"Most investors seem to be waiting until after the Budget announcement in May"

This I agree with. Key, English and co's comments earlier this year re: tax changes have had the desired effect the Government was looking foward, it stopped the housing market being too hot (like Oz at the moment) and allowed the OCR(and currency) to stay low for a good part of 2010 while the export and manufacturing sectors start to recover.

I can see the housing market staying flat in most areas of NZ for most of 2010, except for the usual investor hot spots in Auckland which will lift again after the May budget (I don't think there will be any huge surprises here).

"Property values in the Auckland region increased by 9.9% over the past year "-a 10% increase is a great result for anyone who had the balls to buy in 2009 ;)

28 yr old - I agree. I think it was largely an exercise in talking down the housing market, which the govt has done a much better job of than the RBNZ ever did.
Come budget time, the changes will likely be scaled right back, with National quoting a dead housing market and incorrect TWG figures as a reason they no longer have to do much....

I socialise with a few real estate agents, one has four houses listed each with offers only about 20k below the sellers actual want level, the buyers are there just not chasing themselves.

one rule of trading is not to think that the market will ack like it did last time... last time was the biggest panic selloff since the gt depression, this time it will be driven by ability to pay, ocr levels jobs wage inflation etc

the market has tested resisitance and wont go higher then peaks, now it will settle back and test resistnce, my gut feel is that it wont sell off massvely, maybe 5% off current levels max, kiwis only sell at a loss if forcd.

one thing that amazes me is the number of divorce sales in high end property, amazing.

Andrew King debunks a few myths that still get repeated regularly on here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1063...

"Andrew King is vice-president of the NZ Property Investors Association". Say no more, Dave Smyth. The problem with his skewed thinking is his failure to properly recognise that two sets of unequal parties that compete for the same asset in the same market; one with a tax payer funded advantage over the other. The venture capitalists of 42 Below did not have an unfair advatntage to compete against others with. Any other competitor in the alcoholic beverages sector would have had EXACTLY the same advtantages or not. Owner occupiers DO NOT compete on a level playing field to speculators.

How confusing - QV with out of date data compared with the latest info from Barfoots which showed the Auckland market had it's best volume month since early 2007.

Who to believe - a large agency at the coalface or QV?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=1063...

" In Tauranga most investors buy for capital gain, not for high returns. With no prospect of significant capital gain in the foreseeable future, there is not much incentive to invest"
I'd suggest that substituting the word TAURANGA in the QV article, with NEW ZEALAND, would reflect a more accurate view of the property market in this country.

QV says:
''the average sales price is a less reliable measure of change [than the QV index] as averages can be biased depending on which part of the market is active.''
When will it become public knowledge that the QV average sales price and worse the REINZ median is misleading and a false signal of prices. Both are totally unreliable as a price guide for any particular dollar strata which a consumer may be considering buying into. Caveat Emptor applies to the market as well as the house.

Low end properties fell in price 30% over 18 months ago. Now it is the turn of medium to higher priced properties to be hit by the economic forces of the Great Credit Recession.
Likely we are now in a situation where $1m to $4m properties are hitting the market. That makes the QV average and the REINZ median go up in price sending the false impression that prices are improving.
Businesses which are yet to fail are likely to hit the wall in coming months [reported in the Herald].
Interested says [above]: ''one thing that amazes me is the number of divorce sales in high end property''
Financial stress is endemic in the community and none worse than in business owners who built / bought expensive homes, boats, and beach pads, at too high prices in recent good times.

Don't trust average or median prices. They ignore dollar stratification as advised by RBNZ but deliberately ignored by REINZ who mislead and deceive the public because it is in their vested interests to do so..

i agree with Ian and Nicholas above.

the bloody media think it's worth a headline even if it doesn't bear intelligent scrutiny.
given most kiwis are financially illiterate, they believe this ii-informed stuff the media pump out and off they go and buy a house when they have the wrong actual info.

further down the track they probably end up as quoted by "interested' in an earlier blog as " one thing that amazes me is the number of divorce sales in high end property, amazing."

ill-informed= over bought financially= pressure=divorce.
but we are wasting our time thinking the general media would bother to drill into facts and present balance.
thank goodness for interest.co.nz...contrarian and well-balanced....suits me!

"interest.co.nz…contrarian and well-balanced"

...and listing slightly to the right

For some people, yes, though doing so since about 2006 wouldn’t have been wise.

