https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants

"The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
families living in emergency housing motels,” Bishop said.

This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.

Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
when they worked. A win win situation.

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>
>"The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>families living in emergency housing motels,” Bishop said.
>
>This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>
>Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>when they worked. A win win situation.
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny how the last government saw landlords as
the enemy of tenants when the opoosite is probably true. Helping landlords
helps tenants - funny that eh?
I am not a landlord,

On 11 Apr 2024 21:47:36 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>
>"The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>families living in emergency housing motels,” Bishop said.
>
>This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>
>Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>when they worked. A win win situation.
Other reports:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/488842/bishop-says-national-s-landlord-tax-breaks-and-no-cause-terminations-pro-tenant
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/514005/changes-to-tenancy-laws-to-come-into-force-next-year

With the percentage of our population needing to find rental
accommodation, and the government wanting to increase immigration,
there is sufficient desperation to find somewhere to live to have
resulted in significant increases in rentals, through both National
and Labour Governments. "Helping tenants" by making it easier to evict
even exemplary tenants does not seem particularly helpful - it is
likely to see a move towards owning rental property becoming even more
favoured over investing in profitable companies - a country gouging
profits from the poor to enrich the already wealthy, who may be the
only people able to afford to buy a property. Is this policy intended
to shift the market so they can get more money from sales of Housing
Corp rentals?

In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
>
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>
> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>
> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>
> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
> when they worked. A win win situation.

There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
table.

Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)

If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
people needing/wanting to rent).

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2024 21:47:36 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>
>>"The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>families living in emergency housing motels,� Bishop said.
>>
>>This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>
>>Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>when they worked. A win win situation.
>Other reports:
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/488842/bishop-says-national-s-landlord-tax-breaks-and-no-cause-terminations-pro-tenant
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/514005/changes-to-tenancy-laws-to-come-into-force-next-year
>
>
>With the percentage of our population needing to find rental
>accommodation, and the government wanting to increase immigration,
>there is sufficient desperation to find somewhere to live to have
>resulted in significant increases in rentals, through both National
>and Labour Governments. "Helping tenants" by making it easier to evict
>even exemplary tenants does not seem particularly helpful - it is
>likely to see a move towards owning rental property becoming even more
>favoured over investing in profitable companies - a country gouging
>profits from the poor to enrich the already wealthy, who may be the
>only people able to afford to buy a property. Is this policy intended
>to shift the market so they can get more money from sales of Housing
>Corp rentals?
Sheer nonsense.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>
>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>
>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>
>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>
>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>table.
>
>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>
>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>people needing/wanting to rent).

During recent years important effects on the market have been:
* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
families and also significant increases in immigration.
* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
government has started building more.
* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
new developments more expensive,
* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
more acute.
* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.
* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
then getting some income from it both during that time and between
family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:03:10 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>says...
>>>
>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>
>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>
>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>
>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>
>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>table.
>>
>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>
>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>
>During recent years important effects on the market have been:
>* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
>families and also significant increases in immigration.

Balanced by increased levels of emigration. Interesting that you
forgot to mention this.

>* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
>to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
>local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
>income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
>maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
>of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
>government has started building more.

That was more than 6 years ago. Labour, prior to the 2017 election,
pledged to build 100,000 state houses over 10 years, but had no idea
how they could achieve this. Some were built but in quantities well
short of those pledged.

>* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
>new developments more expensive,
>* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
>to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
>units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
>Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
>see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
>problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
>more acute.
>* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
>more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
>standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.

That major program did not deliver anything like the quantities
promised. I am surprised you reference what was an abject and
embarrassing failure.

>* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
>significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
>describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
>on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
>it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
>one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
>then getting some income from it both during that time and between
>family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
>which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
>property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
>realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
>they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
>property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
>for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
>* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
>increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
>capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
>It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
>maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
>is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
>and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
>* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
>anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
>perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .

It is also pleasing to observe a Government that does what it says it
will do. I seriously question some of those commitments but I have no
doubt whatsoever that they will never pull out an unannounced stunt
that was Labour's "3 waters" reforms.

--
Crash McBash

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:33:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:03:10 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>
>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>
>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>
>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>table.
>>>
>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>
>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>
>>During recent years important effects on the market have been:
>>* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
>>families and also significant increases in immigration.
>
>Balanced by increased levels of emigration. Interesting that you
>forgot to mention this.
The net effect was a significant increase in our population, and
emigration and immigration may have affected different parts of the
property markets, as would have movements to and away from particular
locations.

>>* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
>>to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
>>local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
>>income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
>>maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
>>of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
>>government has started building more.
>
>That was more than 6 years ago. Labour, prior to the 2017 election,
>pledged to build 100,000 state houses over 10 years, but had no idea
>how they could achieve this. Some were built but in quantities well
>short of those pledged.
There explanation of targets left a bit to be desired - but they still
did see a very significant rise in dwellings built over those years.
Does the current government have any aims to increase housing numbers?
>
>>* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
>>new developments more expensive,
>>* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
>>to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
>>units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
>>Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
>>see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
>>problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
>>more acute.
>>* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
>>more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
>>standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.
>
>That major program did not deliver anything like the quantities
>promised. I am surprised you reference what was an abject and
>embarrassing failure.
It was still successful, with a huge number also brought up to healthy
home standards. The quantities you refer to were achieved but not
necessarily solely by government.

>
>>* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
>>significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
>>describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
>>on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
>>it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
>>one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
>>then getting some income from it both during that time and between
>>family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
>>which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
>>property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
>>realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
>>they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
>>property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
>>for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
>>* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
>>increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
>>capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
>>It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
>>maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
>>is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
>>and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
>>* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
>>anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
>>perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .
>
>It is also pleasing to observe a Government that does what it says it
>will do. I seriously question some of those commitments but I have no
>doubt whatsoever that they will never pull out an unannounced stunt
>that was Labour's "3 waters" reforms.

