新西兰天维网社区
标题: My submission to proposed "Ring-fencing rental loss" [打印本页]
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 13:53:23 标题: My submission to proposed "Ring-fencing rental loss"
本帖最后由 Lease 于 2018-4-1 18:04 编辑
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.
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-1 14:33:39
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-1 14:39 编辑
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.
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 14:40:48
bungyjumping999 发表于 2018-4-1 14:33 
1) " unfair discrimination" argument - there are some positive discrimination in the rule of law;
...
" 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?
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-1 14:43:55
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-1 14:45 编辑
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 14:40
" unfair discrimination" argument.
How about my example in my submission? We are talking about ta ...
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.
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 15:03:20
bungyjumping999 发表于 2018-4-1 14:43
It is about perception.
For government, business is productive sector and property investment is n ...
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.
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-1 15:19:48
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-1 15:31 编辑
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 15:03
That's the point for argument: business can be non-productive, if you look pumpkin patch, and prop ...
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.
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 15:32:35
bungyjumping999 发表于 2018-4-1 15:19
Construction firms are paying their shares of the tax. They employ people, pay gst etc.
Government ...
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.
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 15:35:22
我只是好奇那个谁谁谁啥时候会出现在这个帖子里
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-1 15:36:00
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-1 15:44 编辑
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 15:32
Heaps of people would be out of job if property market were in slump. Investors play a key role in ...
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)
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 15:40:15
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 15:35
我只是好奇那个谁谁谁啥时候会出现在这个帖子里
Very likely, but I'll completely ignore that coward.
作者: 房奴甲 时间: 2018-4-1 17:12:58
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 15:35
我只是好奇那个谁谁谁啥时候会出现在这个帖子里
上次不是叫都叫不出来吗？
作者: 阿海 时间: 2018-4-1 18:48:44
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。
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 19:01:07
阿海 发表于 2018-4-1 18:48
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 ...
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?
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 19:10:34
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 19:01
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? ...
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。
作者: Robbi 时间: 2018-4-1 19:10:36
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。
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 19:24:12
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 19:10
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， ...
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。
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 19:41:34
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 19:24
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， ...
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。
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 19:43:34
Robbi 发表于 2018-4-1 19:10
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 ...
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。
作者: sun2kiwi 时间: 2018-4-1 19:49:34
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 19:52:54
本帖最后由 Lease 于 2018-4-1 19:55 编辑
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 19:41
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 ...
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。
作者: sun2kiwi 时间: 2018-4-1 19:56:31
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
作者: 阿海 时间: 2018-4-1 19:57:24
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 19:01
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? ...
Submit也没用，没房的比有房的多。
作者: 阿海 时间: 2018-4-1 19:59:19
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.
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 20:03:00
阿海 发表于 2018-4-1 19:57
Submit也没用，没房的比有房的多。
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。
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 20:03:23
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 19:52
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 ...
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
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 20:04:34
阿海 发表于 2018-4-1 19:59
我的submission很简单：
You can change the rules whatever you like.
Good one, go for it!
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 20:09:16
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 20:03
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 ...
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.
作者: lianlian88 时间: 2018-4-1 20:24:52
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 14:40
" unfair discrimination" argument.
How about my example in my submission? We are talking about ta ...
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
作者: ronaldlu 时间: 2018-4-1 20:26:57
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 20:03
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 ...
可以做。只是你不懂如何。
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-1 20:32:00
lianlian88 发表于 2018-4-1 20:24
I think you need to differentiate a real investor for a speculator. In its each extreme form, an in ...
Good point! I have sent email submission.
You may submit yours and take all your saying here into account.
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 20:39:07
Lease 发表于 2018-4-1 20:09
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 ...
哈哈是的，我搞错了。陪孩子玩了一天脑子不够用。
作者: Robbi 时间: 2018-4-1 20:50:14
love_3_month 发表于 2018-4-1 19:43
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。 ...
找个精通这方面的会计吧。
还有，当时买投资房的时候帮你做贷款的人没说过这事儿？
不过目测你应该是很稳当的，政策怎么变，对你影响都不大
作者: lianlian88 时间: 2018-4-1 21:12:13
bungyjumping999 发表于 2018-4-1 15:19
Construction firms are paying their shares of the tax. They employ people, pay gst etc.
Government ...
"Buy more and hold" is one of the typical examples of speculation, not "investment" per se, which is exactly what the new policies are targeting at, so you might want to really "make some money" out of your properties not through selling them out, instead of merely waiting for the "capital gain".
However, the problems with residential housing returns are they become really low with rapidly rising housing prices, so home "investors" (or "speculators") could only rely on capital gain, as most of the "high-leverage" buyers are apparently on a "cash deficit" with low yielding and high interests, forcing them to turn into speculators. This is a malicious cycle: the more speculator, the higher the housing price, the lower investment returns, and more speculators. The only answer to break this loop seems like to be: "rise the rent!"
That is why ring-fence could significantly rise rental cost in the short-run, but hard to say it could cool down the housing market, which normally are driven by supply and demand.
Plus, it is also hard to say that Ring-fence won't hurt real investors, whose taxable incomes are also increased under this new policy
作者: love_3_month 时间: 2018-4-1 23:12:12
Robbi 发表于 2018-4-1 20:50
找个精通这方面的会计吧。
还有，当时买投资房的时候帮你做贷款的人没说过这事儿？
我比较特殊，每次都是买房换房才re finance的，没有用自住房topup过。。。
作者: paulwood 时间: 2018-4-2 06:05:38
Most tax in a developed country is an unfair discrimination for high net worth individual, lucky they have not start to charge stamp duty yet. They are just trying to make housing investment (which do not create much job opportunity unless you buy brand new) less attractive than invest in a business which create more job opportunity.
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-2 07:12:27
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-2 18:49 编辑
lianlian88 发表于 2018-4-1 21:12
"Buy more and hold" is one of the typical examples of speculation, not "investment" per se, which i ...
Yes, you make your point - the so called "buy and hold" investor can be speculator under their skin.
In another words, The brave face of "investors" can also be "long term speculator with long term staying power" because of the tax advantage.
haha..... that is the reason why the government is taking away the so called " tax advantage" these group of people have, because they might be wearing both hats.
Then, we need a defination of investor and speculator. eg Investor is someone who hold the property for 10 years minimum.
otherwise, it is like saying all man are playboy.
作者: 阿海 时间: 2018-4-2 17:48:36
paulwood 发表于 2018-4-2 06:05
Most tax in a developed country is an unfair discrimination for high net worth individual, lucky th ...
Tax system is invented to keep accountants employed, and let smart rich people pay less tax than employees.
作者: Bearonrun 时间: 2018-4-3 11:54:55
楼主说的有道理，但可能没什么用。
现在的工党是左派，不同于上届的海伦政府，而联盟的绿党更是极左。所以只要是能够增加税收，对发福利有利，而不会有损底层人的利益的事，就会不惜代价去做。不会管是否合乎逻辑或者是言行一致。
部长Stuart Nash说是要不能抵税是为了打击投机者（speculator)，可事实上是增加物业的持有成本，用以打击投资者 (investor)。行内人都知道他是睁眼说瞎话，可他根本不Care.
讽刺的是，现在唯一可能有些希望的就是多数华人都厌恶的老皮，他现在的立场是中间偏左，所以或许会出手。
作者: NewLynnHse 时间: 2018-4-3 11:57:48
Bearonrun 发表于 2018-4-3 11:54
楼主说的有道理，但可能没什么用。
现在的工党是左派，不同于上届的海伦政府，而联盟的绿党更是极左。所以 ...
更讽刺的是，多数人手上的一张选票并不能起到它的作用。。。哈哈
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-3 13:19:57
Bearonrun 发表于 2018-4-3 11:54
楼主说的有道理，但可能没什么用。
现在的工党是左派，不同于上届的海伦政府，而联盟的绿党更是极左。所以 ...
我在前面的回帖里面说过 ”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。“
所以， 如有可能， 你也make 一个submission。虽然可能最终这个提案还是会被通过， 但是如果反对者众多的话， 那么政府也会有压力， 可能她出下一个打压政策时会更加谨慎一点。否则， 如果投资者都逆来顺受的话， 那么这政府将来就更加肆无忌惮了。
作者: 天维房产 时间: 2018-4-3 13:57:13
都来新西兰了~还谈什么赚钱啊~
sit back and relax~
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-3 14:05:38
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-3 14:09 编辑
This type of submission ( Ring fencing Loses) is different from Overseas investment Bill where it needs to go through select committee and pass some readings in the parliament.
For better use of word, it is more like feedback that IRD might want to hear from you before they implement the tax policy in consultation with Minister of Revenue
To quote from IRD: http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/new ... properties-released
"Feedback on ring-fencing rental losses
Revenue Minister Stuart Nash is encouraging feedback on a proposal to change the rules around ring-fencing losses on residential properties."
Changing the IRD Rules might not need Parliament approval, basically is an endorsement from Revenue Minister.
So, if you need to tell IRD what you think, please give them your feedback.
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-3 14:20:56
bungyjumping999 发表于 2018-4-3 14:05
This type of submission ( Ring fencing Loses) is different from Overseas investment Bill where it ne ...
I know. So as an investor, we should have our voice. That's what I have done, and I wish other investors do the same thing, and I think it's the right thing to do.
作者: V7 时间: 2018-4-3 14:42:32
这个其实是针对中小投资者的歧视，大的房地产公司，还是按照公司运营退税的。
作者: bungyjumping999 时间: 2018-4-3 15:08:29
本帖最后由 bungyjumping999 于 2018-4-3 15:24 编辑
中小投资者的歧视 - people who are not cash flow positive and rely on tax credit to get some subsidies for their investment properties.
This tax policy will affect more on kiwi investors than Chinese investors, this is an assumption, of course.
It will re-write some of the investors text books
- on look through companies (LTC)
- on buying 100% loan property and claim tax credit
- bright line tests; Overseas investment amendment Bill
If all these are taken away, there is nothing much left, property investment will become something boring and probably this forum will be renamed to something else as well.
作者: Bearonrun 时间: 2018-4-4 15:08:20
Lease 发表于 2018-4-3 12:19
我在前面的回帖里面说过 ”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 ...
你在线递交吗？
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-4 15:14:02
Bearonrun 发表于 2018-4-4 14:08
你在线递交吗？
对， email: policy.webmaster@ird.govt.nz
作者: Bearonrun 时间: 2018-4-4 15:21:18
Lease 发表于 2018-4-4 14:14
对， email:
IRD网页上提供了一个submission 的链接， 不过点击后没找到有相关的信息
http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/new ... properties-released
作者: LJHookerRobin 时间: 2018-4-4 15:26:06
本帖最后由 LJHookerRobin 于 2018-4-5 13:17 编辑
其实读了一下，是不是说，
如果你making this year loss
就只能挂着loss 不能结算退税而已？
然后这个loss 可以平衡给下一年或者卖的时候
大部分人其实影响不大。。。
这个submission其实也就是打击投机者吧。。
应楼主要求，更新我文字中投机者指的人。
我意思打击投机者就是打击那些自己勒紧裤腰带，买了房子赌两年增值十万的without doing nothing。
这才是真的投机啊。 |
|
[tr][/tr]
快进快出的唤做trader，不投机，人家比买一套，坐着等五年十年的passive investor。成本付出多，承担风险也大。
投机是因为风险跟回报不成比例。
|
|
|
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-4 15:31:48
Bearonrun 发表于 2018-4-4 14:21
IRD网页上提供了一个submission 的链接， 不过点击后没找到有相关的信息
http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/ ...
还是email吧， email也很简单。
作者: Turtle2017 时间: 2018-4-4 15:48:49
本帖最后由 Turtle2017 于 2018-4-4 14:53 编辑
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-4 14:26
其实读了一下，是不是说，
如果你making this year loss
你是奥大Bprop毕业的话，本应能看出来投机者买卖退税不受影响，而受影响最大的是那些报亏退税的长期投资者。
你的client 里面应该没有此类短期炒卖的投机者吧。
建议还是问问你的client, 看看他们对新政有什么看法。不然的话，如果和他们谈起来说他们不受影响，你和他们的关系就会受损。
作者: kikilulu 时间: 2018-4-4 15:59:57
本帖最后由 kikilulu 于 2018-4-4 15:26 编辑
Turtle2017 发表于 2018-4-4 14:48
你是奥大Bprop毕业的话，本应能看出来投机者买卖退税不受影响，而受影响最大的是那些报亏退税的长期投资者 ...
