sharetrader
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 172
  1. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    ... IRD in NZ is way too lenient in allowing the use of real estate as a way to escape tax when compared to other investment or business models.
    There is no CGT in New Zealand, though there are situations where a capital gain is treated as income for tax purposes. The current government campaigned on a CGT, then set up a tax working group that (eventually) came to the CGT party. Next minute, the Prime Minister made a captain's call and canned it.

    There were some exceptions to the proposed GST, like main home, small businesses sold to fund the owner's retirement, baches. The exceptions were not thought through and kept being added to or changed with voter feedback. It was heading for a big unpopular mess and a potential game changer for the government. So, gone.

  2. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    There is no CGT in New Zealand, though there are situations where a capital gain is treated as income for tax purposes. The current government campaigned on a CGT, then set up a tax working group that (eventually) came to the CGT party. Next minute, the Prime Minister made a captain's call and canned it.

    There were some exceptions to the proposed GST, like main home, small businesses sold to fund the owner's retirement, baches. The exceptions were not thought through and kept being added to or changed with voter feedback. It was heading for a big unpopular mess and a potential game changer for the government. So, gone.
    Yes i'm aware IRD will simply treat property gains as straight income gains whereas in Canada, the same situation would be the capital gain would be simply treated as capital gains tax (a different rate / criteria). My problem is in NZ, there is no clear distinction for those 'buying houses with the intent to make a profit.... but hold the property well after the 2 or 5 year brightline test' and therefore able to sell the house without IRD being aware of any knowing that rental income has been collected on the property. They've basically kept a complete blind eye on this area with no internal checks. For eg in Vancouver the city council compile records on how the property is used. ie. say if the person intends to rent a portion of the house out, then they require a rental license from the local city council ; for which the home owner has to declare on their insurance policy, for which the home owner has to apportion what % of the house is rented out to the CRA so when the time comes they sell the house, ONLY that % portion NOT used as rental is tax free on their principal residence (under the change of use of the principal residence act). Even leaving the house vacant, the City of Vancouver compiles that data and forwards it to the federal level.

    Ms Ardern is a joke. Spent all this $ on an independent TWG - only to say no against their advice. Why was there a lack of communication between her Labour Party caucus and the TWG, WITH the NZ public? What came to her decision? What factors she did not like? The people voted her in to address housing affordability and she's failed miserably in this area. While countries like Canada have made great efforts to address affordability while at the same time, discouraging the incentive to use houses as a profiting tool. Because having grown up in Canada, only very few people i've come across make big $ from owning real estate; the vast majority have made their wealth on the sharemarket. But as i've said before in another thread, NZ's tax structure clearly discourages direct investment in foreign shares that fall under the FIF regime. Those living abroad wanting to reside in NZ would be hit with FIF on their overseas investments - yielding the only migrants that come to NZ are the poor ones that have no significant assets abroad.

  3. #108
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Yes i'm aware IRD will simply treat property gains as straight income gains whereas in Canada, the same situation would be the capital gain would be simply treated as capital gains tax (a different rate / criteria). My problem is in NZ, there is no clear distinction for those 'buying houses with the intent to make a profit.... but hold the property well after the 2 or 5 year brightline test' and therefore able to sell the house without IRD being aware of any knowing that rental income has been collected on the property. They've basically kept a complete blind eye on this area with no internal checks. For eg in Vancouver the city council compile records on how the property is used. ie. say if the person intends to rent a portion of the house out, then they require a rental license from the local city council ; for which the home owner has to declare on their insurance policy, for which the home owner has to apportion what % of the house is rented out to the CRA so when the time comes they sell the house, ONLY that % portion NOT used as rental is tax free on their principal residence (under the change of use of the principal residence act). Even leaving the house vacant, the City of Vancouver compiles that data and forwards it to the federal level.