Some charities have a very high level of money donated that goes to
expenses of the charity itself; it does need looking at, but you are
plain wrong to call Three Waters an unannounced stunt - Announcements
were made over a long period, but the legislation to enable it to
happen was not put through parliament prior to the election; what
National are now proposing is very similar - they may still force some
Councils to work with neighboring Councils even if they do not want
to, they have adopted structures to suit lenders that are similar to
those proposed by Labour, but will leave more of the risk and
operations to local councils who lack the staff and expertise - the
effect has been that most local bodies are planning rate significant
rate increases next year 15% - it will increase inflation, but ACT is
happy, it lowers income tax and moves to a flatter tax system that
looks after the wealthy and hits the poor with higher taxes.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:33:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:03:10 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>>
>>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>>table.
>>>>
>>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>>
>>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>>
>>>During recent years important effects on the market have been:
>>>* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
>>>families and also significant increases in immigration.
>>
>>Balanced by increased levels of emigration. Interesting that you
>>forgot to mention this.
>The net effect was a significant increase in our population, and
>emigration and immigration may have affected different parts of the
>property markets, as would have movements to and away from particular
>locations.
>
>>>* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
>>>to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
>>>local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
>>>income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
>>>maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
>>>of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
>>>government has started building more.
>>
>>That was more than 6 years ago. Labour, prior to the 2017 election,
>>pledged to build 100,000 state houses over 10 years, but had no idea
>>how they could achieve this. Some were built but in quantities well
>>short of those pledged.
>There explanation of targets left a bit to be desired - but they still
>did see a very significant rise in dwellings built over those years.
>Does the current government have any aims to increase housing numbers?
>>
>>>* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
>>>new developments more expensive,
>>>* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
>>>to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
>>>units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
>>>Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
>>>see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
>>>problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
>>>more acute.
>>>* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
>>>more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
>>>standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.
>>
>>That major program did not deliver anything like the quantities
>>promised. I am surprised you reference what was an abject and
>>embarrassing failure.
>It was still successful, with a huge number also brought up to healthy
>home standards. The quantities you refer to were achieved but not
>necessarily solely by government.
>
>>
>>>* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
>>>significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
>>>describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
>>>on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
>>>it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
>>>one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
>>>then getting some income from it both during that time and between
>>>family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
>>>which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
>>>property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
>>>realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
>>>they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
>>>property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
>>>for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
>>>* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
>>>increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
>>>capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
>>>It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
>>>maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
>>>is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
>>>and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
>>>* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
>>>anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
>>>perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .
>>
>>It is also pleasing to observe a Government that does what it says it
>>will do. I seriously question some of those commitments but I have no
>>doubt whatsoever that they will never pull out an unannounced stunt
>>that was Labour's "3 waters" reforms.
>
>Some charities have a very high level of money donated that goes to
>expenses of the charity itself; it does need looking at, but you are
>plain wrong to call Three Waters an unannounced stunt - Announcements
>were made over a long period
Not one single announcement or hint was given prior to that election - not one>
You are lying.
>, but the legislation to enable it to
>happen was not put through parliament prior to the election; what
>National are now proposing is very similar
Not even close - they are not proposing separatist, so-called co-governance
undemocratic, apartheid processes. And that, nothing else, is the difference
that matters.
> - they may still force some
>Councils to work with neighboring Councils even if they do not want
>to, they have adopted structures to suit lenders that are similar to
>those proposed by Labour, but will leave more of the risk and
>operations to local councils who lack the staff and expertise - the
>effect has been that most local bodies are planning rate significant
>rate increases next year 15% - it will increase inflation, but ACT is
>happy, it lowers income tax and moves to a flatter tax system that
>looks after the wealthy and hits the poor with higher taxes.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:58:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:33:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:03:10 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>>>table.
>>>>>
>>>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>>>
>>>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>>>
>>>>During recent years important effects on the market have been:
>>>>* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
>>>>families and also significant increases in immigration.
>>>
>>>Balanced by increased levels of emigration. Interesting that you
>>>forgot to mention this.
>>The net effect was a significant increase in our population, and
>>emigration and immigration may have affected different parts of the
>>property markets, as would have movements to and away from particular
>>locations.
>>
>>>>* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
>>>>to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
>>>>local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
>>>>income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
>>>>maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
>>>>of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
>>>>government has started building more.
>>>
>>>That was more than 6 years ago. Labour, prior to the 2017 election,
>>>pledged to build 100,000 state houses over 10 years, but had no idea
>>>how they could achieve this. Some were built but in quantities well
>>>short of those pledged.
>>There explanation of targets left a bit to be desired - but they still
>>did see a very significant rise in dwellings built over those years.
>>Does the current government have any aims to increase housing numbers?
>>>
>>>>* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
>>>>new developments more expensive,
>>>>* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
>>>>to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
>>>>units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
>>>>Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
>>>>see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
>>>>problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
>>>>more acute.
>>>>* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
>>>>more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
>>>>standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.
>>>
>>>That major program did not deliver anything like the quantities
>>>promised. I am surprised you reference what was an abject and
>>>embarrassing failure.
>>It was still successful, with a huge number also brought up to healthy
>>home standards. The quantities you refer to were achieved but not
>>necessarily solely by government.
>>
>>>
>>>>* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
>>>>significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
>>>>describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
>>>>on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
>>>>it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
>>>>one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
>>>>then getting some income from it both during that time and between
>>>>family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
>>>>which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
>>>>property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
>>>>realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
>>>>they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
>>>>property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
>>>>for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
>>>>* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
>>>>increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
>>>>capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
>>>>It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
>>>>maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
>>>>is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
>>>>and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
>>>>* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
>>>>anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
>>>>perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .
>>>
>>>It is also pleasing to observe a Government that does what it says it
>>>will do. I seriously question some of those commitments but I have no
>>>doubt whatsoever that they will never pull out an unannounced stunt
>>>that was Labour's "3 waters" reforms.
>>
>>Some charities have a very high level of money donated that goes to
>>expenses of the charity itself; it does need looking at, but you are
>>plain wrong to call Three Waters an unannounced stunt - Announcements
>>were made over a long period
>Not one single announcement or hint was given prior to that election - not one>
>You are lying.

I was not aware of any proposals in relation to taxing Charities.
There have been provisions agreed for many years that religions and
charities that run commercial operations have those organisations
taxed as companies - Sanitarium is the most well known example. I
have been aware however that at the other end of the scale there are
individuals who have created a charity and devote themselves to
raising money for that charity - but then end up paying themselves
salary and expenses that are exorbitant; they can be very difficult to
determine whether they are legitimate or fraudulent.

However it now appears that Christopher Luxon is contemplating major
change to how religions are treated - the mayor of Auckland wants both
government and religions to pay rates; Luxon has rejected any change
by government but may be prepared to insist that religions pay rates
on property that they own. It may be yet another bright idea from
Atlas Network, but appears to have taken a lot of people by surprise.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:58:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:33:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:03:10 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told
>>>>>>>us
>>>>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the
>>>>>>>attack
>>>>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting
>>>>>>>back
>>>>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>>>>table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>>>>
>>>>>During recent years important effects on the market have been:
>>>>>* An increase in demand for houses - growth in population through
>>>>>families and also significant increases in immigration.
>>>>
>>>>Balanced by increased levels of emigration. Interesting that you
>>>>forgot to mention this.
>>>The net effect was a significant increase in our population, and
>>>emigration and immigration may have affected different parts of the
>>>property markets, as would have movements to and away from particular
>>>locations.
>>>
>>>>>* The sell-off of State Houses under National-led Governments leading
>>>>>to an acute shortage of social housing, or where they were sold to
>>>>>local trusts, the reality that those entities did not have enough
>>>>>income to expand in those areas, and in some cases were unable to even
>>>>>maintain the buildings adequately. (There was for example a shortage
>>>>>of social housing in the Wairarapa - it is only more recently that
>>>>>government has started building more.
>>>>
>>>>That was more than 6 years ago. Labour, prior to the 2017 election,
>>>>pledged to build 100,000 state houses over 10 years, but had no idea
>>>>how they could achieve this. Some were built but in quantities well
>>>>short of those pledged.
>>>There explanation of targets left a bit to be desired - but they still
>>>did see a very significant rise in dwellings built over those years.
>>>Does the current government have any aims to increase housing numbers?
>>>>
>>>>>* Nimby-ism in local areas in resistance to intensification, making
>>>>>new developments more expensive,
>>>>>* More recently, Auckland deciding to allow intensification, leading
>>>>>to a lot of single dwelling sections now having 4 to 6 multi-story
>>>>>units . That increased the value of land in some parts of Auckland.
>>>>>Wellington has very recently made a similar decision; we have yet to
>>>>>see what effect that may have. In both cases, it has or will make the
>>>>>problems of services such as supply of water and in some cases power
>>>>>more acute.
>>>>>* Recent Labour governments undertook a major programme of building
>>>>>more social housing, and bringing existing homes up to modern
>>>>>standards. Not all rental properties meet those standards.
>>>>
>>>>That major program did not deliver anything like the quantities
>>>>promised. I am surprised you reference what was an abject and
>>>>embarrassing failure.
>>>It was still successful, with a huge number also brought up to healthy
>>>home standards. The quantities you refer to were achieved but not
>>>necessarily solely by government.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>* Inflation has meant that capital gains have become a more
>>>>>significant component of investment returns. Landlords used to
>>>>>describe themselves as 'farming capital gains'. The exemption from tax
>>>>>on capital gains has applied to owner-occupiers for a long time, but
>>>>>it has become more complicated with some owning houses in more than
>>>>>one location, buying housing for children (eg while at University),
>>>>>then getting some income from it both during that time and between
>>>>>family occupancy. This contrasts to most commercial operations for
>>>>>which capital gains are taxed on realisation (for both shares and real
>>>>>property). Thus for example most New Zealanders will pay tax on
>>>>>realised gains generated from share sales in the Kiwisaver portfolio
>>>>>they have selected (most Kiwisaver providers do not invest directly in
>>>>>property for liquidity reasons, but if they did they would be allowing
>>>>>for eventual capital gains tax in the value passed on to investors).
>>>>>* Not allowing a tax deduction for interest is a rough way of
>>>>>increasing taxable income in lieu of the complications of taxing
>>>>>capital gains while exempting that tax for owner-occupied dwellings.
>>>>>It discriminates in favour of those that do not need to borrow to
>>>>>maintain a property, and the match is not good on an annual basis, but
>>>>>is a crude attempt at equity - in effect it is better than nothing,
>>>>>and taxing capital gains has different anomalies.
>>>>>* It is pleasing to hear that Christopher Luxon will look at tax
>>>>>anomalies for charities, but not listen to reason for landlords -
>>>>>perhaps self-interest has a part to play . . .
>>>>
>>>>It is also pleasing to observe a Government that does what it says it
>>>>will do. I seriously question some of those commitments but I have no
>>>>doubt whatsoever that they will never pull out an unannounced stunt
>>>>that was Labour's "3 waters" reforms.
>>>
>>>Some charities have a very high level of money donated that goes to
>>>expenses of the charity itself; it does need looking at, but you are
>>>plain wrong to call Three Waters an unannounced stunt - Announcements
>>>were made over a long period
>>Not one single announcement or hint was given prior to that election - not
>>one>
>>You are lying.
>
>I was not aware of any proposals in relation to taxing Charities.
>There have been provisions agreed for many years that religions and
>charities that run commercial operations have those organisations
>taxed as companies - Sanitarium is the most well known example. I
>have been aware however that at the other end of the scale there are
>individuals who have created a charity and devote themselves to
>raising money for that charity - but then end up paying themselves
>salary and expenses that are exorbitant; they can be very difficult to
>determine whether they are legitimate or fraudulent.
You changed the subject - deliberately, shame on you.
>
>However it now appears that Christopher Luxon is contemplating major
>change to how religions are treated - the mayor of Auckland wants both
>government and religions to pay rates; Luxon has rejected any change
>by government but may be prepared to insist that religions pay rates
>on property that they own. It may be yet another bright idea from
>Atlas Network, but appears to have taken a lot of people by surprise.
Horseshit.
>
>
>>>, but the legislation to enable it to
>>>happen was not put through parliament prior to the election; what
>>>National are now proposing is very similar
>>Not even close - they are not proposing separatist, so-called co-governance
>>undemocratic, apartheid processes. And that, nothing else, is the difference
>>that matters.
>
>Methinks you protest too much. For just the same reasons as the
>previous government, no amount of rate increases will pay for some
>areas of New Zealand - for example some areas north of Auckland, or
>north of Gisborne, or on the SI West Coast, will be able to afford 3
>waters systems for their local area unless either government pays for
>a lot of it, or they force some councils to work together to hit
>higher density population areas to subside others. In practice despite
>what they say they may still have to spend government money . . .
Off topic - you cannot keep to topic.
>
>>> - they may still force some
>>>Councils to work with neighboring Councils even if they do not want
>>>to, they have adopted structures to suit lenders that are similar to
>>>those proposed by Labour, but will leave more of the risk and
>>>operations to local councils who lack the staff and expertise - the
>>>effect has been that most local bodies are planning rate significant
>>>rate increases next year 15% - it will increase inflation, but ACT is
>>>happy, it lowers income tax and moves to a flatter tax system that
>>>looks after the wealthy and hits the poor with higher taxes.
>With all three government parties having members who have worked for
>the NZ Taxpayer Union and taken the Kool-Aid from the Atlas Network,
>we can expect more of the same from this government
Horseshit

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>
>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>
>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>
>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>
>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>table.

