sharetrader
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 172
  1. #121
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBmurc View Post
    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
    Correct, exactly like real estate investment.

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,072

    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.
    Actually it is, or can be, different for residential rental properties. Bright line test. Ring fencing of rental losses. Removal of building depreciation.

    And not tax but new legislated compliances in place or announced that do not apply to other businesses - rent control (increases annual only), serious restrictions on termination, more ....

  3. #123
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBmurc View Post
    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
    You mean NZ and some shares on the ASX? Is it sensible to have your eggs in 3% of the world's asset in terms of diversification? Higher quality stocks abroad such as those on the NYSE or Nasdaq attract FIF and regardless of what shares you invest, most are subjected to dividend tax (not many are full 100% imputed tax credited). Perhaps investors need to realise NZ's corporate tax rate is not competitive to corporate rates in the US or Canada ; what would that lead to in terms of overall returns. Oh and I find it very interesting of NZ share investors obsession with collecting dividends. But if you want capital gains.. not many on the NZX can throw a pitch to NZ investors that they prefer to keep cash flows and reflect the retained earnings as capital gains.

    Very few invest shares directly, so i'm pointing to Kiwi Saver, ALL those managed funds are trader status and therefore subjected to tax on ANY gains. There's no way to game shareholder investments like you can with buying residential properties.

  4. #124
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Actually it is, or can be, different for residential rental properties. Bright line test. Ring fencing of rental losses. Removal of building depreciation.

    And not tax but new legislated compliances in place or announced that do not apply to other businesses - rent control (increases annual only), serious restrictions on termination, more ....
    I reiterate my point, there's a huge difference in how IRD addresses tax on real estate investments where despite you have rent controls, etc. virtually everyone is gaming the system so they don't pay any tax on the capital gain. I know many that use the 'home stay' category which IRD allows the home owner to collect rent tax free up to a threshold. The Bright Line test is a joke because all it does is tells investors a clearer rule ; sell the house before 5 years and you'll be looked at for taxes. That's a load of rubbish in terms of addressing the real issue that tax on real estate in NZ is handled entirely different to other forms of investments.

    Claiming depreciation on a house? Only reason to do this is IF you're running your residential portfolio AS A BUSINESS. Therefore have to pay the tax. Anyone gaming IRD will not do this and fly under the radar, use their own expense to make repairs to the house, increase it's value. If I recall correctly, Winston Peters said that NZ's real estate is the key pillar of NZ's economy and structure. No wonder Jacinda Ardern did nothing about CGT.

  5. #125
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I reiterate my point, there's a huge difference in how IRD addresses tax on real estate investments where despite you have rent controls, etc. virtually everyone is gaming the system so they don't pay any tax on the capital gain. I know many that use the 'home stay' category which IRD allows the home owner to collect rent tax free up to a threshold. The Bright Line test is a joke because all it does is tells investors a clearer rule ; sell the house before 5 years and you'll be looked at for taxes. That's a load of rubbish in terms of addressing the real issue that tax on real estate in NZ is handled entirely different to other forms of investments.

    Claiming depreciation on a house? Only reason to do this is IF you're running your residential portfolio AS A BUSINESS. Therefore have to pay the tax. Anyone gaming IRD will not do this and fly under the radar, use their own expense to make repairs to the house, increase it's value. If I recall correctly, Winston Peters said that NZ's real estate is the key pillar of NZ's economy and structure. No wonder Jacinda Ardern did nothing about CGT.
    Sounds like you had better get every last cent invested in real estate - pronto. That's the only thing I invest in, either directly or through the LPT's that have that PIE advantage. I didn't realise how lucky I am.

  6. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Sounds like you had better get every last cent invested in real estate - pronto. That's the only thing I invest in, either directly or through the LPT's that have that PIE advantage. I didn't realise how lucky I am.
    I can't speak for yourself and there are exceptional cases where individuals have done well in shares. The bold reality is people in NZ are not investing directly. You simply can't pitch a model where the average person is able to produce exceptional returns with shares. I'm not seeing this like I do in N. America.

    Do you wonder why all the banks don't care for share investments and all they encourage is to loan mortgages? As the previous person mentioned in this post, his bank did not care about the share investment holdings when looking to buy his daughter's 1st home. What banks will do is lend on equity of real estate but NOT on equity in shares. I'm sure you are aware of this ; banks are freely able to lend on houses and nothing else.

    It may seem i'm all bitter about this disparity between investments in residential housing, & shares on the stock exchange (from a NZ perspective). My greatest concern is for the average NZ resident, even for say 90% of the NZ population, pitching a model of Kiwi Saver to them would prove worse than if they invested in real estate directly. Of course things could of been different IF taxes were more equitable like they are in Aus/Can/US. You can give hats off to Michael Cullen for ramming Kiwi Saver down on the people.

