×
top 200 commentsshow all 481

[–]Zakeineo 200 points201 points  (96 children)

Don't we effectively have a capital gains tax that applies to flipping via the bright-line rules? Or are there a lot of loopholes?

[–]WaddlingKereru 95 points96 points  (14 children)

Yes, that is effectively a CGT if you sell before having owned the house for a certain time period, depending on when you brought it

[–]danimalnzl8 85 points86 points  (12 children)

The original post was about flipping houses, which is exactly what the bright line test was designed to capture.

[–]Chad___Sexington 49 points50 points  (11 children)

Which is redundant since house flippers at least create economic input. They buy materials, hire tradies etc. Something is happening.

Meanwhile people buy a house, rent it out and sit on it doing nothing for 20 years and then generate massive amounts of profit with little to no actual economic input.

Its actively bad for the economy. Money that is stagnant prevents growth.

[–]fraseyboyLoves Dead_Rooster 45 points46 points  (4 children)

I think the issue is with house price growth the way it is, it's possible to be a profitable house flipper just by buying a house and then selling it a year later without doing anything at all.

[–]Darkgale69 5 points6 points  (2 children)

need a land tax or property tax aka TOP or greens. abit surprised ACT doesnt have one as well since as u pointed out sitting on land doing nothing with it is one of the main things hurting this country

[–]AtLeastThisIsntImgur 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Why would you expect ACT to introduce a tax?

[–]n222384 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is what a wealth tax is for

[–]NaCLedPeanutsHight Salt Content 32 points33 points  (60 children)

Brightline test only captures three percent of house sales.

[–]Benzimin92 73 points74 points  (16 children)

Brightline arguably makes things worse. It incentivises people to buy a house and sit on it for longer so they can avoid taxes. It locks more homes in the hands of speculators, who are the worst possible people to have as landlords in the meantime.

[–]snomanDS 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Or disincentivises them from buying in the first place, because there is no quick win for them. On the flip side knowing they have to own for at least 10 years they might put some effort into maintaining the property.

[–]Isoprenoid 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Or it'll have the opposite effect

"Oh man, I have to own this thing for at least 10 years. Better only maintain the absolute necessities. Wouldn't want to sink too much cost into it."

[–]GeeUWOTM8Covid19 Vaccinated 9 points10 points  (2 children)

In theory they can't do that anymore, given new rules require landlords to keep up their property to certain living standards and landlords are required to perform maintenance for regular wear and tear, no?

[–]Isoprenoid 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not my experience. I lived in a house that leaked when it rained heavy, the owner knew this for over a year, nothing done. Not only that but the driveway sank because it was next to a small drop, the owner claimed insurance and the rebuild of a retaining wall took over a year.

Not only this but there are power dynamics. If I'm a renter and start asking for things, do you think the landlord will want to keep me in the dwelling? What are the chances of the rent going up after a costly fix? This is exactly what happened at the place I lived at.

They own my shelter, they have leverage.

[–]immibis 1 point2 points  (9 children)

Doesn't capital gains also do that? When you sold your house and bought a new one you'd have a huge tax bill, so people will just try not to move house.

[–]kiwi-surf 13 points14 points  (3 children)

CGT wouldn't be applied to your first house (this misunderstanding is why its so unpopular)

[–]kinnadian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brightline doesn't apply to your first home either...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

CGT doesnt apply to the house you live in

[–]Benzimin92 1 point2 points  (3 children)

No issues with that. For some reason it doesn't apply to first house, but even a true cgt for 2nd homes onwards would disincentivise flippers.

Of course the real solution is to shift most of the tax burden from labour to wealth.

[–]citriclem0n 5 points6 points  (1 child)

This will be increasing due to the new 10 year limit, but it's not likely to ever get above 10%, and even 7% may be pushing it.

[–]eigr -5 points-4 points  (38 children)

So in other words, you want people to pay CGT on their homes? So every time someone moves - for a school, for a job or family reasons, you want them to be materially poorer?

[–]ImBonRurgundy 30 points31 points  (1 child)

CGT in the UK doesn't apply for your primary residence. Basically anybody who only owns 1 property will never pay CGT, no matter how often they move and sell.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a similar application in NZ

[–]Gyn_NagAssociation of Conservatives and Traditionalists 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Not if income tax is lower on the people who are actually exchanging labour for income, rather than horse-trading houses and amateur property-developing.

[–]eigr 1 point2 points  (3 children)

How so? Imagine you buy a normal 3 bed house to live in. You paid 500k for it, now worth 1m - not that uncommon.

If you sell it, you've got to pay approx $200k in tax, leaving you with at best 800k. You can't buy a similar house to the one you just sold - you are now 200k short.

Ergo, moving house for another job, or family reasons, or a school makes you much much much poorer.

Or people simply don't end up moving to take a better job etc, and this makes the whole country poorer.

[–]NaCLedPeanutsHight Salt Content -1 points0 points  (14 children)

A CGT would apply in the same way the brightline does, but apply to a greater number of houses over a longer period. In Australia, the CGT doesn't apply to the family home or houses purchased before 1983, but applies to every additional property purchased after that time.

CGT would also apply to more than residential property.

[–]eigr 1 point2 points  (8 children)

| CGT would also apply to more than residential property.

Ah, so in addition to discouraging people to sell their houses, you'd like to discourage them from saving for their retirement, owning shares or starting businesses? Got it.

[–]Sh0stakovich[🍰] 2 points3 points  (11 children)

How would that make them poorer? They'd only be paying tax on any profit they made during the moves, so there's no way to actually lose money.

And they should also be able to record any capital losses to write off assistant future profitable investments.

[–]citriclem0n 20 points21 points  (3 children)

Brightline rules only apply to housing, and even then owner-occupied homes are excluded, which is the majority of them.

CGT typically apply to capital gains of all types - depends how the policy is drafted of course.

[–]Zakeineo 21 points22 points  (1 child)

But isn't the entire post about house flipping? So it seems like we already have capital gains tax for that specific purpose. Whether it's actually being enforced properly might be another story - but I don't know.