But that's the point isn't it? Looking forward, anyone buying is doing it for capital gain and because of tax benefits. That's the bit that's not ok.

Thanks for that Wally, we can always rely on you to clarify things for us.

Ian C - I don't think there's that many that buy for tax benefits. There IS an expectation of capital gain EVENTUALLY, but that is the case with any investment. No one would invest in something they thought would be worth LESS in 10 years time.

We bought a newer place last year, but it was to be in the right school zone and have more room for the kids. Tax breaks & capital gains never came in to it...

Sacrosanct. It does make you wonder. Most investors aren't bothered by it. Many argue though that Australia has it and house prices there are even worse....

As an exercise...

1) View some statistics of interest
2) List all the possible adjectives that may be applied to the data set
3) From (2) above, choose the one adjective that best suits your particular bias
4) Write a blog using your chosen adjective (in this case "subdued")

It can be a lot of fun!!

I would still very much like to see CGT.
I think it hasn't been that effective in places like Aus for a number of reasons, but perhaps most importantly when the booms have been as great as they have been why would people be put off by a tax of say 30% on a $200,000 gain over 3-4 years? Still making plenty of money, and thats the way it has gone in Aus.
But when the future prospects for capital gains are much more muted as they are in NZ now, then thats when I think CGT really can help. If yields are crap and property price are only increasing by say 3-5% per year, and you are geting taxed in those gains, then thats a different story...

Absoulutely, Andrew T 12.15pm ! ,where it is for Private Use. In other countries Fringe Benefits Taxes apply. ie: the employee 'pays' the tax by implication on that portion between 0-100% that is not for identifiable business use. It is a tax levied on the employer and is ( or should be!) taken into account in the Total Remunneration Package. It catches out that personal abuse. Likely that may apply here, but I won't guarantee that.

A proportion of the burden of any CGT will fall on both the buyers and the sellers, even though it will be paid by the sellers.

Introduction of another tax that includes property improvements will reduce market efficiency (...read deadweight loss).

I would argue had the property market been a free market it would be fairer to both buyers and sellers. E.g. property investors are encouraged to hold properties for a long period of time, this may have encouraged some of them to hold through the recent dip – had this requirement not been in place, we could have very well seen a decent crash and we could have seen some very happy buyers. Similarly, banks would have been unlikely to lend as much if there was more of a risk of volatility in the housing market.

Unfortunately proponents of CGT just reinforce the fact that there is belief among people that house values always go up.

"Personally, I’ve still got my rentals that were negatively geared in the 90s. After about 5 years they became positive and now earn a nice income, and I have no intention of selling them. It’s not uncommon for a new business to take several years or more to become profitable."

So what you are saying is that other tax payers subsidised you for 5 years in the 90s.

What Andrew King and others fail to mention is that while 42 below was making losses initially, they would not have been able to work other jobs like most property investors do.

It is telling that that the most investors are avoiding the property market due to impending tax changes. What does this tell you?
That quite a substantial proportion of "investors" are worried that they will lose the ability to offset their losses against their other income and the interest free loan of depreciation.

In France you may or may not have to pay CGT depending on the number of years you have held a property (a significant % under 5 years, none over). Isn't it the case here? Someone (who'd bought a property for the likely capital gains) had mentioned a 2-year timeline to me but maybe it was to avoid being labelled as an investor by the IRD? Can't remember now.

Having that timeline does help separate home-owners (family home) from those who buy to sell shortly afterwards with the sole purpose of making a capital gain (speculators) from those who buy as a long-term/retirement plan (investors?).

@Matt in A: "I think it hasn’t been that effective in places like Aus for a number of reasons" Well we need to compare apples with apples....OZ's boom is in-arguably I think caused by the first time buyers cheque...and kept going by another....and they have a commodities bubble...

The difference I see in NZ is the difference in pension provisioning...OZ has it, we dont... So I suspect this means ppl are doing their own pension thing here. So called professional pension firms like Axa and Tower are mediocre at best so ppl with some smarts look around and see property as a tangible asset they can invest in....so do so....cant blame them, so I think "fixing housing" is only 1/2 the problem....the financial industry is a bear trap waiting to spring...even on the careful....I know Ive been burned even trying to be careful and risk adverse...housing is low risk in comparison IMHO, it has to be fixed.

regards

steven - unless you are taking part in a capital raising then buying shares is just as un productive as property.

