If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Provides additional revenue to tackle the housing crisis.
You will - of course - help us all appreciate that by substantiating your claim with a list of countries where such taxes have really and actually helped "tackle the housing crisis," depending on what 'tackle' means in that context. (Note that hiring more spin doctors would not qualify as tackling a housing crisis)
Tax the overseas people more and use the money for Infrastructure.
But why not grab some of the money that people make when their land is revalued due to zone change - the windfall profit.
I believe some Canadian cities (Toronto I heard for one) do that.
Then use that money to help fund the infrastructure.
Tax the overseas people more and use the money for Infrastructure.
But why not grab some of the money that people make when their land is revalued due to zone change - the windfall profit.
I believe some Canadian cities (Toronto I heard for one) do that.
Then use that money to help fund the infrastructure.
Farout mate, you're a total socialist through and through.
Yes, if someone is about to make some money, better quickly up the tax-take on them! Otherwise they'll get rich! Rich I tell ya!
Can't have that now can we.
FFS, what you do is you allow people to build anywhere, and the land banking problem goes away.
The land banking situation only occurs when do gooders such as yourself limit land that can be built on. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Remove the RUB or MUL and the problem simply goes away...
But I fear I may as well be pissing in the wind as try and convince you of that.
why not grab some of the money that people make when their land is revalued due to zone change - the windfall profit.
I believe some Canadian cities (Toronto I heard for one) do that.
Have a look at CB14
CB 14 Disposal: amount from land affected by change and not already in income
Income
(1) An amount that a person derives from disposing of land is income of the person if— (a) the amount is not income under any of sections CB 6A to CB 12; and (b) the person disposed of the land within 10 years of acquiring it; and (c) the total amount that they derive from its disposal is more than the cost of the land; and (d) at least 20% of the excess arises from a factor, or more than 1 factor, that— (i) relates to the land; and (ii) is described in subsection (2); and (iii) occurs after the person acquired the land, for the factors described in subsection (2)(c), (e), (g), and (i).
Factors for purposes of subsection (1)(d)
(2) The factors referred to in subsection (1)(d) are— (a) the rules of an operative district plan under the Resource Management Act 1991: (b) the likelihood of the imposition of rules: (c) a change to the rules: (d) the likelihood of a change to the rules: (e) a consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991: (f) the likelihood of a consent being granted: (g) a decision of the Environment Court made under the Resource Management Act 1991: (h) the likelihood of a decision being made: (i) the removal of a condition, covenant, designation, heritage order, obligation, prohibition, or restriction under the Resource Management Act 1991: (j) the likelihood of the removal of a condition, covenant, designation, heritage order, obligation, prohibition, or restriction: (k) an occurrence of a similar nature to any of the occurrences described in any of paragraphs (a) to (j): (l) the likelihood of an occurrence of a similar nature to any of the occurrences described in any of paragraphs (a) to (j).
Exclusions
(3) Subsection (1) is overridden by the exclusions for residential property in section CB 18 and for farm land in section CB 22.
Defined in this Act: amount, dispose, income, land, year
Compare: 2004 No 35 s CB 12
Section CB 14(1)(a): amended (with effect on 1 October 2015 and applying to a person’s disposal of residential land if the date that the person first acquires an estate or interest in the residential land is on or after that date), on 16 November 2015, by section 6(1) of the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Act 2015 (2015 No 111).
Last edited by Perry; 08-07-2016, 05:32 PM.
Reason: format layout
Book a free chat here
Ross Barnett - Property Accountant
Far out mate, you're a total socialist through and through.
I suspect that some of Wayne's observations were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, David. I doubt there are many socialist PIs. The two descriptors are mutually exclusive, as I see them.
Or just get in touch with reality. Oh Auckland is expensive, so what? If you don't like it can't afford it live somewhere else. There is no problem to solve.
I quoted Wayne's statement. That said something like why not tax land that is rezoned. Under current tax law, CB14 that I posted, gains from rezoning are taxed in some cases!
Book a free chat here
Ross Barnett - Property Accountant
The issue in the media is about housing the poor or alternatively making a house that is affordable for a first home buyer on a low income.
It is actually a real simple matter and there is a simple solution.
No low income couple even with both working will ever beat a half million dollar mortgage at 7-9% It just will fail.
So the solution is to ensure a supply of first buyer cheap housing.
Can't be done. Well yes it can.
We used to do it before we had RMA's, councils stealing for infrastructure and more people than houses. and what's more we did it before we had all the technology that we have today or a govt. that establishes things like minimum wages, health & safety, double glazing and so on. Funnily enough I doubt anyone died of not having double glazing or many of those other mod cons. Plenty of houses still around like that including all the ones I have lived in for the last 70 years. ( In Petone and Lower Hutt as well). We wore clothes better suited to the environment.
Now there's a word that helps put the price of new houses up. Down to councils for example setting the colour of the roof paint and councils setting the colour of the outside wall pant. I kid you not Tauranga and Queenstown are both blessed with willy ******s of councils that have enacted that in their consents. Probably more out there.
But I digress.
Any of you who have moved a house will know that apart from Councils wanting you to upgrade to the latest building regs and charging you for the privilege, one cannot move an old house onto a new subdivision and nor can you move a new well constructed factory built house onto a new subdivision.
The reason is covenants. So all new subdivisions and therefore the houses they contain will always be that half million dollar house.
Way back in the 60',70'sd and early eighties we have a number of major home builders such as Beazleys, Keith Hay and more who factory built houses that were then trucked onto cheap sections and became a 3 bedroom family house for a small amount of money.
I have a few of these and they are great little houses. There are thousands of them around and people have altered them, added amenities as most came without things like garages and decks and they make great homes.
Alll that is needed is for the Govt. tochop up three or four lots of land it owns, plonk basic 3 or 4 bedroom factory builds onto the estate and then sell them to first home buyers with a minimum ownership timetable so they just cannot be sold off in a hurry.
We have had 71000 new immigrants this year. At 3 to a house that's a requirement for 23670 houses or at 4 ( Because Indians like 10 or more) that is 17750 We ain't going to build that many cheap houses but if we build sat 3000 that wilkl take the pressure of and with the factory build available will take no time at all if there was will by Govt. to make it happen and the require councils to get off their bums with the external infrastructure.
But they won't.
Last year Bob the Builder wanted the Tauranga Council to allow a subdivision where he would do all the work put on a sewerage plant and build low cost houses. He was stopped from doing so, net result is that the developers who had their say about this and who at that time had plenty of sections have now run out of sections until mid next year and the sections have been costing $100K more than they were. Same sections at a higher price.
A great example of why Town Planning, Unitary Plans and towns with borders push the price up.
Will any of the "socialists" and their mates ever apologize for their behavior. Nah
So it can be done but National will need to fire Nick Smith before it could happen. ( oh and probably a few more besides.)
Comment