Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Rick O’Shay]

In Melbourne at the moment. Place is pumping with the Wahs and the GP coming up. Seems to be plenty of spending.

 

[miket12]

We keep hearing, based on “research” done by the CTU and then repeatedly quote by Labour and the Greens, that there are 346 mega landlords each with over 200 properties, who stand to get substantial deductions off their tax bills because of the changes to the mortgage interest deduction rules….. BUT the number of 346 is crap!!!!!

Official figures show that only one private landlord and seven companies can be proven to own over 200 houses. Why? Because there is no register in NZ of how many rental property any individual, couple, family, trust, partnership, company, charity or any other entity owns.

So where did the CTU get the 346 landlord figure from. By looking at the number bonds any single entity has registered with MBIE. MBIE record the number of bonds in tiers from 1, 2-3, 4-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-200, and more than 200. Yes, there are 346 entities that have registered over 200 bonds for properties BUT that is property managers who register the bonds on behalf of individual landlords.

So, your local Ray White property manager may be included in that 346 figure because they manage 350 dwellings and have registered the bond for those 350 dwellings BUT they could be managing those properties on behalf of 280 individuals or couples most of whom only own one or two properties.

So next time you read and article or see a report or hear someone say that there are over three hundred mega landlords with over two hundred properties, it’s rubbish. And there isn’t the number of mega landlords out there going to get huge deductions or even refunds, because of the change in policy.

Labour claimed 346 landlords owned 200+ properties, but official data can prove only one

The Government has hit out at Labour for using misleading figures.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[Noitall]

We keep hearing, based on “research” done by the CTU and then repeatedly quote by Labour and the Greens, that there are 346 mega landlords each with over 200 properties, who stand to get substantial deductions off their tax bills because of the changes to the mortgage interest deduction rules….. BUT the number of 346 is crap!!!!!

Official figures show that only one private landlord and seven companies can be proven to own over 200 houses. Why? Because there is no register in NZ of how many rental property any individual, couple, family, trust, partnership, company, charity or any other entity owns.

So where did the CTU get the 346 landlord figure from. By looking at the number bonds any single entity has registered with MBIE. MBIE record the number of bonds in tiers from 1, 2-3, 4-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-200, and more than 200. Yes, there are 346 entities that have registered over 200 bonds for properties BUT that is property managers who register the bonds on behalf of individual landlords.

So, your local Ray White property manager may be included in that 346 figure because they manage 350 dwellings and have registered the bond for those 350 dwellings BUT they could be managing those properties on behalf of 280 individuals or couples most of whom only own one or two properties.

So next time you read and article or see a report or hear someone say that there are over three hundred mega landlords with over two hundred properties, it’s rubbish. And there isn’t the number of mega landlords out there going to get huge deductions or even refunds, because of the change in policy.

Labour claimed 346 landlords owned 200+ properties, but official data can prove only one

The Government has hit out at Labour for using misleading figures.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Who gives a shit about the technicalities, nothing changes that this is literally the last area that needs attention is landlords unless it’s about lowering rents which is going to be in the power of the landlord whether they pass on to the renters any benefits they receive

 

[marv.]

Who gives a shit about the technicalities, nothing changes that this is literally the last area that needs attention is landlords unless it’s about lowering rents which is going to be in the power of the landlord whether they pass on to the renters any benefits they receive

i’d say the same amount of landlords who will lower rent is the same as workers who will ask for a pay cut because it’s a nice thing to do.

i can tell you though, i haven’t put rent up anywhere i own since 2021 and that was only because there was a change of tenant. i would likely have had to put rent up in a couple later this year though. being able to claim back interest just like every other business in NZ though may go some way toward not needing to.

 

[Noitall]

i’d say the same amount of landlords who will lower rent is the same as workers who will ask for a pay cut because it’s a nice thing to do.

i can tell you though, i haven’t put rent up anywhere i own since 2021 and that was only because there was a change of tenant. i would likely have had to put rent up in a couple later this year though. being able to claim back interest just like every other business in NZ though may go some way toward not needing to.