When people are being honest, they'll acknowledge that while being able to offset losses against personal income and attribute a heavy level of gearing to an investment property is not a distinguishing factor under tax law, its very much a distinguishing feature from a practical perspective.

@ Andy M

"What Andrew King and others fail to mention is that while 42 below was making losses initially, they would not have been able to work other jobs like most property investors do"

Wait a minute! I have friends who are investing in many small business as "silent partners" - Some are making money and some aren't but they are able to offset any losses against their incomes. No different from property investors really.

But here's the difference GBM. In business, small or otherwise, EVERYONE gets to use the tax laws the same. Doesn't matter if you own; operate; invest; are silent...all the same.
In property, those who are owner/occupiers don't get the same taxation advantages as investors/speculators; yet they deal in exactly the same physical asset - shelter and accommodation.
Lets' treat property EXACTLY the same as all other businesses, and either allow owner/occupiers access to tax off-setting, or disallow investors and speculators access. Not a different set of rules for both.
(NB: Allow owner/occupiers access to equal tax treatment and watch our tax base evapourate! Something new and nasty would have to come in to fund the workings of the country)

Having learnt a lot on this website over the past year or so I have come to the conclusion that a variety of measures on both the demand and supply side are required to address housing affordability issues, there is no one silver bullet:

DEMAND SIDE:
- Reduce foreign property investment opportunities
- Reduce immigration
- Introduce targetted CGT
- change overlal approach to taxation

SUPPLY SIDE
- Reduce Planning restrictions
- Streamline consenting processes
- Change devleopment contribution regieme

Dave Smyth notes- 2.31pm, "Capital gains on long term rental investment are not taxable.", and yet the IRD notes,
"It’s commonly thought that if you hold a property for long enough the profit made isn’t taxable. This isn’t true—there’s no time limit as your intention or reason for buying the property is what counts"
Note that the IRD now do not mention capital gains ( as it used to) and may rely upon an interpretation of - if bought with the intention of making a profit - capital OR income wise?
http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/3/0/305950004bbe5936836ed3bc87554a30/ir...

@NA - The problem with the "intent rule" I guess is that you can't force someone to state their true intentions. Intentions could potentially also change. Whereas you can't lie on the date a property was purchased and then sold. So in that sense using the stated intention of someone to decide whether they are going to pay CGT or not is unlikely to result in fair taxation (in other words, honest people who admit buying to make a profit will pay tax while less honest ones who bought for just the same reason won't).

@ Nicholas Arrand
"In business, small or otherwise, EVERYONE gets to use the tax laws the same. Doesn’t matter if you own; operate; invest; are silent…all the same".

So going along with your argument I can set up a company to manage my investment properties... what the diff?????? Btw, I am not a property investors just interseted in a balanced view points

No difference GBM! Except that owner/occupiers do not get the same legal chance to participaite in the taxation benefits that others in the same product market do. It's not about the property owning structure ( that's why the LAQC argument has gone flat). It's about who 'is in' and 'who is out' of the rules. Make them all the same!
We'll get the "I'll live in your house; you live in mine - and we'll both "rent' to each other' mentality developing otherwise. That's the only ( illegal) way to have owner/occupiers as part of the same game.

Frankyl, Dave Smyth, you surprise me! Of course you can start your own mini-farm and claim deductions. That's what most lifestyle blockers do. Put in a herb garden, plant a few ecofriendly long term maple syrup trees or have a token cow or two to keep the grass down, and hey presto! Deductions galore.
As you, I and Elley all agree; it's a matter of regulatory perception. And that's what really needs to be clarified in May.

@ Nicholas Arrand and Dave Smyth

Interestingly in the US, home owners' mortgage payments can be claim as taxable expenses. Did it work or is it a fair system? I don't think so.. and what a mess it created.

no it didn't work - look gingerbreadman and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

Dave Smyth Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 2:31 pm

@ IanC

“Andrew King is right EXCEPT that he overlooks the obvious – a negatively geared property is bought primarily with an expectation of eventually selling for a capital gain (no matter how much one protesteth) and should be taxed accordingly.”

You’re talking about a property tax that hasn’t even been suggested as an option. Capital gains on long term rental investment are not taxable. Not even the negative geared ones. And as Murray says above, they don’t have to stay negatively geared and who would invest in anything that didn’t go up in value?

No I'm not talking about a new tax - I'm talking about enforcing the current capital gains tax regime. The intent, no matter how much one protesteth, is primarily to derive a capital gain (if you are negatively geared ---> a quaint term to describe "loss making").

