The IRD can't say for certain how ring-fencing rental losses will affect the residential property market, but notes investors suffering losses on their rentals are currently getting tax breaks of $2000 a year

The IRD can't say for certain how ring-fencing rental losses will affect the residential property market, but notes investors suffering losses on their rentals are currently getting tax breaks of $2000 a year

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) admits it can’t be certain how removing a tax break enjoyed by residential property investors will affect the rental market, as well as the property market more generally.

It can however say with a high degree of certainty that once fully implemented, the proposed law change will cost investors $190 million a year.  

Currently residential property investors can use losses on their rental properties to offset the tax they need to pay on their other sources of income - wages, salaries, business income, etc.

However the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20, GST Offshore Supplier Registration, and Remedial Matters) Bill, introduced to Parliament on December 5, seeks to change this.

If passed, a residential property investor will only be able to offset deductions against income from their property portfolio.

The aim of the proposed law change is to level the playing field between property speculators/investors and owner-occupiers.

By stopping subsidising investors’ mortgage servicing costs, the Government hopes their abilities to outbid owners-occupiers for properties will be reduced.

The IRD, in its regulatory impact statement, says this could “improve first home buyers’ ability to compete with investors, improving housing affordability for home buyers, and increasing the share of New Zealanders who own their own homes”.

However it has a “low” degree of confidence in this outcome eventuating.

It notes: “There is significant uncertainty about the net impact of the policy on the housing market, especially on the rental market.

“Overseas experience underlines the uncertainty in the direction and magnitude of housing market impacts. For example, negative gearing was banned in Australia between 1985 and 1987, and while rents spiked in Sydney during this period, they were flat or falling across much of the rest of the country.

“The exact relationship between the tax changes and observed changes in rent is unclear.”

The IRD also notes that "given the number of other policy and regulatory changes to the housing market, it may not be possible to isolate the impact of this proposal on the housing market".

However when it comes to the impact on investors, the IRD is fairly confident in its estimates.

It says 40% of taxpayers with rental properties record losses at any one time. And on average they enjoy a tax benefit of $2000 a year.

The IRD points out: “The magnitude of losses being claimed is likely to be dependent on changes in the housing market (for example, increases in rents will tend to reduce rental losses, all other things being equal), and interest rates.”

While this $2000 figure might sound relatively low, the IRD says reduced returns for some landlords could encourage the transfer of housing stock from investment housing to owner-occupier housing.

Given owner-occupied houses tend to have few people per house, this could put pressure on the rental market, unless there’s an adequate flow of new housing into the rental market.

“This may lead to increased rents. Landlords may also pass on their rental losses to tenants in the form of increased rents,” the IRD says.

Nonetheless, the IRD acknowledges the context in which the law change is being proposed:

“Speculative capital gain is a likely driver for investor activity in the residential housing market,” it says.

“The average return on rental property excluding capital gains is low – the average gross rental yield on a three-bedroom Auckland property is 3% per annum. This suggests investors are buying property in anticipation of capital gain.”

Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says: “In conjunction with the extension to the bright-line test [from two to five years], ring-fencing losses from rental properties would make property speculation less attractive and level the playing field between property investors and home buyers.

“The new rules will not apply to a person’s main home or a property that is rented out and used privately such as a bach.”

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


A very good piece of advice from Kenny to all the property wizards.


Another nail in the coffin for over leveraged "investors". Should encourage some to book their capital gain win/loss rather than face a continued bleed.

leverage always bites in the end if you hold to long, no matter the investment.

You think a 25% debt position in a 14 million dollar commercial building is going to bite the owners; revealing.


I can hardly think of a better way for the Government to raise $190m pa. Excellent work.

What's that I hear you say? Property investors only use negative gearing temporarily until the property is cash flow positive? This change will only hurt for a very short period of time then, won't it!

For a true investor there won't be any impact. For a speculator however.....


Indeed, true investors will have no reason to complain.

When they say its a tax loophole its not . On the contrary, it is a tax mechanism available across the board to investors regardless of what type of business activity they are investing in.
In short, the proposed ring-fencing rules punish investors for choosing residential property over other forms of investment.

The problem is, is that investing in property does very little for the economy unless you are building new. It is largely a parasitic activity that only bleeds, and brings no benefit. While other investing generally can be said to create employment, and economic benefit to society.


One of a Govn's jobs is to level the playing field such that any investment is competitive with others where the benefits to society are considered. Over-investing in property is simply damaging to our economy and society ergo its perfectly acceptable to somewhat dis-advantage investing in property.

Either way , rent will be going up

That makes one huge and very faulty assumption, that there is the ability to pay. ie that the landlord is not already maximising the amount they can get out of the tenant. Therefore will rents go up? I dont think so as there is no ability to pay more.

This is blatant discrimination against property investors, no other business or undertaking has expenses 'ring fenced' in this manner. I have multiple income streams and it is ridiculous to be taxed separately on each individual stream. I can see why NPC's are supporting this idiocracy.


What's this? Property "investors" will need to base their decision on rental yield? What an outrage! This eliminates this method of converting taxable income into tax free capital gains. Landlords will need to take to the streets and protest like we've seen in France to try to recover their tax breaks at the expense of the rest of the population.

When they say its a tax loophole its not . On the contrary, it is a tax mechanism available across the board to investors regardless of what type of business activity they are investing in.
In short, the proposed ring-fencing rules punish investors for choosing residential property over other forms of investment.


Excellent, if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Next step a DTI and legislation to prevent recycling of equity for the purposes of buying more houses.


Did you have to spoil the weekend for the speculators? It was going to be a glorious weekend

Is this to be introduced retrospectively,if not then it's too late.

It is not too late, as the tax return after next will be a painful time for some "investors."


"This is particularly undesirable in the current environment whereby home ownership is at its lowest level in 60 years and the number of people living in rental accommodation is increasing at a greater rate than those living in their own homes."

Oh shit, maybe all the accidental landlords and equity recycling slumlords might exit the market and let the next generation have a fair go at home ownership, then we might see home ownership rates start going up again.

Hah, as if the pleb's would do anything other than moan, I'd like to see the day they actually take steps at self improvement such as buying house.

Hahaha. We aren't talking about the plebs though. We are talking about hard working young people who are finding it difficult to get together the 6 figure deposit to buy a house due to houses being seen as an investment vehicle for more and more simpletons fortunate enough to have a little bit of equity in their home to leverage off.

Nah the hard workers are the ones who are buying the houses, is it difficult? In a way, but so is hard work and much of life that is rewarding is also difficult. A fool and his money are easily parted.

Eventually all the plebs will vote for a Government that gives houses to everyone. Unfortunately that is where you end up in a society where idiocracy is fostered.


The irony of generations who benefited from government housing supply schemes and access assistance forgetting the role this played in the once high rate of home ownership NZ enjoyed though...

At some point that must constitute idiocy too.

Scrapping universal super and only paying super to those over 65 who are in need would be a good way to counter this particular idiocy.

General rule of thumb seems to be we only reduce benefits to the young so that we can cut taxes for the older ones while not affecting their entitlements.

That's human nature, screwing over everyone else.The baby boomers have excelled in their rogering of the young.

What utter rubbish! This myth needs to be put to bed. Grow a brain cell and put the blame where it belongs, on the politicians, including the ones you currently voted for. Most baby boomers had no part in creating the system they grew up in. They only had to work in it! Just like the current generations. if the system is not changing to make living easier ask your politicians why that is, and stop blaming your elderly neighbours!

I sincerely believe Rick we have screwed our young people and their finances. But I see there are more tools around than tax. Not sure why we see tax as the prime tool, but there are other ways than diverting actual money via government accounts.
for example. There is a need to life young peoples and lower paid incomes. The government could simply squash the availability of low skilled immigration. Not allow the various industries to keep NZ wages down by bringing these immigrants in and exploiting.
I see no problem with rest homes and truck companies etc etc and etc, having to pay $35.00 an hour to attract staff.

Great idea! Let's give a pension to the slack bastards who sat on their arse all their lives and so are "entitled" while those that actually went out, ran a business, invested wisely, saved for their retirement, and paid tax get diddly squat for their troubles.. You may not like a universal super but at least people who have paid taxes get their share of the pie for once rather than supporting the 50% + of the population that don't. Farmers no doubt will always be entitled (like their kids are for uni allowances) as they'll never make a profit while the middle classes once again will miss out.


Give everyone the benefit then, why do only rich people over 65 get a benefit? Why do my taxes have to pay for your rich arse to sit around and do dick.

If you are getting working for families or other middle class handouts then you are probably not contributing to taxes anyway. Perhaps my taxes over the years havce contributed to supporting my rich arse in retirement too, along with hospitals, police, education services etc etc.Still had we kept the pension scheme of the 70s we'd be pretty sweet as a country right now with regards to funding retirement, pity typical short sighted gov'ts screwed it up.

Perhaps a universal benefit is a good idea and maybe one day it will be reality. I agree though, why fund pensioners and not students? Why indebt our young with student loans? I guess the tradtional view is that most pensioners have contributed to society already so are seen as more "deserving" for right or wrong.

Yeah bring on the higher rents. Should I feel bad about that as I did not vote Labour. But seriously I hope all these changes don't effect tenants to much. I have noticed that there are less landlords buying property and the demand for my rentals has been huge. Is this just the beginning?

Today it’s less landlords buying. Next it will be more landlords selling. And with no one buying it will be lower prices. And with lower prices it will be easy for new investors to make a decent yeild without raising rents.

Especially with 60,000 new customers being delivered each year.

An annual cost of $190m for private investors to provide social housing sounds like a bargain to me. Just wait until investors leave the market, and renters are looking for somewhere to rent. How much will it cost the government then.

What happens to the rental properties when investors leave the market?


apparently they disappear into thin air! Just got to hope the FHB's have the same 'credit impulse.' to prop it up and pray that their deposits haven't been wiped out in the stock market.

Apparently there’s 0.5 more people in each and every rental than an owner occupied home so there will be an onslaught of homelessness.

Relitavely more prospective tenants competing for relitavely less rentals. Overcrowding and upward pressure on rents.

An average 2.1 people live in owner-occupied housing in New Zealand, but there is an average 3.9 people per rental property. Every time a rental property is sold to an owner-occupier, on average 1.8 tenants still need a home to rent.

Yeah I suppose if you look at the aggregate averages then sure.

How many 21 year olds crammed into a 6 bedroom flat in Dunedin are thinking about buying a home? They’re probably lucky to have $5 left over after the weekend let alone a deposit for a house.

How many defacto couples with a good sized deposits are putting off starting a family while they rent a 3 bedroom place off the speculator that outbid them at auction? These will be the first cabs off the rank when Landlords spit the dummy and sell up.

I think lots of young people flatting would be thinking about buying a home. In fact, if you’re saving for a home, flatting is one of the most obvious ways to save the deposit - it was for me and most FHB friends of mine at the time.

Some FHBs will be couples previously renting alone, some will be couples and individuals coming from high occupancy rentals. Data suggests average will be 1.8 people additional rental demand per rental sale. If you have additional data to suggest otherwise, then please link it, but is sounds like you’re just speculating (guessing) at this point.

FHB's are on a hiding to nothing.

If they've been to uni, they've first got a $20-30K student loan to pay off. With income from a typically mediocre salary in their early career. Once paid off in late 20's early 30's, they've then got to save $100K+ for a deposit. Not easy while paying high rents to be close to a job that pays enough to save for deposit, rent & eat.

Bit of a hamster wheel.

If they are smart they will save first, and not do anything about paying off the student loan above their minimum salary deductions.

Isn't life a bit of a hamster wheel?


Interesting way to spell relatively.

Could it be that demographic factors mean that the current renting class just have larger families?
We have a substantially ageing population in New Zealand which attenuates (makes smaller in BHSL talk) the broad average person per dwelling ratio.
Our population is currently being replaced by migrants who are typically low wage and have a higher birth rate than the incumbent population.
To me that says that when they buy property, the effect is nowhere near as large as you assume it to be.