奥大BPROP 躺枪了啊。。。。本人同意你的看法，明天给你补上评分，今天额度用完了
作者: Turtle2017 时间: 2018-4-4 16:27:18
kikilulu 发表于 2018-4-4 14:59
奥大BPROP 躺枪了啊。。。。本人同意你的看法，明天给你补上评分，今天额度用完了 ...
谢谢支持
作者: babylove123 时间: 2018-4-4 21:43:52
这个新税很好。如果投资者握着房子，在所持房子的几年甚至十几年都是亏损，那为什么还要投资房子呢？答案可能只有1个，capital gain, N年后房子增值后卖掉挣钱。如果是这样，一开始的intention就是capital gain, 根据IRD的定义，就要交大笔税。对不对？这个新税对真正投资者无大害，现金流要正的才投资，不然的话，明知亏损，为什么还投？
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-4 21:48:34
babylove123 发表于 2018-4-4 20:43
这个新税很好。如果投资者握着房子，在所持房子的几年甚至十几年都是亏损，那为什么还要投资房子呢？答案可 ...
不一定啊， 我持有30年账面上就盈利不少啊。然后我再卖掉， 那你怎么确定我30年前买入的时候intention就是capital gain？
作者: babylove123 时间: 2018-4-4 22:16:12
Lease 发表于 2018-4-4 20:48
不一定啊， 我持有30年账面上就盈利不少啊。然后我再卖掉， 那你怎么确定我30年前买入的时候intention就 ...
有多少人持有30年？持有的30年中有多少年是亏损有多少本盈利？真正的投资者一定会先算现金流和租金回报率。很多人都是 为了等房子的增值。如果是真正投资者，是不会在乎这点退税变化，如果靠这点退税钱撑着，那就别投资了。那些拿着投资房子，租金不能cove贷款的，如果不是等capital gain，那你在等什么?如果只是头一两年有亏损，以后都盈利，你又担心什么?这个新政对你也不会有什么影响。到是那些一直亏损的，现在利息这么低，还有亏损，那利息升高了，就要赶紧做打算了
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-4 22:24:59
babylove123 发表于 2018-4-4 21:16
有多少人持有30年？持有的30年中有多少年是亏损有多少本盈利？真正的投资者一定会先算现金流和租金回报率 ...
不是说在乎这点退税， 这本来有的福利， 现在没了，并且以一种非常霸道的方式来取消，作为投资者就应该反对。
如果你不反对， 政府就会认为你逆来顺受， 那么更多的打压投资者的政策会接踵而来。
作者: LJHookerRobin 时间: 2018-4-5 13:51:05
Turtle2017 发表于 2018-4-4 14:48
你是奥大Bprop毕业的话，本应能看出来投机者买卖退税不受影响，而受影响最大的是那些报亏退税的长期投资者 ...
炒房的快进快出，
因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了。不太会租。
长期退税，年年报亏，真的是年年亏还是钻漏洞？
如果真的年年亏，你干嘛不卖？
如果你想长期持有赚增值，还要报年年亏，好事儿都让你占了？
长期持有增值本身就不是任何人或者随便谁都可以做到的。
奥克兰前几年plan 更新外加金融rock star
全民炒房，已经压着很多低收入人群想着犯罪，中收入人群占小便宜，干活的工人承包商都当自己是大爷。
长期投资者，年年报亏，政府没逼着你卖房子，就可以了。无非就是你如果要赌 cap gain，你就得拿出更多本钱，
政府作为庄家，上升了入场要求，
不过确实是剪投资者羊毛，要不然政府没钱了啊。
可是home owner 尤其是出租房owner就是既得利益者，政府没有收你cap gain，让你花几千块安装个保温棉，各种租房要求符合新标准，就是一点点利益再分配。
如果真的需要因为这个退税报亏不许退税只能carry forward到销售时变现就逼着自己勒紧裤腰带
那只能说，这种赌cap gain的游戏不适合你，容易一把输光。
无非就是你要真金白银怼亏钱外加“勒紧裤腰带”
政府帮你把自己贷款顶到天的人软着陆，给你一年让你 de-gearing 还不够？ 19-20 年开始实行啊
18-19这个财年 如果发现每年倒贴太多该卖卖吧。
再说了，报亏能几个钱？
出租房亏一万你也就能多退三千三吧？
政府想拿投资房开刀可以比这种法子狠很多，现在只是剪一点羊毛而已。
作者: lianlian88 时间: 2018-4-5 13:59:23
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-5 12:51
炒房的快进快出，
因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了。不太会租。
本来就是，这就是一鼓励资金不要再往房市里倒的一个政策。长期投资房能获利的是不会离开的，要离开的就是那些盯着资本利得，所谓10多年“亏损”一力承担的。我有好些朋友投资房产有获利的还真没听他们诉那么多苦。labor确实出了好多垃圾政策，但是ringfence真的不是个坏主意
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-5 14:00:33
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-5 12:51
炒房的快进快出，
因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了。不太会租。
问题是昨天你自己说这个提案是打击投机者。
今天又说炒房的快进快出，因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了。不太会租。
那投机者不出租的话， 那么这个提案对他们就没有影响。那没有影响还谈得上什么“打击”呢， 呵呵。
作者: LJHookerRobin 时间: 2018-4-5 14:15:24
本帖最后由 LJHookerRobin 于 2018-4-5 13:18 编辑
Lease 发表于 2018-4-5 13:00
问题是昨天你自己说这个提案是打击投机者。
今天又说炒房的快进快出，因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了 ...