I acknowledge your/Murray's point that you can buy a property with an expectation that rents will rise over time, but I'd suggest that perhaps the IRD should insist on proof that this might be reasonably expected to happen if its going to consider the property held on capital rather than revenue account.

Here's a test I'm dreaming up on the hoof - if there is no prospect of the property returning an IRR of at least the risk free rate (lets go with the 3 year deposit rate) over those 3 years (positive income plus any principal repayments) then the property has been bought for capital gains. ie, without capital gains would you expect the money to be better in the bank...

Honestly, you know the intent test at today's prices can be satisfied on a very small number of properties. You should recognise this as a problem.

@ IanC

"I’d suggest that perhaps the IRD should insist on proof that this might be reasonably expected to happen if its going to consider the property held on capital rather than revenue account."

- We already know this happens.

"Here’s a test I’m dreaming up on the hoof..."
"Honestly, you know the intent test at today’s prices can be satisfied on a very small number of properties. You should recognise this as a problem."

- Not practical and prices or yields have little to do with it. Property investors often buy property with a 100% interest only mortgage with the intention of paying off principle using their own income. This is exactly what I have done. I would prefer a graduated scale of CGT depending on the length of time the property is held. eg;

Tax due if it's sold after...
1 year - 33%
2 years - 30%
3 years - 25%
etc...
until maybe 10 years when it's zero %.

However, I still don't think that this kind of tax would reduce proeprty investment in a boom caused by excessive lending. Who cares about paying tax when values are rising at 20% a year?

Andrew T, your 12.15pm, etc - who will lend you many multiples of salary to buy vehicles with a fractional or zip deposit? What kind of security would be required, most likely?

Dave S, your 3.45pm - are you, too, saying monetary policy is ineffective? (Ha, we agree on this!) On CGT and price bubbles, I see that as a red-herring, with or without CGT (a property tax, whatever) they still happen, but intensity/affordability impacts would be different and also reflect the availability, attractiveness of other investment avenues, so in that regard it's difficult to compare between different jurisdictions. IMO, given NZ's less dimensioned economy (other investment avenues) I think there would be an effect on prices and it's probably the reason you are as safe as houses (wee pun there) with PI - government won't want major market disruption, hence their pussy-like approach on this. Still I don't think we should complain too much, at least it seems they are not effectively ignoring it, like the last Labour government.

As I said above, it's great saying we have a neat, clean efficient tax system, but allied to ineffective monetary policy and lending behaviours (property good, business bad, more or less - look at risk weightings - maybe there is one for vehicles?) we have ended up with a disturbingly unbalanced economy and it will need several changes to fix it - including, IMO, how we tax property, so that we see investment redirected into more productive enterprise. And surely this just isn't on:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/26/bernard-hickey-...

is it? The negative impacts are far more serious than businesses competing for vehicles with private buyers, surely?

Cheers, Les.

To be honest the whole NZ house obsession is getting really old also. Is this all life has to offer here in NZ? No, time too move on

Les the point I was making is that businesses and private individuals compete for products / assets in a lot of areas, not just housing.

A vehicle was but one example, and yes you can buy one with no / low deposit with security against the asset.

Interesting to note the Property boom going on in Canada, yet they have a Capital Gains tax of 50% of the gain at the seller's marginal income tax rate on an investment property.

@ Andy_M

"Rubbish. It tells you that they rely on the loss offsets to make their investment viable otherwise they would continue investing regardless. "

No.... it's simply the effect an uncertain outsome has on the ability to make investment decisions. If I was going to invest in anything that had tax changes pending I would hold off until I knew what the changes were. You'd be a dumb-arse not to unless an absolute steal dropped in your lap.

Are you overwhelmed with HIGH INTEREST RATES that make it difficult to reduce your balances with minimum payments? If you are in a situation where you feel that you cannot and will not be able to pay back your debt, don’t worry, there are programs out there that can cut your debts in half and reduce your monthly payments by up to 50%...........You should never be ashamed to seek help, no matter your reason for being in debt and no matter how much debt it is. Millions of Americans are struggling with their debts right now; that is why Congress has passed new legislation to keep creditors from taking advantage of consumers. Contrary to what your creditors will tell you, there are options out there for you. Don’t consider bankruptcy until you’ve looked at all of your options. There are companies set up to explain these options to you, FOR FREE. One of them is Consumer Debt Advisors (www.cdadebtsolutions.org), they’ll let you know what option is best for you and offer a free consultation to see if you qualify. Don’t feel trapped or let the creditors control you, call Consumer Debt Advisors at 877-548-5403 or try them online at www.cdadebtsolutions.org. Their website has a lot of information about what alternatives there are to bankruptcy or paying the 25% interest the creditors are charging you.

curtissed : You're advocating more government heavy-handedness in the property market ! Did we not learn from Michael Cullen's constant dabbling , to get bureaucracy out of the action zone ?