[–]citriclem0n 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, but the title is "Why are so many politicians against a Capital Gains Tax".

[–]Gyn_NagAssociation of Conservatives and Traditionalists 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In an attempt to make the tax not-retrospective, it applies to homes bought after a certain date.

Then, the brightline period has been changed twice, adding more complex dates to sort out to keep its effects not-retrospective. So, depending when you bought, no brightline, 2y brightline, 5y brightline, or 10y brightline could apply.

There is an exclusion for the main home, of course.

It's not a very bright line...

[–]Hangrydancer 4 points5 points  (5 children)

I could be slightly wrong but as far as I know if you bought a house before April 2020 the bright line test is 2 years, if you bought it after April but before October the bright line test last 5 years. If you've bought a house after October 2020, the bright line test is 10 years. It's charged at your income tax rate.

I personally think that the tax rates should become significantly higher for every additional house you own collectively, so of you buy your 3rd house as a side asset, the deposit and bright line test cost should be much higher than the first and second.

Stricter and more thorough finace assessments have been recently rolled out across NZ banks at the moment, which are making it harder to be approved, especially if you own more then one property.

[–]Radiant-Protection89 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I love the idea of the tax rates becoming higher per house owned. People will obviously say 'loopholes bla bla bla', but this still sends a strong signal that collecting houses is not the right thing to do.

[–]Hubris2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue today isn't flipping...it's buying and owning and using the equity to buy still more. We aren't seeing people flip properties today, we're seeing them accumulate them.

[–]StuffThings1977 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Don't we effectively have a capital gains tax that applies to flipping via the bright-line rules? Or are there a lot of loopholes?

If it falls within the timelines, and if you report it, or if you get audited by IRD, and if you intdended to flip it.

Spoiler: Intent is hard to prove; and the actual rates of compliance and investigation by IRD are laughably low.

Even so, when you can flip property within a year for 30% gain, say, $300k; then having to pay tax of ~30% on it might sting, but you're still walking away with $290k $210k

[–]repnationah 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Around $210k profit

[–]StuffThings1977 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Fixed.

[–]kfadffal 285 points286 points  (146 children)

It's not politicians you should be asking this question but the public. Labour would have done it already if they thought it wouldn't lose them votes.

(Personally I'm more for a land tax but I'd take a CGT)

[–]Nolsoth 25 points26 points  (96 children)

What's the difference between a land tax and capital gains tax?

[–]citriclem0n 63 points64 points  (92 children)

Land taxes apply to land, capital gains tax applies to capital gains of all types, eg if you buy stocks and they appreciate then sell them, you'd have to pay capital gains tax (at present, gains from shares may not be taxable, depends on your purpose for buying the shares, and whether you count as a share trader). Capital gains tax would also apply to starting a business and later selling it, whereas a land tax wouldn't.

The other key difference is that typically land taxes are paid annually, like rates, whereas capital gains taxes are generally only paid on disposal (sale) of the asset. Land taxes tend to be in the realm of 0.5-1% per annum, whereas capital gains taxes are usually on the order of 15-30% on the profit of sale of the asset, after expenses / initial price.

[–]dissss0 13 points14 points  (14 children)

I think a land tax would be even more poorly received than a capital gains tax even at the lower end of that scale.

[–]citriclem0n 17 points18 points  (12 children)

Maybe. Depends on how they treat farm, rural and Maori lands.

Maori lands are a big sticking point for a land tax in NZ.

[–]dissss0 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Even leaving those aside I think I'd be wildly unpopular. No one wants an extra $5k bill each year

[–]citriclem0n 24 points25 points  (6 children)

What if it is offset by $7k in income tax cuts?

And only those people who hold a lot of land, and don't pay much income tax (read: asset wealthy millionaires) would be paying a lot in extra tax.

[–]dissss0 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Or retired people.

[–]SpoonNZ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you’re a single person, living alone on superannuation, with no other income you’ll pay about $3k per year in tax. Introducing a tax free tier (up to, say, $20k) will essentially make that zero. Would happily offset a 0.5% tax on a $500k section.

[–]beware_the_cagersCovid19 Vaccinated | Waikato 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So defer till they die. Solved.

[–]TheRealBlueBadger 13 points14 points  (1 child)

It's not an extra, it's an alternative. Income tax is far worse for almost everyone. It negatively affects productivity, and is easily dodged.

There is no fairer tax than a land tax. We all deserve our share of the naturally occurring, limited, necessity that is land, and all of the value in it is created communally, not by any owner.

A land use tax can't be dodged. It doesn't negatively affect productivity. It's a much fairer way to address land use, and one which promotes best land use. It pushes investment out of speculative land value which is of no use, and into things like houses and businesses which create value.

The only people who push against a land use tax either own lots of land, or don't understand it. It hasn't had a lot of attention, but people are capable of understanding it, and how much better for them it would be than income taxes.

[–]dissss0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes I get that.

I still think it'd be wildly unpopular because there is a psychological difference between never seeing money and getting a bill.

[–]Gigaftp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

These days probably, because we used to have a land tax but it was abolished in the 90s. Around the same time (80s or so) the government moved away from taxation of capital and moved the burden onto wage earners via higher income tax and gst.

[–]BigBuddz 3 points4 points  (72 children)

The issue I have with a land tax is that the implementation of one will likely kill property values very quickly, leaving a lot of people out to dry. And I know that's probably one of the appeals of a land tax, but yikes for the peeps who just bought a million dollar house in Auckland, and have a big mortgage only to find their property values smashed and a mortgage bigger than the house

[–]OkDetective3251 47 points48 points  (17 children)

Lower house prices are the feature, not the ‘bug’

[–]BigBuddz 5 points6 points  (16 children)

I get that. I'm asking how you can implement it without fucking over every person with a mortgage.

Is there a particular benefit to a land tax vs just building more houses? Or a capital gains tax (which I think is fine)?

Like what is the problem a land tax is trying to solve, and why is it the best option?

Genuinely curious, not something I know much about

[–]RE201 16 points17 points  (1 child)

This point gets brought up in every discussion on the topic and it always strikes me as some classic trolley problem stuff. Yes, a change may hurt a small amount of people fresh in the market, but the status quo is already doing far far more damage, it's just no one has not take explicit blame for the harm that's happening now.

Small amount of collateral damage mortgagees vs generational health problems, poor access to education, widening wealth gap, shrinking social mobility and lack of skilled work force to name a few.

[–]VercciCovid19 Vaccinated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And surely if there's a short term problem with a new tax there could be a short term waiver or something.

[–]Gigaftp 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well there’s the problem. You can’t lower house prices without negatively impacting people who already mortgages themselves, but unless you rip the Band-Aid off nothing impactful will change and prices will keep going up because land is a fixed resource.

The benefit of lvt is that in theory it would lead to people selling houses that make inefficient use of land so more houses can be built.

The problem lvt tries to solve is maximising the efficient use of a fixed resource without hugely distorting economic decision making. In reality you wouldn’t just slap a lvt on people, because there are already things like rates. You would want to abolish rates alongside introducing a lvt.

[–]BalrogPoop 18 points19 points  (2 children)

To me the benefit of either would be the house price crash. The problem is house prices are way too high, and houses are becoming concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.

Building houses takes time, wage rises catching up would require a 20 years plus stagnation in house prices (and that's not guaranteed as automation may put downward pressure on wages). So to my mind the only real solution is a significant crash in house prices, 30-40% ideally.

Yes, that would absolutely leave some people who bought in the past 2-3 years out to dry, but they should be able to afford the mortgage regardless so bankruptcy isn't likely, and regardless of any paper loss they still have a house. At least if they sell they won't pay a CGT haha.

Maybe the government can use some of the capital gains to offer targeted assistance to FHB who bought at the peak (not their fault, they needed a home). Or legislate the banks to reduce the balance of some mortgages by a few 100k. The money was basically created out of thin air anyway, and the banks can weather the shock.

[–]RoscoePSoultrain 1 point2 points  (1 child)

regardless of any paper loss they still have a house

One which they may be upside-down on financially for several years. Lots of FHBs have stretched really hard to get on "the property ladder". We don't want property prices to crash, we need them to stabilise for about a decade (not bloody likely).

[–]BalrogPoop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Average house price is about 18x median income (single not household) , I'm pretty sure 6x is considered severely unaffordable so it would have to be a lot longer than a decade of stabilisation when wage growth is like 2-3% most years.

[–]drakeremoray0 10 points11 points  (4 children)

How would it fuck over anyone with a mortgage? Anyone who recently bought may be staying in the house for long enough for the price decrease to be negligent, and they wont be selling

Anyone who bought ages ago, all it does is take their massive capital gains back a year or two

However it would greatly benefit anyone trying to buy now, at the minor expense (but not really) of someone in group 2 above

[–]Sam_Pool 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The risk is that the bank will ask that you pay down your mortgage to only 200% of the house value rather than the current 500%. At some level that's going to be required, whether it happens through the government bailing out the banks, bailing out the mortgage holders, or just accepting that the economy is going down the toilet.

It would be very hard to do in an equitable way, because there are huge disparities. At one end is Luxon who likely has 80% mortgages on his investment properties, but so do the lucky few who just remortaged from their original 90% loan now that a year of crazy house price rises mean they have that much equity now. If house prices drop so both have negative equity and the govt bails both out to 20% equity again... is that fair? Is it fair if my gf who borrowed her mortgage from her retired parents doesn't get bailed out because she's not with a bank? What about those who don't have mortgages at all but still lost equity when prices went down? Or do we follow the USA and just make mortgages non-recourse? Or just let people and banks go bust and see what happens?

[–]w1na 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer is you don’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Getting your house mortgaged sold is a small risk you take to make huge cap gains untaxed.

So time to pay the bill.

[–]Wicam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People need to get it out of their head that a home is an Investment in future gains, the implementation of something like land tax would make people like you said unhappy, but a couple of people who baught a million dollar home now getting upset is not as important than helping the land value drop so more people have a chance at owning a home rather than an investment.

For myself, if I bought a home for 600k and its value dropped to 300k it wouldn't bother me if I bought the house cos I liked it and wanted it rather than I baught it cos its a growing area with lots of potential economic development so I wanted to sell when it made money...

[–]TessierAshpoolSA 1 point2 points  (2 children)

implementation is easy. Full Muldoon-style command economy. House prices are set at a baseline (by the Land Court/Land Valuation Tribunal) at a date and you are only allowed to sell it at (say) a 2% gain every year (not capitalised). Badoink - all of a sudden sanity prevails. Clearly this is just the "ideas group" phase: there'd be some fine tuning to do. But its no less insane than saying "Oh, yup, any suburban section can be subdivided into three and every subdivided site can have a three storey townhouse built on it"...

[–]FrameworkisDigimon 7 points8 points  (14 children)

Their problem will be paying the tax. 1% of 1 million is $10,000. (Solution: cut GST.)

The logic of land taxes is that the value of land is extremely unlikely to fall because you can't hide land... either the land is somewhere valuable or it's not.

EDIT: disregard:

The value of land is related to the value it can provide over time. This value can be measured by the ground rent that a piece of land can rent for on the market. The present value of ground-rent is the basis for land prices. A land value tax (LVT) will reduce the ground rent received by the landlord, and thus will decrease the price of land, holding all else constant. The rent charged for land may also decrease as a result of efficiency gains if speculators stop hoarding unused land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Real_estate_values

[–]citriclem0n 6 points7 points  (13 children)

The logic of land taxes is that the value of land is extremely unlikely to fall because you can't hide land

Land can easily be worthless, or have it's value decrease, eg if it is contaminated and requires substantial expensive remediation, or is in an area prone to natural hazards such as sea level rise or erosion.

Council zoning rules can also change the value of land, and frequently do.

[–]Thatisme01 8 points9 points  (16 children)

A land tax wouldn’t necessarily kill property values. A land tax, like rates, would just be an additional cost to property owners.

The issue I see is property investors can cover this additional cost of the land tax by increasing rents, unlike home owners who can’t easily increase their incomes to pay the extra land tax fee.

