Sunday, April 22, 2018

Some housing and property matters

In this post, I highlighted the discriminatory aspect of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill.  I said:
I've made a personal submission, which I'll link to once online.  A part of it referred to the discriminatory nature of the Bill.

Section 21(1)(g) of the Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful for anyone to discriminate on the basis of nationality or citizenship.  Section 3 confirms the Act binds the Crown.  If an individual property owner told his or her selling agent not to bring a buyer from any other nationality than New Zealand, that person would fall foul of the Act.  If someone included such a term in a sale and purchase agreement, that term would likely be discriminatory.

Yet the Government is forcing this discrimination on property owners under this Bill.  Through this legislation, owners are compelled to discriminate.  They have no choice.  Lawyers are complicit in it, as they have to enforce the legislation through their property practices.
The IMF has backed me up.
IMF officials, in New Zealand this week, called the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill "discriminatory" and hinted that banning foreign investment in housing was an over-reaction to a problem that might not even exist.

I rest my case.

I also note that our beloved Prime Minister, she who opposes the monarchical privilege that is bestowed on the Queen and her family but turns up at Buckingham Palace with her boyfriend for a cup of tea and a scone, has just sold the home she speculated on less than two years ago and made a whopping $340K profit.  Let me play back to her the words from her own party's policy on housing:

Speculators flicking houses for quick capital gain are out-bidding families looking to buy a home for themselves and forcing up house prices at a dangerous rate. The current government’s policies have been half-baked and half-hearted (Labour's website).






But of course if you're an anti-monarchist Marxist who travels around the world business class wearing designer clothing having tea and scones with the privileged royal family, I guess some capitalist free-market tendencies have to rub off on you.



15 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Do I take it she will pay income tax on the profit?

Nick K said...

Not legally required to

pdm said...

Ardern and designer clothes.

I am not sure as she was boasting about some article of clothing she found in an op shop or similar in Hastings just after Winston anointed her as Prime Minister.

Gerald said...

https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-03/res-land-oiab-decisions.pdf

Jaywalk said...

She likely won't pay income tax on the profit. The current rules of the Bright Line test prior to amendment allowed a person to sell their (main) home twice in the two year period and the extended Bright Line test may still allow this or additional sales that can be claimed under this. So while there may be some times where a home owner may be captured, this isn't one of them and this will be perfectly legal.

Nick K said...

Yes, but she's a hypocrite. Bashing "speculators" on the one hand while getting the fruits of it on the other.

Noel said...

Justice disagrees.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/bill-of-rights-compliance-reports/advice/

Anonymous said...

Why on earth the International Monetary Fund is doing commenting on a sovereign issue beats me. They have no power over this decision nor can they apply sanctions.....in word butt out. I notice they do not criticise our Asian partners.

Section 21(1)(g) of the Human Rights Act 1993 does not specify residency qualification as opposed to nationality and citizenship...all mean different things.

"Flicking on houses" ..referring to those who make a living out of the practise. If she wants or needs to sell her house and took a much lower price just to please her critics then she would lose all credibility...... St Jude the Obscure led the way.

Lord Egbut

Nick K said...

Those who make a living trading houses pay tax anyway as it's a business for them.

Psycho Milt said...

Section 21(1)(g) of the Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful for anyone to discriminate on the basis of nationality or citizenship.

It's not obvious why that would apply to foreign nationals' right to buy houses here any more than it applies to their right to live here. The government's entitled to bar foreigners without the requisite visas from living here and it's also entitled to bar them from buying property here. If your interpretation of the Act is correct, the Act needs changing.

[Ardern] has just sold the home she speculated on less than two years ago and made a whopping $340K profit.

Leaving aside for the moment your unsupported assertion that she and her defacto husband buying a house to live in was "speculation," people who buy a small house and then find they're going to have kids are likely to want to buy a bigger house. If a previous government has encouraged a ridiculous property bubble that's created a housing crisis, that isn't something the person needing a bigger house is to blame for.

David said...

Nick and Adolf, feel free to start A campaign for Capital Gains tax.

If you do not argue in favour of that, then the hypocrisy over this is yours.

Gerald said...

Come on Nick be honest. It's all about your'e going to loose clients.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David, or is it Dick?

There already exists Capital Gains Tax in NZ.

Nick K said...

Gerald, none of my clients are loose.

And I get busier and make more money when there is more complication and regulation.

I should stay quiet I guess.

Anonymous said...

Local Authority rates are levied based on the value of the property rather than on the value of the services provided. Further; GST is paid on Local Authority rates despite the rates being computed on the value of the land rather than on the "goods and services" dished-up by local authorities. In other words, rates are an envy tax.
Cadwallader