I’d like to see something set up away from government who set the rules and alterations to everything in the housing sphere. I’m not at all comfortable with politicians who have invested interest in owning rentals setting the rules for the conflict of interest aspect and that is the same of national or labour or any political party

 

[marv.]

I’d like to see something set up away from government who set the rules and alterations to everything in the housing sphere. I’m not at all comfortable with politicians who have invested interest in owning rentals setting the rules for the conflict of interest aspect and that is the same of national or labour or any political party

what about any other business politicians own? or cars? do they have too much say in roading plans/tolls? and is that a conflict of interest?

it all soon enough becomes impossible to do anything other than play the game i think.

 

[defensivebomb]

I was listening to the radio the other day and, from those criticising the government's interest deductibility changes, they were saying that it could only be supported

There is plenty of debate around "only if rent gets cheaper". Which I get.

However, where is this line of debate when it comes to the banks and fully passing on OCR changes? Surely there is a stronger argument to hold banks to account, given they are Aussie owned and shafting all New Zealanders?

 

[Rizzah]

 

[Noitall]

what about any other business politicians own? or cars? do they have too much say in roading plans/tolls? and is that a conflict of interest?

it all soon enough becomes impossible to do anything other than play the game i think.

A business is up to the individual if they choose to take up its services which I suppose is true of a tenant also but in its market sees a lack of houses and rentals which puts the power in the hands of the landlord to potentially take outrageous sums. I’m not totally understanding of the owning cars analogy? Is it around petrol? To go to your analogy in your previous post though about workers as likely to ask for a pay cut as landlords to pass on savings in rent relief. The worker is most likely already earning lower than they are worth and the landlord has the power to set an absorbent rent through demand. I’m not saying landlords shouldn’t be getting all they can off their rentals as it’s a business itself but some of what’s being charged out there and the conditions of the houses are beyond a joke. I was brought up by a single as an only child, I feel confident in todays climate that wouldn’t be achievable and can only guess at how some are getting by

 

[miket12]

Who gives a shit about the technicalities, nothing changes that this is literally the last area that needs attention is landlords unless it’s about lowering rents which is going to be in the power of the landlord whether they pass on to the renters any benefits they receive

The fact is that most landlords with mortgages will already be topping up the mortgage payments each month as the rent doesn't cover all the expenses.

Say a landlord charges $600 PW so is receiving $31,200 PA in rent for a property that's worth $700,000.

If they still owe $450,000 on a mortgage of $600,000 on the property at 7%, that's costing them $42,536 PA just in mortgage payments.

Add to that, insurance ($1,800 PA), repairs and maintenace (1% of the value of the property is $7,000 PA), rates ($2,800 PA) and bulk water charges ($480 PA).

That means that the combined outgoings for the property is just under $55,000 PA meaning the landlord has to top up the property by just under $24,000 PA or $2,400 per month or $462 per week.

But, ATM, the landlord can only claim back 50% of the interest so, even though he's paying $24,000 PA to top up the property, he still has to pay an additional $1,100 in tax.

Even with the change to being able to claim back all the interest, in the example above, he's still having to top up the property by over $19,000.

There isn't the financial space to reduce the rent but, because he's expenses has reduced, it does mean that future rental increases won't be as large.



And that's not taking into account that interest rates are dropping. If, in two years when the interest mortgage deductibility gets back to 100% but the interest rates have dropped to 5%, the landlords expenses go down, so the landlord has gone from spending a projected $19,330 PA to top up the rental properties accounts to spending over $22,500 PA to top it up.

 

[Rizzah]

Also a reminder, rents don't track with landlord costs. They track wages and housing supply.
There was a RBNZ and treasury study last year.

 

[miket12]

Also a reminder, rents don't track with landlord costs. They track wages and housing supply.
There was a RBNZ and treasury study last year.

TBH, that's not the case with us.... when our new tenants came in, we firstly looked at what the rents were in the area for the size and quality of the house to see where our maximum point would be. We then looked not at the decrease in the mortgage interest but the increase in our other expenses such as rates and insurance, divided that by 52, then added that on to the existing rent. When we compared that to the rent in the area, it was still less than the average so that's where we set the new rent. Enough to cover some of the additional expenses but less than the average (for that house) within the area.

