Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's Got What Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Anthonyacat View Post
    [...]

    In truth, residential property is taxed much more heavily than the other investments with a capital appreciation component, because of the bright line and subdivision laws. If you buy a business and sell it in 3 years, no tax on the gain in value of that business. And no tax if you decide to split it in half and sell the bits separately for more, either. With a residential property, both are caught.

    ... Maybe I will write a post on this one for my website.

    Thank you. Yes!

    I further understand and please correct me if i'm wrong that from the the 2020-2021 year business owning commercial buildings get the added benefit of tax depreciation on all buildings.

    I would also like to read your article once published.

    Comment


    • #17
      Waffle?

      Originally posted by Anthonyacat View Post
      Property is taxed no less than shares or direct business ownership, but significantly less than term deposits, which have no tax-free capital appreciation element.
      Hang on?!

      Aren't we discussing income tax rates, here?

      (Rather than property, shares, term deposits or business ownership tax, whatever they may be?)

      Originally posted by donna View Post
      We've already got the CGT . . .
      We have? From whence did that notion come from?

      What statute are you relying on, with that assertion?
      Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sanya View Post
        from the the 2020-2021 year business owning commercial buildings get the added benefit of tax depreciation on all buildings.
        This is correct, depreciation on commercial buildings has been reinstated.


        Originally posted by Perry View Post
        Hang on?! Aren't we discussing income tax rates, here?
        (Rather than property, shares, term deposits or business ownership tax, whatever they may be?)
        I saw this more as a discussion of the tax system as it relates to property, rather than specifically income tax rates. Your initial post:

        Originally posted by Perry View Post
        Originally posted by Stuff
        The real problem with our tax system is the different tax treatment of property compared with other investments.
        Hence went along the lines of discussing the tax treatment of property compared with other investments.

        But really, the distinction between income and capital gain, and accordingly between income tax and capital gain tax, is an academic and administrative exercise anyway. Both rent coming in, and a property increasing in value are clearly an inflow of wealth to a person. Both certainly fit into the economic definition of income.
        Last edited by Anthonyacat; 14-09-2020, 12:28 AM.
        AAT Accounting Services - Property Specialist - [email protected]
        Fixed price fees and quick knowledgeable service for property investors & traders!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sanya View Post
          That's cool McDuck.

          The debate started because Geoff Simmons opined that "leveraged property investors determine house prices".

          It seems we are in agreement that the determinants of house prices are broad and extend far beyond "leveraged property investors" and in fact "leveraged property investors" are incentivised to pay the lowest prices possible to acquire properties in order to meet investment return goals. Property investors are in search of yield.

          Geoff is just extending the myth promoted by many low rent publications that property speculation is the cause of runaway house prices and poor housing affordability. This narrow focus is both lazy and careless.

          In its Inquiry into Housing Affordability back in 2012, the Productivity Commission identified land scarcity, restrictive urban planning, and the time and costs associated with land development and construction as factors constraining the supply of new housing in New Zealand. My feeling is these observations are all still valid with some geographic variation.

          You note "there are about five pull factors and two push factors" impact house pricing. I'd suggest there are a few more than that. I recently used the below model to explain to some interested friends how it is possible for house prices to markedly increase when the overall New Zealand economy is tanking.


          Haha.

          That is a very nice diagram!
          I should study it for a few hours, and have a think.
          I especially like the way it shows multiple causes.

          I wonder if the boxes could be sized differently?
          With the boxes getting bigger, as the contribution to the final price became larger.

          That way you'd know where to put the least effort to get the greatest effect.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Perry View Post
            Hang on?!

            Aren't we discussing income tax rates, here?

            (Rather than property, shares, term deposits or business ownership tax, whatever they may be?)
            ....
            Tax is a way for a Govt to extract money from the population.

            By saying " the problem with the tax system" the author allows himself to bring any other wealth related subject into the conversation.
            As that inclusion may be a possible remedy.

            So any activity related to the change in personal wealth could be considered part of that discussion.

            That would include, sinking spare money into property, rater than shares or bank accounts.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Anthonyacat View Post
              Originally posted by Perry View Post
              Hang on?! Aren't we discussing income tax rates, here?
              (Rather than property, shares, term deposits or business ownership tax, whatever they may be?)
              I saw this more as a discussion of the tax system as it relates to property, rather than specifically income tax rates. Your initial post:

              Originally posted by Perry View Post
              Originally posted by Stuff
              The real problem with our tax system is the different tax treatment of property compared with other investments.
              Hence went along the lines of discussing the tax treatment of property compared with other investments.
              Given the errors in the Stuff item, that's understandable. But there was a half-pie conclusion at the end that focussed on income and tax thereon . . .

              Originally posted by Stuff
              If someone is earning more than $180,000, they would now pay 39c in the dollar on dividends from shares, for example. Whereas they will pay . . . . only half the returns from rental property.
              As Sanya pointed out, there was a pseudo excuse / correction appended to that STUFFed item:

              Originally posted by Stuff
              This article has been amended to recognise that property owners do currently pay some level of tax.
              As I understand it, the reality is, "If someone is earning more than $180,000, they would now pay 39c in the dollar on" . . . . applies to all income from all sources over that $180k figure.

              Given that last excerpt I've quoted, which was about income tax, how anyone could pay 50% less income tax on income from rental property was inexplicable. (Commercial or residential)
              Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Perry View Post
                Given that last excerpt I've quoted, which was about income tax, how anyone could pay 50% less income tax on income from rental property was inexplicable. (Commercial or residential)
                I own a second house that's worth 2 million dollars. (for example)
                It was worth 1.5 million dollars last year.
                My wealth has increased by 500 thousand.
                What tax have I paid on the 500 thousand dollars?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by McDuck View Post
                  I own a second house that's worth 2 million dollars. (for example)
                  It was worth 1.5 million dollars last year.
                  My wealth has increased by 500 thousand.
                  What tax have I paid on the 500 thousand dollars?
                  You'll find out when you're council rates are reviewed.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jeffa View Post
                    You'll find out when you're council rates are reviewed.
                    Ha!

                    Nice!

                    Yes, a council tax is still a tax.

                    Now , let's talk numbers.

                    Remember we need to get to the 30-ish % figure.

                    (We're gonna need about 66K worth of rates to be even).
                    Last edited by McDuck; 14-09-2020, 05:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by McDuck View Post
                      I own a second house that's worth 2 million dollars. (for example)
                      It was worth 1.5 million dollars last year.
                      My wealth has increased by 500 thousand.
                      What tax have I paid on the 500 thousand dollars?
                      No you are reading it wrong.
                      Your $1 has been debased by $500K.
                      The invisible tax has destroyed a quarter of your buying power.
                      Nothing has really changed with the real assets - but that funny paper money is being printed like mad.
                      The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates and a monthly salary - Fred Wilson.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Perry View Post
                        [...]
                        As I understand it, the reality is, "If someone is earning more than $180,000, they would now pay 39c in the dollar on" . . . . applies to all income from all sources over that $180k figure.
                        Correct.


                        Originally posted by Perry View Post
                        [...]
                        Given that last excerpt I've quoted, which was about income tax, how anyone could pay 50% less income tax on income from rental property was inexplicable. (Commercial or residential)

                        The clue lies in the third sentence.


                        Originally posted by STUFF
                        They are unaffected because they can use tax planning – trusts, family foundations and especially property investments – to reduce their taxable income.

                        To reduce their taxable income “the wealthy” have traditionally (though no longer) been able negative gear their property investments thereby reducing their taxable salaried income. “The wealthy” can however use a portfolio base rule to offset losses of one property against gains from another.


                        Do also carefully note the language change from “income” to “returns” in the following sentence


                        Originally posted by STUFF
                        Increasing the top tax rate to 39c will make the problem worse. If someone is earning more than $180,000, they would now pay 39c in the dollar on dividends from shares, for example. Whereas they will pay no tax on the returns from owner-occupied property, and only half the returns from rental property. This is an even bigger incentive to pile into property investment.

                        The “returns” used here undoubtedly includes a capital gains component as McDuck as noted.


                        The idea that no tax is paid on the returns from owner occupied property is misleading too. As Jeffa notes all property owners pay council taxes which may not be apportioned according to “returns” but certainly are apportioned according to land or capital value.


                        Finally, economists have a very broad definition for “income”. Even for owner occupied homes economist’s impute an income value which is derived from what the house owner might reasonably expect to pay in rent to live in his/her own home. The rational is if you don’t own your own property you’d be paying someone else rent – so that rent is viewed as “income” from the economists perspective.
                        Last edited by Sanya; 14-09-2020, 05:01 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PC View Post
                          No you are reading it wrong.
                          Your $1 has been debased by $500K.
                          The invisible tax has destroyed a quarter of your buying power.
                          Nothing has really changed with the real assets - but that funny paper money is being printed like mad.
                          Ha!

                          Nice!

                          Yes, so true.

                          But you've done a small error.

                          The new $500k would debase ALL the money in circulation.

                          So divide the $500k into the TOTAL MONEY SUPPLY (so many billion),
                          to get the effect on each individual dollar.

                          And it's an unbelievably small distortion.
                          (on that particular dollar).

                          But yes, top marks for that!!!
                          Every new dollar destroys value of everything existing before it was born.

                          * remember this distortion is only applied to a part of the population.
                          (As the inflation seems confined to housing).
                          Last edited by McDuck; 14-09-2020, 05:39 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The broadness of the income definition is one thing. The sense of it is another.

                            Coming from econ-o-mists, common sense is not expected, of course.

                            When mooted years ago, Comrade Commissar Cullen described the notion as an ideological burp.

                            Say my neighbour and I decide to mow one another's lawns for $20 each.

                            Econ-o-mists would allege that GDP went up by $40.
                            Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Last year Liam Hehir (journalist) requested IRD to provide revenue from the bright line tax. Refused as information not held. More at this link.

                              https://fyi.org.nz/request/9666-how-...incoming-33139

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X