No residential property investor I know ever thought, (before it happened), that the Government would change the law so they could not claim depreciation on their property and the same for changing the law to disallow the right to claim mortgage interest. At this point no one would dare to imagine that this Labour Government would overturn the right to on-sell licenses to occupy at a higher price as being tax free under the financial arrangements provisions of the Income Tax Act.
It might be worth noting that this right has only been in existence for ~ a couple of decades, whereas the right to claim legitimate expenses on earning business income (mortgage interest deducibility) goes right back to the very beginning of our taxation system, much further than I can remember. If they can do radical things like that, and for examples of other radical policies, co governance, three waters and confiscate Council assets, anyone who thinks there is no chance whatsoever of them changing the law on license to occupy being tax free is deluding themselves. Fact is Labour could do this, (its a real possibility), and issue the usual spin that they're closing another "loophole" and their supporters and probably quite a few other Kiwi's would lap it up like mothers milk.
Do I think its likely, probably not likely per se but its definitely a chance. At this point Labour are probably content to make shareholders bleed by willfully and at an unprecedented rate, deliberately underfunding the care side of their business but who knows what they might do going forward ? I shudder to think the damage they will do if they get a third term.
Last edited by Beagle; 21-06-2022 at 05:55 PM.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
No residential property investor I know ever thought, (before it happened), that the Government would change the law so they could not claim depreciation on their property and the same for changing the law to disallow the right to claim mortgage interest. At this point no one would dare to imagine that this Labour Government would overturn the right to on-sell licenses to occupy at a higher price as being tax free under the financial arrangements provisions of the Income Tax Act.
It might be worth noting that this right has only been in existence for ~ a couple of decades, whereas the right to claim legitimate expenses on earning business income (mortgage interest deducibility) goes right back to the very beginning of our taxation system, much further than I can remember. If they can do radical things like that, and for examples of other radical policies, co governance, three waters and confiscate Council assets, anyone who thinks there is no chance whatsoever of them changing the law on license to occupy being tax free is deluding themselves. Fact is Labour could do this, (its a real possibility), and issue the usual spin that they're closing another "loophole" and their supporters and probably quite a few other Kiwi's would lap it up like mothers milk.
Do I think its likely, probably not likely per se but its definitely a chance. At this point Labour are probably content to make shareholders bleed by willfully and at an unprecedented rate, deliberately underfunding the care side of their business but who knows what they might do going forward ? I shudder to think the damage they will do if they get a third term.
Labour has guts for change,National may as well be buried with some carbon,no imagination,think they're sleepwalking to a change.Dog we need innovation and thinking outside the kennel,leave the fleas to suck on eachother risk free.
I'm a thinking the Govt may tip something in to the care side,it's a no brainer ,really.
Labour has guts for change,National may as well be buried with some carbon,no imagination,think they're sleepwalking to a change.Dog we need innovation and thinking outside the kennel,leave the fleas to suck on eachother risk free.
I'm a thinking the Govt may tip something in to the care side,it's a no brainer ,really.
Sure there is sensible reform to be had. Labour had no guts to introduce a general capital gains tax. At least that would not have breached a fundamental business income concept. Both Nats and Lab have continually ignored various issues, and treated them as electoral UXBs!
Something will need to be done about long term care.
Getting hung up by some notion that the Labour government has a vendetta, or is planning one, against the listed RV's around suppressing care subsidy costs in favour of their ability to cover expenses with property development is ignorant of the fact that the large majority of aged care facilities in New Zealand funded by government (DHB's) are charities and unlisted companies.
The crisis of underfunding care costs if you want to call it that, is with those charities and companies that do not have property development incomes and are borderline broke, that is the real crisis. That is what the government can fix, by increasing care subsidies.
Listed companies will only benefit by covering a bit more of the costs than are currently covered. It would not materially add to the bottom line whatever they do, and is immaterial because none of the listed companies business models are geared towards profit on care services. Care services, if you like, is a loss or small profit leader. The money comes from property development and accomodation turnover.
Further, to compare the listed RV's returns solely on care is really disingenuous and missing the point imo, especially when it is not the real profit source for any of them and also without factoring in the metrics and timeframes of transition to their respective accomodation and property development strategies.
It's complicated and the soundbites here don't do justice to the detailed analysis required to realistically compare the listed RV's business models or likelihood of ongoing success. The answers cannot be found just in the annual financial reports, it's not just about the historical $ reported, however convoluted, it's about the future strategy and how that's progressing.
That cannot be discovered just by reading financial reports, except retrospectively for the prior period of the report, which invariably when released is already three months out of date from current reality and no insight into the future.
At 0.1c they look like reasonable value and at 0.2c they are overpriced.
They really need to do a 1000:1 share consolidation.
Yes Thats what i think ... Ive been buying at .1c
I gave the kids an offer as a Christmas present at 0.1c and to come back in 5 yrs.
2 took the offer of shares and 1 wanted a real present
I think if I can sell for .2 or .3 in 5 yrs we would all be happy.
Let’s see what Stuart can do . New CEO and previously CEO OF Radius .
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Beagle
Bookmarks