No matter what system there will always be exceptions. And with those exceptions come opportunities to avoid - which is every tax payers responsibility.
Printable View
Isn’t that a reason behind the tax review in the first place.
Leveraged investment in residential real estate had provided the opportunity to minimise income tax (by minimising the income from rent) whilst maximising the leveraged return from untaxed capital gain. With that opportunity also being a big factor in there being less household capital available for NZ shares resulting in the small share market and many listings crossing the Tasman.
Overall the CGT in its current form is going hurt the average kiwi battler(esp the new investors looking to make their first investments in property) more so than the well-off they think will take the brunt of the extra TAX...
For me personally, this CGT plan won't affect us much at all.. I don't have a Kiwi saver ... I trade shares within a company structure so pay tax anyway as does anyone they trades shares or crytpo / bullion /art etc..
and have speculated with property in the past so tainted anyway now and bright line test is 5yrs so speculators are caught these days anyway...
And you add in the fact Capital values of most of NZ property is at record highs in this long bull cycle more likely those selling over the next decade may well take a loss and need tax rebates ,,
in 2016 the US-based Tax Foundation ranked New Zealand’s overall tax system as second in the developed world for its competitiveness - and top for its individual (personal) taxes.
then along comes Cindy >>>
That's because of the N.Z. Banks conservative approach to lending. The point I was trying to make is that tax law does not distinguish, but treats shares and property equally. i.e. there is no special treatment for real estate as a class. Just borrow from a rich uncle.
The definition of what is a taxable dividend would also need to be compared with what constitutes current taxable returns from property.
However in relation to CGT I understand. Perhaps the crux of “fairness” lies in real world practice and the comparison of taxes raised per $1 net return on the investment.
I’ve just signed the Labour Party petition on the CGT
labour.org.nz
I have done likewise to Grant Robertson. Specifically pointing out if CGT does proceed and also covers the family home, it would raise meaningful revenue, thus allowing a meaningful drop in income tax - and if it's considered fair to tax gains from property, then treat all property equally rather than just play with it.
Do you think they are crazy enough to give solid weighting to disingenuous advice from property investors FP? The standard household home was never in the CGT equation in any case. And I don't think that would lead to any investor worth their salt, over-investing in the family home, as it would be a waste of good capital. All property is being treated fairly, unless you'd consider not being able to add interest paid and other ownership costs into your annual tax return for your property portfolio.
Other dastardly options for landlords:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...ichardson.html
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...or-labour.html
Renters just have to look forward to increases. Labour has changed how property management fees are charged - so loading up rent. They are insisting on minimum housing standards so cost will be loaded onto rent. Nothing wrong with landlords now wanting to manage their capital risks by cashing up any potential gain by loading up rents.
I can see you have the mantra spot-on, MM. It's only fair that the tenants will pay for every last cent of your investment, and more.
Attachment 10386