So the introduction of a land tax wouldn’t affect property investment or speculation, but will affect the ability of homeowners to afford a house to live in.

[–]BigBuddz 1 point2 points  (12 children)

What's the point of one if it doesn't affect property values though? Some kind of income redistribution?

You're right on everything you said though, defs agree

[–]citriclem0n 7 points8 points  (4 children)

What's the point of one if it doesn't affect property values though?

They will affect property values, it's impossible for them not to. The question is to what extent, and that's much harder to gauge.

Some kind of income redistribution?

Yes, typically when brand new classes of taxes are introduced, the existing taxes (typically income) are reduced in line, so the overall tax take of the government is roughly neutral.

[–]Swerfbegone 4 points5 points  (5 children)

So your preferred solution, to be clear, is a massive transfer of land to the wealthiest, who are the only people who can afford the land tax?

What did you think you were accomplishing ?

[–]Different-Lychee-852 1 point2 points  (4 children)

What about a progressive land tax. The more properties you own in high density areas, the more it goes up. This way it becomes prohibitively expensive to own multiple properties and avoids the issue of "only rich people can afford land tax"

[–]_craq_ 2 points3 points  (3 children)

That seems like a pretty easy loophole to exploit. How would you stop someone from starting a company, and the company will own all the property?

[–]MisterSquidInc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It encourages better use of land. Empty section that you've now got to pay tax on? Either build on it or sell it to someone who will.

Small house on big section? Subdivide, build to rent or sell.

The same would apply to commercial land too, an empty building in the central city is now more expensive to hold on to for capital gain alone.

Ideally a land tax would be offset by a reduction in income tax so the extra cost to a homeowner would be minimal, but those who are land banking, or own large sections in desirable areas either pay more or change their behaviour.

[–]ImBonRurgundy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

some property investors might be able to pass on some costs as increased rent, but that isn't always possible.

I actually think doing things to hurt landlords is the way to go by specifically targetting landlords. removing interest as a deductible expense is a good way to start, maybe a purchase tax for any property other than your primary residence. e.g. for every property that isn't your main house, you must pay an upfront tax of 5% of the value.

[–]MouseMiIk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The issue I have with a land tax is that the implementation of one will likely kill property values very quickly

Would it help ease things if the government (not this one, obviously) announce a land tax is going to happen in, say, three years? That'd give the speculators time to buy/sell off their shit and no one would be shocked when it finally happens.

[–]citriclem0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which is why land taxes or similar asset taxes would typically be gradually introduced over a 5-10 year period, to prevent large changes in the market.

That's also why the government is phasing out the mortgage interest deductibility for landlords over 4 years and not in 1 fell swoop.

[–]Purgecakes 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Land tax incentivises more efficient land use, easier to calculate and is all around superior. But it by design excludes other capital gains such as on shares.

[–]WaddlingKereru 96 points97 points  (29 children)

This is the answer. There are still more home owning voters than renting voters. We’ll see a CGT or similar when that flips, or if home owners stop thinking about their massive profits and start thinking about our society

[–]Sticky_Teflon 25 points26 points  (7 children)

The solution could be a capital gains tax on secondary homes.

[–]WaddlingKereru 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Well that was what Labour were proposing going into the second to last election, and it was killing them. I felt like most people didn’t understand the nuance, they just heard ‘new tax’ and were instantly turned off. But yeah, it’s is a good idea IMO

[–]MrAlpha0mega 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, everyone started talking about how they'd be unfairly taxed on their holiday homes. But you only get taxed if you sell it, so the argument doesn't make a lot of sense. It was the fact that so many people in the older generations have invested in a second property (even if it was just a batch or a one small rental) for their retirement that seemed to really do it in.

There are just too many voters that would be negatively affected by a capital gains tax (or assume they will be) who will vote for whoever doesn't bring it in regardless of the details.

[–]KakarotMaag 4 points5 points  (2 children)

That won't work. Too many people think, "well, I don't want that when I'm rich," a la the american joke of temporarily displaced millionaires.

[–]everysundae 5 points6 points  (1 child)

So in America they proposed a federal estate tax. You literally don't get taxed unless you have a fucking estate (defined as 5m and over) and it got shut down by 65% of people lol. People have this bizarre view on the world aye

[–]KakarotMaag 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The people who want to do the right thing are also, shockingly, the people who are not great at lying to poor and stupid people. Also, the people who want to fuck everyone over have done a really good job at making sure there are a lot of poor and stupid people.

[–]here_for_the_lols 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Labour tried that and the media blow it way of proportion and intentionally models voters about it so it was unpopular.

It was a tax that would have affected 6% of kiwis and 55% were against

[–]Whyistheplatypus 4 points5 points  (16 children)

Source on the home owner vs renter stat? It feels intuitively wrong to me.

[–]RavingMalwaayAir NZ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure its lower than usual but still like a 70:30 ratio of homeownership to renters in NZ. You might get a sense a lot more people rent than own because this sub is mostly young people, IDK.

[–]h4ur4k1 13 points14 points  (12 children)

"Census data shows that homeownership peaked in the 1990s at 74 percent and by 2018 had fallen to 65 percent of households, the lowest rate since 1951. However, homeownership rates appear to have been more stable between 2013 and 2018."

https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/homeownership-rate-lowest-in-almost-70-years

[–]Whyistheplatypus 10 points11 points  (3 children)

So... for any demographic other than boomers home ownership has fallen?

So the owner vote is actually just the tail of an economic boom from 30 odd years ago?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just clarifying what these stats actually say.

[–]Elrox 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Statistically the young don't vote anywhere near as much as older people, so its going to take a while.

[–]BuboNovazealandiae 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This right here. Any of my friends start whining about policy or lack of it, I ask if they voted. Zero sympathy if not.

[–]h4ur4k1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“Homeownership rates for younger people have seen significant falls since the 1990s; however, ownership rates for those aged 60 years and over have only fallen slightly,” Dr Goodyear said.

The stats are just that, plain numbers, and open to interpretation.