    Personally I hate real estate as an investment because it's a non-productive asset. But what can be done when you're living in NZ? I look at my children to see what choice they have for investment planning and the picture tells me clearly. 1) The next generation living in NZ will never have as much wealth, in terms of shareholder / pension investments, then those living abroad in the US or Canada. and this is ALL due to the differences in tax treatment. 2) Choosing Kiwi Saver vs a mortgage to buy another house (because you can leverage) will net you more wealth at the end ; again due to differences in tax. Following link elaborates the issue: (for which at the time they were talking how much wealth would be left on the house IF CGT was passed ; we know now we can forget about CGT):

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12209227

    Look at the graph showing the timing of tax; the brown line (assuming the house investment) having a lot more wealth at the end than the blue line (assuming ie managed fund share investment where the gains are taxed every year). As quoted from the link:
    "They are taxed at the same rate, but they do not end up with the same returns. The investment that's taxed at the end earns compound growth on everything, while the line that's taxed annually loses part of its growth immediately, along with the compound growth that would've come with it. In this scenario, that amounts to a $142,000 difference."

    And no person has been more vocal about robbing wealth from compounded returns than John Bogle (RIP) in his Vanguard empire where he was critical on high management fees by managed funds. Likewise, no different to paying tax on annual gains or in the FIF. If your Kiwi Saver fund is invested in the US listed shares, unfortunately FIF literally robs them by taxing on the whole investment amount of FDR 5% regardless on years where they make no gain or loss. Meaning why is there a difference in FIF treatment for those invested in managed funds vs individuals owning US shares directly ?? If you're not following, the individual person under FIF on years where they have a loss, can elect out of the FDR and choose the 'comparative rate' FIF and pay no tax. Managed funds CAN NOT do this ; they're forced to pay FDR on the entire portfolio value having gain or no gain. Below link is an example of what i'm getting at: (which proves the person in a PIE fund is worse off... You say PIE advantage?)

    https://www.consilium.co.nz/media/10...-consilium.pdf

    There was another web link that has gone off line but it's titled "For FIF’s Sake: Why NZ global tax rules need a rewrite” by Anthony Edmonds". Which shows even more tax disparities between the individual directly investing under FIF and those investing under a PIE.

    But of course... people in NZ only should invest in NZ shares because it's the right thing to do LMAO...

  7. #127
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I can't speak for yourself and there are exceptional cases where individuals have done well in shares. The bold reality is people in NZ are not investing directly. You simply can't pitch a model where the average person is able to produce exceptional returns with shares. I'm not seeing this like I do in N. America.

    Do you wonder why all the banks don't care for share investments and all they encourage is to loan mortgages? As the previous person mentioned in this post, his bank did not care about the share investment holdings when looking to buy his daughter's 1st home. What banks will do is lend on equity of real estate but NOT on equity in shares. I'm sure you are aware of this ; banks are freely able to lend on houses and nothing else.

    It may seem i'm all bitter about this disparity between investments in residential housing, & shares on the stock exchange (from a NZ perspective). My greatest concern is for the average NZ resident, even for say 90% of the NZ population, pitching a model of Kiwi Saver to them would prove worse than if they invested in real estate directly. Of course things could of been different IF taxes were more equitable like they are in Aus/Can/US. You can give hats off to Michael Cullen for ramming Kiwi Saver down on the people.

    Personally I hate real estate as an investment because it's a non-productive asset. But what can be done when you're living in NZ? I look at my children to see what choice they have for investment planning and the picture tells me clearly. 1) The next generation living in NZ will never have as much wealth, in terms of shareholder / pension investments, then those living abroad in the US or Canada. and this is ALL due to the differences in tax treatment. 2) Choosing Kiwi Saver vs a mortgage to buy another house (because you can leverage) will net you more wealth at the end ; again due to differences in tax. Following link elaborates the issue: (for which at the time they were talking how much wealth would be left on the house IF CGT was passed ; we know now we can forget about CGT):

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12209227

    Look at the graph showing the timing of tax; the brown line (assuming the house investment) having a lot more wealth at the end than the blue line (assuming ie managed fund share investment where the gains are taxed every year). As quoted from the link:
    "They are taxed at the same rate, but they do not end up with the same returns. The investment that's taxed at the end earns compound growth on everything, while the line that's taxed annually loses part of its growth immediately, along with the compound growth that would've come with it. In this scenario, that amounts to a $142,000 difference."

