Tax on entrepreneurship, innovation and risk taking

September 4, 2014

Capital gains taxes haven’t worked to keep property prices down in other countries and it will push up prices here:

Labour’s capital gains tax, won’t do what David Cunliffe says it will, according to the Taxpayers’ Union, backed up by a former Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Robin Oliver.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Labour are misleading taxpayers if they think a CGT will be a panacea for the housing market. Mr Cunliffe is wrong to say that current tax law does not tax property speculators.”

“Income tax already applies to speculators, builders and developers. Taxing the rest of the market can’t possibly bring down prices.”

Robin Oliver, says, “Under an Australian type Capital Gains Tax a person choosing between investing in a business or buying an even more expensive home will have an increased tax incentive to invest in the home. Gains on the home will be tax-free, gains on the business will be taxable and it will be difficult to use any capital losses the business makes. The playing field is clearly tilted towards home ownership rather than risking money in a business creating jobs.”

Williams says, “Ultimately, Labour’s capital gains tax is a tax on entrepreneurship, innovation and risk taking.”

Simple taxes are better taxes and they shouldn’t incentivise investment in non-productive assets like homes over productive ones like farms and other businesses.

 

 


Labour’s housing policy shambles

August 29, 2014

Labour chose the wrong couple as the poster children for its housing policy:

David Cunliffe is backing the party’s choice of a couple used as a case study for Labour’s housing policy, after the pair conceded they weren’t actually looking to buy.

The Labour party leader and the party’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford confirmed Labour’s KiwiBuild policy at a housing development in Hobsonville yesterday with a young couple who Mr Cunliffe said would benefit from the policy. . . .

Ms Leigh said they were currently living with her parents and although they had “had a look at houses in the Auckland area” she conceded they weren’t actively in the market to buy.

“We haven’t actively been looking for a home to buy in the near future – that’s definitely not our goal – our goal is to have a home in a few years. We’re trying to start a family.” . . .

Patrick Gower wasn’t impressed either:

Labour’s campaign is listless, meandering and shambolic.

The media with him say it’s a bit of a shamble and have been reporting on it.

Reporters are doing stories about Cunliffe having curry for lunch and there are even whispers from the press pack that Cunliffe is taking naps, but I asked him straight up yesterday and he said “no”, no nana-naps, only the odd bit of kip while in the car (which isn’t a crime). 

I took a look at Cunliffe’s campaign myself in Hobsonville yesterday.

Hobsonville quickly turned into campaign trail bizarro-world.

Cunliffe was out there to counter-attack on housing after Key trotted to the very same streets earlier in the week.

Cunliffe and housing spokesperson Phil Twyford re-announced the party’s Kiwbuild policy, saying Labour could build a $485,000 two-bedroom terraced house for $360,000 because of economies of scale.

But they didn’t have a house as an example, they were just standing on the street.

Twyford was saying there were heaps of examples of the $485,000 homes in Hobsonsville, but he didn’t know where they were and never got back to me with an address.

I can tell Twyford where one is – it’s just around the corner, a $450,000 two bedroom – I know because Key took us there on Monday.

Then they rolled out two first home buyers, Harrison and Jordy, who bagged National’s Homestart policy.

But under questioning they weren’t first home buyers at all, they weren’t even looking.

In fact they wouldn’t even buy a house under Labour’s policy.

Then it turned out that they were members of the EPMU, and they stopped answering questions when asked if they voted in Labour’s leadership campaign last election.

And despite the policy being around since David Shearer was leader, Labour still couldn’t come up with simple lines like when the first house will be built.

Then media weren’t allowed any more questions about the news of the day, Cunliffe had to “have a briefing” – for the uninitiated, this is unusual, as reporters usually just ask all the questions in one stand-up. 

Cunliffe then went off on a “walkabout” which is what politicians do when campaigning, you shake a few hands and the cameras follow.

But there was nobody on the street, Cunliffe eventually turned around and came back again.

Then Cunliffe jumped in the Crown limousine which went for a cruise around the block using up taxpayer petrol so he could have his briefing. . .

The media stands around on the side of the street waiting. . .

Labour looks disorganised.

I will give Labour this free advice: Cunliffe won’t get to be Prime Minister by wandering aimlessly around a Hobsonsville cul-de-sac.

