Home
Do you think it's ever gonna happen? Especially under National? I don't think so, not when the most politicians got wealthy by buying investment property. 
+3
Psalter
Diaz
canterella
7 posters
Capital gains tax on investment property
canterella- Nymph
Diaz- Nymph
Blank
Last edited by Diaz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Psalter- River-God
I wish there was a chance... I don't think so though.
Most home owners over 40 that I know own 3 properties... it is just too expensive for us to think about buying a house for at least 2 years... meaning that we have to put off having kids for at least 3 years... meaning I am 31 before I am a father.
Life is super fucking bullshit.
Most home owners over 40 that I know own 3 properties... it is just too expensive for us to think about buying a house for at least 2 years... meaning that we have to put off having kids for at least 3 years... meaning I am 31 before I am a father.
Life is super fucking bullshit.
Anjewel- Nymph
Psalter wrote:I wish there was a chance... I don't think so though.
Most home owners over 40 that I know own 3 properties... it is just too expensive for us to think about buying a house for at least 2 years... meaning that we have to put off having kids for at least 3 years... meaning I am 31 before I am a father.
Life is super fucking bullshit.
Having a child at 31 is not that bad you know...If I could live my life over I would wait till my mid 30's to have a child, like my brother did...He is now 40, has a 6 yr old daughter, has already brought and sold a house, travelled the world, divorced, and is now travelling the world with his daughter...Every year he asks her where in the world she wants to go, and off they go in the school holidays...The next holidays they are off to Hawaii, her choice, she saw Hawaii on the tele...Don't be in a hurry to be a dad...
Look around places in NZ with very cheap houses to buy, and start there, even if it means you are renting it out to someone else...At least it is yours at the end of the day, and it is money in the bank when you want to borrow...
Waireka- River-God
Anjewel wrote:Psalter wrote:I wish there was a chance... I don't think so though.
Most home owners over 40 that I know own 3 properties... it is just too expensive for us to think about buying a house for at least 2 years... meaning that we have to put off having kids for at least 3 years... meaning I am 31 before I am a father.
Life is super fucking bullshit.
Having a child at 31 is not that bad you know...If I could live my life over I would wait till my mid 30's to have a child, like my brother did...He is now 40, has a 6 yr old daughter, has already brought and sold a house, travelled the world, divorced, and is now travelling the world with his daughter...Every year he asks her where in the world she wants to go, and off they go in the school holidays...The next holidays they are off to Hawaii, her choice, she saw Hawaii on the tele...Don't be in a hurry to be a dad...
Look around places in NZ with very cheap houses to buy, and start there, even if it means you are renting it out to someone else...At least it is yours at the end of the day, and it is money in the bank when you want to borrow...
Very true, also in your future profession, living and working rurally is a great chance to make Erin a principals wife quickly...
izzi- Nymph
Agrees with Wai. The remuneration packages for remote area teachers can be very good , with housing provided sometimes.
My father was 31 when he had his first. That was partly due to wanting to be somewhat finacially secure before starting a family. That was forty years ago, so maybe little has changed?
My father was 31 when he had his first. That was partly due to wanting to be somewhat finacially secure before starting a family. That was forty years ago, so maybe little has changed?
canterella- Nymph
Diaz wrote:I'd say it would be wildly unpopular, they already tax everything that moves and with an capital gains tax they'll also be taxing everything that doesn't.
Capital gains tax is not just about investment property, it's about any property that might appreciate over time.
Investing in property means the asset is tied up for a long time, and it has to be acknowledged that in particular residential rental property does meet a need and does require a fair amount of time to manage even just one. With rises in mortgage rates and increases in property prices, it's become much harder to find property that is worth investing in, unless the person is prepared to subsidise the outgoings as rent income tends to be resistant to fluctuations. It's a bit different for commercial property of course, but with property investment most don't have the borrowing power or the kind of money it takes to invest in a commercial building and take the risk that the type of investment involves. It's a bit different to other investments that are more easily realised into cash, and similar has some risk. The last couple of years, values overall have slipped rather than gained.
Not necessarily. Even when the owner is not making profit on their investment property they can set a LAQC and offset the rental property losses against their personal incomes. Whichever way you turn it, they win. Why would nearly all of our politicians have at least one investment property? Because it is profitable. that's why the tax won't be introduced.
Without the capital gains tax we will again end up with market peaks and crashes and the grossly inflated real estate prices that stop people from buying their first home.
Diaz- Nymph
Blank
Last edited by Diaz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Donkeycheese- Nymph
canterella wrote:Diaz wrote:I'd say it would be wildly unpopular, they already tax everything that moves and with an capital gains tax they'll also be taxing everything that doesn't.
Capital gains tax is not just about investment property, it's about any property that might appreciate over time.
Investing in property means the asset is tied up for a long time, and it has to be acknowledged that in particular residential rental property does meet a need and does require a fair amount of time to manage even just one. With rises in mortgage rates and increases in property prices, it's become much harder to find property that is worth investing in, unless the person is prepared to subsidise the outgoings as rent income tends to be resistant to fluctuations. It's a bit different for commercial property of course, but with property investment most don't have the borrowing power or the kind of money it takes to invest in a commercial building and take the risk that the type of investment involves. It's a bit different to other investments that are more easily realised into cash, and similar has some risk. The last couple of years, values overall have slipped rather than gained.
Not necessarily. Even when the owner is not making profit on their investment property they can set a LAQC and offset the rental property losses against their personal incomes. Whichever way you turn it, they win. Why would nearly all of our politicians have at least one investment property? Because it is profitable. that's why the tax won't be introduced.
Without the capital gains tax we will again end up with market peaks and crashes and the grossly inflated real estate prices that stop people from buying their first home.
whilst it may look like the win either way - the first letter in LAQC means Loss. The person has to make an accounting loss on the property, and this is done usually by non-cash expenses (depreciation). This is then clawed-back upon sale. To have a loss, the investor needs to fund the additional cash.
There are other ways to reduce the boom/bust volatility of property markets though, including making the interest non-deductible. There are already capital gains on residential propery investment for those that do it as a business. However, most investors claim that they invest on the grounds of rental return (ie, cashflow) - and when those rents get too low for the capital value, they sell. But, they are not in the business of making capital gains, and therefore they should not be subject to Capital Gains tax.
All very boring - but watch this space. Changes will be made - not because National are more responsible than Labour, but because National wants more money invested into things that actually grow the country, such as infrastructure funds