As Dave Smyth says , the first home grant in Australia back-fired rather badly . Ultimately it left new market entrants even worse off than before .

" Tax immigrants heavily " : Why ?

" Drive down the house prices " : You want to reduce the equity of existing homeowners . Why ? Thought of the outcomes of that ? ( Hint : think USA & consumer confidence ! )

Andrew T - so if I got to bank to get a loan for the equivalent value of a typical rental property, but instead for a fleet of cars for a business, they'll look at it the same will they? We are not comparing like with like, residential property is more critical in providing shelter to sustain people/a family than an asset like a car. Although I will concede they can be just as useful when starting a family.

I read the arguments about us having a clean, neat, tidy, balanced, efficient tax system, that is based on our mistaken (IMO) pursuit of orthodox Neo.lib nivarna, with amusement. The Neo.lib way tends toward a broader, flatter more uniform rated system, but 1) we are nowhere near it, (stupid intent rule) and 2) our economic outcomes are anything but clean, neat, tidy and balanced. IMO, even if we took the whole Neo.lib pill we'd still not get an economy with balance and sustainable prosperity (for reasons that Steve Keen is better to explain, but think complexity as opposed to closed-loop linear cause and effect equilibrium systems,) so nevermind waffle about unitended consequences - we have them right now:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/26/bernard-hickey-...

What do we value, academically pure systems, or bent outcomes? So let's see government make some judegment calls and make some obviously required changes. A good thing Peter Dunne pointed out at the TWG Conference is that we have not reviewed the general structure of the tax system for yonks, and we need to, and we need to review more frequently. That said, it didn't help, IMO, when Michael Cullen did his 'review' with the hike to 39.That initiated the search for ways to avoid, and of course they were not difficult to find, were they, see the first letter in this article by Mary Holm:

'Fed up with landlord tantrums'

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1063...

I wonder why Cullen and the last Labour government never got around to remedying what it now looks like Bill English and Nats are going to at least have a stab at?

curtissd - Dave and Roger are right IMO, FHB grants just raises the market floor, it doesn't actually improve affordability, but it makes politicians look and feel good, probably because their PI mates see their portfolios increase in value. It fuels inflation, which is good for PIs, as we are ill prepared in terms of our orthodox approach to monetary polcy - hence a good few don't want that changed either.

Cheers, Les.

@ Julz
Thanks for that explanation. Like many others I always maintained that NZ's fixation on buying and selling houses to each other, all the while increasing our foreign debt and making homes unaffordable for many is doing more harm than good, I could never reconcile how investing in the sharemarket is good for the country. I often wondered how my buying shares was actually helping the company (& the country) Like Shorts, I thought that there was no benefit to the company when shares were sold on the secondary market. Now I know. It makes me feel altruistic, (as well as plain smug) about the 46% gain I have made in the past year.

Oh yes, my intention for buying was for the income from dividends. Therefore any share price gains are non-taxable. The fact that I bought at record low prices was merely a coincidence!
I am not really smug - jokes, just jokes. There are always ups and downs.

@ Shorts

"Matt – You still won’t be able to buy a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom in Remuera on 500m2 for $350K"

Why would you expect to do that?

As a point of interest... How many on here who are promoting share investing over property actually buy shares using debt? ie; leverage your own home equity to invest in shares?

@ Shorts

"Dave – I don’t, but alot of 1st home buyers do. They won’t consider buying in average suburbs, furter our or smaller properties."

Yes agreed... and that is a huge part of the debt problem. People these days think they deserve the best regardless of cost or debt. How many people who drive new cars actually own them outright... it's very few.

Shareprice has nothing to do with the capital ratio of a company. Buying and selling does not directly help any company apart from when it comes time to issue more shares.

The reason why buying and selling shares not directly issued by the company is still a good thing is that it is required for the sharemarket as a whole to operate in an efficent manner. The sharemarket is highly liquid and that is part of it's attractiveness to investors. The higher the volume of trade the more attractive it becomes for both short and long term investors.