You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
owners to vote in local body elections.

>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>
>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>people needing/wanting to rent).

Rental income is chump change to a property investor.

A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.

None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.

When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
current economic and political climate makes property rental very
risky.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>says...
>>>
>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>
>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>
>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>
>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>
>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>table.
>
>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>owners to vote in local body elections.
I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time, and that has
been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
residents, so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.

>
>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>
>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>
>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>
>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>
>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>
>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>risky.
>
>Bill.

Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
will bear. While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
may appear to be quite minor, but we have had periods when it formed a
significant part of overall return - and we have also had times where
an empty house was prone to being broken into . . . Good security is
much better than it used to be but cannot prevent all damage. Some
landlords allow rents to 'lag' behind the market for very good
tenants.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:

> Those houses either get sold to other landlords ...

Like, possibly Kāinga Ora, which has a Government mandate to offer housing
to those less likely to get it from regular “free market” sources.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>
>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>
>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>
>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>table.
>>
>>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>>owners to vote in local body elections.

>I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,

Why did that need to change?

>and that has
>been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>residents,

Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?

>so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.

One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.

There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
which is how it should be.

>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>
>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>
>>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>>
>>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>>
>>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>>
>>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>>risky.
>>
>>Bill.
>
>Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>will bear.

So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
that a problem?

>While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
>may appear to be quite minor,

So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
the best interests of good tenants?

>but we have had periods when it formed a
>significant part of overall return - and we have also had times where
>an empty house was prone to being broken into . . .

Why? What would there be to steal? This sort of thing is only common
in a country with a weak criminal justice system.

>Good security is
>much better than it used to be but cannot prevent all damage. Some
>landlords allow rents to 'lag' behind the market for very good
>tenants.

What nonsense. Landlords often reward good tenants with cheaper rent.
Tenants that gets behind in their rent are not a good tenants. I've
got a friend who rented one of his houses to a group of actors who,
unknown to him at the time, were out of work. They started getting
behind on their rent, and they were 14 weeks behind by the time he
finally got rid of them. All the time time there were several cars
including a beamer parked on the front lawn. They didn't just suddenly
stop paying; it was a one step forward and two steps back situation.
It was months before they were finally gone. Such people are able to
vote in local body elections. This is a large part of why local
councils have become so damn political and incompetent.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 19:19:30 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>>
>>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>>table.
>>>
>>>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>>>owners to vote in local body elections.
>
>
>>I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>>more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>
>Why did that need to change?
>
>>and that has
>>been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>>residents,
>
>Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>
>>so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>>local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>
>One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>
>There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>which is how it should be.
>
>>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>>
>>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>>
>>>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>>>
>>>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>>>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>>>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>>>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>>>
>>>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>>>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>>>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>>>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>>>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>>>
>>>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>>>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>>>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>>>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>>>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>>>risky.
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>
>>Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>>the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>>not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>>not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>>will bear.
>
>So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>that a problem?
>
>
>>While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
>>may appear to be quite minor,
>
>So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
>governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
>the best interests of good tenants?
>
>>but we have had periods when it formed a
>>significant part of overall return - and we have also had times where
>>an empty house was prone to being broken into . . .
>
>Why? What would there be to steal? This sort of thing is only common
>in a country with a weak criminal justice system.
>
>>Good security is
>>much better than it used to be but cannot prevent all damage. Some
>>landlords allow rents to 'lag' behind the market for very good
>>tenants.
>
>What nonsense. Landlords often reward good tenants with cheaper rent.
>Tenants that gets behind in their rent are not a good tenants. I've
>got a friend who rented one of his houses to a group of actors who,
>unknown to him at the time, were out of work. They started getting
>behind on their rent, and they were 14 weeks behind by the time he
>finally got rid of them. All the time time there were several cars
>including a beamer parked on the front lawn. They didn't just suddenly
>stop paying; it was a one step forward and two steps back situation.
>It was months before they were finally gone. Such people are able to
>vote in local body elections. This is a large part of why local
>councils have become so damn political and incompetent.
>
>Bill.

Bill you encapsulate so well the views of those of us who own rental
properties (some through trusts). The only missing element is that
Labour rewarded those who owned accommodation but chose to serve the
short-term property rental market (through the likes of airbnb and
similar websites in tourist destination localities) - where interest
costs remained tax-deductible.

--
Crash McBash

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 19:19:30 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>>>>
>>>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>>>table.
>>>
>>>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>>>owners to vote in local body elections.
>
>
>>I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>>more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>
>Why did that need to change?
It was probably associated with the radical idea of Democracy.

>
>>and that has
>>been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>>residents,
>
>Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
Its probably a little more complicated either way - worth reason the
exact rules, but some are able to vote for other Councils as well
where they own property

>
>>so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>>local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>
>One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>
>There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>which is how it should be.

Worth looking at the detail. Many people see what we have as
inconsistent with one person one vote, and would regard what you
propose as not being democratic. Would you be happy with an election
for parliament where everyone eligible to vote had as many votes as
the dollars they paid in income taxes, with shareholders or Directors
of companies sharing votes based on tax paid by the company? Some
would view any such changes as representing the destruction of
democracy; granting additional votes to landlords is not seen as
justified by many. But your idea may appeal to some political party,
why not suggest it and see if anyone is prepared to take it further .
.. .?

>
>>>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>>>
>>>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>>
>>>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>>>
>>>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>>>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>>>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>>>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>>>
>>>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>>>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>>>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>>>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>>>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>>>
>>>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>>>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>>>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>>>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>>>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>>>risky.
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>
>>Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>>the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>>not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>>not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>>will bear.
>
>So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>that a problem?

It was I suspect looking to correct an extreme distortion of
investment markets. Why should rental properties have a significantly
more favourable basis of taxation than other investments such as
shares, fixed interest, farming, etc.? New Zealand companies find it
difficult to attract share capital from local markets, which has led
over time to many of our most profitable and largest companies sending
a majority of dividends offshore, to the detriment of New Zealand.