    And no person has been more vocal about robbing wealth from compounded returns than John Bogle (RIP) in his Vanguard empire where he was critical on high management fees by managed funds. Likewise, no different to paying tax on annual gains or in the FIF. If your Kiwi Saver fund is invested in the US listed shares, unfortunately FIF literally robs them by taxing on the whole investment amount of FDR 5% regardless on years where they make no gain or loss. Meaning why is there a difference in FIF treatment for those invested in managed funds vs individuals owning US shares directly ?? If you're not following, the individual person under FIF on years where they have a loss, can elect out of the FDR and choose the 'comparative rate' FIF and pay no tax. Managed funds CAN NOT do this ; they're forced to pay FDR on the entire portfolio value having gain or no gain. Below link is an example of what i'm getting at: (which proves the person in a PIE fund is worse off... You say PIE advantage?)

    https://www.consilium.co.nz/media/10...-consilium.pdf

    There was another web link that has gone off line but it's titled "For FIF’s Sake: Why NZ global tax rules need a rewrite” by Anthony Edmonds". Which shows even more tax disparities between the individual directly investing under FIF and those investing under a PIE.

    But of course... people in NZ only should invest in NZ shares because it's the right thing to do LMAO...
    And here's silly ol' me thinking we were talking about NZers investing in NZ. I even thought paying 28% tax through a PIE was better than paying 33%. Silly me.

  8. #128
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    And here's silly ol' me thinking we were talking about NZers investing in NZ. I even thought paying 28% tax through a PIE was better than paying 33%. Silly me.
    Maybe because of the relative appeal of residential housing investment and until recently an the lack of widespread pension scheme assets, The NZ share market has been hollowed out. So many NZ companies have relocated overseas - or have been taken over. For example just to maintain a shareholding in ex-NZ company Xero involves holding foreign shares on the ASX.

    Much of the banking sector is in Australian hands so for the NZ resident for that business sector the only way to have a shareholding in that substantial part of the NZ economy is to have shares in a foreign company through foreign shares trading either on the ASX or on the NZX. A NZ company owning those banking assets would enable the NZ shareholders to claim a substantial imputation credit as opposed to the current situation of a minimal imputation claim for NZ resident holders.

    I think NZers owning shares in specific overseas companies, which have assets in NZ, is sometimes the best way for NZ residents to have targeted exposure in certain NZ businesses and sectors.

    Many NZ business and companies have ended up under overseas shareholders. Why not vice versa.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 18-12-2019 at 05:59 PM.

  9. #129
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Maybe because of the relative appeal of residential housing investment and until recently an the lack of widespread pension scheme assets, The NZ share market has been hollowed out. So many NZ companies have relocated overseas - or have been taken over. For example just to maintain a shareholding in ex-NZ company Xero involves holding foreign shares on the ASX.

    Much of the banking sector is in Australian hands so for the NZ resident for that business sector the only way to have a shareholding in that substantial part of the NZ economy is to have shares in a foreign company through foreign shares trading either on the ASX or on the NZX. A NZ company owning those banking assets would enable the NZ shareholders to claim a substantial imputation credit as opposed to the current situation of a minimal imputation claim for NZ resident holders.

    I think NZers owning shares in specific overseas companies, which have assets in NZ, is sometimes the best way for NZ residents to have targeted exposure in certain NZ businesses and sectors.

    Many NZ business and companies have ended up under overseas shareholders. Why not vice versa.
    I'm quite sure you know the answer why. I've never been happy with the whole idea of dividend payments and with inputation credits because the more efficient method from a tax point of view is to keep the funds in retained earnings / shareholder's equity and let the share price reflect that. Therefore generation a tax free capital gain. Just allow the shareholder to elect any disbursements of payment by simply selling a portion of their share holding. This creates liquidity on the NZX (for which the reality being, the liquidity is drying up on the NZX).

    I also question how many foreign companies abroad actually have full interest in owning NZ companies? Who would risk that kind of involvement? I've seen the Canadian "Ontario Teacher's Pension" come and buy NZ's Yellow Page holding for a large sum... to only later be wiped out by online information for finding ph# instead of out of the traditional Yellow Pages directory books we see delivered to homes each year. Then there's "sensitive assets" like the Auckland airport where foreign funds tried to invest in. When you look at the NZX, what reputable managed fund from the US would ever find 'undervalued' companies there? Not when politically, you have an investment environment that discourages NZ residents ability to invest in foreign shares ; i'm certain brokerage firms in the US have simply cut off access to buying equities on the NZX over the recent FMA regulation. You have a ban on non-residents being able to buy houses in NZ. It doesn't take long (or the damage has already been done) to tell the investment community abroad that NZ does not play fair when looking at both sides of the fence.

    Reason why many NZ companies like Zero have gone abroad? It's the very same reason why the individual would seek their investments abroad. They seek a more fair equitable tax system. Does NZ's corporate tax rate of 30% seem competitive on the OECD scale?

    It's just so sad the individual living in NZ gets the worse situation being stuck in Kiwi Saver and the price of owning houses have been an exclusive for only the high income earners...

  10. #130
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I'm quite sure you know the answer why. I've never been happy with the whole idea of dividend payments and with inputation credits because the more efficient method from a tax point of view is to keep the funds in retained earnings / shareholder's equity and let the share price reflect that. Therefore generation a tax free capital gain. Just allow the shareholder to elect any disbursements of payment by simply selling a portion of their share holding. This creates liquidity on the NZX (for which the reality being, the liquidity is drying up on the NZX)..
    I think I may not have made my point clear in my response to another poster. Namely: Much of NZ business is now actually in foreign ownership. So, owning foreign shares may actually be a way to invest in those companies who own NZ businesses now.

    However in relation to imputed dividends I disagree. It gives a tax-neutral flexibility for companies to either retain or distribute tax paid profit. Attaching imputation credits means that the shareholder is not then in effect double-taxed on the company profit. If the tax paid profit were kept in the company, then the only way for a shareholder (who relies on an income stream from investments) would be to sell shares thereby incurring transaction costs.

    Other countries have investment schemes with discounted tax rates on dividends and/or a tax threshold before dividend income is taxed. Certainly until NZ introduces such schemes, imputation at least tries to address double taxation on the income from NZ shares.

    A few years old:
    https://www.interest.co.nz/business/...reholders-says
    Last edited by Bjauck; 19-12-2019 at 09:07 AM.

  11. #131
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    I think I may not have made my point clear in my response to another poster. Namely: Much of NZ business is now actually in foreign ownership. So, owning foreign shares may actually be a way to invest in those companies who own NZ businesses now.

    However in relation to imputed dividends I disagree. It gives a tax-neutral flexibility for companies to either retain or distribute tax paid profit. Attaching imputation credits means that the shareholder is not then in effect double-taxed on the company profit. If the tax paid profit were kept in the company, then the only way for a shareholder (who relies on an income stream from investments) would be to sell shares thereby incurring transaction costs.

    Other countries have investment schemes with discounted tax rates on dividends and/or a tax threshold before dividend income is taxed. Certainly until NZ introduces such schemes, imputation at least tries to address double taxation on the income from NZ shares.

    A few years old:
    https://www.interest.co.nz/business/...reholders-says
    I'll try to keep this short as it's off topic. I completely agree on the reasons for the imputation credit, which avoids double taxation. Canada addresses this via a dividend credit directly to the shareholder on their tax return. But eitherway, i'm not buying this argument one bit. You have critics that have been very vocal against Warren Buffet why he doesn't pay dividends in Berkshire Hathaway because quite simply, they don't know better. This is not to rain against issue dividends because Buffet collect a heap of dividends. His view is simply again, not tax efficient and encourages the companies that Berkshire hold to retain profits for use in EXPANSION to maintain growth. Otherwise if there's no growth then dividend payment is acceptable.

    If you really want an income stream, then choose a different asset class. But to assume these NZ listed companies to have an expectation to pay dividends? No matter if they're in a growth stage or mature type of company say like utilities (huge lack of distinction). It's prevalent entirely through NZ's finance industry ; NZ brokers such as MacQuires giving out their investment approach that focus on dividends and .. none other. No wonder companies like Xero have left the NZX. On the US front, US brokerage firms are shutting out access to the NZX because of the NZ gov'ts FMA. Then I hear liquidity in the NZX is drying up. Should be interesting to see where the NZX will be in 10 years. Wouldn't be happy to be holding Kiwi Saver focused solely on NZ listings.

  12. #132
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,345

    Default

    Companies such as Xero May also have left NZ owing to the fact that the available capital has been limited - pension funds have such a comparatively small investment footprint here and households stuff their assets into residential housing.

    Obviously with shares, there are types of companies and sectors where dividend streams are available, as in overseas markets. No income stream is 100% certain, just as with fixed interest stock and residential rents. Risk assessment is a requirement for all investments, businesses and even in selecting a salaried position.

  13. #133
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,345

    Default

    A Christmas Carol - a modern NZ version:

    When one person's investment is another person's home....

    New Zealand's rental market: What's really happening?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/118364208/new-zealands-rental-market-whats-really-happening

  14. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,072

    Default

    What's really happening? Look beneath the sad Christmas stories. The current government has changed the rules, and has announced yet more changes.

    Equal and opposite reaction?

    Note that the tenants who have to leave all say cannot find a new rental. Funny that.

  15. #135
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    What's really happening? Look beneath the sad Christmas stories. The current government has changed the rules, and has announced yet more changes.

    Equal and opposite reaction?

    Note that the tenants who have to leave all say cannot find a new rental. Funny that.
    Tales of woe are of course more poignant at Christmas-time.
    About time for changes?...Also look behind the stories from badly-done-to Landlords.

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
  •