Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New President for APIA

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

  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by McDuck View Post
    [...]
    The main imbalance here, is that the the wages of the renter are taxed.
    In contrast, with the right structure, the Income of the landlord is not.
    Originally posted by Sanya View Post
    The "wages" of a landlord are equally taxed.
    The "income" of a landlord, if there is profit, is also taxed.
    So the landlord earns a dollar from wages which is taxed.
    He takes what's left of the dollar (after tax) and invests in property.
    If the property makes money he pays tax again on the profit, often at a higher tax rate.
    What am I missing?
    Originally posted by McDuck View Post
    Good question.
    An eye?
    As I expected, that’s not an answer.

    To add, from April 1st 2021 some landlords will be paying a new higher income tax rate of 39 cents in the dollar. This arises because landlords need to pay tax on residential rental income on top of tax they pay for salary or wages.

    In contrast many renters effectively pay no income tax. This arises because those households receive more in transfers than they pay in tax. In other words, they are net recipients rather than payers under our tax system.

    Leave a comment:


  • McDuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Sanya View Post

    What am I missing?
    Good question.
    An eye?



    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    McClucky logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by McDuck View Post

    [...]

    The main imbalance here, is that the the wages of the renter are taxed.
    In contrast, with the right structure, the Income of the landlord is not.


    The "wages" of a landlord are equally taxed.

    The "income" of a landlord, if there is profit, is also taxed.

    So the landlord earns a dollar from wages which is taxed.

    He takes what's left of the dollar (after tax) and invests in property.

    If the property makes money he pays tax again on the profit, often at a higher tax rate.

    What am I missing?



    Leave a comment:


  • McDuck
    replied
    Originally posted by donna View Post

    Umm too many assumptions about who renters are IMHO ..

    Just thought I should post this - as there would be a good percentage of very savvy renters who have just made other choices than be a LL.

    cheers,

    Donna
    Ha.

    I'm with you Donna.
    It's possible, but it must be a very small percentage.
    I've honestly never met any. Ever.

    And certainty no one recently who is renting by choice.
    Most just work hard and can't get a foothold.

    One guy is on 100K and more, but with a young family and student loan.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Originally posted by McDuck View Post

    Ha, that made me laugh.
    Yes, it can go both ways.

    The main imbalance here, is that the the wages of the renter are taxed.
    In contrast, with the right structure, the Income of the landlord is not.

    Also, the savings of the renter are given a miserable return by the bank,
    whereas the landlord is getting about 20% capital gain on at least a million dollars ...

    So really, a little bad press should be soothed by the huge financial gain..
    Don't you think.

    Traditionally a group with a poor public image donates to charity or pays for some public work..
    So that's your best path.
    Umm too many assumptions about who renters are IMHO

    Not all renters are employed and are therefore taxed at source. Not all renters would just have savings in the bank getting a low ROI.

    There are renters who would do 'tax planning' in much the same way LLs do and they would pay less or no tax on their income. Plus there are renters who 'choose' to rent for various reasons and they are likely to have other investments.

    Just thought I should post this - as there would be a good percentage of very savvy renters who have just made other choices than be a LL.

    cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    The information comes from IRD responding to a request under the Official Information Act

    https://fyi.org.nz./request/14381/re...20Jan.pdf.html


    For the tax year ending 31 March 2019 approximately 290,000 taxpayers were identified as having been involved in residential rental property

    https://fyi.org.nz./request/14105/re...livan.pdf.html

    In the previous year 300,000 taxpayers were identified as being involved, i.e. a 10,000 YoY reduction.

    It will be interesting to see 2020 data when it becomes available.

    We don’t know whether the decline in tax payers being involved in rental business translates into a decline in rental property availability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    What's the source of that, Sanya?

    You are (again) quite right. The problem is we cannot know and the NZPIF probably won't say why it's sitting on it hands instead of shouting from the diminishing number of residential rental rooftops.

    Then again, they may not be diminishing . . .

    In another thread, you mentioned that a reduction in private residential LLs did not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of residential rentals available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    How about this Perry?


    10,000 Private Landlords Flee Market

    Information released under the Official Information Act shows that the number of landlords providing private rental accommodation in New Zealand declined by 10,000 for the period between 31 March 2018 and 31 March 2019.

    NZPIF could then go on give reasons by the landlords are leaving based on surveys they have run and then continue on to discuss the consequences of this.

    The release should also cite various Government ministers and Ministry of Housing reports which suggested no material impact expected in landlord numbers from Government intervention / policy in the market.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    You're right, of course.

    Perhaps the Peter Principle is at work?

    Now, let's keep working on the sort and style of media release that PI Assns should be thinking of . . .

    Did you know that the Residential Tenancies Act [RTA] empowers tenants to borrow money from the landlady:

    * without notice
    * without permission
    * without a credit check
    * without interest
    * without a re-payment plan
    * without even needing to pay the money back, in some cases.

    How? Simple. Stop paying the rent.

    Presume a weekly rent of $400. The tenant must have borrowed three weeks rent ($1200) before the LL can even apply to the Tenancy Tribunal [TT] to end the tenancy.

    At best, allow another three weeks ($2400) to get a TT Hearing. If the LL is lucky and gets a termination Order, the TT might be generous with the LLs money and allow the tenant an extra week to vacate.

    Net borrowings by tenant from LL: $2800 + the $20 TT application fee.

    Any part of the TT Order that says the tenant must pay the LL $2820 isn't worth the paper it's written on.
    Read and learn the pro-tenant and anti-LL biased provisions of the RTA to find out more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    That a certain someone needs a lesson in plain language is obvious.

    Given your comment and the media release's arcane observation that renting is not a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?

    I wouldn’t expend effort in trying to make sense of the incomprehensible Perry.

    At its bones it is virtue signalling, tokenism and political correctness.

    It’s like encouraging a debate on whether or not a "manhole cover" should include the word "man".
    Last edited by Sanya; 18-01-2021, 02:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • McDuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?
    Ha, that made me laugh.
    Yes, it can go both ways.

    The main imbalance here, is that the the wages of the renter are taxed.
    In contrast, with the right structure, the Income of the landlord is not.

    Also, the savings of the renter are given a miserable return by the bank,
    whereas the landlord is getting about 20% capital gain on at least a million dollars ...

    So really, a little bad press should be soothed by the huge financial gain..
    Don't you think.

    Traditionally a group with a poor public image donates to charity or pays for some public work..
    So that's your best path.




    Last edited by donna; 18-01-2021, 06:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    That a certain someone needs a lesson in plain language is obvious.

    Given your comment and the media release's arcane observation that renting is not a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanya
    replied
    Originally posted by Perry View Post
    I looked at the Media Release today. I wonder who crafted it?

    What a load of waffle.

    What on earth does zero-sum game mean in that context?
    Zero sum. Whatever is gained by the tenant is lost by the landlord and vice versa.

    In place of this the message is one of mutuality i.e. challenges faced by the landlord are also keenly felt by the tenant.

    He waka eke noa

    Observationally, it’s the same fingerprint as Government messaging over COVID-19.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    I looked at the Media Release today. I wonder who crafted it?

    What a load of waffle.

    “Renting is not a zero-sum game. There is a mutuality in terms of challenges, opportunities and outcomes that connect landlords and tenants. Ultimately, we all want renting to be modern, safe and efficient.”
    What on earth does zero-sum game mean in that context?

    The rest is no better.

    I wonder if whoever wrote that works (or worked) for the gummint's PR machine, at some stage.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X