>
>>While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
>>may appear to be quite minor,
>
>So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
>governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
>the best interests of good tenants?
I am sure some do, but not all do - it could be argued than banks and
supermarkets also represent the best interests of users of their
services, but that does not justify a special lower basis of taxation
.. . .

>
>>but we have had periods when it formed a
>>significant part of overall return - and we have also had times where
>>an empty house was prone to being broken into . . .
>
>Why? What would there be to steal? This sort of thing is only common
>in a country with a weak criminal justice system.
Homeless people and gangs will use empty properties, often causing
destruction.

>
>>Good security is
>>much better than it used to be but cannot prevent all damage. Some
>>landlords allow rents to 'lag' behind the market for very good
>>tenants.
>
>What nonsense. Landlords often reward good tenants with cheaper rent.
>Tenants that gets behind in their rent are not a good tenants. I've
>got a friend who rented one of his houses to a group of actors who,
>unknown to him at the time, were out of work. They started getting
>behind on their rent, and they were 14 weeks behind by the time he
>finally got rid of them. All the time time there were several cars
>including a beamer parked on the front lawn. They didn't just suddenly
>stop paying; it was a one step forward and two steps back situation.
>It was months before they were finally gone. Such people are able to
>vote in local body elections. This is a large part of why local
>councils have become so damn political and incompetent.
>
>Bill.
So what do you propose, Bill?

In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
says...
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
> >>>says...
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
> >>>>
> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
> >>>
> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
> >>>table.
> >>
> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
>
>
> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>
> Why did that need to change?
>
> >and that has
> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
> >residents,
>
> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>
> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>
> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>
> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
> which is how it should be.

Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.

> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
> >>>
> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
> >>
> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
> >>
> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
> >>
> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
> >>
> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
> >>risky.
> >>
> >>Bill.
> >
> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
> >will bear.
>
> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
> that a problem?

Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
made leaving properties empty more costly.

As for why its a problem: The government is clearly short on money given
the cuts they're making. While the tax revenue may be small its still
tax revenue they're now missing out of that they could have perhaps used
to solve one of the many funding issues they're having.

And why the government may have singled out landlords? Because we'd be
better off collectively if people invested in companies that led to
economic growth rather than selling houses to each other and charging
people a large portion of their income for a roof over their head.

Thats not to say we should do away with landlords - not everyone can
afford to buy a house at any given time. But home ownership has declined
significantly while house prices skyrocket and sooner or later something
is going to have to be done to reverse this.

> >While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
> >may appear to be quite minor,
>
> So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
> governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
> the best interests of good tenants?

Best interests of people who prefer to and choose to rent perhaps. But
there are many who would prefer to buy a home and can't in part due to a
portion of the public owning multiple houses for the rental income and
untaxed capital gains.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:56:59 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>says...
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>> >>>says...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>> >>>
>> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>> >>>table.
>> >>
>> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
>>
>>
>> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>>
>> Why did that need to change?
>>
>> >and that has
>> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>> >residents,
>>
>> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>>
>> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>>
>> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>>
>> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>> which is how it should be.
>
>Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
>They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.

Why? They are not paying for them so why should they have an input
into the management of them?

>> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>> >>>
>> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>> >>
>> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>> >>
>> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>> >>
>> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>> >>
>> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>> >>risky.
>> >>
>> >>Bill.
>> >
>> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>> >will bear.
>>
>> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>> that a problem?

>Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
>owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
>costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
>made leaving properties empty more costly.

Have you ever rented a house out to someone? There are many rental
properties that are mortgaged. Nobody buys another house just to rent
it out for less ROI than a bank deposit. If that was the only thing in
it for the house owner, there would be no landlords.

>As for why its a problem: The government is clearly short on money given
>the cuts they're making. While the tax revenue may be small its still
>tax revenue they're now missing out of that they could have perhaps used
>to solve one of the many funding issues they're having.

Governments should not be raising taxes, they should be substantially
cutting spending.

>And why the government may have singled out landlords? Because we'd be
>better off collectively if people invested in companies that led to
>economic growth rather than selling houses to each other and charging
>people a large portion of their income for a roof over their head.

Then governments should tax those other investments less.

>Thats not to say we should do away with landlords - not everyone can
>afford to buy a house at any given time. But home ownership has declined
>significantly while house prices skyrocket and sooner or later something
>is going to have to be done to reverse this.

Getting rid of the odious RMA would be a good first step.

>> >While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
>> >may appear to be quite minor,
>>
>> So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
>> governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
>> the best interests of good tenants?
>
>Best interests of people who prefer to and choose to rent perhaps. But
>there are many who would prefer to buy a home and can't in part due to a
>portion of the public owning multiple houses for the rental income and
>untaxed capital gains.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 05:08:40 +1200
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

> Governments should not be raising taxes, they should be substantially
> cutting spending.

+1!!!!!

In article <m3002jtb9p0e8kikeah8mgmselfd05tbes@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
says...
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:56:59 +1200, David Goodwin
> <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
> >> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
> >> >>>says...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
> >> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
> >> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
> >> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
> >> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
> >> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
> >> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
> >> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
> >> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
> >> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
> >> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
> >> >>>table.
> >> >>
> >> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
> >> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
> >>
> >>
> >> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
> >> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
> >>
> >> Why did that need to change?
> >>
> >> >and that has
> >> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
> >> >residents,
> >>
> >> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
> >>
> >> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
> >> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
> >>
> >> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
> >>
> >> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
> >> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
> >> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
> >> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
> >> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
> >> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
> >> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
> >> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
> >> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
> >> which is how it should be.
> >
> >Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
> >They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.
>
> Why? They are not paying for them so why should they have an input
> into the management of them?

I guess you think people who aren't currently in paid employment also
shouldn't be able to vote in national elections? After all, if you're
not paying tax why should you have any input into how its spent?

> >> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
> >> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
> >> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
> >> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
> >> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
> >> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
> >> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
> >> >>
> >> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
> >> >>
> >> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
> >> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
> >> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
> >> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
> >> >>
> >> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
> >> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
> >> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
> >> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
> >> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
> >> >>
> >> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
> >> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
> >> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
> >> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
> >> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
> >> >>risky.
> >> >>
> >> >>Bill.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
> >> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
> >> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
> >> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
> >> >will bear.
> >>
> >> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
> >> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
> >> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
> >> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
> >> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
> >> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
> >> that a problem?
>
> >Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
> >owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
> >costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
> >made leaving properties empty more costly.
>
> Have you ever rented a house out to someone? There are many rental
> properties that are mortgaged. Nobody buys another house just to rent
> it out for less ROI than a bank deposit. If that was the only thing in
> it for the house owner, there would be no landlords.

