sharetrader
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 86
  1. #11
    Quiet Observer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Thanks Artemis. Indeed, VERY expensive!

    Politicians handing out money like it's candy. A big money-go-around. Short term economics that effectively kick the can down the road, but eventually the can will smash into a solid concrete wall.
    Success is a journey AND a destination!

  2. #12
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Real estate owners are the country's most entitled beneficiaries, through these indirect subsidies and the effect of taxation policies. This Labour Government will not change that, and will probably further exacerbate it...
    Tax year 2018, over a third of residential landlords reported a net rental loss, well over $8k average. And most new costs, compliance and tax changes were still to kick in. For 112,000 landlords expenses exceeded income despite all those subsidies and rent increases.

    Maybe capital gains jam tomorrow, but inroads via the bright line test impact those. Meantime, increased costs and increased tenant hassles. Tens of thousands tenants end up in the Tenancy Tribunal every year for rent arrears and damage and that is the tip of the hassle iceberg.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Tax year 2018, over a third of residential landlords reported a net rental loss, well over $8k average. And most new costs, compliance and tax changes were still to kick in. For 112,000 landlords expenses exceeded income despite all those subsidies and rent increases.

    Maybe capital gains jam tomorrow, but inroads via the bright line test impact those. Meantime, increased costs and increased tenant hassles. Tens of thousands tenants end up in the Tenancy Tribunal every year for rent arrears and damage and that is the tip of the hassle iceberg.
    With expectations of capital gains, it is shocking that landlords are prepared to pay such high prices for houses so that the gross rent they earn becomes a net loss after deductible expenses.

    If so many landlords never earn taxable income, what is the current position in relation to being able to continually deduct costs under existing tax rules? How man landlords are deemed to purchase with the intent to sell at a profit?

    In the past what has been the average length of ownership of a rental property? How many landlords have actually paid tax under the brightline rules? How much tax has been raised and what percentage of total net gains is it?

    Ardern confirmed that residential real estate is the priority investment class in NZ:

    "Put to her that people who invest in shares, for example, don’t always expect the value of that asset to go up, so why should it be different for housing? Ardern responded: “This gets to the heart of the issue of why so many New Zealanders turn to the housing market.”
    https://www.interest.co.nz/property/...-when-it-comes

  4. #14
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Tax year 2018, over a third of residential landlords reported a net rental loss, well over $8k average. And most new costs, compliance and tax changes were still to kick in. For 112,000 landlords expenses exceeded income despite all those subsidies and rent increases.

    Maybe capital gains jam tomorrow, but inroads via the bright line test impact those. Meantime, increased costs and increased tenant hassles. Tens of thousands tenants end up in the Tenancy Tribunal every year for rent arrears and damage and that is the tip of the hassle iceberg.
    Poor landlords. If the hassles become too much for them they can always sell a house or two that they bought in the 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s for comparative peanuts. The mega-millions they will make out of the current hot hot hot government / central bank run Ponzi housing ‘market’ should soothe some of the pain caused by the ‘hassles’.

    Why would you want to be a landlord when you can sell the house for mega-millions?

  5. #15
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    The nation used to go beserk at farmers over ‘subsidies’ in the 80’s, and ‘subsidies’ became a dirty word in the NZ lexicon. And now here is the government paying out $37 Million *every week* in subsidies. And the people they are paying them to are crying foul / poor. I think landlords should stand on their principles, and refuse government subsidies. But I guess ‘it’s only a rort if you aren’t part of it’.

  6. #16
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    With expectations of capital gains, it is shocking that landlords are prepared to pay such high prices for houses so that the gross rent they earn becomes a net loss after deductible expenses.....
    Because time passes, principal is paid down, rents rise, values usually rise. Break even point is reached, tax is paid.

    But strangely there is apparently a shortage of rentals.

  7. #17
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    Poor landlords. If the hassles become too much for them they can always sell a house or two that they bought in the 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s for comparative peanuts. The mega-millions they will make out of the current hot hot hot government / central bank run Ponzi housing ‘market’ should soothe some of the pain caused by the ‘hassles’.

    Why would you want to be a landlord when you can sell the house for mega-millions?
    Is there a rental shortage?

  8. #18
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    The nation used to go beserk at farmers over ‘subsidies’ in the 80’s, and ‘subsidies’ became a dirty word in the NZ lexicon. And now here is the government paying out $37 Million *every week* in subsidies. And the people they are paying them to are crying foul / poor. I think landlords should stand on their principles, and refuse government subsidies. But I guess ‘it’s only a rort if you aren’t part of it’.
    thing is the the landlords dont actually receive the govt subsides do they. It goes to the beneficiary who pays the rent. So yes landlords are benefitting but they cant refuse the subsidy.
    What it points to is that too many people dont earn enough to pay rent (whether they actually work or not). So that means benefits AND wages are too low to sustain this level of rent/price for property (without accom benefit)

    So we could stop the accom benefit and there would be massive homelessness until the landlords found new tenants who could pay. Note that if they couldnt find new tenants at the (accom benefit inflated) existing level they would be forced to lower their rents. But the govt will never ever do that. Well certainly not Labour. Just too disruptive.

    So yes we have inflated our property market by paying poor people enough to live in a rental. Weird that doing good does bad though. Unintended consequences!!!
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  9. #19
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Is there a rental shortage?
    Huh?

    Why be a landlord when you can cash out and make mega-millions!

  10. #20
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    thing is the the landlords dont actually receive the govt subsides do they. It goes to the beneficiary who pays the rent. So yes landlords are benefitting but they cant refuse the subsidy.
    What it points to is that too many people dont earn enough to pay rent (whether they actually work or not). So that means benefits AND wages are too low to sustain this level of rent/price for property (without accom benefit)

    So we could stop the accom benefit and there would be massive homelessness until the landlords found new tenants who could pay. Note that if they couldnt find new tenants at the (accom benefit inflated) existing level they would be forced to lower their rents. But the govt will never ever do that. Well certainly not Labour. Just too disruptive.

    So yes we have inflated our property market by paying poor people enough to live in a rental. Weird that doing good does bad though. Unintended consequences!!!
    Hey, they are not all ‘poor people’.
    The rents people are now being asked to pay are extraordinary. We should not just dismiss anyone struggling to pay these rents as a ‘poor person’.
    Often these are young professionals who now have no hope of ever owning a property - unless Labour increases the taxpayer paid deposit grant (subsidy) to ‘get them on the ladder’. And Labour will!

    When should a government subsidy ever be paid to someone struggling to pay their MORTGAGE!?! Don’t take on a mortgage if you can’t pay it!! We are now allowing people to make bad bets and then bailing them out. Slashing interest rates if it looks like property prices will fall - this is another bail-out.

    I hate what successive governments and the central bank have done. They have created a too big to fail bubble that they rapidly inflate further every time it teeters. They’ve totally ****ed up our country.

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
  •