HT - all of the above.

I find the tone of some of the comments from the property guys quite interesting over the last few days. Without wishing to put words into anyone in particular's mouth, the tone is basically that houses prices are high compared to rents, and high compared to incomes (the implication being that rents are about right compared to incomes), but that despite this, people's expectations of price falls are unfounded.

Shorts
And I never expected to buy that sort of Remuera property for 350K!
But I would think it should be achievable to pay 400-450K in an average suburb like Ellerslie or Mt Roskill, rather than the 500-600K which is typical in these places

Elley - I agree that foreign investment is more a problem than immigration, although I would say that there are still reasons beyond house values why I think immigration should be more selective

Murray - I am a firm believer that a comprehensive approach is required to address the issue. I agree that it is never likely to happen, but I personally don't think the issue can be properly addressed if only 1 or 2 of the relevant factors are tinkered with. Complex issues always require complex solutions!!!

So you would expect to buy something like this:

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-property/Residential-property/Houses-f...

for $450K?

I really think you should just buy my neighbours house in Howck - much better schools, beaches and facilities then both Ellerslie and Mt Roskill. We could car pool ;P

@Curtissd “Tax immigrants heavily” – you might want to think this through. Perhaps you could explain in a bit more detail – any criteria, or just immigrants in general?

…How about if I leave NZ would I then be eligible for a tax credit :-)

I’m all for immigration to NZ as long as it is productive people coming here who add value to the country as a whole (and frankly we need this as our average GDP per person is pretty poor). Similarly, those that have nothing to offer and are bludging off the system they should be encouraged to leave NZ.

Just a interesting fact about rental:

In late Feb, I was helping out a friend who's living in Australia to rent out their house in Ponsonby. It's a nicely renovated large(ish) 4 br home on 375sq m section. We put it on trademe for $980/week rent. We had 14 groups thru' in the open home, 11 expressed their interest in the place, 5 offered more rent than asking (between $1025 - $1085/week) - we chose the group that offered $1050/week. The house is worth between 750-800K - that's close to 7% returns.

Interestingly, I was told that hardly any decent houses available for rent in central Auckland. Most rentals were either tiny apartments or student style flats and this will get even worse with the changes coming up.

food for thought!

@Matt in AK - OK. You probably haven't had to go through the selection process though. Believe me it didn't feel like you guys let everybody in. From chest x-rays and bank accounts balances to every single academic report since I was 14, language skills, marital status and age, it felt like a rather thorough process to me!!

Shorts / Ian - that Ellerslie property illustrates my point perfectly - no way a property like that should be going for 550K, and looking at the photo what makes it worse is that it is a probably a leaky hole
It should be possible to get semi-detached units like that for around 450k in Ellerslie

Gingerbreadman - thats actually closer to 6% if you assume its rented for 50 weeks a year and the value is 800K, and you account for rates and maintenance expenses.
Good on you if you are able to get that much rent - ridiculous really. We are paying $550 pw for a 3 bedroom renovated villa in Remuera (basically nearly as central as Ponsonby) in top school zones. I guess certain young trendies pay the premium for living in "trendy Ponsonby"!!!!

Hello all, thank you for your feedback. I said about taxing immigrants. What I would like to see is wealthy immigrants coming into the country bringing money and skills. Maybe a tax is wrong, but what I would like to see is some form of highly skilled immigrant visa only (some area's of Auckland are becoming international slums!) that lasts 5 years, after that you get your NZ Cit. In that 5 years if you break the law then your booted.

My mention of house prices, I would like to see a drop in house prices. Is this wrong? The average income to average house prices is way out. Taxing property investment / speculation and pushing this money into productive area's (science, engineering grants...) would increase the countries productivity? Would this decrease house prices and increase incomes?

@Curtissd - No, I can't see anything wrong with wanting house prices to drop personnally. I think it is very much needed and I'd like this to happen too (either that or wages going up a lot to make house prices more in line with house prices). And I'm saying this as a home-owner immigrant : )

@Matt - "I think too the government has to protect the interests of its own people too – isn’t that one of the core duties of Govt???" Absolutely, I agree. The truth is I had not realised that immigration was in fact a problem for the country. From what you say it may well be and in this case the policy changes you advocate are probably needed (I can say this now because my husband and I have become New Zealanders, albeit with a very funny accent).