Comments on: In the line of fire

By: B. Mason ( jmt9@bigfoot.com )

B. Mason ( jmt9@bigfoot.com ) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:54:00 +0000

Imputed rental value of owner occupied housing (net of mortgage interest) should be taxed as income. This was the case in the UK until the 1960′s. It’s explained on the internet – just Google it. No great mystery. The policymakers are undoubtedly quite aware of it but they choose to overlook it because it is politically very contentious. Clearly, failure to tax it amounts to a subsidy to owner occupiers effectively capitalised into higher house prices. Also it is inequitable that rent payers effectively do pay tax at income tax rates on the rental value of the property they occupy (they have to find a gross amount of income and pay tax on that before having a net amount of income with which to pay rent). Introduction, would broaden the tax base, remove a subsidy capitalised into higher house prices and remove a gross inequity.

By: Estate Agents Christchurch

Estate Agents Christchurch — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:26:50 +0000

It would still generate profit even with changes to taxation system. Some would struggle to financial success through the property investment market but still there’s growth.

By: Lee Kammerer

Lee Kammerer — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:16:11 +0000

Why is always assumed by those in the media (very much including the writer of this blog) that changes to taxation system are always going to detrimental to investors? John Key and Bill English have both categorically ruled out a capital gains tax and are committed to lowering personal taxation when economic conditions improve. Quite frankly I am sick of the negative, sensationist tone taken by our media. And in actual frank this government has done a lot of positive things for property investors in the short time it has been in power (common sense changes to RTA legislation for example).

By: sMiles

sMiles — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:15:09 +0000

Property investment is an economic contributor especially commercial property and not a significant cause of bubble house price rises. That was mainly a result of ‘have it all now’ borrowing by home owners with bank support. While some better tax neutrality may be helpful, a much better economic result would be acheived by simply lowering the overall tax burden substantially. Desocialise NZ fast and extensively and we will get economic gains to rapidly follow. Keep high taxation and we will founder forever.

By: simon davies

simon davies — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:14:43 +0000

Its just typical that something the pollies have been making big bucks out of themselves for decades is now going to come under attack.We have a [currently] profitable rental property that is effectively our future nest egg.We are providing a quality residence for those unable to afford their own and in the process trying to become independent of the state in our retirement.Why we should come under attack is beyond me.

By: Hoads

Hoads — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:14:31 +0000

Regarding the issue of borrowing overseas money to invest in NZ housing.
This would target the Banks that borrow at low interest rates off shore then look to get a return from our housing.
If that is correct then I would support any restrictions that would make that hard for the Banks.
It would then allow for the local investment funds to be more keanly sort after, the risks would be better managed and the likelihood of another spike in the property market reduced.
New Zealanders are better to look after their own first and foremost.