And all I am saying is that its better to remove the tax on other things rather than add more tax.

I'm happy with a tax that will make the choice of investment fairer. Drop them all by a proportion to reduce the total govt take to a reasonable level.

People seem to have forgotten why the Government encouraged the ownership of rental properties in the first place through the use of LAQCs (Loss Adjusted Qualifying Company) to offset personal tax and other means. The idea was that they could save a stack-load of taxpayer’s dosh by offering a rebate of a few thousand dollars per year to encourage ownership of rental property instead of providing state housing costing say, $300,000 per house plus the ongoing costs to manage and maintain it. Seems to me it’s a bargain for the Government and therefore the taxpayer to ensure adequate housing stock

BianchiBoy wrote:People seem to have forgotten why the Government encouraged the ownership of rental properties in the first place through the use of LAQCs (Loss Adjusted Qualifying Company) to offset personal tax and other means. The idea was that they could save a stack-load of taxpayer’s dosh by offering a rebate of a few thousand dollars per year to encourage ownership of rental property instead of providing state housing costing say, $300,000 per house plus the ongoing costs to manage and maintain it. Seems to me it’s a bargain for the Government and therefore the taxpayer to ensure adequate housing stock

the problem is that it has not worked, as rental ownereship does not replace the functions of state housing.

Yet you are advocating making it worse.

[quote="the problem is that it has not worked, as rental ownereship does not replace the functions of state housing.[/quote]

It most certainly has worked, and it has replaced the functions of state housing given that state housing is charged at "market rentals" these days. If cheaper rentals for the less well off was still the norm which is what was originally intended with state housing, then I would agree with you.

phunk wrote:Yet you are advocating making it worse.

not at all, I'm advocating more people owning their own homes rather than being forced out the market by people buying rentals for the capitol gains.

I do agree with you that the best thing the government could do for this is to remove height restrictions ( eg height restrictions are limited by economics not law).

the next best thing is to discourage people from holding on to underdeveloped land ( I think a land tax would do this, but the problem is how do you value land).

the next thing is the remove the tax benefit from owning a rental property (eg CTG).

BianchiBoy wrote:

philstar wrote:the problem is that it has not worked, as rental ownereship does not replace the functions of state housing.

It most certainly has worked, and it has replaced the functions of state housing given that state housing is charged at "market rentals" these days. If cheaper rentals for the less well off was still the norm which is what was originally intended with state housing, then I would agree with you.

it has missed the othere function of state housing, which is to ensure that there are enough house built for people to live in.

So state housing has failed then too.

phunk wrote:So state housing has failed then too.

yes when they stop building houses, your point being?

philstar wrote:

phunk wrote:So state housing has failed then too.

yes when they stop building houses, your point being?

yes Phunk. The reason the property bubble burst was because teh gubbermint hasnt built enough state homes in recent years. Even I can see that.

thorg wrote:

philstar wrote:

phunk wrote:So state housing has failed then too.

yes when they stop building houses, your point being?

yes Phunk. The reason the property bubble burst was because teh gubbermint hasnt built enough state homes in recent years. Even I can see that.

and Mc Donald’s sells hamburgers

NZ needs to produce and sell more stuff.

Can't rely on inanimate thingies to keep the country running.

Problem solved.

I think supply and demand curves would sort out the housing thing. With CGT you would expect an increase in rental prices.

Kazmeistyr wrote:NZ needs to produce and sell more stuff.

Can't rely on inanimate thingies to keep the country running.

Problem solved.

why be the slave when you can be the master