

[fungus pudding]

Ok, I'll change it to single tax rate then, with tax free threshold, that is essentially what I think will be best for society, and the most fair way of robbing people at gunpoint

Flat tax with a starting threshold is known as 'marginal flat tax'.
Scroll down a bit on this page. (or see 1.2 in index)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

[Bjauck]

Yes, but that produces a progressive tax. Compare someone on 200k a year with the first 10k exempt with someone on 15k a year with the first 10k exempt - you work it out, but you will find they pay vastly different percentages. IOW progressive - not flat, but you knew that. You just forgot.
I think a tax free threshold is possibly the best solution for the problems that any tax proposal has. I'm not necessarily against it. I am simply against using the misnomer 'flat-tax' when it is no-such-thing.

if you look at the threshold as the minimum current non-discretionary cost for a human to exist in current acceptable conditions, then if you tax that you are in effect taxing an expense (certainly with respect to income from personal effort). So it becomes regressive…or regressive double taxing when you take into account GST as well.

[fungus pudding]

if you look at the threshold as the minimum current non-discretionary cost for a human to exist in current acceptable conditions, then if you tax that you are in effect taxing an expense. So it becomes regressive…or double taxing when you take into account GST as well.

Precisely why it shouldn't be called a flat tax. However the 'marginal flat tax' is a fair description. GST is a consumption tax, unaffected by income tax so doesn't come into it. Fair enough to have two separate tax names and the two separate taxes. If you want to take a slice of your income and call it an expense, you're more than welcome - be my guest.

[TeslaGod]

No, every amount over the threshold would be taxed at a flat rate.

Especially important if you have no tax free threshold with respect to income/gains, we would need to look at GST as well. A continued flat tax regime on outgoings would need to be extended. So GST should be extended to asset purchases such as real estate and share purchases ( a stamp duty). To determine if you have an assessable capital gain, you could deduct the flat rate Stamp duty on the outlay in determining any gain.

Yes but the problem with your socialist paradise of taxing everything that moves you invision, a straight forward answer, and it's happening in California and New York.

Those with the wealth and means myself included would simply move to Australia, Texas, Florida.

Leaving behind those to clean up the mess they wished for.

It's nothing for me to sell everything and park it in Australia's economy.

Yes Oz has taxes but like here there are ways around it.

Attached is an excellent scientific analysis of targeted tax group's and it's social outcomes.


13122

[dobby41]

Those with the wealth and means myself included would simply move to Australia, Texas, Florida.


Would that be a bad thing - if you left?
Just asking.
You pay no tax, you consume resources paid for by the taxpayer.
You seem to be of negative benefit to NZ as a whole.

[TeslaGod]

Would that be a bad thing - if you left?
Just asking.
You pay no tax, you consume resources paid for by the taxpayer.
You seem to be of negative benefit to NZ as a whole.

I house the homeless, welfare dependants, mentally disabled, drug addicts and donate more to charities than you likely earn a year.

So yes ..I would be missed.

[Bjauck]

Precisely why it shouldn't be called a flat tax. However the 'marginal flat tax' is a fair description. GST is a consumption tax, unaffected by income tax so doesn't come into it. Fair enough to have two separate tax names and the two separate taxes. If you want to take a slice of your income and call it an expense, you're more than welcome - be my guest.

It makes no sense to ignore the double taxing of the cost of obtaining that income - namely the cost involved in staying live by eating and providing shelter - to justify the absence of tax free threshold. It would be regressive so to ignore.

[LEMON]

Since this is 1st homebuyers, do people in the know here think that house prices will keep rising?

I read somewhere that one prediction is 2million for the average home in the coming years Auckland/Wellington. Is this even possible?

I will go look for the link

[fungus pudding]

Since this is 1st homebuyers, do people in the know here think that house prices will keep rising?

I read somewhere that one prediction is 2million for the average home in the coming years? Is this even possible?

I will go look for the link

Of course it's possible. Whether it's likely in our life times is a more interesting question.
i'd say it depends on what you mean by 'the coming years'. Given long enough it's all but guaranteed, but getting there will be a roller coaster ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUldGc06S3U

[artemis]

Since this is 1st homebuyers, do people in the know here think that house prices will keep rising?

