On 15/05/2017 8:31 p.m., JohnO wrote:
One of these days he'll have his foot in his mouth when he shoots himself in
the foot and that will be the end of him.
This time he's shown his stupidity over house prices: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11856473
Looks a lot fancier than a "starter home" Andy. And are you not from New
Plymouth, in which case why is your "starter home" in Wellington?
But anyway - the numbers show that the value of his home shot up far more
under Labour governments than it has under National. Labour were *worse* for house price rises than National - fact!
But it gets worse for poor Andy. While prices were racing up under his
party's watch, interest rates were far higher - rising from 6 to 11% in their terms vs 6% or less under the Nats.
Labour - making houses unaffordable from from 1998 to 2008
This'll have Rich screaming 'DISTRACTION!' :)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/
It’s land not owners who are the problem
Stuff reports:
Labour is lining up property speculators by clamping down on tax
loopholes to even the playing field in favour of first home buyers.
In a hard hitting speech to Labour’s election year congress, leader Andrew Little said the loophole that let property speculators offset
losses from their rentals against other income for tax purposes would be closed.
“Labour will close the tax loophole that allows speculators to
claim taxpayer subsidies for their property portfolio,” Little said.
This is not a loophole or a subsidy. It is standard taxation policy that
a loss in one area can be offset against a profit in another area. What
Little is proposing is that losses on property investment be treated differently to all other losses.
It will make little difference to house prices and will in fact increase
rental prices. The profit from property investment comes from the
increase in capital value. Until land supply is increased dramatically,
this will continue to fuel house prices.
If property owners faced effectively increased costs on a property, then
rents are likely to increase. So Labour’s policy will increase rents and
have almost no impact on house prices.
Under the proposed change so-called “mum and dad” investors who
bought rentals as a long term investment would not be affected as most
of them did not use the loophole, Little said.
To the contrary they are the ones who will be most affected. The
professional investors will have companies that will offset profitable
and unprofitable houses. The mum and dad investors will not.
And who are the most common owners. Jim Rose has an OIA on this:
So only around 3,500 landlords have more than five properties while
23,000 have two to five properties and a massive 105,000 have just one.
They are the ones who will be most affected. If the interest on their
mortgage is more than their rental income (always the case at first)
then they are deducting the loss off their other income.
Those with six or more will run it all through companies and be unaffected.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)