We also haven't, unlike some landlords, increased the rent to allow for capital expenditure like compliance with healthy homes or maintenance expenses as we look at the long term gain these will do at a future resell time.

We were also told by the property manager that we should be charging more.... but they have a vested interest in that the more we charge for rent, the greater the management fee they receive is i.e. an extra $40 PW week rent works out at just over $900 per year that they charge us to manage the property.

If we were to change the rent to include all of the expenses associated with the property including mortgage repayments, the rent would need to increase by nearly $250 PW. Only then would we actually be in the position to pass on a reduction in rent to the tenant if our expenses dropped. ATM, the ability to be able to claim the mortgage on the interest just means future increases won't be as much.

Every landlord has their own way of setting their rent (and any increase in rent) and while studies might find a similar curve of increases to wages and housing supply, it's not a clearcut as that.

BTW, we treat the top up we make us part of our retirement savings.... if all of the top up was to go to reduce the principle on the mortgage, that then is a saving in interest costs and means, when we do go to sell the house, the amount of capital we'd receive back after the mortgage has been repaid is more.

 

[Rizzah]

TBH, that's not the case with us.... when our new tenants came in, we firstly looked at what the rents were in the area for the size and quality of the house to see where our maximum point would be. We then looked not at the decrease in the mortgage interest but the increase in our other expenses such as rates and insurance, divided that by 52, then added that on to the existing rent. When we compared that to the rent in the area, it was still less than the average so that's where we set the new rent. Enough to cover some of the additional expenses but less than the average (for that house) within the area.

We also haven't, unlike some landlords, increase the rent to allow for capital expenditure like compliance with healthy homes or maintenance expenses as we look at the long term gain these will do at a future resell time.

We were also told by the property manager that we should be charging more.... but they have a vested interest in that the more we charge for rent, the greater the management fee they receive is i.e. an extra $40 PW week rent works out at just over $900 per year that they charge us to manage the property.

If we were to change the rent to include all of the expenses associated with the property including mortgage repayments, the rent would need to increase by nearly $250 PW. Only then would we actually be in the position to pass on a reduction in rent to the tenant if our expenses dropped. ATM, the ability to be able to claim the mortgage on the interest just means future increases won't be as much.

Every landlord has their own way of setting their rent (and any increase in rent) and while studies might find a similar curve of increases to wages and housing supply, it's not a clearcut as that.

BTW, we treat the top up we make us part of our retirement savings.... if all of the top up was to go to reduce the principle on the mortgage, that then is a saving in interest costs and means, when we do go to sell the house, the amount of capital we'd receive back after the mortgage has been repaid is more.

That might be the case for you, but the long term trend is wages and supply (which is really tied to immigration). Landlords will take the maximum rent they can.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

We keep hearing, based on “research” done by the CTU and then repeatedly quote by Labour and the Greens, that there are 346 mega landlords each with over 200 properties, who stand to get substantial deductions off their tax bills because of the changes to the mortgage interest deduction rules….. BUT the number of 346 is crap!!!!!

Official figures show that only one private landlord and seven companies can be proven to own over 200 houses. Why? Because there is no register in NZ of how many rental property any individual, couple, family, trust, partnership, company, charity or any other entity owns.

So where did the CTU get the 346 landlord figure from. By looking at the number bonds any single entity has registered with MBIE. MBIE record the number of bonds in tiers from 1, 2-3, 4-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-200, and more than 200. Yes, there are 346 entities that have registered over 200 bonds for properties BUT that is property managers who register the bonds on behalf of individual landlords.

So, your local Ray White property manager may be included in that 346 figure because they manage 350 dwellings and have registered the bond for those 350 dwellings BUT they could be managing those properties on behalf of 280 individuals or couples most of whom only own one or two properties.

So next time you read and article or see a report or hear someone say that there are over three hundred mega landlords with over two hundred properties, it’s rubbish. And there isn’t the number of mega landlords out there going to get huge deductions or even refunds, because of the change in policy.

Labour claimed 346 landlords owned 200+ properties, but official data can prove only one

The Government has hit out at Labour for using misleading figures.

www.nzherald.co.nz

I told you. All govt data is trash. Surveys, studies, reports even science is now suspect.

(Free version)https://archive.is/2022.10.07-02460...s-has-spread-through-science-can-it-be-fixed/

The replication crisis has spread through science – can it be fixed?

It started in psychology, but now findings in many scientific fields are proving impossible to replicate. Here's what researchers are doing to restore science's reputation

www.newscientist.com

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science’s Credibility

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Noitall]

I told you. All govt data is trash. Surveys, studies, reports even science is now suspect.

The replication crisis has spread through science – can it be fixed?

It started in psychology, but now findings in many scientific fields are proving impossible to replicate. Here's what researchers are doing to restore science's reputation

www.newscientist.com

Lobbying plays a part in all things tied to governments

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Lobbying plays a part in all things tied to governments

Kinda. It’s more perverse now. The govt is setting the science through funding and incentives. So if you know the govt is pushing ideological policies, “science” that supports that gets the big dollars.

This whole corporate lobbying is a problem but not country destroying because traditionally corporates still did/made things. Ie the world still needs fossil fuels. They save lives.

 

[Noitall]

This whole corporate lobbying is a problem but not country destroying because traditionally corporates still did/made things. Ie the world still needs fossil fuels. They save lives.

When you look at our own situation over here around cigarettes, semi automatic weapons and pseudoephedrine, it can only be lobbying that has put them back on the table with the negatives outweighing the positives

 

[Rizzah]

The fact is that most landlords with mortgages will already be topping up the mortgage payments each month as the rent doesn't cover all the expenses.

Say a landlord charges $600 PW so is receiving $31,200 PA in rent for a property that's worth $700,000.

If they still owe $450,000 on a mortgage of $600,000 on the property at 7%, that's costing them $42,536 PA just in mortgage payments.

Add to that, insurance ($1,800 PA), repairs and maintenace (1% of the value of the property is $7,000 PA), rates ($2,800 PA) and bulk water charges ($480 PA).

That means that the combined outgoings for the property is just under $55,000 PA meaning the landlord has to top up the property by just under $24,000 PA or $2,400 per month or $462 per week.

But, ATM, the landlord can only claim back 50% of the interest so, even though he's paying $24,000 PA to top up the property, he still has to pay an additional $1,100 in tax.

Even with the change to being able to claim back all the interest, in the example above, he's still having to top up the property by over $19,000.

There isn't the financial space to reduce the rent but, because he's expenses has reduced, it does mean that future rental increases won't be as large.

View attachment 6170

And that's not taking into account that interest rates are dropping. If, in two years when the interest mortgage deductibility gets back to 100% but the interest rates have dropped to 5%, the landlords expenses go down, so the landlord has gone from spending a projected $19,330 PA to top up the rental properties accounts to spending over $22,500 PA to top it up.

View attachment 6172

Does interest deductibility put speculators in a better or worse position?

 

[marv.]

A business is up to the individual if they choose to take up its services which I suppose is true of a tenant also but in its market sees a lack of houses and rentals which puts the power in the hands of the landlord to potentially take outrageous sums. I’m not totally understanding of the owning cars analogy? Is it around petrol? To go to your analogy in your previous post though about workers as likely to ask for a pay cut as landlords to pass on savings in rent relief. The worker is most likely already earning lower than they are worth and the landlord has the power to set an absorbent rent through demand. I’m not saying landlords shouldn’t be getting all they can off their rentals as it’s a business itself but some of what’s being charged out there and the conditions of the houses are beyond a joke. I was brought up by a single as an only child, I feel confident in todays climate that wouldn’t be achievable and can only guess at how some are getting by

yeah i agree mostly.
i just meant politicians own cars too so is having a say on roading a conflict of interest, if owning property and having a say on housing is.

also being paid under or over what they’re worth. an employee won’t need to be paid as much at work if their rent has been lowered. much the same as landlords should have to lower rent if they can again claim interest back on tax.

neither can do or will work i don’t think.

also sorry if it’s a bit jumbled, i’m racing round on the farm doing shit before heading back to wellington so everything’s all over the place. mostly my brain haha.