I read somewhere that one prediction is 2million for the average home in the coming years Auckland/Wellington. Is this even possible?

I will go look for the link

Supply and Demand. A bit simplistic but true. A bit less simplistic would mean taking into account population changes, income changes, cost of supplies and money (interest), government intervention, fudge factors - and the interactions between them - for starters. The net of which is - it depends!

For fun, take a million dollars and add say 8% / year. Doesn't take long to double it.

[LEMON]

I
Of course it's possible. Whether it's likely in our lifetimes is a more interesting question.
I'd say it depends on what you mean by 'the coming years. Given long enough it's all but guaranteed, but getting there will be a roller coaster ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUldGc06S3U


Supply and Demand. A bit simplistic but true. A bit less simplistic would mean taking into account population changes, income changes, cost of supplies and money (interest), government intervention, fudge factors - and the interactions between them - for starters. The net of which is - it depends!

For fun, take a million dollars and add say 8% / year. Doesn't take long to double it.

Although I understand the housing market and stock have effects on each other I have never looked at the property market before, until now.
I planned to rent and keep investing the majority of my wage to build a good stocks portfolio, now my situation has changed and I have come into an opportunity to buy & build on a piece of land, so now I want to know about the property market and the kind of future my investment in a new build would have, I have just watched a very good video on the housing market situation currently and it's expected to cool off but in the future continue a slowth growth, whereas they believe there is no lack of housing in NZ only a lack of suitable housing which makes sense to me, also bringing in to consideration of the growing population and only 44'000 new build each year, I believe its a good idea to go ahead with this opportunity, but I will do more research from here

[LEMON]

I guess to summarise what I'm saying, I'm worried like many that this current housing market will pop and I don't want to be left paying a huge sum on something that could have cost me less in the future, from what I'm reading and watching this is unlikely to happen in NZ and time soon?

[dobby41]

I guess to summarise what I'm saying, I'm worried like many that this current housing market will pop and I don't want to be left paying a huge sum on something that could have cost me less in the future, from what I'm reading and watching this is unlikely to happen in NZ and time soon?

Do you want to borrow somebody's crystal ball?
Mine says that in 10 years' time a house will cost more than it does today.

[LEMON]

Do you want to borrow somebody's crystal ball?
Mine says that in 10 years a house will cost more than it does today.

Not a crystal ball, more so just some good knowledgeable advice for a young investor on buying a first property in today's market, and what the future may look like for that investment in say 10 years, which from what you say is good with me lol

[Logen Ninefingers]

The heavily indebted are screwed. Good job. No such thing as a free lunch. The Piper wants paying.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/126727285/inflation-shock-may-hit-mortgage-holders-hard-and-soon

Inflation shock may hit mortgage holders hard and soon
Tom Pullar-Strecker
16:21, Oct 19 2021

Home-owners may start paying a price for higher inflation sooner rather than later, the country’s biggest bank believes.

ANZ is tipping inflation will reach 5.8 per cent early next year and the official cash rate 2 per cent in August.

But the bank also warned a “dramatic increase in wholesale swap rates” on Monday meant there was now “real pressure” for mortgage rates to rise further “before long”.

The annual yield on 10-year government bonds has jumped about 30 basis points over the past week, soaring above 2.3 per cent.

The movement in financial markets increased the chance that housing market momentum could turn more sharply than forecast and flip more abruptly than expected, the bank said.

[dobby41]

The heavily indebted are screwed.

You should write media headlines.

[TeslaGod]

The heavily indebted are screwed. Good job. No such thing as a free lunch. The Piper wants paying.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/126727285/inflation-shock-may-hit-mortgage-holders-hard-and-soon

Inflation shock may hit mortgage holders hard and soon
Tom Pullar-Strecker
16:21, Oct 19 2021

Home-owners may start paying a price for higher inflation sooner rather than later, the country’s biggest bank believes.

ANZ is tipping inflation will reach 5.8 per cent early next year and the official cash rate 2 per cent in August.

But the bank also warned a “dramatic increase in wholesale swap rates” on Monday meant there was now “real pressure” for mortgage rates to rise further “before long”.

The annual yield on 10-year government bonds has jumped about 30 basis points over the past week, soaring above 2.3 per cent.

The movement in financial markets increased the chance that housing market momentum could turn more sharply than forecast and flip more abruptly than expected, the bank said.

Great news!

Not only does inflation erode away my debt but rents go higher with inflation

All I do is win win win!!

[TeslaGod]

Not a crystal ball, more so just some good knowledgeable advice for a young investor on buying a first property in today's market, and what the future may look like for that investment in say 10 years, which from what you say is good with me lol

Your over analyzing, buy a good home with safe capital growth near public transport, shopping malls,cafés and were people work. If you're going to buy an apartment or town house, don't buy were There's 300 of them next door that look exactly the same.

There's a reason the more central to the cbd you buy the more expensive it is.

Try and buy something with a bit of dirt, the Nats and Reds announced forcing councils are allowed to build more properties on single sections without consent costs around the main centers

This is going to send land prices in the big cities as they say..to the moon!

[LEMON]

Your over analyzing, buy a good home with safe capital growth near public transport, shopping malls,cafés and were people work. If you're going to buy an apartment or town house, don't buy were There's 300 of them next door that look exactly the same.

There's a reason the more central to the cbd you buy the more expensive it is.

Try and buy something with a bit of dirt, the Nats and Reds announced forcing councils are allowed to build more properties on single sections without consent costs around the main centers

This is going to send land prices in the big cities as they say..to the moon!

I hear what you're saying, I am asking as I am interested in the property market now, that I have a been offered Land to buy in a great location for a new build and wondering what value that has in the near future, as it's an investment for 5-10 years and sell

[TeslaGod]

I hear what you're saying, I am asking as I am interested in the property market now, that I have a been offered Land to buy in a great location for a new build and wondering what value that has in the near future, as it's an investment for 5-10 years and sell We're is your location?

[fungus pudding]

Supply and Demand. A bit simplistic but true. A bit less simplistic would mean taking into account population changes, income changes, cost of supplies and money (interest), government intervention, fudge factors - and the interactions between them - for starters. The net of which is - it depends!

For fun, take a million dollars and add say 8% / year. Doesn't take long to double it.

Doesn't take long to learn "the rule of 72' either.

[fungus pudding]

Supply and Demand. A bit simplistic but true. A bit less simplistic would mean taking into account population changes, income changes, cost of supplies and money (interest), government intervention, fudge factors - and the interactions between them - for starters. The net of which is - it depends!

For fun, take a million dollars and add say 8% / year. Doesn't take long to double it.

Doesn't take long to learn "the rule of 72' either. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rule+of+72&oq=the+rule+of+72&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l7.14680j0j16&client=ms-android-oppo-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[LEMON]

We're is your location?

Wellington region, hutt valley.

[TeslaGod]

Wellington region, hutt valley.
I own a multiple properties down there,they have experienced massive growth already which should be slowing, land is in short supply but these new government laws allowing for higher density will help.

A new build down there will always have buyers ,obviously not as much as the last 12 months boom, but highly overpaid government bureaucrats usually push house prices up over a longer period than Auckland, depending on who's in power.

If national gets in for a long period, Wellington house prices can stagnant, and you have seen what a communist government can do when all taxes and revenue are filtered through a government central location affecting house prices in the region

Wellington
Beijing
Moscow etc

It will still double over 10 years.

[TeslaGod]

Wellington region, hutt valley.
FYI I don't buy in these fomo markets, the last house I purchased in the Wellington region was 2016, it trippled in value in 5 years.

[moka]

I house the homeless, welfare dependants, mentally disabled, drug addicts and donate more to charities than you likely earn a year.

So yes ..I would be missed.
I laugh when I see property investors seeing themselves as heroes or providing essential services. Really? You are kidding. If you left and went to Australia the properties would remain and be bought by someone one else who would live in the house or rent them out. It sounds very heroic to provide homes for those disadvantaged people. But surely the reason you have property is to benefit from the capital gain. First and foremost it is an investment which gives a lucrative return. Would you invest if there was no capital gain? Providing homes is just a by-product of your investment.

