Labour govt 2020-23

[Zaphod]

The reality of how Euthanasia will be implemented is beginning to emerge. Sadly, for those of us called scaremongers, being proved right is no consolation. No surprise when Andrew "Brains Trust" Little is in the thick of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...?ocid=msedgntp

Euthanasia will be much like abortion, whereby the vast majority of health practitioners, who fully understand what is happening in practice, don't want anything to do with it.

There are lots of assumptions in that article that may not even come to fruition, so no one has been proved right. It is very much in line with the so-called leftist articles that are frequently claimed as biased on this forum.

[Zaphod]

Something had to be done to try to fix the NZ residential property market, high prices and supply. However the manner in which Labour is attempting to do this should be questioned.

Tova O'Brien: Jacinda Ardern and the mother of all broken promises
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-promises.html

A Labour-supporting colleague has chastised me for suggesting that Labour have broken their promise, after all he says, it's not called a capital gains tax so it is therefore not a broken promise!

I suppose it is similar to the slowing evolving COVID L1 rules, which sees Level 2 become the new Level 1, so that we don't need to move up levels, even though practically speaking we already are.

[Zaphod]

The bright line test at 10 years isn't all bad.

Will it produce the desired result? Will properties remain as rentals even longer? What percentage of flippers would have been captured by the 5 year rule anyway? As I've mentioned in another post, our neighbours regularly buy a new family home, add value (apparently once by just painting the fence), and then hock it off so that they can rinse, lather, repeat.

Now we have a policy which treasury rates as "worse than the status quo".

[dobby41]

I suppose it is similar to the slowing evolving COVID L1 rules, which sees Level 2 become the new Level 1, so that we don't need to move up levels, even though practically speaking we already are.

What happened there that I missed?
So far as I know L1 is L1 and L2 is different.
L1 got masks on public transport added but L2 had a lot more differences.

[nztx]

A Labour-supporting colleague has chastised me for suggesting that Labour have broken their promise, after all he says, it's not called a capital gains tax so it is therefore not a broken promise!

I suppose it is similar to the slowing evolving COVID L1 rules, which sees Level 2 become the new Level 1, so that we don't need to move up levels, even though practically speaking we already are.

Govt dont seem very serious about fixing things at all - do they ?
If they did, then they would want private sector to carry a fair portion of rental stock.
Instead they go about setting up the target for the vendetta and further trying to 'Bum things Up'
How is their current trajectory going to solve anything fast - ie homeless into four walls ?

If they were really serious - take off with brightline tests / loss restrictions / reinstate depreciation
/ interest deductions & provide a bit of encouragement to Rental owners - which done the right way would
cost little upfront and could solve the problem in record time ..

Instead the current lot seem to want to in the most caring way - ignore the homeless short to medium term,
make all the mums & dad 1 rental property owners target of the nasty Labour vendetta instead.

When this goes round, as it will - Labour will have burnt more of their own - left out in the cold,
added further swaithes to the homeless queue & in next 3-5 be no further ahead - let's guess
due to materials / skills shortages & will have blown a further large kitty in process to still
be nowhere near. The private sector which could have rescued things short to medium term will
be mostly gone & have no interest in an increasing overburdened over regulated sector ..

What a shambles - Labor once again prove they have no idea & far from proclaimed kindness
are conducting nasty vendettas at expense of all - which will not end well for them in time..

[dobby41]

Govt dont seem very serious about fixing things at all - do they ?
If they did, then they would want private sector to carry a fair portion of rental stock.
Instead they go about setting up the target for the vendetta and further trying to 'Bum things Up'
How is their current trajectory going to solve anything fast - ie homeless into four walls ?

If they were really serious - take off with brightline tests / loss restrictions / reinstate depreciation
/ interest deductions & provide a bit of encouragement to Rental owners - which done the right way would
cost little upfront and could solve the problem in record time ..

Encouraging people to buy existing properties to use for rentals doesn't solve anything - they need to be encouraged to build.
Oh, that's what they have done.

What would a 'fair' portion look like - only those that don't require access to the accommodation supplement (ie those who can afford it)?
The Govt could then build enough places (or encourage community housing providers) to house the poorest.

[fungus pudding]

Brian Fallow's opinion piece in the Herald (premium) had an interesting perspective.
He postulated that capital gain made up a larger part of the expected return for someone buying an investment property.
As the capital gain isn't taxable then neither should the interest be deductible.
Under the bright line test the gain is taxable so the interest paid is taken into account for that.

He, and Liam Dann, pointed out that in a normal business a 50% gain in value (of the business) would have meant that the business produced more

.

It doesn't mean any such thing. The gain will more often than not be mostly nominal, meaning that during the period of ownership the turnover and sale price reflect inflation.
And the expected capital gain does not reflect future capital gain. It reflects what every other buyer in the market, most of whom will be owner occupiers, have to pay.

[Zaphod]

Encouraging people to buy existing properties to use for rentals doesn't solve anything - they need to be encouraged to build.
Oh, that's what they have done.

By what, exempting new builds to a brightline test of 5 years? Will that really overcome the high costs of building, lack of resources to complete a build, and the massive deposits required? What else have they done to encourage building v. buying existing stock?

[Balance]

By what, exempting new builds to a brightline test of 5 years? Will that really overcome the high costs of building, lack of resources to complete a build, and the massive deposits required? What else have they done to encourage building v. buying existing stock?

Kiwibuild?

[fungus pudding]

By what, exempting new builds to a brightline test of 5 years? Will that really overcome the high costs of building, lack of resources to complete a build, and the massive deposits required? What else have they done to encourage building v. buying existing stock?

They've discouraged competition from renovators, existing landlords and new investors, thereby allowing rentals for new units to hit record highs. Furthermore. they will only have to pay income tax on their profit - not on their mortgage payments.