made the papers!

[Don't believe the Hype]

Spot on Nick - the no CGT on the family home ruling in Aus results in many traders moving into a run down house, renovating then selling before moving into the next house to repeat.

the reality is if the rules of the game are known, smart people will find the ways to maximize their benefits without breaking the rules whilst others will just sit back and complain.

[Nick G]

Will make it slower to sell my places if I need to live in them for a stretch. Oh well.

[PC]

Does "living in it" get around the 2yr arbitrary line test?

[Don't believe the Hype]

the 2 yr test is for investors - not owner occupiers... so i would imagne so. i wonder if this has been tested

[donna]

How long do you have to live in the IP for to qualify as a owner occupier - is it 6 months? And so if you're wanted to sell an IP and you'd have to rent out your home while you're living in the IP and when it's sold - move back into your home and I guess just show the paperwork - rental agreement of your home, change of postal address etc.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

Loved the comments on stuff, some people just don't get it.

The vitriol in the comments is outstanding.

I could only stomach about a third of the comments, before giving up in disgust. A few:
* know how the tax system works;
* know that increased numbers (the mirage-like capital gain?!) does not equate to increased purchasing power;
* know that all the much vaunted 'productive' business activities are smoke and mirrors, etc.

But the profound depths of ignorance of most of them was quite breath-taking. Almost nauseating.

[Courham]

I could only stomach about a third of the comments, before giving up in disgust. A few:
* know how the tax system works;
* know that increased numbers (the mirage-like capital gain?!) does not equate to increased purchasing power;
* know that all the much vaunted 'productive' business activities are smoke and mirrors, etc.

But the profound depths of ignorance of most of them was quite breath-taking. Almost nauseating.

Yes but unfortunately it is the ill informed rabble that the politicians are listening too and will get them elected.

Andrew King turns off the general public every time he opens his mouth.

Craig

[Perry]

Andrew King turns off the general public every time he opens his mouth.

Now just why do you think that's the case?

The expected response from the ignorant great unwashed?

Andrew's delivery style/content?

[Courham]

Now just why do you think that's the case?

The expected response from the ignorant great unwashed?

Andrew's delivery style/content?

It is always going to be an uphill battle when your entire industry is viewed as being greedy and living off rorts in the tax system- whether those perceptions re true or not. IMO his delivery and message just don't hit the mark with the rest of the country. He tries but whenever I've heard him speak property investors don't come off well, not sure why. Also, the old story of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story seem to apply and the masses aren't interested in the facts- it's all about perception.

Not sure if it is his media presence or what but he seems to have the same issue as many recent Labour leaders, may know his stuff but just can't seem to get it across effectively in the media & often comes off as sounding arrogant and that doesn't endear him or his message to the non investor classes.

Craig

[Nick G]

Maybe he should be more emotive. "OK, we'll go away. Where will everyone live then?"

[Perry]

Long ago, Andrew initiated a thread here on PT, about his attendance at a TT Adjudicator's Conference. He asked for ideas from PT forumites. I can't recall is he said he would, beforehand, but he never did report back, despite reminders.

As for Craig and Nick's comments, they may be on to the same thing. It's something I've mulled over with another PT forumite. Given the media bias that's almost as partisan as the TT Kangaroo Kourts, some shock tactics are called for.

If anyone has any aspect of the RTA that fits that category, please, let's hear it. Here are some examples of the sort of thing I have in mind.

The setting would be some sort of media interview about some recent publicity that reflected on PIs. Or perhaps a change in legislation, or the like?

At some suitable point in the exchange, the PI person could say (something like):

Do you have any idea how prescriptive the RTA is on landladies?

It even gets down to details about her bank account and any o'seas trips she might take.

Nothing like that applies to tenants.

OR

Did you know that if a tenant abandons a home, the landlady has to wait at least ten working days before she can regain possession of the empty house? Of course, all that while, even though the tenant has stopped paying rent and done a runner, she still has to pay the rates, insurance and mortgage.

How fair and reasonable on the landlady is that?

OR

Did you know that the landlady has to pay a minimum of 35 days storage costs to store personal effects and furniture left behind by an absconding tenant? That's with absolutely no guarantee of recovering those storage costs or any rent arrears.

I.e. The absconding tenant gets off scot free. How fair and reasonable on the landlady is that?

[Viking]

Emotion opens the mind, logic opens the cheque book.
Jacinda was a good example of emotion opening the mind.

Attack is the best form of defense.

So use emotive language and gestures and attack the subject matter. Don't use logic until you have got an open mind i.e the interviewer agreeing with what you say.
Takes a lot of practice.
Never met Andrew but suggest that he is tuned into logic but logic won't win stuff like this.

Same in TT. Use pictures because that opens the emotions. Once you have the emotions going close with the logic of the wanted result.i.e. the laws transgressed and the penalty for that transgression.

FWIW

[artemis]

Maybe he should be more emotive. "OK, we'll go away. Where will everyone live then?"

That goes to the core of it. But there are various responses, of the hot button variety:

- more social housing, instantly available, subsidised by the taxpayer
- more affordable housing, also subsided by you know who
- speculators will sell to first home buyers
- less immigration
- more tenant rights such as right of renewal, end of no fault termination.

Might buy shares in the popcorn company.

[sidinz]

The follow up: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...-has-taught-me

Pity about the lead photo they chose.

[Peter Griffin]

Fantastic article. I think you 'honoured' alot of the suggestions from members of this forum. You are also correct about the "lead photo", it's more suggestive of the political rhetoric about how terrible renters have it.