I agree with Peter Buffet (son of Warren Buffett) when called the whole business of philanthropy ‘conscience laundering’ which he defined as ‘feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity’

Buffet wrote in his opinion piece: ‘All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left’.

Engaging in charity and developing the image of the ‘nice guy’ always comes in handy one way or the other.

At the end of the day, the private sector’s interest is to make money. And the reputation companies gain when attempting to improve the lives of the poor through philanthropic initiatives serves them for exactly that purpose.

https://kathmandupost.com/16/2019/11/16/philanthropy-and-conscience-laundering
Philanthropy and conscience laundering

[TeslaGod]

I laugh when I see property investors seeing themselves as heroes or providing essential services. Really? You are kidding. If you left and went to Australia the properties would remain and be bought by someone one else who would live in the house or rent them out. It sounds very heroic to provide homes for those disadvantaged people. But surely the reason you have property is to benefit from the capital gain. First and foremost it is an investment which gives a lucrative return. Would you invest if there was no capital gain? Providing homes is just a by-product of your investment.

I agree with Peter Buffet (son of Warren Buffett) when called the whole business of philanthropy ‘conscience laundering’ which he defined as ‘feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity’

Buffet wrote in his opinion piece: ‘All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left’.

Engaging in charity and developing the image of the ‘nice guy’ always comes in handy one way or the other.

At the end of the day, the private sectorÂ’s interest is to make money. And the reputation companies gain when attempting to improve the lives of the poor through philanthropic initiatives serves them for exactly that purpose.

https://kathmandupost.com/16/2019/11/16/philanthropy-and-conscience-laundering
Philanthropy and conscience laundering

I pretty much agree with everything you posted.

I never said I'm trying to be a saint, how I invest and donate to my favourite charities is for tax purposes.

Yes I'm trying to make a profit

The only part I disagree with is are you going to house the people if I sell up? Perhaps your government can squeeze them in motels?

So yes I will be missed.

Get educated you broke dumb arse.

As for buffet, yeah tell yourself he's great.

He invests in companies an idiot like yourself that could be a CEO and run .. with other people's money.

[TeslaGod]

Doesn't take long to learn "the rule of 72' either. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rule+of+72&oq=the+rule+of+72&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l7.14680j0j16&client=ms-android-oppo-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Use a calculator, welcome to the new world grandma.

[Logen Ninefingers]

MuskRat makes everything about himself. This entire forum is one giant showcase for him to rave on about his wealth and try to rub other people’s noses in it. Money definitely can’t buy class - some of the richest people are also some of the ugliest. But if you were obscenely rich why on earth would you spend all day every day telling people about how rich you are - life must be very boring despite the money, and the individual would also have to be desperately insecure. The story so far: MuskRat knows it all, and will apparently only get vastly richer no matter what the future holds. And we have no way of knowing if any of it is true: the bloke may not even have $5 to his name.

[TeslaGod]

MuskRat makes everything about himself. This entire forum is one giant showcase for him to rave on about his wealth and try to rub other people’s noses in it. Money definitely can’t buy class - some of the richest people are also some of the ugliest. But if you were obscenely rich why on earth would you spend all day every day telling people about how rich you are - life must be very boring despite the money, and the individual would also have to be desperately insecure. The story so far: MuskRat knows it all, and will apparently only get vastly richer no matter what the future holds. And we have no way of knowing if any of it is true: the bloke may not even have $5 to his name.

That's what a poor person like your self would post.

Oh you just did.

I'm rich bitches!

[TeslaGod]

That's what a poor person like your self would post.

Oh you just did.

I'm rich bitches!

This is what happens when you retire at 35 very wealthy, you start to understand your better than the average smo.

[TeslaGod]

Logan sticky Ninefingers.

Elon Musk is the richest man on the planet.

He still has time to make fun of people on Twitter.

Lighten up grumpy.

[SBQ]

Smart men never show their cards...

@ TeslaGod - you don't have to believe me if i'm as wealthy as you. I'm indifferent. However what differentiates between you and me is I have a charitable focus in the long term future. I have an awareness to contributing back to society, and helping those who are disadvantaged. Picking at people by telling them they are poor is very unclassy and you will get no love out of that. What is critical is NZ needs more houses.. but it's a very unfortunately situation when people like yourself only see yourself as 'providing a service', which exasperates the housing problem.

As I posted before, Warren Buffet has said it doesn't matter how rich you are, what matters is what people remember you for and how they regard you when you're on the death bed. You're a complete failure.. actually let me find the quote:


But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them,” said Buffett. “If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is, your life is a disaster.”


“The problem with love is that it’s not for sale,” Buffett told the students. “The only way to get love is to be lovable. It’s very irritating if you have a lot of money. You’d like to think you could write a check: I’ll buy a million dollars’ worth of love. But it doesn’t work that way. The more you give love away, the more you get.”

I'm giving love away and I expect my children to do the same with my estate.

[TeslaGod]

Yes, you seem like a good person SBQ and no doubt you have a good heart which I respect and admire.

However you say your like Warren Buffet

My heart is more like the vampire Edward Cullen

Black, cold, Lifeless

I am dead inside...

Have a great night SBQ!

[TeslaGod]

Smart men never show their cards...

@ TeslaGod - you don't have to believe me if i'm as wealthy as you. I'm indifferent. However what differentiates between you and me is I have a charitable focus in the long term future. I have an awareness to contributing back to society, and helping those who are disadvantaged. Picking at people by telling them they are poor is very unclassy and you will get no love out of that. What is critical is NZ needs more houses.. but it's a very unfortunately situation when people like yourself only see yourself as 'providing a service', which exasperates the housing problem.

As I posted before, Warren Buffet has said it doesn't matter how rich you are, what matters is what people remember you for and how they regard you when you're on the death bed. You're a complete failure.. actually let me find the quote:





I'm giving love away and I expect my children to do the same with my estate.

Elon Musk teased Warren Buffett for being so much poorer than him — and suggested the investor buy Tesla stock to catch up

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-warren-buffett-net-worth-wealth-tesla-stock-billionaires-2021-10

The irony and timing of my post is uncanny!

[artemis]

MuskRat makes everything about himself. This entire forum is one giant showcase for him to rave on about his wealth and try to rub other people’s noses in it. Money definitely can’t buy class - some of the richest people are also some of the ugliest. But if you were obscenely rich why on earth would you spend all day every day telling people about how rich you are - life must be very boring despite the money, and the individual would also have to be desperately insecure. The story so far: MuskRat knows it all, and will apparently only get vastly richer no matter what the future holds. And we have no way of knowing if any of it is true: the bloke may not even have $5 to his name.

It's called the internet. There are still some parts of it where folk can post and other folk can believe or agree or not. Or make assumptions about another's mental state.

[TeslaGod]

It's called the internet. There are still some parts of it where folk can post and other folk can believe or agree or not. Or make assumptions about another's mental state.

It's called dark humour

Some people get it

Most people don't.

[Bjauck]

It's called dark humour

Some people get it

Most people don't.
I suppose the risk with dark humour, especially if repetitive, with strangers or on a public internet forum is that it can be misinterpreted, and come across as trolling.

[TeslaGod]

I suppose the risk with dark humour, especially if repetitive, with strangers or on a public internet forum is that it can be misinterpreted, and come across as trolling.

Read my posts carefully

I don't insult anyone but myself unless being insulted

(Yes 2 wrongs don't make a right)

Study the absurdity of the arrogance I show towards myself, my financial situation and others in my position.

The psychology of making a mockery of oneself seems to upset others.

Yet balanced out by having a high understanding of my 2 largest positions in Real estate and a distant 2nd TSLA.

Troll? Possibly

I prefer to see it as an observation of the human animal.

[Logen Ninefingers]

We know how much Kiwi's love splurging on property during a pandemic, so the endless lockdown in Auckland must be delivering another huge windfall to sellers as the lemmings pile in - gimme some more of that mountainous debt and 'propertee' they cry, desperately trying to outbid each other.