The party’s in a cul-de-sac, driven there by internal dissent, poor organisation and shambolic policy.

Labour chose the wrong couple and they’ve got the wrong policy:

New Zealanders can have no confidence in Labour’s housing policy when they can’t explain how it would work, when its housing spokespeople say different things and the announcement is a shambles, National’s Housing Spokesman Dr Nick Smith says.

“KiwiBuild is a joke because Labour has no idea how it would build 10,000 homes a year, cannot explain how they would pay for it and they still have not worked out who would be eligible for the homes,” Dr Smith says.

“Launching the policy in Hobsonville only served to highlight Labour’s previous failings.

“Labour in government announced a 1600-home development on this land in 2002, but by 2008 had no planning approved, no resource consents, no infrastructure built nor a single house constructed.

“If they couldn’t build 1600 houses in six years, how can they promise 10,000 a year now under KiwiBuild?

“Hobsonville is progressing at pace under National’s Special Housing Area, with 444 built and sold and another 350 to be completed this financial year.

“KiwiBuild keeps changing. In November 2012, it was 100,000 three-bedroom standalone homes costing under $300,000 each. In 2013, it had become two-bedroom townhouses for $300,000 and up to $550,000 for standalone four-bedroom houses. Today they are saying two-bedroom terraced houses for $360,000.

“Housing Spokesperson Phil Twyford says the houses will be paid for when built. Associate Housing Spokesperson Poto Williams says they will rented with a later first right to buy.

“Three years from now, under Labour’s numbers they would be lucky to deliver even 7000 homes.

“National’s policies address land supply, council development charges on sections, building materials costs, and help for first home buyers with a deposit and loan. This is the way forward to help more New Zealanders realise the dream of owning their own home.”

If Labour’s policy is this confusing it’s no wonder they couldn’t find anyone who could represent those who will benefit from it.

Contrasting with that is National’s policy which will help people help themselves.

Photo: Over the next five years we’ll help 90,000 New Zealanders into their first home. ntnl.org.nz/1BQ94dK #Working4NZ


Home ownership makes difference

August 26, 2014

A young English woman told me that Margaret Thatcher’s policy which enabled people to buy the houses they’d been renting stopped her father striking.

When they lived in a rental house strikes had been regular ocurrances.

Once they bought their home, her mother wouldn’t let her father strike because they’d have got behind on mortgage payments.

Maggie's right. See National's plan here >> http://nzyn.at/firsthomes

Home ownership brings other benefits:

“. . .   National values home ownership.  That’s because it provides stability for families, strength for communities and security in retirement. . . .”

 

Yesterday John Key announced our election policy to double support for first home buyers, and let us access more of our own KiwiSaver accounts for a deposit. http://nzyn.at/firsthomes

 


It’s all about priorities

July 16, 2014

An  imbalance between supply and demand is pushing up property prices in a few places.

But, Glen Herud writes, you can afford a house in most places despite what people say:


This article, about young people investing property got me thinking.

I’ve had a few conversations with people who I’d describe as being middle class New Zealanders. They are earning around $100,000/year, yet they claim they can’t afford to buy a house.

As we talk it over further, it becomes clear that they actually can’t afford a house of the required standard in the desirable area of the major city in which they live.

It’s pretty hard to buy your first house in Queenstown, Christchurch, Auckland or Wellington, especially if you are not prepared to live in the cheaper suburbs.

But if you are prepared to live in the cheaper suburbs and start on the bottom rung of the ladder rather than several rungs up it’s possible.

Priorities

It occurs to me that people have priorities in their lives and when they say “we can’t afford to buy a house”, they really mean that they are not prepared to make the sacrifices required to get into home ownership. . .

He gives some examples of people who were prepared to make sacrifices and concludes:

Money gives you options

When you are young you have no money and I think all money does is give you options.

When you have no money you have limited options and you have to focus your limited resources.

It’s totally possible for young families to buy a house in New Zealand. The question is are people prepared to make the sacrifices required?

When I look at the people who tell me they can’t buy a house, I notice that they all eat out at restaurants regularly, there’s lots of money being spent of manicures and salons & plenty of nights out on the town & shopping trips to Melbourne.

The same thing applies to farming. I saw my parents move from Zimbabwe with nothing in there 30s, working as farm workers to buying their first farm 11 years later.

My first employer started dairy farming at 17 and was sharemilking 400 cows at 28 and at 40 years of age owns a large dairy farm, among other things.

These are all examples of ordinary people with ordinary intellect just getting on with it and getting ahead.

It’s all about priorities, attitude & peoples willingness to do what is required. . .

Too many people want to start where their parents finished and aren’t willing to work their way up to something better than what they can afford nor go without while they save so they can afford something better.

At least part of the housing ‘crisis’ is really a problem with priorities.


Incomes up, poverty down, inequality flat

July 9, 2014

The left tried to manufacture a manufacturing crisis and manufacturing improved.

They’ve declared a housing crisis and are particularly critical of the government’s social housing initiatives.

But Lindsay Mitchell reports good news on that front too:

. . . On the positive side,  in March 2008 the HNZC waiting list stood at 9,935. Now the number is 5,840 and includes those waiting for other social housing. A good news story for National. . .

And there’s improvement on two other problems on which the Left has been critical of the government – child poverty and inequality.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has welcomed the latest Household Incomes Report showing child poverty has fallen three percent.

“Today’s release shows we are making progress.  From a survey conducted between July 2012 and June 2013, findings show that median household incomes rose four percent in real terms in the two years since July 2011,” says Mrs Bennett.

“While the gains since 2011 were shared reasonably evenly across incomes, the global recession in the two years previous impacted slightly more on lower incomes.  The report also shows that trend-line inequality has remained flat.

“This latest research shows New Zealand households have bounced back.  In the past year 84,000 more jobs have been added to the New Zealand economy, 8,600 sole parents have come off benefit in the past year and there are nearly 30,000 fewer children in benefit dependent households compared to two years ago.

Moving from welfare to work is one of the best ways to address poverty for adults and any children who depend on them.

Yet the opposition have opposed and criticised every move National has made to help people get off benefits and on to wages.

“Nevertheless the Government recognises more needs to be done to support our most vulnerable families. 

“Which is why, on top of free breakfasts to all schools that want it, a social worker in all decile 1-3 schools and warming up nearly 300,000 homes, we are in this year’s budget investing nearly $500 million over four years in services and support for families. 

Initiatives include:

  • $171.8 million to boost the paid parental leave scheme. Paid leave will be extended by four weeks – starting with a two-week extension from 1 April 2015, and another two weeks from 1 April 2016. The eligibility of paid parental leave will also be expanded to include caregivers other than parents (for example, permanent guardians), and to extend payments to people in less-regular work or who recently changed jobs.
  • $42.3 million to increase the parental tax credit from $150 a week to $220 a week, and increase the entitlement from eight weeks to 10 weeks, from 1 April 2015.
  • $90 million to enable GPs to offer free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for children under the age of 13, starting on 1 July 2015. Over 400,000 more children will benefit by including six- to 12-year-olds.
  • An additional $155.7 million to help early childhood centres remain affordable, meet demand pressures and increase participation towards the Government’s 98 per cent target.
  • $33.2 million in 2014/15 to help vulnerable children, including eight new children’s teams around the country to identify and work with at-risk children and their families, to screen people who work with children, and to support children in care.

“Recognising that housing costs are a significant issue for low income families, the Government is investing $95.7 million of new money into social housing over the next four years.

“There’s more financial assistance to help people into private rentals to free up social housing for those who need it most, there’s new funding to grow more social housing in partnership with NGOs, and easier social housing assessment processes with the transfer of responsibility to Work and Income

“This Government is determined to improve the lives of children in low income families by targeting resources to services and support that are guaranteed to make a difference for those children,” says Mrs Bennett. 

The Household Incomes Report for the 2012 calendar year can be found at: www.msd.govt.nz

Lindsay Mitchell notes:

Using MSD’s Economic Living Standards Index (ELSI), hardship rates for children rose from 15% in the 2007 HES to 21% in HES 2011, then fell to 17% in HES 2012. The trend finding is robust, though the actual levels at any time depend on a judgement call on the threshold used.

 Poorer people will always be hardest hit by hard times.

But the government borrowed to take the hardest edges off the GFC for the most vulnerable and has put a lot of effort into addressing the causes of poverty – one of the biggest of which is benefit dependence.

