Calls for first time buyers to be exempt from CGT
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | So this guy wants to buy his own house in Auckland, but he can't afford to buy complaining that prices are rising greater than his savings and the stiff competition from investors. So he wants to buy a rental somewhere cheaper so that he can build up some equity to buy back in Auckland but will be caught by the bright line. Anyone else see the irony here? sparkychap - 2021-03-26 16:43:00 |
| 2 | Not really because he will only own one house. Maybe the govt should look at making that tax greater the more properties people own? lakeview3 - 2021-03-26 17:04:00 |
| 3 | lakeview3 wrote: But it won't be his main house. sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:06:00 |
| 4 | sparkychap wrote: yes it will because he only owns one. Maybe they might need a little clause for that situation, if there isn’t one already. lakeview3 - 2021-03-26 17:17:00 |
| 5 | lakeview3 wrote: No, its not his main home once he's started renting it out. Edited by sparkychap at 5:22 pm, Fri 26 Mar sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:18:00 |
| 6 | sparkychap wrote: main can be described as ‘most important’. Given the fact he only owns one house, then that is his ‘main’ house. He just doesn’t live in it. lakeview3 - 2021-03-26 17:29:00 |
| 7 | lakeview3 wrote: It can be, but it isn't. sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:31:00 |
| 8 | sparkychap wrote: as I said earlier, maybe a wee clause to make sure people like this aren’t penalised. Edited for spelling! Edited by lakeview3 at 5:32 pm, Fri 26 Mar lakeview3 - 2021-03-26 17:32:00 |
| 9 | lakeview3 wrote: Why shouldn't they be penalised as they have bought an investment property for commercial gain? And have you considered that the irony is that he is doing exactly what he's complaining is happening in Auckland? Edited by sparkychap at 5:36 pm, Fri 26 Mar sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:36:00 |
| 10 | So he's a first time property investor like 90% of other property investors ?? heather902 - 2021-03-26 17:42:00 |
| 11 | heather902 wrote: 100% of property investors were first time property investors. sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:44:00 |
| 12 | sparkychap wrote:
Oh dear... geese and ganders springs to mind. So he wants to so-called manipulate the system by being a landlord and build up capital for an end use not related to renting (ie the desire to live only in Auckland), taking away the possibility of home ownership from a person living and presumably working in the actual town. If he wants to speculate/be a landlord then the calculations should include meeting all the tax obligations that apply to this mode of investment. I can foresee some tenants having a very tough time from this type of landlord Now if he was investing in shares or bonds or TDs would we give them an exemption from having RWT tax deducted or having to pay any tax on interest. No I didn't think so. shanreagh - 2021-03-26 17:46:00 |
| 13 | sparkychap wrote:
well yes, but currently 90% own one property and could be classified currently as first time investors. why is he any different? heather902 - 2021-03-26 17:46:00 |
| 14 | heather902 wrote: where did you get the 90% from? I only know of one person who owns one, all the others are multi owners. FYI I don’t have a problem with people owning only one rental. It’s the multi ones who get in my craw. And no the interest shouldn’t be claimable on the one rental either. If people can’t afford it, then don’t buy one. Edited by lakeview3 at 5:49 pm, Fri 26 Mar lakeview3 - 2021-03-26 17:48:00 |
| 15 | heather902 wrote: yes I agree. He's an investor not a First Home Buyer. sparkychap - 2021-03-26 17:49:00 |
| 16 | lakeview3 wrote:
I don't understand why if they provide a good service. It may well be that some of those people will be offering more stable rentals than mum and dad investors who simply can't wear an extra $150 tax a week. heather902 - 2021-03-26 17:50:00 |
| 17 | lakeview3 wrote:
Would be difficult to draft let alone police. Then he could set up a LTC and be a first time LL then a Trust and it could have a another sole house. Oooops three houses but he is not a LL and needs his CGT back. Makes you wonder what kind of first home he is after.....something modest with 2.5 bathrooms, media room and 4 bedrooms I'm thinking. He does not seem to realise is that the product from these reforms is to give first home buyers a chance in the markets where they live and work. A person deciding to be a LL is denying people this chance. Should be treated just as other LLs are treated. Edited by shanreagh at 5:53 pm, Fri 26 Mar shanreagh - 2021-03-26 17:52:00 |
| 18 | People starting out trying to get ahead have been done over yet again. Existing investors will just enjoy the skyrocketing rents. pcle - 2021-03-26 21:15:00 |
| 19 | And loads who are mortgage free will still hike their rents despite not being affected by the new tax rule. mazalinas - 2021-03-26 22:38:00 |
| 20 | He's over thinking, just buy a bloody house!...worry about any capital gains tax later on....situations alway change. He just another moaner and making excuses. He would be on 80-100k a year so no excuse for not buying a few years ago. richynuts - 2021-03-27 08:07:00 |
| 21 | pcle wrote: funkydunky - 2021-03-27 10:40:00 |
| 22 | mazalinas wrote:
Especially if managed by property managers, who are more or less obliged to charge market rent for their clients. artemis - 2021-03-27 11:05:00 |
| 23 | He simply needs to find a section somewhere and build one. If getting on the property ladder is his only concern it could be a simple little pensioner flat. All tax deductible. 3tomany - 2021-03-29 12:55:00 |
| 24 | funkydunky wrote: This takes it to a whole new level. 28%+ new tax to be passed on. pcle - 2021-03-29 13:22:00 |
| 25 | lakeview3 wrote: So how long before anybody or any company in any other type of business that has loans to finance their ability to operate eg machinery/plant required, stock required, will not be able to claim the servicing interest as a cost against the business????? brouser3 - 2021-03-29 17:31:00 |
| 26 | lakeview3 wrote: No it won't - because even tho' it is the only residential property he owns, unless he meets the in-residence requirements, it cannot meet the requirements of the bright line test. brouser3 - 2021-03-29 17:36:00 |
| 27 | brouser3 wrote: apollo11 - 2021-03-29 17:59:00 |
| 28 | And demand seems to be huge. People on FB begging for a section under 200k or a rental under $500pw. apollo11 - 2021-03-29 18:00:00 |
| 29 | brouser3 wrote: First they came for "speculators".... pcle - 2021-03-29 18:47:00 |
| 30 | I think workers should be exempt from income tax. masturbidder - 2021-03-29 23:04:00 |
| 31 | sparkychap wrote: shorebee - 2021-03-30 14:02:00 |
| 32 | masturbidder wrote: +1! pcle - 2021-03-30 14:03:00 |