    Ms Ardern is a joke. Spent all this $ on an independent TWG - only to say no against their advice. Why was there a lack of communication between her Labour Party caucus and the TWG, WITH the NZ public? What came to her decision? What factors she did not like? The people voted her in to address housing affordability and she's failed miserably in this area. While countries like Canada have made great efforts to address affordability while at the same time, discouraging the incentive to use houses as a profiting tool. Because having grown up in Canada, only very few people i've come across make big $ from owning real estate; the vast majority have made their wealth on the sharemarket. But as i've said before in another thread, NZ's tax structure clearly discourages direct investment in foreign shares that fall under the FIF regime. Those living abroad wanting to reside in NZ would be hit with FIF on their overseas investments - yielding the only migrants that come to NZ are the poor ones that have no significant assets abroad.
    Yet interestingly in NZ, there has never been a fund to invest in residential property. There are funds for commercial property. I asked Brian Gaynor a while back why this was. He said it has been tried in the past but it just does not work. There is no money to be made in residential property. (in other words its too hard). So I do not think there are profiting mechanisms with residential property. I manage three rentals that have appreciated in value the last 10 years, but if I go back and work out the return after all costs, I would be better off having put my money in the stock market. Once the growth in capital value that we have seen the last 10 years plateaus, it is going to be a season of discontent for those holding residential property.
    Last edited by blackcap; 16-12-2019 at 08:32 AM.

  4. #109
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Yet interestingly in NZ, there has never been a fund to invest in residential property. There are funds for commercial property. I asked Brian Gaynor a while back why this was. He said it has been tried in the past but it just does not work. There is no money to be made in residential property. (in other words its too hard). So I do not think there are profiting mechanisms with residential property. I manage three rentals that have appreciated in value the last 10 years, but if I go back and work out the return after all costs, I would be better off having put my money in the stock market. Once the growth in capital value that we have seen the last 10 years plateaus, it is going to be a season of discontent for those holding residential property.
    If you take your time frame longer, you'll find residential houses would perform better than shares. Of course subject to what houses or shares you buy - I would speak specifically houses in the Auckland market because i've seen many of my cousins that bought houses there shortly after 2000. The amount of windfall in gains is immense if they were to sell today. For the same period, you've had a dot come crash and a GFC.

    Reason why no residential property funds? Because in the similar fashion with commercial properties ; the residential holding will be subjected to tax on the gains and rental incomes, for which the net result is little or no gain. HOWEVER, to the individual landlord.... that structures buying a bunch of residential properties over many years while collecting rental income, can sell over the long long term without paying a $1 in tax. As I mentioned before, no one considers taxation.. not even the manage funds in Kiwi Saver that addresses the taxation for investors. They talk about fancy annual returns over so many years but they're not net of taxes they pay and taxes that the individual has paid.

    I seen the stock market crashes.... without a doubt, Auckland residential property has an advantage.

  5. #110
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    7,213

    Default

    Not sure how many on here read the "NZ Property investor mag" but now and again I get an issue and as I've enjoyed many a good investment return in NZ Property I like to keep up to date with present market >>

    Now in the latest issue I read a piece on "Why you should take interest only loans over your investment properties" and forget about paying off the debts as NZ property only goes higher in value on average 10% pa so just use the increased equity you get and buy more and more properties on I.O and never pay the properties off.

    Surely we must be getting to peak Property love here in NZ as looking over the average yields nationwide on current average selling prices we see yields of 3-6% so no wonder I.O lending is all the rave as after an ever increasing insurance/rates costs taxes etc not going be much if capital left to pay down any of the actually property purchase price .. pure madness IMHO
    seems like the core investment plan of many is BUY and hope for Cap gain as in the past it worked great so why would it top now
    Last edited by JBmurc; 16-12-2019 at 09:35 PM.
    People don't have ideas, ideas have people

  6. #111
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Yet interestingly in NZ, there has never been a fund to invest in residential property. There are funds for commercial property. I asked Brian Gaynor a while back why this was. He said it has been tried in the past but it just does not work. There is no money to be made in residential property. (in other words its too hard). So I do not think there are profiting mechanisms with residential property. I manage three rentals that have appreciated in value the last 10 years, but if I go back and work out the return after all costs, I would be better off having put my money in the stock market. Once the growth in capital value that we have seen the last 10 years plateaus, it is going to be a season of discontent for those holding residential property.
    I agree blackcap. I do hold residential rental property as part of my portfolio and will continue to do so (unless this Government continues to make it harder) but it would be much easier and equally successful long term just to have it in shares.

  7. #112
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBmurc View Post
    Not sure how many on here read the "NZ Property investor mag" but now and again I get an issue and as I've enjoyed many a good investment return in NZ Property I like to keep up to date with present market >>

    Now in the latest issue I read a piece on "Why you should take interest only loans over your investment properties" and forget about paying off the debts as NZ property only goes higher in value on average 10% pa so just use the increased equity you get and buy more and more properties on I.O and never pay the properties off.

    Surely we must be getting to peak Property love here in NZ as looking over the average yields nationwide on current average selling prices we see yields of 3-6% so no wonder I.O lending is all the rave as after an ever increasing insurance/rates costs taxes etc not going be much if capital left to pay down any of the actually property purchase price .. pure madness IMHO
    seems like the core investment plan of many is BUY and hope for Cap gain as in the past it worked great so why would it top now
    The banks are already onto this as you can see from posts a few days ago on this thready. LVRs are simply not counting anymore for investors. Banks now look at income to debt ratios so the Property mag is wrong about this

  8. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBmurc View Post
    Not sure how many on here read the "NZ Property investor mag" but now and again I get an issue and as I've enjoyed many a good investment return in NZ Property I like to keep up to date with present market >>

    Now in the latest issue I read a piece on "Why you should take interest only loans over your investment properties" and forget about paying off the debts as NZ property only goes higher in value on average 10% pa so just use the increased equity you get and buy more and more properties on I.O and never pay the properties off.

    Surely we must be getting to peak Property love here in NZ as looking over the average yields nationwide on current average selling prices we see yields of 3-6% so no wonder I.O lending is all the rave as after an ever increasing insurance/rates costs taxes etc not going be much if capital left to pay down any of the actually property purchase price .. pure madness IMHO
    seems like the core investment plan of many is BUY and hope for Cap gain as in the past it worked great so why would it top now
    My uncle in Australia has invested heavily in real estate for about 40 years and used the same model of borrowing maximum with use of negative gearing, and with no intention of ever paying the mortgages off as every so many years he went out and bought more properties. Now, or since the psat 10 or so years Australia imposed stamp duty on real estate investments. He says there are no significant gains and all he does is just work for the bank. He's also too frighten to sell any of his properties because of CGT and hindsight, he tells me he would of been better off invested into the sharemarket. Of course this is Australia. In NZ we have an entirely different can of beans and i'm not seeing the Kiwi Savers having more than the real estate investors. Of course there are exceptions but I keep hamming the same issue; unlike Australia, NZ has a clear tax advantage in residential properties.

    Another uncle is trying to sell his house in Australia for which he said had made x 3 times capital gain for holding around 30+ years. The offer was accepted but since he lives in NZ, he NZ lawyer and the Australian lawyer have got their hands in the pot. He would most certain have to pay CGT but the other issue is, Australia's tax dept may take a closer look and query about the rental income he's earned off it for the whole time he's owned the property. On top of this you have NZ's AML and CRS regulations. Again, Australia is not like NZ where you can have tax free ie 'home stay' income. I told him hindsight, he would been far better off buying Auckland real estate instead.

  9. #114
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    My uncle in Australia has invested heavily in real estate for about 40 years and used the same model of borrowing maximum with use of negative gearing, and with no intention of ever paying the mortgages off as every so many years he went out and bought more properties. Now, or since the psat 10 or so years Australia imposed stamp duty on real estate investments. He says there are no significant gains and all he does is just work for the bank. He's also too frighten to sell any of his properties because of CGT and hindsight, he tells me he would of been better off invested into the sharemarket. Of course this is Australia. In NZ we have an entirely different can of beans and i'm not seeing the Kiwi Savers having more than the real estate investors. Of course there are exceptions but I keep hamming the same issue; unlike Australia, NZ has a clear tax advantage in residential properties.
    What is the 'clear advantage'?

  10. #115
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    7,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    The banks are already onto this as you can see from posts a few days ago on this thready. LVRs are simply not counting anymore for investors. Banks now look at income to debt ratios so the Property mag is wrong about this
    Yes fully understood ...strange why the article on I.O over I.P didn't put this into the perspective of income to debt ratio ... which banks are they using ??

    But I've seen the same promotion on the NZ propertytalk forum .. the idea to property wealth is as basic as BUY and HOLD then RENO revalue -repeat and don't stress about yield as the ongoing Capital Gain will make you rich Negative Yield no stress .... the no money down 20 properties in a year hype etc
    Last edited by JBmurc; 17-12-2019 at 12:24 PM.
    People don't have ideas, ideas have people

  11. #116
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    What is the 'clear advantage'?
    In NZ, tax free capital gain on the sale of residential houses. There are so many ways one could game the system; via being a slumlord or doing fixer uppers, holding the properties in multiple names within the family. The gaming of being tax free is so significant that IRD does not have the tools to monitor it. VERY different to in Canada where lawyers and real estate agents are held accountable by the tax dept for not crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. In NZ if a real estate agent is caught not confirming with AML, well they just lose their job. In Canada, up to 1/3rd (IRC) of the value of the house must be held in a retainer and is not released until the CRA gives the OK.

