-
Interesting article behind the paywall in the Herald today https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/emerge...HMO3L6DXRGURY/
-
 Originally Posted by iceman
One comment in the article, which is not a surprise, refers to the number of single men who turn up (to get a letter saying they tried, basically). The social housing waiting list is almost half single people these days, and I've heard from someone working in the sector they are mostly men. With the size of the waiting list that is a lot of people the private sector won't house. A motel at income related rent must feel like winning the lottery.
-
Bernard Hickey reckons investor housing is a subsidised government guaranteed minimally taxed sheltered investment with low rates raising all boats.https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...s--or-are-they
-
Originally Posted by Bjauck
Mr Hickey is smart and experienced. So why does he compare (no) tax on rental capital gain to tax on income from other sources, or even from rents? For example, he refers to tax foregone on rental property capital gains without mentioning that there are rather a lot of other assets that don't currently attract a CGT.
His article sounds like a party political broadcast.
-
Logen check out the latest blog here , especially the last paragraph .... supply still the issue ....https://croakingcassandra.com/2021/0...ally/#comments
-
Originally Posted by artemis
Mr Hickey is smart and experienced. So why does he compare (no) tax on rental capital gain to tax on income from other sources, or even from rents? For example, he refers to tax foregone on rental property capital gains without mentioning that there are rather a lot of other assets that don't currently attract a CGT.
Was he referring to total returns? He referred to leverage. In NZ the ability to leverage equity in real estate in effect reduces tax as a percentage of returns (net capital and income gains) from the investment compared to an investment in shares, for which leverage is not so readily accessible.
His article sounds like a party political broadcast.
...Certainly not for Ardern's Labour. She has guaranteed no CGT on her watch and has said Kiwis invest in housing because the prices don't drop. Protecting Real estate investment gains is this government's priority. So far they have very successfully implemented that policy.
-
Originally Posted by artemis
Mr Hickey is smart and experienced. So why does he compare (no) tax on rental capital gain to tax on income from other sources, or even from rents? For example, he refers to tax foregone on rental property capital gains without mentioning that there are rather a lot of other assets that don't currently attract a CGT.
His article sounds like a party political broadcast.
Which party????
I think he was pointing out that the other tax free capital gains such as selling a business do not have taxpayer dollars going directly to the customers of the businesses to spend on the goods and services being provided whereas landlords get $4b worth of taxpayers money paid each year to renters as accommodation supplements to help them afford the rents, which also ensure the rental business makes money and the houses retain their value.
What other business gets a taxpayer subsidy that large.
-
Originally Posted by Aaron
Which party????
I think he was pointing out that the other tax free capital gains such as selling a business do not have taxpayer dollars going directly to the customers of the businesses to spend on the goods and services being provided whereas landlords get $4b worth of taxpayers money paid each year to renters as accommodation supplements to help them afford the rents, which also ensure the rental business makes money and the houses retain their value.
What other business gets a taxpayer subsidy that large.
$4billion a year Accommodation Supplement? Did you make that up?
What about social housing rent subsidies. Are they OK as the taxpayer is just subsiding ... Oh the taxpayer. Those renters on average are subsided triple the average Accomm Supplement amount per household.
It is households that get the Accomm Supplement not landlords. And the money does not necessarily go towards housing costs. Even a cursory glance at the Tenancy Tribunal decisions will show thousands and thousands of rent arrears applications every year, often huge amounts.
If you want to compare households that get the Accomm Subsidy with others, then be sure to include other government transfers to households that can add up to many times the Accomm Supplement.
Personally I would be quite happy if the Accomm Supplement was dropped along with income related rent for social housing. Or if the same subsidy applied regardless of the asset owner. (That was the case when the Accomm Supplement was introduced.) Rents might drop as a result, or they may not.
-
$4billion was taken from Bernard Hickeys article. Hopefully he checks the accuracy of his statements. Although $37million a week only comes to just over $1.9billion.
$4billion would be $800 per head over 5million people so seems like a lot.
Other government transfer payments aren't described as Accommodation Supplement so aren't relevant to this thread.
Personally I think targeted inflation has largely caused the rise in house(asset) prices over the last 20-30years. If people didn't expect at least 7-8% capital gain each year would they be buying rentals at a 3% yield? Considering how hard it is to provide rental accommodation and deal with tenants. Rents are having to go up to justify house prices. Housing costs have been rising at 7% over the last twenty years while wages average 3%. The accommodation supplement is a way to address this discrepancy Perhaps if we had price stability we would not even have this thread or accommodation supplements.
Better yet a government that actually wants to change the problem and doesn't believe in trickle down economics.
Still interested to know which party political broadcast Bernard Hickey's article represented. As far as I can tell no party wants to address the core issue. Like I say there is very little difference between a Jacinda Ardern govt and a John Key govt. it amazes me that people get so upset on the political/election threads when National and Labour are by and large the same thing. Possibly sexism exacerbates some posters dislike of Jacinda.
Last edited by Aaron; 10-02-2021 at 01:09 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Aaron
$4billion was taken from Bernard Hickeys article. Hopefully he checks the accuracy of his statements. Although $37million a week only comes to just over $1.9billion.
$4billion would be $800 per head over 5million people so seems like a lot.
Other government transfer payments aren't described as Accommodation Supplement so aren't relevant to this thread....
The $4billion in the article refers generically to accommodation supplements and obviously includes a while lot more than the Accommodation Supplement. As a minimum it includes subsidised social housing rent and there are other housing or housing related subsidies as well. Exactly what Mr Hickey did not specify but HUD reports regularly on them and he is probably about right.
As for other government transfers not being relevant, you brought up other businesses where clients are subsidise. Check out Working for Families, childcare subsidies, TAS, employer subsides for workers and more. As an example private ECEs not only receive funding from the government but their clients can also qualify for the childcare subsidy. A lot happens under the radar.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks