The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

I don't have solid data, but I believe around the $100-150 range, but that was back when a good income was around $40k/annum, which gives around a 3-4 years worth of salary, a $2-300k house now with a good salary (around $65k/annum) is around 4 years worth of Salary.

So whilst there has been some movement, it's not as drastic as it's being portrayed as.



There is a word, in your rebuttal, that betrays your position and validates my critique:

You said 'acceptable choices' - whether the reference is in regard to houses for sale or sacrifices to be made - part of my critique is that those currently whinging have unrealistic expectations and therefore have artificially limited their 'acceptable choices'. That there are those that are prepared to reset their expectations to something realistic and able to achieve it tells me that it is not a problem with the rules of the game, but an unwillingness on the part of the individual to play it properly.



Firstly - it's not a loophole, but on this point I have two issues:

1: I don't see any clear evidence that the change will achieve the stated goal
2: I don't believe that the driver for this legislation is what is said: wanting houses for everyone. I think the underlying motivation for it, is a resentment of those who are perceived as rich land owners.

And there is quite a long and extremely bloody historical precedent in regards to hyper-left wing types feeling they are entitled to a part or the whole of what others have earned...



You forget - I was in that same perspective - 26, looking to buy a house in Auckland - I've seen it and lived it first hand. I had to move further away than I wanted, I had get a Motorcycle in order to be able to afford the commute to work, I had to make drastic cuts to my expenditure as the difference between Rent and mortgage was just under double, I had fights with the Wife about changes to our lifestyle, I had to deal with banks treating me like crap and charging me fees for Africa because of high LVR and less than 20% equity.

The point here is that I did it, because I knew that in the long run, it would pay off.

There are those that are willing to do what is needed and they reap the benefits of Home ownership, then there are those that want the benefits of being a homeowner without putting the effort in.

If you think it's drum beating - fair enough - I look at more like "I did it, therefore it's possible for you to do it too"

Try get some data then, then draw conclusions... I'd love to see this 100-150k house equivalent to a 200-300k house now...

Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs. A generation ago people didn't have to decide to be that as far from work to own a house.

It's not a loophole? How so? people can make investments and not have to pay tax on the income from that. The goal is to tax income, it will acheive that goal; the driver is an even playing field. Stop with the strawman bullshitery again.

Then make a better effort to go back to that perspective, because you sure are not there anymore.

And there are those who want to own investment properties to avoid paying tax on their income, let's at least level the playing field eh!

It's drum beating because you continue to avoid the point about property as an investment to tell us all about how good you are since you own a house. One person doing it doesn't mean it is possible for everyone, nor that it is as easy as it used to be.

[husaberg]

You didn’t answer bobs question.

Yes i did Jason"its a loophole that needs tightening"

As for Capital Gains Tax well boohoo its profit ,if its turned over in the short term its clearly income. Thus it should be taxed.
......., yet I paid no tax on the income, its loophole that needs tightening.
I understand your point of view as you are still investing in property but you will still have the capital gains you will just need to look at it a long term that's all.
Its not as if you will actually lose money because your capital gains are not realised until its actually sold, Much like gains or loses in share prices

[jasonu]

Yes i did Jason"its a loophole that needs tightening"
Income should be taxed.

Thanks for the reply katman oops I mean Glen...

[husaberg]

Thanks for the reply katman oops I mean Glen...

Are you not seeing the quote i made previously?
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131092136
Comparing me to katman thats a low blow even for you as Trump voter, because i actually answer questions.
I said income from shot term investments should be taxed as income and CGT loopholes need tightening.

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between that & a tax that never existed in NZ until two years ago,

Two years ago... did you wine about it then bob? Or just say nothing because it was the Nats that did it?

[Crasherfromwayback]

. Are you really happy that the govt takes a slice when you sell it & give it to a someone that's done fuck all of any of that?

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between that & a tax that never existed in NZ until two years ago,.

This bit perhaps?

[sidecar bob]

Plus a lot of luck. farm values have dived since here if someone had continued that sudden increase in equity would have been eroded, Note I wouldn't have had to pay CGT anyway it if it was reinvested in your business. go back a few pages and what’s there.....

People don’t actually going farming for the money bob, they go farming because they love it. The challange of it
They get bigger because it the only way to maintain an acceptable level of profit as land prices increase and thus profit margins get squeezed
In the last 8 years if you look most farmers are borrowing money against equity to pay themselves a living wage.

You're overthinking it bro, it was just a yes no question.

[sidecar bob]

Are you not seeing the quote i made previously?
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131092136
Comparing me to katman thats a low blow even for you as Trump voter, because i actually answer questions.
I said income from shot term investments should be taxed as income and CGT loopholes need tightening.

Two years ago... did you wine about it then bob? Or just say nothing because it was the Nats that did it?

To be perfectly honest, CGT won't affect me at all in the foreseeable future, even though I will be making a few changes to my situation. Just lucky timing at this point. I will be keeping my next two commercial developments for the next generation, so probably won't be hit there either.
I was mildly miffed when national introduced it, & I haven't got my head so far up their arse that I can't say they did their fair share of stupid shit in 9 years.

[husaberg]

You're overthinking it bro, it was just a yes no question.

Thus why get asked again and again when I clearly stated without any prompting in the first place what my answer was?

To be perfectly honest, CGT won't affect me at all in the foreseeable future, even though I will be making a few changes to my situation. Just lucky timing at this point. I will be keeping my next two commercial developments for the next generation, so probably won't be hit there either.

I was mildly miffed when national introduced it, & I haven't got my head so far up their arse that I can't say they did their fair share of stupid shit in 9 years.

Like i said there are ways to minimise its effect its introduction is just to tax the short term speculators that are mostly overseas people trying to use our piss poor loophole ridden tax scheme to defer tax and income obligations. The result of this was a driving up of the Auckland housing market to stupid levels that placed it beoyn the means of many kiwis
But these changes should not affect the av Kiwi as primary dwellings are exempt from CGT.

Well I was more thann mildly miffed at doing things like selling off assets for negitive gains or propping up overseas multinationals like Rio Tinto with huge subsidies while letting our SOEs go under. I was more than a little miffed about that.

[Swoop]

...and monopoly materials providers. Which is pretty much all I see wrong with the rice of houses.

I reckon if you arseholed all the rorts involved in building nowadays you could knock up that 900sqft clapboard bungalow you're talking about for about a quarter of the current mean build price.

I've heard many stories of people building their own homes, who import a container of "stuff" to do the job. Plasterboard, ceramic tiles etc. Enough to do their house and whatever is left over they sell.
Works out substantially cheaper than our local prices.


I laugh every time that Te News comes out with "affordable housing is included in this new development" which is stretching the truth a little. "Only 950k when the other houses are 990k" is more realistic.

[Ocean1]

Because you are the one who said any increase in tax results in a decrease in investment

Yet what you meant was any increase by labour in your mind is bad.

What i plainly suggested was less short term property investors (ie speculators)as result of the introduction of a CGT actually leads to more people being able to afford to buy properties rather having to rent them as the tax free incentive stops people buying houses as short term investments.
Less short term property investors in the market lowers the housing price, Plus property investors seeking to exit the market creates a surplus which lowers the price. The CGT is a win for new entrants to the Auckland housing markets.
the Auckland Housing problem is mainly a problem of lack of affordable houses.
Speculators would be better served building "spec" houses to alieviate the shortage of housing rather than trying to tie up the already available housing in the market to rent out.
Maybe when the urbanisation phase of the free market economy is complete your great great grandchildren can aspire to building the burners for the grills Ocean but bare in mind they still end up flipping burgers to be able to afford to eat. As they will be driven out by economies of scale as that will out sourced overseas.....

Nope. What I said was: "most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties." It's pretty obviously correct, though: remove some of the reward for investing in housing and eventually there'll be less houses built.

And if I'd wanted to blame labour specifically I'd have pointed out that labour spent the last decade castigating national for failing to implement a comprehensive CGT on residential properties and they're now demurring from that same policy for exactly the same above reason.

However, that aside I agree with you re the lack of affordable housing. In a normal market the price of existing housing is largely driven by the price of new stock. Build cookie cutter 60's style railways 100sqM properties for (I suspect) a couple of grand and Bob's your uncle. It's not a normal market in Orks, though, the prices reflect the exclusivity of the location, and you can't reproduce that. Anywhere else: find the constraints to building cheap housing and remove them.

[Ocean1]

Sounds more like there's a bunch of whiny arsed pricks getting up in arms about their gravy train being threatened. Bottom line is profits should be taxed, that's how taxes work, lets close that property speculation/investment loophole eh!

The fuck you on about? The house my dad bought is still there (which is pretty nice for him otherwise he'd get a bit wet some nights), it's just worth 4x what he paid for it, and it sure as shit hasn't gotten any fancier.

I have no problem with paying tax on profits. In spite of the fact that nobody offers to compensate me for any losses I might incur. I'm magnanimous to a fault. I certainly do have a problem with paying tax on inflation, though. And most of the increase in dollar terms for my investments is easily attributable to inflation.

Sounds like he's got fuck all to whinge about then.

[Ocean1]

I've heard many stories of people building their own homes, who import a container of "stuff" to do the job. Plasterboard, ceramic tiles etc. Enough to do their house and whatever is left over they sell.
Works out substantially cheaper than our local prices.


I laugh every time that Te News comes out with "affordable housing is included in this new development" which is stretching the truth a little. "Only 950k when the other houses are 990k" is more realistic.

I did exactly that kitset thing. I threw out the budget notes I made at the time just a few months ago, was interesting how much the fit-out cost compared to the basic shell.

Aye, we need a far more aggressive approach in suppressing monopolies, given US laws the local incumbents would long since be locked up.

[husaberg]

Nope. What I said was: "most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties." It's pretty obviously correct, though: remove some of the reward for investing in housing and eventually there'll be less houses built.

And if I'd wanted to blame labour specifically I'd have pointed out that labour spent the last decade castigating national for failing to implement a comprehensive CGT on residential properties and they're now demurring from that same policy for exactly the same above reason.

However, that aside I agree with you re the lack of affordable housing. In a normal market the price of existing housing is largely driven by the price of new stock. Build cookie cutter 60's style railways 100sqM properties for (I suspect) a couple of grand and Bob's your uncle. It's not a normal market in Orks, though, the prices reflect the exclusivity of the location, and you can't reproduce that. Anywhere else: find the constraints to building cheap housing and remove them.

Really most ecomomists aye, thats pretty damning evidence.......
Ask any ecomonist to justify a postion for you, Like national or the BRT did and they will say what ever you want.
Affordability is the problem not number of houses. Decrease the incentives for people moving to auckland and the problems just disappear
Remember National implimented the CGT so are you saying that the ecomonists all thought it was a bad idea.

[sidecar bob]

Something that is not entirely clear to me, is that while there is capital gains tax, does that also translate into capital losses tax rebate?
So if the arse drops out of it & I take a bath to the tune of say 500k when I sell a property on a failing market, do I get a tax rebate equivalent to the same figure as I would have paid if I'd made 500k, or when the ship starts sinking, am I on my own?

[husaberg]

Something that is not entirely clear to me, is that while there is capital gains tax, does that also translate into capital losses tax rebate?
So if the arse drops out of it & I take a bath to the tune of say 500k when I sell a property on a failing market, do I get a tax rebate equivalent to the same figure as I would have paid if I'd made 500k, or when the ship starts sinking, am I on my own?

Trump inc was made bankrupt ages ago, yet acording to popular wisdom hes still reaping the tax benefits of that.... So why not.
There is of course rules regarding how quick you can claim depreciation and the rules regarding accounting for what you depreciated when you do actually sell those same assets though.