    So when you compare to Kiwi Saver, an investment scheme where you can't leverage and the gains are taxed annualy, it doesn't take long to realise that "cumulative" gains are not really there despite employer matching contributions. FYI, this was all addressed in Canada when they introduced RRSPs. Small matching % of contributions are ineffective as many managed funds take more than 2 or 3% in admin / mgt frees (especially during the 80s and 90s era). So they made a maximum of 18% limit for matching contributions. In additions, UNUSED contributions in previous years could be carried forward indefinitely. Meaning on years where you contributed nothing to your pension, the CRA would allow that portion credit to applied in the next year (essentially doubling your contribution amount). This flexibility is critical as stock market rise and fall and so should the investor be able to choose WHEN they want to be in the market or not.

  12. #117
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    In NZ, tax free capital gain on the sale of residential houses. There are so many ways one could game the system; via being a slumlord or doing fixer uppers, holding the properties in multiple names within the family. The gaming of being tax free is so significant that IRD does not have the tools to monitor it. VERY different to in Canada where lawyers and real estate agents are held accountable by the tax dept for not crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. In NZ if a real estate agent is caught not confirming with AML, well they just lose their job. In Canada, up to 1/3rd (IRC) of the value of the house must be held in a retainer and is not released until the CRA gives the OK.

    So when you compare to Kiwi Saver, an investment scheme where you can't leverage and the gains are taxed annualy, it doesn't take long to realise that "cumulative" gains are not really there despite employer matching contributions. FYI, this was all addressed in Canada when they introduced RRSPs. Small matching % of contributions are ineffective as many managed funds take more than 2 or 3% in admin / mgt frees (especially during the 80s and 90s era). So they made a maximum of 18% limit for matching contributions. In additions, UNUSED contributions in previous years could be carried forward indefinitely. Meaning on years where you contributed nothing to your pension, the CRA would allow that portion credit to applied in the next year (essentially doubling your contribution amount). This flexibility is critical as stock market rise and fall and so should the investor be able to choose WHEN they want to be in the market or not.
    The treatment of real estate by the IRD is no different from shares or any other investment.

  13. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    The treatment of real estate by the IRD is no different from shares or any other investment.
    You must be blind because i'm seeing everyone (well not everyone but a ton of people) gaming IRD. Accountants know themselves advising clients how to buy residential properties and NOT fall in the trap that IRD will tax their investment upon the sale of the house. Such as keeping the house well long enough before selling, and not selling more than 1 house within a short period of time. Why? Because IRD rules are, holding houses long enough = tax free capital gain. This is entirely different to IRD's view on share investments where you hold them for 1 day or for 10 years, the gains are taxed annually.

  14. #119
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    7,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    You must be blind because i'm seeing everyone (well not everyone but a ton of people) gaming IRD. Accountants know themselves advising clients how to buy residential properties and NOT fall in the trap that IRD will tax their investment upon the sale of the house. Such as keeping the house well long enough before selling, and not selling more than 1 house within a short period of time. Why? Because IRD rules are, holding houses long enough = tax free capital gain. This is entirely different to IRD's view on share investments where you hold them for 1 day or for 10 years, the gains are taxed annually.
    Well only Cap gains Tax on share investments if your a trader if your buying shares for say the yield and don't buy and sell shares mutable times taking Cap gains then you don't pay tax or can claim tax loses
    People don't have ideas, ideas have people

  15. #120
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    You must be blind because i'm seeing everyone (well not everyone but a ton of people) gaming IRD. Accountants know themselves advising clients how to buy residential properties and NOT fall in the trap that IRD will tax their investment upon the sale of the house. Such as keeping the house well long enough before selling, and not selling more than 1 house within a short period of time. Why? Because IRD rules are, holding houses long enough = tax free capital gain. This is entirely different to IRD's view on share investments where you hold them for 1 day or for 10 years, the gains are taxed annually.
    Mine aren't. I must be lucky. I even sold some once and was not taxed.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •