Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'It's not fair' - the landlady hits back

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by fatfishandchipman View Post
    I see no depreciation here – I see appreciation only. A tax on this kind of appreciation is known as “Capital Gains,” and that is not what is being proposed.
    It's worth diddly until it's sold. Then the depreciation is paid back.
    www.3888444.co.nz
    Facebook Page

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Xav View Post
      Anyone on here with a house of that era can tell you it is very likely that maintenance cost her more than that on average per year.
      But she would have claimed a full deduction for that maintenance when incurred.

      Why should the depreciation be the problem of the home owner when it isn't the problem of any other business with depreciable assets?
      Compare it to a car. Excluding classic cars, no matter how much maintenance you do, the car will depreciate. With a house, if you maintain it, it will hold its value.

      My biggest issue with reducing depreciation to zero is that IR wants to class everything as building. If they tighten up with maintenance as well, then we get nothing.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Xav View Post
        Out of curiousity, do you think that the tax changes should apply to owner occupied homes or only rentals?
        Equally, do you think the tax changes should apply only to houses purchased after the budget or should it apply to all houses?

        I presume your squealing (fatfishandchipman) over depreciation is confined to the building and not the chattels? ie you have no problem with claiming depreciation on carpets, curtains, stoves and any furniture that may be supplied?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by CJ View Post
          But she would have claimed a full deduction for that maintenance when incurred.
          Not if it was over $500?
          Isn't there a limit?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
            Not if it was over $500?
            Isn't there a limit?
            That is for improvements, not maintenance. THat is why I said if IR cracks down on maintenance, and the depn rate for improvements is 0%, then that is an issue.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Xav View Post
              Why should the depreciation be the problem of the home owner when it isn't the problem of any other business with depreciable assets?
              I thought the big problem was that people were using their wages (from a job) and joining them to the income (from a rental).
              Thus creating a type of hybrid structure.

              This Hybrid structure makes the situation different from a buisness and therefore negates your argument.

              Comment


              • #37
                No difference at all from a part-time business when someone's also working for a wage. This is probably pretty common - I doubt many new business people can afford to quit their jobs and start a business full time.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by CJ View Post
                  That is for improvements, not maintenance. THat is why I said if IR cracks down on maintenance, and the depn rate for improvements is 0%, then that is an issue.
                  Hi CJ, what makes you think they're going to crack down on maintenance? I don't remember reading about that.
                  Last edited by One; 10-03-2010, 11:17 PM. Reason: Added a ?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Now you’re getting it. Furniture and appliances and other mechanisms like electric garage doors are depreciable items – as these depreciate (and there will most likely be a formula for each type) you can make your claim – as long as you provided these chattels with your rental property – you will have no problem. Maintenance will remain a valid tax write-off – it would be illogical to change this – in this respect, like any business, "it is the cost of doing business."

                    But the very fact that people get to claim an obviously appreciating item like a house (or even land – the line is somewhat blurred here) as a depreciating item never made logical sense. The idea is not in line with western tax structures.

                    As to the Capital Gains Tax, you may one day soon regret that this is not to be enacted. If there is to be a slide in New Zealand home prices you would easily be able to make a valid claim of loss. Perhaps the government actually knows what’s coming, and for now, until things settle down, have decided against Capital Gains. The last thing the government needs is a large dent in their coffers. However, I assure you, Capital Gains will be the next logical step.

                    Welcome to planet Earth granny.

                    And my name is not Bernie.
                    Last edited by fatfishandchipman; 11-03-2010, 02:37 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One View Post
                      Hi CJ, what makes you think they're going to crack down on maintenance? I don't remember reading about that.
                      I dont. They are cracking down on the chattel building issue. In theory, this should make maintenance easier - If you replace a door which was separately listed, then it is capital - if you replace a door which is part of the building, then it should be maintenance. However, you never know what the IRD will do next. Once they change th building rule, maintenance will increase (as discribed above, especially if the depn rate is 0%) so they will start focusing on that issue.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One View Post
                        No difference at all from a part-time business when someone's also working for a wage. This is probably pretty common - I doubt many new business people can afford to quit their jobs and start a business full time.
                        Have you got an actual example, so I can consider the similarities to and differences between a part time Buisness tax take compared to a Hybrid wages/rental tax take.
                        Last edited by McDuck; 11-03-2010, 07:00 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by McDuck View Post
                          Have you got an actual example, so I can consider the similarities to and differences between a part time Buisness tax take compared to a Hybrid wages/rental tax take.
                          Yes,

                          i worked for a small consultancy a few years ago.

                          A new director bought into the company. He purchased shares by:

                          1. Setting up an LAQC
                          2. Raising a debt (mortgage) secured on his PPOR in the LAQC's name
                          3. Paying existing shareholders to buy some shares

                          Net result, his directors fees did not cover the interest on the loan, so he got to offset some of the loss against his personal (and spouses) income.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Look, I for one believe that the property business has had it good for a long time. I can hear you all now, expletives coming my way. But this is why, I had a couple of properties once, and I could claim back most of the repairs through my returns, that was good. Also, if the tennant caused any problems you can use the tennancy tribunal, there are a whole host of things that property investers have to support there industry. Yes they pay rates, great so do I, bank interest, yes, mortages, yes, trades people, yes so do I. I have a construction Business, I bet I pay more trades people than she does. Merchants, you bet, $50,000.00 a month.Property managers, and yes again, I've got 4 site managers a contracts manager. My point is that I also pay tax on gain, why not property investments. They have for to long got away with it. And off course they will speck out, anyone would if you've had a hard life as a property invester, with a nice home, a flash car, and don't forget the holidays, probably got a cliff top holiday house in sydney. Now that she might have to pay her fair share, she quits. GOOD BYE LADY.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              You confuse gain with profit. Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                My point is, we all work hard, property has for some time now been exempt from certain taxes, plus it can claim against dp. There is no other industry that gets the tax benefits that property gets. Time to even the playing field, I for one am in favour of a capitol gains tax on property investment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X