And if there were no landlords then there would be lower demand for
houses and people might actually have a chance of buying their own home
rather than paying other peoples mortgages for the rest of their lives.

> >As for why its a problem: The government is clearly short on money given
> >the cuts they're making. While the tax revenue may be small its still
> >tax revenue they're now missing out of that they could have perhaps used
> >to solve one of the many funding issues they're having.
>
> Governments should not be raising taxes, they should be substantially
> cutting spending.

What government services would you like to do away with in order to cut
spending?

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:34:58 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <m3002jtb9p0e8kikeah8mgmselfd05tbes@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>says...
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:56:59 +1200, David Goodwin
>> <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>> >> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>> >> >>>says...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>> >> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>> >> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>> >> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>> >> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>> >> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>> >> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>> >> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>> >> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>> >> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>> >> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>> >> >>>table.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>> >> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>> >> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>> >>
>> >> Why did that need to change?
>> >>
>> >> >and that has
>> >> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>> >> >residents,
>> >>
>> >> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>> >>
>> >> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>> >> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>> >>
>> >> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>> >>
>> >> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>> >> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>> >> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>> >> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>> >> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>> >> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>> >> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>> >> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>> >> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>> >> which is how it should be.
>> >
>> >Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
>> >They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.
>>
>> Why? They are not paying for them so why should they have an input
>> into the management of them?
>
>I guess you think people who aren't currently in paid employment also
>shouldn't be able to vote in national elections? After all, if you're
>not paying tax why should you have any input into how its spent?

It goes further than that - some would have those that pay more tax
get more votes, with that being restricted to income tax for practical
reasons. For the most wealthy, there would be a group who pay very
little or no tax in some years, but that is minor - the real deterrent
is that it would require the number of votes to be able to be
identified for each individual so that votes could be counted.

On balance, most political parties have decided that "One person one
vote" sufficiently meets their needs; particularly when there is no
limit on donations to buy the result anyone wants.
>
>> >> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>> >> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>> >> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>> >> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>> >> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>> >> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>> >> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>> >> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>> >> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>> >> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>> >> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>> >> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>> >> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>> >> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>> >> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>> >> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>> >> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>> >> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>> >> >>risky.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Bill.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>> >> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>> >> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>> >> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>> >> >will bear.
>> >>
>> >> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>> >> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>> >> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>> >> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>> >> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>> >> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>> >> that a problem?
>>
>> >Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
>> >owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
>> >costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
>> >made leaving properties empty more costly.
>>
>> Have you ever rented a house out to someone? There are many rental
>> properties that are mortgaged. Nobody buys another house just to rent
>> it out for less ROI than a bank deposit. If that was the only thing in
>> it for the house owner, there would be no landlords.
>
>And if there were no landlords then there would be lower demand for
>houses and people might actually have a chance of buying their own home
>rather than paying other peoples mortgages for the rest of their lives.
>
>> >As for why its a problem: The government is clearly short on money given
>> >the cuts they're making. While the tax revenue may be small its still
>> >tax revenue they're now missing out of that they could have perhaps used
>> >to solve one of the many funding issues they're having.
>>
>> Governments should not be raising taxes, they should be substantially
>> cutting spending.
>
>What government services would you like to do away with in order to cut
>spending?
>
>> >And why the government may have singled out landlords? Because we'd be
>> >better off collectively if people invested in companies that led to
>> >economic growth rather than selling houses to each other and charging
>> >people a large portion of their income for a roof over their head.
>>
>> Then governments should tax those other investments less.
>
>Why should wages be taxed and capital gains not taxed? Surely we should
>be taxing all kinds of income equally.
We have exempted owner occupied homes because it would make it very
difficult for most people to move - they need the proceeds of any sale
to buy in another place, but that has been distorted by the wealthy
realising that persistently deferring paying tax on capital gains
makes great investment sense, so there is always great pressure from
those with money for that distortion . . .

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:34:58 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:

>In article <m3002jtb9p0e8kikeah8mgmselfd05tbes@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>says...
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:56:59 +1200, David Goodwin
>> <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>> >> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>> >> >>>says...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>> >> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>> >> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>> >> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>> >> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>> >> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>> >> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>> >> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>> >> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>> >> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>> >> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>> >> >>>table.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>> >> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>> >> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>> >>
>> >> Why did that need to change?
>> >>
>> >> >and that has
>> >> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>> >> >residents,
>> >>
>> >> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>> >>
>> >> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>> >> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>> >>
>> >> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>> >>
>> >> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>> >> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>> >> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>> >> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>> >> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>> >> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>> >> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>> >> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>> >> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>> >> which is how it should be.
>> >
>> >Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
>> >They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.
>>
>> Why? They are not paying for them so why should they have an input
>> into the management of them?
>
>I guess you think people who aren't currently in paid employment also
>shouldn't be able to vote in national elections? After all, if you're
>not paying tax why should you have any input into how its spent?

You guess wrong.

Local council elections are not the same as general elections.
Governments govern and councils manage, or at least that was the
original intent. When everyone is allowed a vote in local councils,
the council is incentivised to appease political sensibilities. That
is why councils have become so wasteful and incompetent. They are so
busy trying to kiss up to every fool with an agenda that core business
is compromised in favour of nonsense like mitigating so-called man
made climate change and painting multi coloured pedestrian crossings.

>> >> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>> >> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>> >> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>> >> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>> >> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>> >> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>> >> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>> >> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>> >> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>> >> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>> >> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>> >> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>> >> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>> >> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>> >> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>> >> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>> >> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>> >> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>> >> >>risky.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Bill.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>> >> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>> >> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>> >> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>> >> >will bear.
>> >>
>> >> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>> >> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>> >> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>> >> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>> >> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>> >> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>> >> that a problem?
>>
>> >Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
>> >owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
>> >costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
>> >made leaving properties empty more costly.
>>
>> Have you ever rented a house out to someone? There are many rental
>> properties that are mortgaged. Nobody buys another house just to rent
>> it out for less ROI than a bank deposit. If that was the only thing in
>> it for the house owner, there would be no landlords.
>
>And if there were no landlords then there would be lower demand for
>houses and people might actually have a chance of buying their own home
>rather than paying other peoples mortgages for the rest of their lives.

On 2024-04-20, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:34:58 +1200, David Goodwin
><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>In article <m3002jtb9p0e8kikeah8mgmselfd05tbes@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>>says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:56:59 +1200, David Goodwin
>>> <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <3ljm1j533rmmgnoj9knpkguq4esmqfnegs@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
>>> >says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:28:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:55:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:16:37 +1200, David Goodwin
>>> >> >><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>In article <l7r43oFepucU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
>>> >> >>>says...
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350242820/changes-coming-landlords-tenants
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> "The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us
>>> >> >>>> this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse
>>> >> >>>> outcomes for tenants: rents up by $170 per week since 2017, the social
>>> >> >>>> housing waitlist increasing by about 20,000 families, and thousands of
>>> >> >>>> families living in emergency housing motels,? Bishop said.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> This was forecast by the thinking person when Labour, went into the attack
>>> >> >>>> mode on the landlords with some strong back up from the Greens.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Good to see that this Government is making an improvement by putting back
>>> >> >>>> when they worked. A win win situation.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>There is nothing to indicate that interest deductability has any
>>> >> >>>significant impact on rents. Rents are set by the market - supply and
>>> >> >>>demand. Because of this we shouldn't expect rent to go down just because
>>> >> >>>costs for landlords are going down - they'll still charge as much as the
>>> >> >>>market will bear because charging less is just leaving money on the
>>> >> >>>table.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>You could apply that same argument to rates and allow only property
>>> >> >>owners to vote in local body elections.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >I am not sure I follow that argument; can you explain it a little
>>> >> >more? We did have votes based on ownership at one time,
>>> >>
>>> >> Why did that need to change?
>>> >>
>>> >> >and that has
>>> >> >been retained by giving property owners a vote in addition to
>>> >> >residents,
>>> >>
>>> >> Don't you mean giving residents a vote in addition to property owners?
>>> >>
>>> >> >so some landlords will have more than one vote in different
>>> >> >local electorates, even if they are not resident in all of those.
>>> >>
>>> >> One vote per rates bill. I don't see a problem with that.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is an argument which says that because a portion of rents go
>>> >> towards paying rates, renters are contributing to council expenses and
>>> >> therefore should be given a vote in local body elections. I disagree.
>>> >> The portion of rents that go towards rates is so negligible it does
>>> >> not justify a vote. Only property owners to whom the rates bill is
>>> >> addressed should get a vote in local body elections. The job of local
>>> >> councils is maintenance of roads, street lighting, parks etc. If
>>> >> people who do not have skin in the game did not have a vote, local
>>> >> councillors would behave more like managers and less like politicians,
>>> >> which is how it should be.
>>> >
>>> >Surely people who actually live in the city should have some say?
>>> >They're the ones who actually use the roads, parks, etc.
>>>
>>> Why? They are not paying for them so why should they have an input
>>> into the management of them?
>>
>>I guess you think people who aren't currently in paid employment also
>>shouldn't be able to vote in national elections? After all, if you're
>>not paying tax why should you have any input into how its spent?
>
> You guess wrong.
>
> Local council elections are not the same as general elections.
> Governments govern and councils manage, or at least that was the
> original intent. When everyone is allowed a vote in local councils,
> the council is incentivised to appease political sensibilities. That
> is why councils have become so wasteful and incompetent. They are so
> busy trying to kiss up to every fool with an agenda that core business
> is compromised in favour of nonsense like mitigating so-called man
> made climate change and painting multi coloured pedestrian crossings.

The reason for this is the low turn out at the local body elections. The
ratepayers are mostly uninterested as long as the rate do not go too high.
So the Council has not large public body to keep them in check.

We get the Councils and Governments we deserve, as the saying goes.

>
>>> >> >>>Additionally, landlords exiting the rental market doesn't reduce the
>>> >> >>>total number of houses unless they're demolishing them out of spite or
>>> >> >>>leaving them empty. Those houses either get sold to other landlords
>>> >> >>>(total number of rental properites stays the same), or get sold to
>>> >> >>>someone who intends to live in it (one less household needing to rent)
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>If this government wants to reduce rents they either need to increase
>>> >> >>>supply (build *new* houses), or reduce demand (fewer people, or fewer
>>> >> >>>people needing/wanting to rent).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Rental income is chump change to a property investor.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>A 3 bedroom house in Auckland worth about a mill would typically
>>> >> >>attract a rental return of about $700pw. That's $700 x 52 = $36,400pa.
>>> >> >>$36,400 ÷ $1,000,000 = 3.64% return on investment. By comparison, a 9
>>> >> >>month term deposit with ASB currently pays 6.1%pa.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>None of this takes property maintenance and other expenses into
>>> >> >>account, and also assumes that the property has ideal tenants. A bad
>>> >> >>tenant can bring the hammer down on the deal very quickly. The law
>>> >> >>protects bad tenants because when they become a liability the landlord
>>> >> >>is forced to jump through legal hoops before he can throw them out.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>When I was a landlord about 25 years ago, I was getting better than
>>> >> >>13% ROI, and in those days the law was a lot less favourable towards
>>> >> >>ratbag tenants. If I had a house available for rent today, I would
>>> >> >>either rent it to someone I knew personally or leave it empty. The
>>> >> >>current economic and political climate makes property rental very
>>> >> >>risky.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Bill.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thanks Bill. Your good summary which I believe supports my view that
>>> >> >the changes the government is making to deductibility of interest are
>>> >> >not likely to affect rates of rent at all, and for most landlords will
>>> >> >not prompt any reduction in rents - they will charge what the market
>>> >> >will bear.
>>> >>
>>> >> So why did the previous government single out landlords for punishment
>>> >> by not allowing interest deductibility if it was never going to help
>>> >> renters? Apart from a small increase in tax revenue for the
>>> >> government, the only effect it had was to further discourage property
>>> >> owners from making their properties available for rent. The current
>>> >> government is simply repealing what the last government did. Why is
>>> >> that a problem?
>>>
>>> >Removing interest deductibility wouldn't have discouraged property
>>> >owners from making their properties available for rent - it raised the
>>> >costs of owning the property if there was a mortgage and so would have
>>> >made leaving properties empty more costly.
>>>
>>> Have you ever rented a house out to someone? There are many rental
>>> properties that are mortgaged. Nobody buys another house just to rent
>>> it out for less ROI than a bank deposit. If that was the only thing in
>>> it for the house owner, there would be no landlords.
>>
>>And if there were no landlords then there would be lower demand for
>>houses and people might actually have a chance of buying their own home
>>rather than paying other peoples mortgages for the rest of their lives.
>
> There are two main reasons for high house prices. One is the RMA and
> the exorbitant level of fees, delays and bureaucracy it imposes on
> property developers. In a 3rd world country, if you want to get
> something done you have to bribe officials. In NZ if you want to get
> something done, you have to bribe officials. The difference is that in
> 3rd world countries this is illegal, but in NZ it is required. The
> price of permission to build houses is inevitably transferred onto the
> cost of buying them.
>
> Th other reason is immigration. Many low skilled jobs that were
> traditionally done by NZers are now being done by immigrants. They all
> have to live somewhere. This obviously puts upward pressure on the
> housing market.
>
>>> >As for why its a problem: The government is clearly short on money given
>>> >the cuts they're making. While the tax revenue may be small its still
>>> >tax revenue they're now missing out of that they could have perhaps used
>>> >to solve one of the many funding issues they're having.
>>>
>>> Governments should not be raising taxes, they should be substantially
>>> cutting spending.
>>
>>What government services would you like to do away with in order to cut
>>spending?
>
> How about the office of the race relations conciliator? That should be
> the first to go. It would take a fertile imagination to invent a more
> useless waste of taxpayer's money than that. Next, anything and
> everything to do with man made climate change; gone by lunchtime.
> Anything and everything to do with the Waitangi tribunal and all
> tribal payouts should cease forthwith. The womens commission, the
> childrens commission and all the other useless commissions. What do
> they do apart from making speeches and writing long winded reports?
> Get rid of them. The arts council, NZ on air,TVNZ, RNZ and the film
> commission. Complete waste of time, space and money and should be
> gone. If you want to see more, go to the government website, look up
> government departments and go down the list. If over half of them were
> removed, few people outside their immediate purview would notice them
> missing, and many would be pleasantly surprised at not having to deal
> any more with all the bureaucracy, stickybeaking and petty
> enforcement.
>
>>> >And why the government may have singled out landlords? Because we'd be
>>> >better off collectively if people invested in companies that led to
>>> >economic growth rather than selling houses to each other and charging
>>> >people a large portion of their income for a roof over their head.
>>>
>>> Then governments should tax those other investments less.
>>
>>Why should wages be taxed and capital gains not taxed? Surely we should
>>be taxing all kinds of income equally.
>
> What capital gains should be taxed? How about a tax on inflation? What
> if you buy a classic car and three years later sell it for a profit?
> Should that be taxed, or do you only want capital gains tax on real
> estate? How about if there is a drop in property values, should a
> property owner be eligible for a tax refund?
>
>>> >Thats not to say we should do away with landlords - not everyone can
>>> >afford to buy a house at any given time. But home ownership has declined
>>> >significantly while house prices skyrocket and sooner or later something
>>> >is going to have to be done to reverse this.
>>>
>>> Getting rid of the odious RMA would be a good first step.
>>
>>Not getting rid of the housing density standards would be an even better
>>first step.
>
> You won't get any argument from me about that. Build out, not up.
>
>>> >> >While I appreciate that with rising property values, rent
>>> >> >may appear to be quite minor,
>>> >>
>>> >> So you would agree that landlords are a group of people that
>>> >> governments should be trying very hard not to annoy if they represent
>>> >> the best interests of good tenants?
>>> >
>>> >Best interests of people who prefer to and choose to rent perhaps. But
>>> >there are many who would prefer to buy a home and can't in part due to a
>>> >portion of the public owning multiple houses for the rental income and
>>> >untaxed capital gains.
>
>>> A capital gains tax would create more of a disincentive for people to
>>> make their properties available for rent. People who make a living out
>>> of the turnover of properties are already taxed.
>>
>>As long as it doesn't completely eliminate rentals thats fine; being a
>>landlord doesn't really contribute to the economy in any useful way and
>>the country would almost certainly be better off with fewer of them.
>
> Government doesn't contribute to the economy either, but it keeps
> expanding nonetheless, particularly during Labour's tenure, devouring
> the productive sector as it does so. How many landlords should there
> be, and who or what decides? How much rental property should
> governments be in charge of? I would argue none.
>
>>Not
>>everyone is renting out of choice - less demand for houses from
>>landlords should drive prices down making home ownership more realistic
>>for more people.
>
> So would you be in favour of getting rid of the RMA?
>
>>> Most of the people who are in favour of higher taxes are those who
>>> don't pay any.
>>
>>Any data to back this up or is this just a guess?
>
> C'mon! How many beneficiaries have you ever heard of who don't believe
> "the rich" should pay more tax?
>
> There is a constant drumbeat from the left of politics demanding that
> taxes on "the rich" should increase. These "rich" already pay more,
> much more. It is difficult to find statistics on this, but here are
> some are old statistics (2017) from the US federal tax figures:
>
> Top 1% pay 39.5% of all federal taxes.
> Top 5% pay 60.0% of all federal taxes.
> Top 10% pay 70.9% of all federal taxes.
> Top 25% pay 86.8% of all federal taxes.
> Top 50% pay 97.3% of all federal taxes.
> Bottom 50% pay 2.8% of all federal taxes.
>
> This uneven contribution to the tax account is typical of all
> progressive tax systems. Maybe it's not just landlords that
> governments should be trying hard not to piss off, yeah?
>
>>I'd happily pay higher taxes if it resulted in better government
>>services.
>
> Ok, so you already know that paying higher taxes won't result in
> better government services, so why are you advocating for it?
> Shouldn't you be in favour of a reduction instead?
>
>>Some services can be delivered far more efficiently by the
>>government than by each person paying for it individually.
>
> Really? What services would these be?
>
> When you spend your money on yourself, you are careful how much you
> spend and how well you spend it.
> When you spend your money on somebody else, you are careful how much
> you spend but don't care how well you spend it.
> When you spend somebody else's money on yourself, you don't care how
> much you spend but are careful about how well you spend it.
> When you spend somebody else's money on somebody else, you don't care
> how much you spend or how well you spend it. That's the government.
>
> User pays is far more efficient than charging everyone for services
> that only some people use. I realise that's not possible for
> everything, but user pays should be implemented wherever possible.
>
> Bill.
>