是我没写清楚了呢楼主，
快进快出的唤做trader，不投机，人家比买一套，坐着等五年十年的passive investor。成本付出多，承担风险也大。
投机是因为风险跟回报不成比例。
我意思打击投机者就是打击那些自己勒紧裤腰带，买了房子赌两年增值十万的without doing nothing。
这才是真的投机啊。
呵呵，呵呵。
作者: Bearonrun 时间: 2018-4-5 14:18:55
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-5 13:15
是我没写清楚了呢楼主，
快进快出的唤做trader，不投机，人家比买一套，坐着等五年十年的passive investo ...
Robin, 你就少说两句吧。这个帖子沉了就没人再看了。
作者: Turtle2017 时间: 2018-4-5 15:13:08
本帖最后由 Turtle2017 于 2018-4-5 14:14 编辑
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-5 12:51
炒房的快进快出，
因为炒房子买了，装修了直接卖掉了。不太会租。
你可以和你的房东client说，一年少收3千3无所谓。看看有什么后果？ 看看委托你租房管理的房东们有什么反应。
作者: LJHookerRobin 时间: 2018-4-5 16:48:44
Turtle2017 发表于 2018-4-5 14:13
你可以和你的房东client说，一年少收3千3无所谓。看看有什么后果？ 看看委托你租房管理的房东们有什么反 ...
亲，真的negative gearing有几种人，
一种特别tight，手头紧，才不会找property manager呢。。。
一种胆子小，怕出事儿，用
一种是 资深玩家，知道property manager 可以背黑锅，当坏人，blame on。
用资产管理的继续用，
不用的继续不用。
我们又不是suit for every one,
知道要用property manager才用，半信半疑的我们就打消疑惑，帮房东建立信心。
自己管出了事儿，找中介出面摆平，理顺。 把管理权交给我们的也有。
有些人pray for not raining tomorrow这种，我们也不敢接，也怕公司reputation不好好吗
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-6 07:28:10
LJHookerRobin 发表于 2018-4-5 13:15
是我没写清楚了呢楼主，
快进快出的唤做trader，不投机，人家比买一套，坐着等五年十年的passive investo ...
Trader, 炒房的， 都不算投机？这概念太新鲜了， 不敢苟同。
作者: iris 时间: 2018-4-6 19:28:31
必须支持，递submission的人才是有效发声，大大的赞一个
作者: Lease 时间: 2018-4-6 19:41:38
iris 发表于 2018-4-6 18:28
必须支持，递submission的人才是有效发声，大大的赞一个
谢谢支持， 我把我递交的submission公开的发在这里， 就是希望有更多的人能够意识到， 房产投资人作为一个整体被政府不公正的对待， 我们必须发出我们的声音来fight back, 希望能有更多的人也能够make submission.
虽然这样的submission未必能够阻止这一政策的执行， 但反对的人越多， 政府也会有压力， 也许她再出下一个针对房产投资者打压政策时， 会谨慎一点。否则， 她会更加肆无忌惮。
作者: sun2kiwi 时间: 2018-4-6 20:12:05
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
| 欢迎光临 新西兰天维网社区 (http://bbs.skykiwi.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X2 |