Also. Rents will not increase because they haven't in the past relative to regulatory and demand factors. In Auckland, at least, they have grown at a pretty consistent rate of ~4% p.a. Primarily they are a function of income and like any business the landlord whose costs have suddenly gone up 10% is going to find that very difficult to pass on in a competitive market.

You’ve failed to consider that the demographics are highly stratified and susceptible to the Nash equilibrium. Not to mention that first home buyers and immigrants have little to no purchasing power parity. What is happening to the sunken costs of the former landlord that sold their rental? Does their residual capital have an impact on dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling? I don’t think so. I mean, classic Dunning-Kruger scenario, hello?!

You mad?
Oh. You mad.

Mad as a snake.

"Primarily they are a function of income..."
Disposable income. The more disposable income renters have, the more they can compete to rent the limited stock of good rentals.

There were 2 of us when we rented, now we own a house there’s 3 of us. I thought you said 2.1 people live in an owner occupied house and 3.9 in a rental. What’s going on?

Can’t argue with that. I stand corrected.

You also fail to take into account the diminishing marginal returns, something about babies, anchored wage growth due to low value imports and various other indices.

And he gets 4 likes, fucking hilarious:)

I don't see what that analogy should play out. Landlords bail out, prices drop, former renters buy. Many of these will be the new arrivals who are happy to bunk in together. Why would that not continue under home ownership?

At the same time, the empty nesters will progress onto Rymans. The house of two vacated becomes the house of many.


Did we forget the accommodation supplement that kind hearted all in it for society landlords receive as well?

Halfway To Paradise - That is so true $190mil is chicken feed for the Government coffers. I have just advertised and rented 2 properties in Auckland and the response to the adverts has been unbelieveable/scary ! Been an investor for 35 years never had so many people wanting accomodation. I hope for renters futures that this not the new norm, many longterm landlords I know are getting out as the COL are very unfriendly to Landlords. All the do-good polices of the COL may have unintended consquences ! And the law change that the Landlord pays for the agent is really silly. It is the tenant 99% of the time that chooses to move not the Landlord !

Not sure that landlords bailing out and selling their houses to owner-occupiers is exactly what I would call "unintended consequences".. very much intended consequences perhaps?

I wonder where those houses are going then? Could it be AirBnB in an as cynical as it gets move.

How much demand is there for an average house in an average suburb, how many can be added to AirBnB before the market is flooded and they don't get many bites? Decent house right on transport links might be in demand, but I can't see tourists being that interested in a cruddy ex-state house in the middle of Blockhouse Bay or similar.

You are such a perennial complainer PA. You always expect others to sort out the issues whilst you sit back. Oh that's right, you cant help lol


It will only affect the very highly leveraged landlords!
Most seasoned landlords will be positively geared overall on their property portfolio.
Personally we are positively geared on every property and pay tax accordingly despite throwing a lot of money into regular updating.
Yes there will be many speculators that will do it hard until they can’t afford to keep the property.
You really do need to have returns of 6% plus to make it worthwhile and bought the property under true market value!
Property will not be as popular for low deposit buyers but overall it would certainly give the best returns and safest investment around!

My god a sensible comment. Where was the Labour bashing?

Where's speculandlords BLSH, Houseworks and Yvil. Your feedback on this great piece of legislation is welcomed!

1. I’m positively geared. 2. This will be passed on to tenants. 3. Rental business should be treated like any other business.

Nope - Landlords are already charging all they can to enhance yield. All speculandlords on this site say they're positive geared. Especially on the subject of ring fencing. You might well be positive geared, but many (overleveraged) Landlords aren't. It's not something to boast about at the Cafe anymore - is it?

My 2019 predictions will include a forecast on rent increases. Please do the same. My number will be big, yours will no doubt be small. I will be right, you will be wrong. But you’ll be used to it given that virtually none of your 2018 predictions eventuated - in fact the opposite of what you predicted happened in most cases.

BLSH, given the topic of this article, you're excused for coming across as rattled. Property's not the one way bet you or many other speculandlords initially thought.....

Your again invited to provide fact backed counter arguments. Again, my timeline is questionable, my bias is not.

Good to see you have the integrity to acknowledge that your timeline is off. Not sure if your bias is questionable Poppy, but your understanding of the way the world works certainly is.

I agree there will be upwards pressure on rents next year. It could get messy though.

Nzdan, if its higher rents now, it will be lower rents later on. Tenants are stretched. Its undermining the consumer like over taxation when a downturn appears on the horizon. It's risky, it's unlikely to end well.

I'm picking 4% in Auckland.
Pretty much exactly what it has been for the past 18 years.

I am a long term renter. I have had 2 rent rises in 10 years. I dont see how ringfencing losses increases rent. If you are stupid enough to buy into a business model that purposely loses money, then you get to suck up the losses until you turn the business to a profitable state or you get out.

Yes, property investors are so stupid. All they have to show for their efforts is hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of capital gains with rents going up twice as fast as inflation.

Given that you “don’t see how ringfencing losses increases rent”, you should have a look at the Treasury/MBIE Regulatory Impact Statement, which explains how rent could increase as a result of this change -

“Rental loss ring-fencing will reduce after tax rental returns for some landlords. This could encourage the transfer of housing stock from investment housing (ie, rental housing) to owner-occupier housing, putting pressure on the remaining rental stock. On average, owner-occupied housing tends to have fewer people per house. This suggests that the transfer of housing stock from rental to owner-occupied may reduce the amount of housing available for each remaining renter unless there is an adequate flow of new housing onto the rental market. This may lead to increased rents. Landlords may also pass on their rental losses to tenants in the form of increased rents.”

It isn’t 100% certain how much this will impact rents of course.

Often these things are used to justify rent increases. When you have a well publicized reason for costs going up like interest rates rises, council rates or insurance increasing, the property manager will convey this information to the renter at rent review time. The response will be, 'I guess that's reasonable, can't argue with that'.

Sends a price signal to the market.

Like justifying demand for pay rises, it might make sense to you, but whether management (or the renter) is going to wear it depends on what other options are out there. If there is no more disposable cashflow they won't wear it, and if the increase is more painful than moving three street over to a cheaper house they won't wear it. I know if our landlord wanted to put the rent up $20 a week we'd stay, if it was $50/week we'd downsize into a smaller place. But so far no signs of him wanting to raise the rent.

Buy a house already and then you won’t need to worry about it either way.

If you did move out, I can almost guarantee you that the tenant taking your place will pay higher rent than you are currently. Any you’ll probably be paying higher rent than the tenant moving out of your new place. Change of tenancy is the easiest time to increase rent and almost always taken advantage of by landlords.

piss off already.


BLSH would make a fine snakeoil salesperson.

You have no need to worry on our account Retired Poppy we are strongly positively geared and selling up bit by bit, yeehaa, time for a change. But no problem, we sold a chunk to another investor so she will continue renting to long-termers. The issue for the worried tenants is that the nice owner has left and the new owner is tough and very rich and wanting higher income (HIGHER RENTS)

I've got no problem with this new proposed law. Negative gearing is dangerous and stupid in my opinion. (it's also a sign of speculation)

“Speculative capital gain is a likely driver for investor activity in the residential housing market,”

"This suggests investors are buying property in anticipation of capital gain.”

Sounds like IRD is acknowledging the primary intention of property investors is capital gains. Doesn't this mean they should be applying capital gains taxes on most investors, given intent is a deciding factor?


You would think so. If people are investing for capital gains and pretending they're not...well, bludgers on society, in the end, not paying their due as those who work for a salary are.

If rental income is negative, then isn't the presumed intention to profit from capital gain crystal clear to IRD??

The strange phenomena of 'ghost " houses & apartments underscore this.Prefer to leave it empty rather than the hassle of tenancies, while waiting to flip the property for handsome gains.

Its purely speculative to see rents increasing cos of the ring-fencing.As if they are not already gouging the maximum they can extract from existing tenants.

Certainly landlords are not doing charity with their property investments.