There’s still a long way to go but the trend is in the right direction – inequality is stable, benefit dependency has reduced and poverty is declining.


Why not make it permanent?

July 1, 2014

Import tariffs on a range of building products will be temporarily suspended from today – a measure which is expected to reduce housing costs and increase competition in the residential construction sector, Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Commerce Minister Craig Foss.

“The building materials covered by the tariff suspension comprise about 90 per cent of the cost of the material in an average new house. Currently, these materials attract tariffs and duties that add an estimated $3500 to the cost of a new home. These will be cut to zero per cent tomorrow for at least the next five years,” Dr Nick Smith says.

“The scheme includes a comprehensive list of materials such as roofing, cladding, framing, windows, doors, insulation, plumbing and electrical components, fixed cabinetry, paint and builders’ hardware and fixings,” Dr Smith says.

“New Zealand is a small market for building materials. While we would prefer as much content as possible is locally manufactured, we need the competitive pressure of imported products to ensure we are getting best value for money,” Mr Foss says.

“It is through competition and choice for consumers that we keep costs down.”

The tariff suspension comes off the back of the Budget 2014 initiative to temporarily remove anti-dumping duties for building materials, for which legislation was passed under Budget urgency in May. The temporary suspension of tariffs on building materials will reduce Crown revenue by $5.5 million each year, which was provided for in Budget 2014.

“Suspending import tariffs on building materials is consistent with this Government’s strong public commitment to address housing affordability, particularly given the need for building materials for the Canterbury rebuild and increased construction activity across the country,” Dr Smith says.

“There is no single magical solution to improving housing affordability. We are freeing up land supply, reining in development contributions, cutting compliance costs and investing in skills and productivity in the construction sector. It is about making a whole lot of changes like removing tariffs and duties that aggregate together to make homes more affordable.”

I have just one problem with this – that the removal of tariffs is temporary.

When we spend a lot of time and energy extolling the benefits of free trade to other countries we have to be open to imports ourselves.

Tariffs protect inefficient producers and add costs to everyone who builds something new or repairs something old.

Why not make the suspension of tariffs permanent?


What about the provinces?

May 22, 2014

The debate on immigration and the pressure it might place on house prices is an Auckland and Christchurch centric one.

The demand for houses in those two cities is outstripping supply and the inevitable result of that is pressure on prices.

The sadly inevitable result of that is dog-whistle anti-immigration politics.

That’s a triennial hardy for New Zealand First leader Winston Peters as he tries to convert xenophobia into votes each election year.

To his shame, Labour leader David Cunliffe is echoing that dog whistle.

. . . The annual figure has plummeted too, from 34,100 to 11,000, but the immigration debate is now central to the political fight over house prices.

Because as well as more New Zealanders staying home than ever, more foreigners are moving here too – 71,210 in the last year, the highest in 11 years.

Labour leader David Cunliffe says their arrival comes at the expense of New Zealanders.

“Extra heat on our housing market drives up interest rates and exceeds the capacity of our education and health systems to cope,” he says.

Net migration is the crucial overall figure, which shows population growth is also at a decade high, up to 34,400 in the past year.

Treasury has predicted it could blow out to 41,500, and ANZ economists go higher, predicting 45,000.

Labour says the past ideal was just 5,000 to 15,000. . .

Auckland and Christchurch might not want many more people, but what about the rest of the country, in particular the provinces?

After several successive censuses showing the population declining in our district, last year’s census recorded a very small but very welcome increase.

That it was small in spite of the big increase in jobs that have come in the wake of irrigation means had it not been for that development we’d still have been going backwards.

That the debate on immigration focuses on Auckland, and to a lesser extent Christchurch, shows that the provinces aren’t on Labour’s radar.

If immigration is really a problem in some areas – and that is debatable – why does it have to be limited in areas which would welcome more people?

Why should the provinces pay the price for the poor planning decisions which have meant that the housing supply in Auckland hasn’t kept up with demand?

Why should we lose out on immigrants who could provide investment, workers and a population boost where they’re needed?

The xenophobes are quick to point out problems with immigration.

This picture shows the upside in the UK – is it likely to be different here?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,391 other followers

%d bloggers like this: