Comments on: Would the Nats really whack property investors?

By: Marion

Marion — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:49:53 +0000

It is very unnerving to think that a bunch of socialists are advising the government of ways to keep average New Zealanders from being able to create wealth for their retirement.
I remember the different forms of taxes on land and houses back in the 60′s and 70′s, we worked hard on getting subsequent governments to change these for the betterment of New Zealanders.
What a shame to be going backwards – reeks of socialistic policy implementation.
I didn’t vote National to get his kind of government. Their recommendations are ridiculous and shameful.
Of course the current emotion around property investment is getting out of hand. We have and are still experiencing the worst recession since the great depression and people are hurting, so therefore need to lay blame somewhere – these socialist opportunists are taking advantage and we New Zealanders are going to suffer over and over for it.
Of course houses depreciate like any other business asset – I have to spend money each year on repairs and maintenance. Who will house the people when us risk taking, adventurous New Zealanders sell up? The government (or really the tax payer), using the extra taxes they are proposing they will be collecting. It seems to me to be a socialist recipe for keeping the people of NZ poor, whacking anyone who puts their head up above the crowd and has the ordasidy to make some money.

By: db

db — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:00:30 +0000

The reason many New Zealanders invested in rental property was because we had no worthwhile/safe superannuation scheme to see us into retirement. We decided to protect ourselves and our families from being state dependent. We sacrificed many weekends to weed, repair, paint, dump rubbish, pay bills and will now be penalised for it.

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:15:27 +0000

I am in Matt’s camp. Extremely well put!

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:42:50 +0000

Many landlords use the strategy of running their investments at a loss to gain a tax advantage and so they can reap the rewards of a rising market of which there is no guarantee. If you ask any landlord I’m sure they’d rather be making a healthy cashflow profit than a loss (like any business). However, with low rents and high house values it’s now impossible for a new investor to achieve positive cashflow initially so there needs to be incentives to attract new investors to the industry. The government should be happy that new landlords are in effect subsidising rents out of their own pocket for others who aren’t in a position to buy a property because the government couldn’t keep house prices down. Landlords shouldn’t be punished for providing a necessary and valuable service and exposing ourselves to financial risk.

By: Howie

Howie — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:35:44 +0000

Bottom line is nobody wants to pay more tax, and I don’t think punishing property investor is the right thing to do. Sorry to bring this up, but we really need to cuting down social benefits in NZ otherwise we will never catch up Ausies. I think New Zealand’s big revenune loop hole comes from people who are manipulating the social benefit system – not property investors. Government should give vouchers rather than real money to people on income support, and government should their rents directly. Also, we need to start taking more good migrants – not more refugees.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:51:37 +0000

The irony behind some of these TWG recommendations appears to be lost so far because many commentators are ignorant of how mum and dad investors use property to set up for retirement and how the recession started. They actually mortgage themselves heavily and take risks early in life to save the taxpayer a heavy burden at retirement plus provide a service. To do that, Banks (particularly when times were good) gave away mortgages from 80%, 90% or even 100% of purchase price. If the Government decides to hit the thousands of investors who incidently provide homes that Government could not afford to own, the ramifications for the NZ economy could be massive. The number of investors who could not survive, could only sell. House prices will drop with the market being flooded which will mean many mortgagee sales, investor houses selling below mortgage values and the fallout creating losses for the Banks. But wait isn’t this where US Banks/ Lenders got in to trouble, isn’t this where the recession started. These so called experts within this TWG must have a very narrow understanding of this part of the economy. This almost needs a rebellion of some sort so we and this industry can survive. Australia looks more inviting. It is a pity again, that a minority rorting the system cause changes for the majority. Isn’t this symptomatic of NZ society in general. Minorities rule.

By: vini

vini — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:16:17 +0000

I agree with Craig, property investment is like any investment. If only govt free up land and make land cheaper, property prices would not be this high and poor/first home buyers an afford to buy their homes. Then not many people will investing. It’s a government created mess, it would not be resolved as per the working Group.

By: Geoff Nairn

Geoff Nairn — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:03:06 +0000

Undoubtedly, this discussion is going to draw some highly polarised opinions. From what I see on a fairly frequent basis, there are a number of (residential) property investors who do in fact “rort” the system. However, the point I want to take from Phil’s comments are where he observes: “To penalise several hundred thousand of its (The National Party) core supporters is the equivalent of political suicide.” It is ironic that the only Government that had the political balls to make highly unpalatable changes was David Lange’s Labour Govt, and the changes they made were ones that Muldoon’s lot didn’t have the appetite for. If we removed politics from Government we would have a significantly more stable and prosperous economy.