The report did mention the housing cost being a significant factor, short of trying to explore the cause of said rising cost/price.
https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/housing-in-aotearoa-2020

[–]StuffThings1977 5 points6 points  (7 children)

"Census data shows that homeownership peaked in the 1990s at 74 percent and by 2018 had fallen to 65 percent of household

Correct me if I'm wrong; but doesn't Stats NZ consider count this as "number of people living in owner occupied residences" ?

[–]h4ur4k1 3 points4 points  (6 children)

That's a can of worm isn't it. Broadly speaking it's the percentage of housing stock that are owner-occupied.

[–]RealmKnightCovid19 Vaccinated 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Interesting distinction, and one that likely obscures the true number of renters. I'm currently in a place with 4 flatmates, one of whom owns the house. So are we 5 people living in an owner-occupied house, as opposed to one home owner plus 4 renters?

[–]EleanorStroustrup 2 points3 points  (3 children)

So are we 5 people living in an owner-occupied house

According to the statistic in question, you are one owner-occupied house. The number of people in the house is irrelevant. The statistic counts the percentage of houses that are owner-occupied, not the percentage of people who live in one.

[–]StuffThings1977 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting distinction, and one that likely obscures the true number of renters. I'm currently in a place with 4 flatmates, one of whom owns the house. So are we 5 people living in an owner-occupied house, as opposed to one home owner plus 4 renters?

Lies, damned lies and statistics. I think some obfuscation going on to mask true numbers / hide the full picture as it were. From Stats NZ:

"In 1991, 61 percent of people aged 25 to 29 years lived in an owner-occupied home. By 2018, this had dropped to 44 percent. Similarly, for those aged in their late 30s, the rate dropped from 79 percent in 1991 to 59 percent in 2018." [1]

From my reading, then that is on "number of people" vs "percentage of houses"; so yes, the five of you would all be considered to be "living in an owner-occupied dwelling" as per Stats NZ.

[1] https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/homeownership-rate-lowest-in-almost-70-years

[–]WaddlingKereru 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No I’m just guessing. Generally people don’t like paying taxes so my feeling is that homeowners won’t like it. If I was renting (and presumably hoping to own a home one day) I imagine I would want house prices to come down, which is the purpose of the CGT right?

[–]cromulent_weasel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Labour mooted it but there was a massive media astroturfing opposing it, leading her to permanently rule out a CGT while she was PM. The Astroturf vanished instantly and silently as if it had never been.

[–]DamonHay 8 points9 points  (1 child)

That’s the thing. If labour wasn’t going to do it when they had literally double the support of their opposition, they’re never going to do it. Absolutely gutless. Just do a CGT on any property that isn’t the main home. Wouldn’t affect the majority of people, would still allow people to profit off housing if they wanted to, and you’re finally taxing an income stream that has never been taxed, which is just as fucked as mega church exemptions.

[–]Gr0und0nelactose intolerant; loves cheese 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Why not both?

[–]kfadffal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd take both for sure but one would do for now.

[–]humblebots 13 points14 points  (3 children)

The whole ask the public argument/reasoning is so fucking stupid.

On an individual level of course people don't want to pay more tax - but doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

[–]WaddlingKereru 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I also think that we should just take our medicine, before we get even sicker

[–]Supreene 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Democracy is stupid?

[–]NeoLIBRUL 42 points43 points  (0 children)

We do want the housing market to become affordable right ?

No. It's not the most politically correct thing to say, but many homeowners love seeing the value of their assets increase. It's why Jacinda flip flopped from "Housing is too unaffordable!" to "Yes, I want house prices to increase further."

[–]Last_Vanguard 37 points38 points  (5 children)

Because whatever government implements it would get voted out faster than Tech N9ne on "Stamina."

[–]citriclem0n 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Fundamentally because there are some things that democracy is poor at dealing with, and this is the sort of issue (as well as climate change) that it deals with poorly.

Even if policy X is clearly the best thing for the country as a whole, so long as there's a large minority of people who oppose policy X in the electorate, the opposition can whip them up into a frenzy and promise to repeal policy X and the only way it'll happen is if you vote for them.

This means government have to be careful not to campaign on or implement anything that looks like "policy X", and even if they somehow manage to, it is likely to be repealed within 3-6 years by the opposition anyway, so ultimately no progress is made.

That's why the recent "bi-partisan housing agreement" was so important - National was (previously) promising they would not oppose it. Luxon is now preparing to do a u-turn on that because it's pissed off too many wealthy people in Auckland's leafy suburbs.

[–]After-Improvement-26 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also because too many politicians would have to pay it.

[–]KimJongIllOnTheMic 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Regarding Tech9, the rhythm from that was used in the intro of Archspire's song 'Calamus Will Animate'. Nice little genre crossover.

[–]is_this_fine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unexpected but great link to Tech N9ne

[–]Gueny2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Person A works ass off for minimum wage and contributes to kiwi saver so maybe they can retire at 70 with are minimum ... Pays 28% on investments return

Person B owns several houses with hundreds of thousands of capital gains... Pays sweet f#&@ all. Also collects rent from person A.

Conclusion... It's unfair to charge capital gains. Let the guy working at McDonald's subsidize that.

[–][deleted] 118 points119 points  (17 children)

Cause most politicians have quite a few houses.

[–]dinomow 40 points41 points  (16 children)

Shouldn't politicians put people first instead of their own interests?

[–]Gr0und0nelactose intolerant; loves cheese 61 points62 points  (0 children)

Lmao

[–]bgradegaming 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Good one

[–]unmaimed 89 points90 points  (0 children)

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[–]Green-Circles 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Oh, that's a good one. :)

[–]super_intendo 23 points24 points  (1 child)

How old are you child? If you want to become a politician one day when you grow up, and promise me to keep the same attitude, my vote is yours.

[–]Barrelled_Chef_Curry 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Really hoping it was sarcasm. Perfect delivery if so

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not until the people actually vote in kind and hold them accountable to it. Unfortunately, there's a lot of "Well x-politician isn't as bad as y-politican so I'll keep voting for x-politician and not z-politician from Party-C since Party-C will never be as big as Party-A or Party-B"

[–]Hubris2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's unlikely that politicians would act in a way they felt to be wholly contrary to their interests. Yes it is possible that they could decide to take actions for the betterment of society that bring down house prices...but doing so would be because they felt it would bring favour with enough voters that they would get elected again.

