3 ms·

Why not simply introduce foreign ownership surtaxes instead of this ham-handed (and loopholed) approach? Wouldn't that be a win-win? Either you have more tax

Why not simply introduce foreign ownership surtaxes instead of this ham-handed (and loopholed) approach? Wouldn't that be a win-win? Either you have more tax income, inflating housing prices cool off, and/or more vacancies for citizens. What's not to love?

elyobo 9y ago
It's not really loopholed; those that actually live in NZ _should_ be able to buy property there (our voting laws are similar, those with permanent residency are also entitled to vote).
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Perhaps I should have clarified. Too much prime real estate in almost every country is purchased by wealthy foreigners who either sparsely live there or hold it for purposes of speculation. The result is chronic housing shortages and economy-ruining rents. In that case a hefty surtax is certainly justified.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    I'm OK with that on principal if the "foreigner" is someone that has the right to permanently reside in NZ (basically the rules as for the right to vote - http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now/who-can-and-cant-enrol http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now...). It sounds like this policy would not achieve that, because it's claimed that the policy would only apply to "non-domiciles" which would presumably include temporary residents... so in that regard I would have to agree that it is loopholed :-/
  - nugget 9y ago
    I saw an interesting proposal that called for hefty property tax surcharges that could be rebated against annual personal income taxes.
    - elyobo 9y ago
      While overseas investors (or even local students etc) would have no taxable income to offset against, why would this be preferred over simply banning it?
duncan_bayne 9y ago
Because Winston Peters is a xenophobe, and has a long history of playing on 'yellow peril' politics w.r.t. Chinese investment and immigration.

elyobo 9y ago

It's not really loopholed; those that actually live in NZ _should_ be able to buy property there (our voting laws are similar, those with permanent residency are also entitled to vote).

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Perhaps I should have clarified. Too much prime real estate in almost every country is purchased by wealthy foreigners who either sparsely live there or hold it for purposes of speculation. The result is chronic housing shortages and economy-ruining rents. In that case a hefty surtax is certainly justified.
- elyobo 9y ago
  I'm OK with that on principal if the "foreigner" is someone that has the right to permanently reside in NZ (basically the rules as for the right to vote - http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now/who-can-and-cant-enrol http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now...). It sounds like this policy would not achieve that, because it's claimed that the policy would only apply to "non-domiciles" which would presumably include temporary residents... so in that regard I would have to agree that it is loopholed :-/
- nugget 9y ago
  I saw an interesting proposal that called for hefty property tax surcharges that could be rebated against annual personal income taxes.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    While overseas investors (or even local students etc) would have no taxable income to offset against, why would this be preferred over simply banning it?

duncan_bayne 9y ago

Because Winston Peters is a xenophobe, and has a long history of playing on 'yellow peril' politics w.r.t. Chinese investment and immigration.