sweetgurl108 wrote:

A petition will change nothing. They already knew who would object when they announced the changes.

While that is true, the petition and associated publicity has got quite a bit of attention in the media. Now renters and their advocates are getting loud saying they have been ignored and they are the big losers from the new deduction policy. As they are of course, so will just have to follow Minister Robertson's instructions and look elsewhere.(That will haunt him.)

artemis - 2021-03-27 19:45:00

What’s really gold is reading the reasons for signing on the petition!

lakeview3 - 2021-03-27 20:19:00

If they really want to swing things in the favour of first home buyers, why not say you are exempt from the bright line tax if you sell to a first home buyer, would certainly encourage people to accept a lower price from a first home buyer rather than sell to an investor.

rowlf - 2021-03-27 20:20:00

rowlf wrote:

If they really want to swing things in the favour of first home buyers, why not say you are exempt from the bright line tax if you sell to a first home buyer, would certainly encourage people to accept a lower price from a first home buyer rather than sell to an investor.

I don’t think most first home buyers even give the bright line test a second thought. They are probably just blimmen relieved to have a roof over their heads they can call their own finally, instead of lining someone’s else’s pockets.

lakeview3 - 2021-03-27 20:22:00

lakeview3 wrote:

I don’t think most first home buyers even give the bright line test a second thought. They are probably just blimmen relieved to have a roof over their heads they can call their own finally, instead of lining someone’s else’s pockets.

I was meaning that a seller be exempt from paying the tax if they sell to a first home buyer, so a first home buyer wouldn’t need to pay as much as an investor to be the better deal for the seller.

rowlf - 2021-03-27 20:26:00

rowlf wrote:

I was meaning that a seller be exempt from paying the tax if they sell to a first home buyer, so a first home buyer wouldn’t need to pay as much as an investor to be the better deal for the seller.

oh ok I get where you are coming from. The idea has merit for sure.

lakeview3 - 2021-03-27 20:29:00

rowlf wrote:

I was meaning that a seller be exempt from paying the tax if they sell to a first home buyer, so a first home buyer wouldn’t need to pay as much as an investor to be the better deal for the seller.

I get the idea, but it only applies to existing investor properties with a bright-line exposure. But it leaves existing owner occupier sales as the target for them. So potentially you just drive investors there instead.

sparkychap - 2021-03-27 20:56:00

rowlf wrote:

I was meaning that a seller be exempt from paying the tax if they sell to a first home buyer, so a first home buyer wouldn’t need to pay as much as an investor to be the better deal for the seller.

It is a nice, thinking outside the square, idea.. perhaps extend it to also include "owner occupiers'" so if you sell your house to someone who is going to live in it then the bright line does not kick in or perhaps to a lesser degree !!

onl_148 - 2021-04-09 11:47:00

rose2004 wrote:

You do understand that no one apart from landlords actually cares about this?
The media already have successfully completed their government appointed job of making landlords look like the scum of the earth, in order to make these changes...soon to be followed by a rent freeze.

Watch out retirees...you are next in the line. The massaging of public opinion is well and truly on the way to that too...'greedy oldies', 'boomers' etc.

What is the old saying...'first they came for...'

You know I have huge respect for you Rose, but I don't think removing landlords' ability to deduct interest from taxable income is really comparable with a violent fascist regime killing and imprisoning people.

luteba - 2021-04-09 12:08:00

Damn - no takers for my petition to keep interest rates at healthy levels

funkydunky - 2021-04-09 13:08:00

luteba wrote:

You know I have huge respect for you Rose, but I don't think removing landlords' ability to deduct interest from taxable income is really comparable with a violent fascist regime killing and imprisoning people.

you might have huge respect for rose and disagree with what she says or the way she says it but you only have to read some of the threads on here to see boomers and pensioners vilified by some.

The current government seem to do knee jerk reactions fairly well. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do do as rose has suggested.

All they are doing currently is tinkering at the edges and blaming landlords/investors for the housing crisis. When are they going to do something about the shortage of housing or the supply side of the equation?

After all, the numbers in temporary accommodation/motels/etc have risen hugely in the last 4 + years. Where are those people going? Where are the additional Kainga Ora properties going to come from? Where are the properties for first home buyers?

princess52 - 2021-04-09 14:12:00

princess52 wrote:

When are they going to do something about the shortage of housing or the supply side of the equation?

Don't worry, very much what I want to know too.

luteba - 2021-04-09 16:45:00

Yep MBIE are probably going to opt for #3 on their proposed new building code and make it $20-$50k more expensive to build a house.
Not to say the code couldn't be beefed up but unless the construction industry can find the next gear, or three, productivity wise this is a highly possible outcome.

hers.nz - 2021-04-09 17:32:00

hers.nz wrote:

Yep MBIE are probably going to opt for #3 on their proposed new building code and make it $20-$50k more expensive to build a house.
Not to say the code couldn't be beefed up but unless the construction industry can find the next gear, or three, productivity wise this is a highly possible outcome.

Much of the problem here is that our entire construction industry is inefficient, capped off with the publics desire for every house to be unique.

sparkychap - 2021-04-10 08:47:00

sparkychap wrote:

Much of the problem here is that our entire construction industry is inefficient, capped off with the publics desire for every house to be unique.

Just lucky the Public Service is so efficient I guess. Else the costs and waste would be astronomical.

pcle - 2021-04-10 08:50:00

pcle wrote:

Just lucky the Public Service is so efficient I guess. Else the costs and waste would be astronomical.

Whataboutism.

sparkychap - 2021-04-10 08:53:00

sparkychap wrote:

Whataboutism-
.

Woohoo - new word for the day. Nice.

pcle - 2021-04-10 08:58:00

This message was deleted.

hooserat - 2021-04-10 18:38:00

I would have thought ACT would be in there lobbying for this. They seem very muted.

sweetgurl108 - 2021-04-10 19:00:00