That's one well dressed landlord. Every landlord I ever dealt wore dirty clothes, was missing teeth, and was in desperate need of a shower. ๐ค
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1001 points (98.5% liked)
solarpunk memes
3032 readers
4 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
the players are the game. never forget that
Funny how they never mind raising the rent when the market is up, but you never, ever, ever get it lowered when it's down.
Market capitalism is destroying us, our homes, and literally our only habitat.
Their guard gates are mostly decorative. We could save our species and the habitability of the planet.
Instead some think we can petition the government they've fully owned for half a century to mitigate the harm they bought our government to commit with abandon, lol.
Just build more housing lol
Nice!
The person in this post is Chris Luxon, the current NZ Prime Minister.
This was posted to Lemmy.NZ a while back see
It's appropriate because he owns a lot of houses. Recently sold a couple to make half a million bucks tax free 'cos NZ doesn't have a capital gains tax which Luxon Luther thinks would be just terrible for the country... For completely selfless reasons, of course. He's a scumbag and a racist and liar
I'm sorry, NZ doesn't have captial gains tax??? Thanks backwards as fuck.
I mean, over here in Australia we give a 50% discount, which is already bullshit in my opinion, for assets held for at least a year, and waived for primary residences under a certain value (which is also bullshit, in my opinion. You'd be getting taxed on the gain only, not sure why living there somehow makes that capital gain special), but no capital gains at all? That's nuts.
If you live in a place you cannot access the capital gain
If I were to sell my house I bought for ~$100k for $500k I would need that 500k to get an equivalent house
Yes. Because we've made housing a viable investment, it keeps going up beyond inflation, so that currently you do need all the money from selling a house, including what's way above inflation on average, to be able to afford another. It's stupid, and eventually it's gonna break. I agree though, it's currently required to not tax captial gains on somewhere you live, else you'll get priced out.
In an idealised world, though, where we progressively stabilise housing prices, I would propose you get taxed on your capital gain, even if you live there, perhaps only on the gain above inflation, and be still able to buy a similar property with the money left over because the house prices wouldn't be going up by stupid amount every year.
I get where you're coming from, and perhaps I didn't include this nuance before: I want all capital gains taxed, including the place you live in, precisely to stop making housing "a good investment".
I should say then, I just don't think it's terribly fair on people who can't afford somewhere to own, because those who are in, get favourable tax relief. Someone worked for 10 years and made $600,000? Yeah, have fun getting taxed the normal amount, while those who own housing may have made a couple hundred grand in the same time and get taxed nothing. As an individual, sure, you're no better off if you buy another house, but you have the option of not buying another house and doing something else with the money tax free. A worker just get taxed and has no choice.
I think all captial gains should be taxed the same as income, with special provisions for housing to get good overall outcomes for inequality and the individual also. But not zero just because you lived in the house.
I just think zero captial gains on housing you live in isn't ideal either. Averaging the gain across the time you held it, at your tax bracket for each year, seems fairer (in a world where we also use other methods to stabilise the housing market).
Simple maths (but made up) example: you're in the 30% tax bracket every year (kept earning the same inflation equivalent amount of money). Let's say your capital gain is $300,000 above what inflation was during 10 years. You then aportion that gain over ten years according to some lookup table which lists the inflation rate for each financial year, and whatever it bumps your tax bracket to that year, you owe that much on that portion per year.
If we pretend inflation was 2% every year, then we just back calculate the inflation adjusted, equal portion of tax across the 10 years.
So for a steady 2% per year it would be something like this:
So you pay 30% (or whatever it brings your tax bracket to) on the equal inflation adjusted 1/10th of the total gain above inflation.
The tax office can just make yearly lookup tables, or calculators, to assist with this.
If this example maths doesn't make 100% sense, well whoops, this is back of the napkin brainstorming, but I think you can understand my intent.
Hope you enjoy this brainstorm lol
Right, so you'll hope it'll stabilise prices, penalise people for moving home if it doesn't work, penalise people for moving home regardless if they bought before this measure
The general idea is you tax things you want to stop, do you think it's a good idea taxing selling one house to buy another to live in? I thought it was investment properties you didn't like.
- Why go after the paper gains of people moving from one primary residence to a different one?
- Taxes on investment houses are directly passed on to tenants, raising rent
People who bought a very cheap house twenty years ago might have a million dollar capital gain and a $30,000 income. If they wanted to move they couldn't sell that house and buy another under your scheme
I quite like the current policy in Canberra, Australia, where land tax is levied on rental properties, but not if you rent it at a lower rent
I will reiterate, that this back-of-the-napkin idea only works with other policies to stabilise house prices. Because yeah, right now, it wouldn't make sense. Would need to be phased in over a long-time (certainly taxing people now on capital gains since they moved in decades ago would be entirely unfair).
Though, it still rubs me the wrong way currently that the haves are getting a way better deal than the have nots. Again, in theory, you could sell up and put yourself in the same position as someone who can't afford a house, by renting, and have a bunch of capital gains tax free, whereas they have to pay a higher tax rate on their total income - that is the normal tax rates - even though they're poorer. Seems unfair (but I'm not suggesting the fix is immediately taxing capital gains on owner occupiers).
Canberra seems to have a few good rental laws then, as last I heard rent increases are capped at 2% beyond inflation. Which at least means they haven't had the stupid rental increases all the othe cities have seen the last few years.
100% it's fucking insane. But welcome to the fucked up world of NZ tax discussions. The RW and the media pillory any discussion about introducing taxes while we have a massive infrastructure deficit and inequality
Hey, hey, hey. This is New Zealand, we can't just bang another hole in the desert to get more money. We have to ~~steal generational wealth from the poors~~ (checks notes), buckle down and work hard; that is the way to get rich!
Imagine a hoard of people saying that in a drone similar to "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy".
I hate the player and the game. After all why not both?
I mean, they're sort of right.
If there's 150,000 identical homes for rent in an area, and 200,000 people/couples/families want to live there, then 50,000 are going to be shit out of luck.
The going rate is going to be the maximum that the 150,000th person out of those 200k is prepared to pay.
How do you fight maths?
Build more houses. Less competition means lower prices.
Social housing schemes.
Work from home being a right so you don't end up with everyone needing to work in a massive city to make ends meet.
Tax landlords. They're already charging the most the market will bear, and taxes would mean they can't just snap all those homes up and offer them for rent. If buying and renting homes is a valid business plan, then the tax isn't high enough.
The problem is there aren't 150,000 homes for 200,000 people. It's probably the double but 100,000 of those homes are owned by people/companies who'd rather have them empty while the price rises. Basically using them as stocks instead of shelter for actual persons.
So you think the vacancy rate in expensive areas is 50%? That is extremely wrong.
view more: next โบ