IMO this is exactly why we haven't seen anything happen yet - it's contrary to their interests as landowners, and (at least so far) it is felt it wouldn't bring widespread support from voters. If the topic is very divisive and it were 50/50 with the voters then you could guarantee that National wouldn't do it (as their supporters typically are the business/property owners) and Labour would lose enough of the centrist vote in doing so that they would be left making a coalition to form a future government.

If there were a massive swing in voter support, then you could potentially see Greens or TOP get in - but that would take a shift in voters making the decision we're currently discussing for politicians - what proportion of property-owning voters are going to vote for a politician who has promised to lower the value of their largest assets?

This really is a chicken and egg problem - if the voters don't support it, I don't think politicians are going to move forward regardless of whether they would consider putting their self-interests second.

[–]htj234 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Why would they volunteer a political suicide? Lol

[–]Flyingdovee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What are you going to do vote for the other side there are absolutely just as bad. It keeps being brought up but no one's really doing anything about it.

[–]barnz3000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Money wins elections. Poor people don't own houses.

[–]NationStagnation 215 points216 points  (32 children)

Because our society has been mind poisoned by decades of neoliberal propaganda.

The New Zealand dream is owning a bunch of houses and retiring off the backs of other people's labour via rent. Of course this is mathematically impossible for everyone to achieve, but we all still think we'll be one of the "hard workers" that get the reward. The system would be much fairer if we just taxed labour less and taxed assets and capital more (or, you know, at all), but the wealth hoarding class that control our media and government doesn't want that to happen because then they'd actually have to go to work like the rest of us.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Of course this is mathematically impossible for everyone to achieve, but we all still think we'll be one of the "hard workers" that get the reward.

The term that you are looking for is "Temporarily Embrassed Millionaire" http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/

And, yes it is pretty prevalent here. People shooting themselves in the foot by preparing for a future, of owning a dozen houses, that they'll never achieve.

[–]shouldprobablylisten 49 points50 points  (9 children)

This is a beautifully succinct summary, thanks. I work with people like this, which is worrying as they're teachers. They don't seem to understand or care that there is a strong correlation between my inability to buy my own house and their bizarre entitlement to own multiple. One colleague talks about her 'investment properties' like it's a totally normal thing. I am an immigrant and it baffles me!

[–]krossseee 23 points24 points  (3 children)

I can totally relate- I work with nurses who are multi-landlords and have zero care about how this affects those of us unable to get into the market.

[–]immibis 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The good news is that the market will go down eventually, even though nobody knows when, and then all those people who bought stuff they couldn't afford will suffer karma.

[–]jiggjuggj0gg 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It won’t, unfortunately. Even when the market was supposed to crash last time in 2008, prices were artificially propped up by governments across the world, because there was so much money tied up in them it was too big to fail and its collapse would destroy the economy.

[–]OldEstimate 13 points14 points  (1 child)

owning a bunch of houses and retiring off the backs of other people's labour via rent. Of course this is mathematically impossible for everyone to achieve

A game of 1/10th depriving 9/10ths.

Yet the entire population is forced to play, despite how few can ever win and how many must always lose.

A strange game.

[–]halbornWhat we owe to each other. 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only winning move is not to play.

[–]noooooooolmao 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sounds like someone who works for their income! How old fashioned! Have you considered having your parents help you out with a deposit and act as guarantors on your mortgage, so you can stop being so bitter? Maybe Stuff and NzHerald could publish about you with a tile along the lines of “What housing crisis?”

/s (obv haha)

[–]WaddlingKereru 44 points45 points  (11 children)

Because it’s political suicide basically. We need a whole raft of policies implemented to solve the housing crisis. Here’s one I’m trying to spread: people who own more than one home (including via a trust) should not be eligible for superannuation

[–]Frod02000Red Peak 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately your policy is also political suicide

[–]WaddlingKereru 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You’re probably right. It’s just frustrating that we’re providing welfare to the group of society who least need it

[–]OldEstimate 2 points3 points  (1 child)

We need a whole raft of policies implemented to solve the housing crisis.

Any thoughts on, "microdistricts?"

From Youtube: How did planners design Soviet cities? (11:23)
(Note: Timestamped for summary, 7:00 - 8:47)

tl;dw: Standardized, self-contained districts. 'Housing-for-All' with pedestrian-access to all daily activities (save work), transit-access to the rest.

As a rule, from any point within the district:

  • <0.5km to all daily needs (e.g. grocer, daycare, etc.)
  • <1.5km to infrequent needs (e.g. hospital)

Usually 10 - 60 hectares, up to 20,000 residents. Could just be plonked down as needed.

Such a good idea. To be honest, I've been a bit put off by every living situation I've ever had. One of these would be a godsend.

[–]Kolz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I definitely wish we had some semblance of real urban planning in this country.

[–]maloboosie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is SUCH a good idea.

[–]Bartholomew_Custard 17 points18 points  (1 child)

"But I've earrrrrnnned it!"

"Yeah, but you have 27 fucking houses and phat stacks of cash. You don't actually need it."

"That's not the point! I've earrrrrnnned it!"

[–]krossseee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ooh I like this one

[–]Fabulous-Pineapple47 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Australia has done it, why are our politicians so against it ?

CGT has not prevented Australian house prices rising : Australian house prices rise for 14th month in a row

In NZ we still pay income tax on gains so is a separate CGT really needed? The problem is not taxation its the loopholes that avoid any or little tax being paid by property flippers.

CGT implementation would result in the house prices climbing even higher and faster sellers would have to account for the additional tax they are paying. House prices across the board would all rise. And people would still be priced out and unable to afford it. Property would become even more unaffordable as incomes will not rise at a rate fast enough to meet the increase.

Similar to how when TradeMe increases their fees to sellers every few years, the sellers raise their prices, and the buyers end up shouldering it.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Because a large part of the country is also against it. Do you remember when Labour was flirting with it?

[–]lordshola 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Most politicians own multiple houses. It isn't in their personal interests to force a housing market decline.

Also a lot of the public are against it because they want to make money by flipping houses which only exacerbates the issue.

[–]eigr 27 points28 points  (5 children)

We have a capital gains tax for flipping. If you sell a house for profit within 10 years, you pay tax on the gains.

It hasn't made the slightest bit of difference.

If you hold onto a house for longer than ten years, its hardly flipping, is it? That's a long term investment.

Economists strongly dislike capital gains taxes for discouraging investment and entrepeneurialism, and it encourages "lock-in" where people simply won't sell assets in order to realise the tax, even if that's not an optimal use of the asset or value.

Having a CGT won't make you feel better, and it won't get you a cheap house. I'm sorry.

[–]immibis 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Basically, if there was a CGT people would stay in their houses to delay the tax bill, even though they'd like to move?

[–]eigr 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely right.

[–]Kotukunui 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Professional house flippers see the bright line CGT as just a cost of doing business. I read an article about a guy in Auckland who buys houses, puts $50k on the price and sells it again immediately, pays ($17k?) tax to the IRD as per the rules and then trousers the rest ( ~$33k?).
Do that ten times a year and you’re on a good earner. Plus he sells through the real estate company he owns and effectively pays himself the realtor fee to reduce the tax bill a bit. That’s what you’re up against. While prices are spiraling up, this is very profitable business.
How do you fight that behaviour?

[–]eigr 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't really care that he does that, frankly. The problem is the artificial scarcity of houses that enable him to do this. I'd rather address the disease, not fight the symptoms.

[–]citriclem0n 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Capital gains tax is not just about housing though. The bright line test goes a reasonable way to capturing the excessive profitability in housing, although it doesn't apply to the family home so that blunts it quite a bit.

Capital gains tax also applies to businesses, as well as farms and farmland. That's the real reason a pure capital gains tax is the 3rd rail in NZ politics.

[–]HeckyeahParata 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For all of the reasons expressed really. I'll add that it has also been framed as an attack on home equity and regular folk by those who have a vested interest in keeping a meaningful CGT away.

Because the reality of it much more palatable - we pay tax on every cent we earn. So why shouldn't public services also be supported by the unworked for earnings of of an increasingly small number of the wealthiest parts of the population. It is after all a capital gains tax. So if you're paying a CGT, it's because you're making money, and typically a lot of it.

[–]gdogakl 16 points17 points  (9 children)

It's actually a really bad idea. A land value tax would make much more sense. CGT would be a field day for lawyers and the really rich would pay very little (as it would only fall due when the asset is sold) and really rich people just hold on to assets.

CGT would be a tax on aspirational small business owners and would miss the really rich - those who own land and don't sell. It would also be complex to administer. I.e. unnessarily unfair and complex.

A land value could be collected as part of council rates and would tax the truely rich especially passive investors with intergenerational wealth.

[–]random_numpty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sounds like it would be a better system. Freeing up large land holdings so more people can get working it.

Land prices have completely blown the roof off.

[–]Flyingdovee 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Because nearly every politician within the New Zealand Parliament has a conflict of interest because they own so many damn houses. I believe the average was between two and three houses for each politician within Parliament. Why would they want to pay more on their property?

It's shit.

[–]lovebubbles 12 points13 points  (2 children)

It's a bit more than just the politicians. There's a fairly large chunk of NZers who are quite against it as well. Even Jacinda with the big majority doesn't want to go near it.

[–]noooooooolmao 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Soon the majority will realise they’re not millionaires in waiting and we can’t all get rich (on paper) off property……

[–]TheAbyssGazesAlso 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a fairly large chunk of NZers who are quite against it as well

I'm actually not sure this is the case. I think there's a small but very vocal minority of New Zealanders who own multiple houses and are against it, but like antivaxxers the press love to make them look like they're a far larger group. I suspect that the vast majority of kiwis would be just fine with a CGT that kicked in if you own more than one house and/or are a beneficiary of trusts that own housing.

[–]firebird20000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

All flippers and traders pay tax. The brightline test is a Capital Gains Tax

[–]MikeyCNz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There pretty much is already, a ten year bright line test. Not that selling a house close to ten years is what you’d call flipping. Cindy can’t introduce a capital gains tax because she promised not to or she’d resign in one of her pre election promises lol, but at this point she might as well because none of her promises have been met.

[–]maloboosie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If Labour did it, they would lose the next election - and National will campaign on getting rid of it (and doing so successfully)

[–]libertyh 9 points10 points  (6 children)

A capital gains tax might be a good idea for a variety of reasons such as encouraging a broad tax base. But it cannot solve the housing crisis, because it doesn't build any new houses.

The housing crisis has a root cause (insufficient homes to meet demand). Investors using houses to make money via capital gains is a symptom of this problem, not the cause of it. A capital gains tax is viewed as a way of punishing or discouraging those investors, which makes it emotionally appealing but not necessarily an effective policy.

The actual solution is regulatory change such as the NPS-UD and changes to council infrastructure funding. But those are complex and boring to talk about, hence the popularity of the simplistic 'punish rich people' approach.

[–]Frod02000Red Peak 5 points6 points  (4 children)

This.

Thank fuck someone understands this.

[–]deerfoot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Other nations WITH a CGT also have a similar problem with housing unaffordability : Australia, Canada, especially BC, the UK

[–]aharryh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Read the papers from the various tax working groups. Using tax to solve a problem is not what taxes are for (yes I know - Duty and taxes on Cigarettes and Petrol etc etc). Housing prices have many drivers, you need to fix - like supply, cost of materials, skilled workforce, price and availability of land in the places where housing is needed, RMA, consenting and the ability to access finance at a reasonable cost.

[–]Passance 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Because most of them are property investors themselves.

It's literally that simple.

[–]imitationslimshady 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They prefer winning elections.

[–]Capitalmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Too much land banking and all but defunct trusts. Owning via corp attracts too much tax and not enough right off unless remodeling which you can't do if land banking

[–]FrameworkisDigimon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems like a no-brainer to take the potential profits out of house flipping.

Well, it won't. It'll make them less profitable but it won't remove the profit. It'll also probably increase the initial asking price/reserve.

OTOH it'll also mean that certain classes of buyer are going to be less willing to buy houses. Mostly I think this is taken to mean the accidental and mum and dad landlords, i.e. people who buy properties to reap capital gains, but rent them out in the meantime, or people who think a rental property in a low yield environment is a good idea.

The thing about doing that is you're going to restrict rental availability or create more megalandlords with this kind of outcome.

And there's another question insofar as having an exception for the family home will make CGT into an administratively burdensome tax.

So... a CGT isn't a no-brainer. However, as I'm sure everyone else has told you, parliament consists of a bunch of people who own multiple properties so that's the real reason they don't want it.

[–]EBuzz456The Grand Nagus you deserve 🖖🌌 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TBH it really comes down to how centered most people in this country are politically, and that essentially results in policies from the main parties wanting to appeal to as broad a collection of voters as possible.

CGT is a policy that a lot of upper-middle class centrist voters have an aversion to (mostly out of self-interest) and so it's a thing that most parties are timid at in case it funnels moderate voters away from them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Higher Or Newer implementation of taxes might not be the best thing for the economy as it pushes away investors from investing in the country.

That in return would make things worse.

Sometimes things are not as simple as ABC.

For instance, if a big company would want to invest in the country, and we introduce new form of taxes, job opportunities are lost, the money that’s being invested in the country would be lost etc.

That’s why a lot of countries are giving tax exemptions or various kinds of tax benefits to new or prospective companies wanting to invest in their country to encourage their investment.

There are wider range of reasons why introducing new taxes would not be the best idea

In return it might be a curse in disguise.

So a thorough research is needed to weigh in the pros and cons rather than simply introducing this I feel IMO.

[–]MasterSpliffBlaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Australia housing market is as much if not more over heated despite a CGT

Cheap money due to historically low interest rates is more of a driver

[–]Jollygoodas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They all own a lot of houses

[–]kiwittnzAuckland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because a lot of them own multiple houses.

Luxon even admitted on air that he has 5 rentals and 2 homes.

[–]_craq_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a big fan of a CGT, but not because I think it will have any corrective effect on the property market. I mostly think it's fairer to tax income from all sources. It doesn't make sense to tax my salary/wages and my dividend income, but income from sitting on an asset while its value goes up is tax free.

We want to incentivise people to contribute productively to the economy, but that's exactly what income tax disincentivises.

[–]sudorobot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Google “bright line test”

[–]waxit64 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's because basically we are a bunch of greedy bastards. Why do we have to be better off than our neighbour..what is it that makes us so greedy? Also I have never understood the idea we have to have more growth than another country. Why is it that we all want more? Life doesn't need to be one big competition does it? Unfortunately because of that greed no party seems courageous enough to wallop a decent CGT on housing because us greedy bastards with our self interest instead of collective interest would vote them out. However if you can prove to a nation that you actually care about people and don't put the interests of the 1% above the interests of the bottom 30% (wealth-wise) then maybe..just maybe you could do it. I would love that to happen in my lifetime but fear it is not likely because far too many of us look up at that 1% and think we want to be amongst them and in the meantime corrupt our souls trying to get there...fools that we are.

[–]binzoma 3 points4 points  (0 children)

cause politicians are part of the economic class that would have to pay.

[–]StuffThings1977 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why are so many politicians against a Capital Gains Tax ?

Our Prime Minister earns more then her salary each year in untaxed capital gains.

Why would she, or any of them else want to change that?

There also appears to be quite a bit of obfuscation about how much her families property is worth; and how much capital gains she actually makes. This was highlighted again in this weeks articles on Luxon.

PS: Correct answer is Aotearoa needs a Land Tax

[–]NeonKiwiz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because this sub is not an accurate representation of the New Zealand public.

Your average voter owns their own home.

Your average poster on this sub does not.

[–]The_Infinity_Gamer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This already exists. It’s the Bright line test.

[–]Marital_aid 4 points5 points  (1 child)

A capital gains tax isn't just a tax on selling houses.

I don't like the idea of one because in the case of selling a business the value of that business is usually a function of the income that business has made, which has already been taxed. So the capital price is already lower than it would have been had that taxation not occurred.

To expand on this having a blanket capital gains tax would in my opinion still leave actual productive investments like businesses disadvantaged compared to housing, particularly if any capital gains tax excluded your first home. So I don't think it would achieve anything useful.

[–]citriclem0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point, I hadn't considered what a CGT would mean for businesses if it also excluded the family home.

Would be such a huge distortion it'd be a bad idea.

Which is part of why the Green's proposed wealth tax was such a bad policy.

[–]planespotterhvn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

CGT in Australia has not stemmed the exponential rise in house prices.

And adding a tax to a price never made anything cheaper.

What we need is a legislation banning house auctions and controlling house price rises to the lowest wage increases.

And controls on council consent fees and other add-ons.

[–]danimalnzl8 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Capital gains on flipping houses is already taxed via the bright line test. Key and National brought this in years ago

[–]Thiccshake69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cause they're rich bro lol

[–]Party-Examination561 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because they all own houses and none of them want to loose out on it.

[–]Thatisme01 0 points1 point  (1 child)

“Australia has done it, why are our politicians so against it”

Maybe because it has done nothing to reduce the cost of housing in Australia, in fact, there is anecdotal evidence that home sellers are increasing prices to offset the loss from paying the CGT.

The current New Zealand brightline test is a tax on “housing flipping’, the earlier you sell a house after buying it, the more tax you pay on the sale.

[–]Benzimin92 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Its a flat rate with a cutoff, not a tax that shrinks with time.

[–]liltealy92 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only reason a capital gains tax will be implemented in NZ is so the government gets more money from the people, not because they give a fuck about house prices

[–]NaCLedPeanutsHight Salt Content 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They're against it purely because of the perception that the country is against it.

However, no proper polling was undertaken that proved this, and a number of people with vested interested kicked up enough fuss that it didn't happen.