在新西兰
上周看了政府颁布的"Ring-fencing rental loss"的提案， 觉得这提案有问题，趁着长周末make submission. 全文如下：
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to oppose the proposed rule of “Ring-fencing rental loss”. My reasons are as follows.
1. Fairness
One of the principles of the rule of law in New Zealand is “unfair discrimination should not be allowed by the law.”
The principle is clearly published at website of Ministry of Justice: https://www.justice.govt.nz/abou ... -basis-for-all-law/
I seriously concern the “Ring-fencing rental loss” is an unfair discrimination for property investors.
Take one example, a salary earner has made an investment in a small business, say, a takeaway. In the first a couple of years, the business makes loss. The loss canbe used to offset his income and consequently he will get tax benefit.
Same principle applies to rental property owners but the proposed ring-fencing rule will disallow rental investors to get tax benefit. This is absolutely unfair to them.
2.Social Consequences
If the ring-fencing rule went ahead, property investors would have no choice but increase rents, maybe substantially, to compensate their loss.
Cost of rents has counted 46% of average net pay in New Zealand. In Auckland, the figure is 54%.
My datais from this link:https://www.interest.co.nz/prope ... ake-home-pay-rises.
That means rents have already huge burden for tenants. The ring-fencing rule will push it much further.
We will see more conflicts between landlords and tenants, and some extreme incidents may happen.
3. Property Market Cooled off
I understand the proposal is aimed to improve house affordability for owner-occupiers. We can see the recent property market has already cooled off. House price has only very miner increase.
Market is able to make adjustment if house price is too high or too low. Government should not do too much intervention.
评论
1) " unfair discrimination" argument - there are some positive discrimination in the rule of law;
eg: Only 18 years old or above are allowed to buy alcohol
- retirement homes are for retiring people etc.
- smokers will pay more tax for the cigarettes
If the law makers want to tax more on certain group of people eg Investors, they can do it as that they are doing on smokers. Same principle applies.
2) Social Consequences - Agreed with LZ, there might be unintended consequences among other legislations that the government is going to pass ( eg Overseas investment Act, Extension of brightline test to 5 years)
- The unintended consequences would mean that the government is not helping but creating more mess to the System that is already self-healing. Just to prove they are doing a good job, they are putting more measures and boosters that might end up killing the system.
Property investors have been overly focused and targetted by the government in the recent months...... Well, they are the source of political leverage for the politician, sources of news for the newspapers, source of publicity for some people.
评论
" unfair discrimination" argument.
How about my example in my submission? We are talking about tax here. Are there virtual difference between investing a business and a property?
评论
It is about perception.
For government, business is productive sector and property investment is non-productive ( that look like their view point ) and gear towards punishing property investors and see them riding on wealth through accumulation and monopoly of fund.
评论
That's the point for argument: business can be non-productive, if you look pumpkin patch, and property can be productive as construction firms are desperately seeking skill forces.
评论
Construction firms are paying their shares of the tax. They employ people, pay gst etc.
Government's ring fencing are targeting investors who buy and hold ( consider non-active, non productive) This type of investors buy up more and more as time progresses and take up more houses from First home buyers. (i don't agree with government as i am this type of investor).
Business like pumpkin patch was once a thriving business, unfortunately, it failed. Same as dick smith. They were good businesses before and were in business for about 20 years before closing down and pay their fair shares of taxes.
评论
Heaps of people would be out of job if property market were in slump. Investors play a key role in the market. That's kind of productive as well, just like you say when pumpkin patch business was well.
I am just have my say on the proposal. Other people surely can have different opinions.
评论
我只是好奇那个谁谁谁啥时候会出现在这个帖子里
评论
yes, there is no right and wrong on anyone's opinion. You have your points and should go ahead and commendable.
i am just playing a devil advocate in making counter argument for fun ( although i don't agree with government's proposal but see their points)
评论
Very likely, but I'll completely ignore that coward.
评论
上次不是叫都叫不出来吗？
评论
Ring fence，其实就是歧视房产投资者。
这两年我做生意，房屋装修和销售培训，就能感受到税务上跟房产投资的区别了。
传统生意税务宽松度更多。
这个政策对我来说也没影响，因为14/15年已经开始缴税了。
评论
其实对我个人也没有影响， 只是觉得这样做不对。所以就make submission. Have you made your submission?
评论
之前算过，如果60%贷款，4-5%利息，差不多是租金利息打平。加上保险地税，稍微有点亏损，但金额都不大，所以我觉得影响很小
我有个全贷款的，但是买的早，也是打平。
事不关己高高挂起啊。
评论
打击的全是最近入场的投资人。进场一段时间当然，现金流正的，除非利息飙得很高，不然没啥影响。 抱着劫富济贫的心。。。但是貌似有点。。古惑仔里面“点错相”的味道。哈哈。
评论
如果真的只有60%贷款的投资者， 那应该基本上没什么影响。 但实际上很少有投资者只有60%的投资房贷款， 通常投资者都有了自己的自住房，并且自住房都有了不错的升值， 那么自住房top up一部分， 再加上60%的投资房贷款，所以一般投资房的实际贷款应该在80%以上。
事不关己高高挂起的态度不可取， 你也是一个房产投资者，这个政策或许影响不到你，但明显房产投资人作为一个group被target了，如果这样的政策被轻易通过， 那么你不知道政府下一个针对房产投资者的政策是什么， 而或许这下一个政策就会影响到你。
评论
自住房topup不能算入投资房的开销的吧
投资房A topup 去买投资房b，那这笔资金也是算入A的账里面，而且还有其他限制。
不知道我的理解是否正确。
至于发声，因为我觉得作为一个整体这个政策属于可有可无（除非其他方面有大的变化，比如利息翻番），所以就是白费力气，随他去。
不过我还是支持你这样的。我可能还没你这样的自觉性。
评论
最近入场，百万房子贷款60万，利息4.5%的话27k，租金600的话就是3万，几乎也是打平吧。
评论
政府的意思, 赚钱收税, 不缴税不退.
房地产投资单独分列出来内循环.
你买房就是为了卖了赚差价,
允许你房租-利息损失将来从卖房收益里抵扣,就已经开恩了.
理由很简单, 房住不炒, 所以和其他投资收入分开.
评论
Topup肯定是投资房的支出， 因为这个Topup is for the purpose of purchasing investment property B, not for A. 虽然我不是会计， 但我对与房产有关的税法研究得很深， 这个我以前也说过。
评论
...........................
评论
Submit也没用，没房的比有房的多。
评论
我的submission很简单：
You can change the rules whatever you like.
Landlords will respond accordingly.
Supply and demand will take care of the rest.
Landlords aren't the problem.
Lack of financial education in schools has been a 100 year problem.
Fix financial education.
评论
一个人Submit反对当然没用， 但如果有100个人Submit反对，也许政府会看一眼这些Submission， 如果有1000个人Submit反对, 他们或许会比较慎重的考虑他们的决定，如果有10000个人Submit反对， 也许这个提案会修改。
总之， 我觉得make submission against the proposal 是一个房产投资者应该做的。
评论
我和你理解不同
比如本来贷款50万在A银行，现在房子200万，a银行同意多贷款50万。B银行说，你转过来，我给你120万贷款
如果留在A银行，可以把多出来的50万单独做账，可能做投资房的账
如果转去B银行，就一笔利息开销，怎么做账啊
评论
Good one, go for it!
评论
如果转去B银行， 如果你没有买新的投资房， 贷款依然按照50万来做账， 多出来的70万与投资房税务无关。因为the extra $700k loan is not for the purpose of generating rental income.
评论
I think you need to differentiate a real investor for a speculator. In its each extreme form, an investor pays 100% weights on the invest return the targeted property, regardless of any capital gain upon the property, whereas a speculator is the other side of the story, he/she only cares about the capital gain, regardless of the invest return.
The introduction of both bright-line rule and ring-fencing property related taxation is to differentiate these 2, so if you really want to make your proposition arguable, probably you might need to leverage through a different angle other than the ones you gave. Because the example you give is an investor, not a speculator, and government would argue that they will protect investors, but not speculators, who only cares about "buys and solds", and government won't "reward" them for their speculating cost such as bank interest.
What you need to argue to them is to show them ring-fencing also hurts real and long-term investors by showing them some examples with real numbers
评论
可以做。只是你不懂如何。
评论
Good point! I have sent email submission.
You may submit yours and take all your saying here into account.