Jaf, the way to make the big money is to hold long term. Rents increase as household income increases normally above the rate of inflation. The mortgage reduces with time, and the rental income increases with time. So eventually negative cashflow properties become positive cashflow. It would be rare for a property held for more than 10 years to be negative cashflow. This it what most people miss, key is the rental income compounds with inflation as the principal mortgage falls/ stays same. Income is 100% tied to inflation, whereas only 20% expenses are tied to inflation (ie rates/ insurance/ maintenance).

The rich use inflation and compounding to get richer.

I'm all for this new law as all things being equal it will knock other investors out of the market and should up yields on investment properties.

I agree 100%. This is why investors should only be able to claim interest expenses after inflation is subtracted. Likewise proper investors should only pay tax on gains after inflation is subtracted. This to me is the big reason why property is so attractive in NZ. Forget capital gains, fix this first.

They haven't heard of houses as cash boxes, presumably. At those yields it probably isn't worth the hassle of renting them out to tenants. Just buy them and keep them empty for 5 years, like they do in other countries with a government policy of asset price inflation. Those darned unintended consequences. Again.

So pay the mortgage+rates+insurance entirely out of their own pocket? On a $700k+ property that they aren't living in? Thats a fair bit of spare cashflow needed to do that, and with the ringfencing they won't be getting tax breaks from it either. Sounds like a piss poor investment return to me.

I am not suggesting it makes sense for most people. It is very common overseas, especially in apartment blocks. The buyers are not ordinary people, they are very wealthy. Think Russian oil money, Middle Eastern oil money, Chinese real estate tycoons, Criminal gangs, Drug lords, Fraudsters, there are vast pools of money out there looking for a quiet place to park their cash. Vancouver has whole neighbourhoods of empty mansions, according to the internet anyway.

My only contact with that world was on a trip to Spain a few years ago where we stayed overnight at a hotel where the staff were surprised to see us. It was practically empty apart from us and half a dozen staff, who all seemed to speak Russian. I only figured it out months afterwards.

I don't see it as being a huge factor with the new AML rules & the foreign buyer ban. Might be some, but not exactly going to soak up a huge amount of supply in NZ.

Are you not assuming that everyone follows the rules to the same extent that you do? There are some devious buggers and nasty bastards out there who are really, really, good at being devious buggers and nasty bastards. Their speciality is not following our rules.

".... to level the playing field between property speculators/investors and owner-occupiers".
I have a rental. No mortgage on it. And I don't work. There is no negative gearing happening with me at all. So I don't fit into the above simplified binary representation.

When one of our kids was buying his first home with his partner, they were continually outbid by rental investors. I was aghast at the price these people (i.e., tender/auction winners) were paying for dumps. So, I got in the car and came down to head out with his RE agent for a weekend. And we saw more and more dumps (about 4 hours in and out of houses). Then the agent took us into her office and asked the kids, okay that's it - what one are you going to buy.

So I asked them what the max the bank had pre-approved them for. It was $20K more than what they had told the agent they wanted to pay (sensible kids didn't want to go to their max). So I went into the agent's foyer, found a decent, solid, design attractive late 80s built house - and said to the agent - why didn't we see that one. She said the kids only wanted to go to "x$" as a max - so was showing us all the "x$" dumps that landlords were competing for.

We immediately piled back into the car - went to see the house that was $20K more (their max borrowing) and signed a contact that was accepted by the owner that day.

Point being, IRD is right - owner-occupiers with limited, low end borrowing power have been competing with rental investors big time. There is nothing wrong with buying a dump as your first house - provided you pay the right price for the dump (not what the landlord with the tax benefits on interest on the mortgage was prepared to pay).

As soon as our kids lifted themselves above the landlord-targeted property price range - they were in a house of their own.

Yet there’s been a lot of rhetoric thrown around about how the younger generation only want the flash houses like their parents have.

Probably the same silly sources as threw the smashed avocado drivel around.

Take their claims with a grain of salt. Much like TTP, they're only a few years off pooping their pants and forgetting their name. That sort of Palliative care isn't cheap, so why not try get the younger generation to pay for it.

Its a tough one. Whether to hold any money back at all. Probably depends on how secure you are in your job. And now that house prices are set at the level that two incomes are required (feminism), both careers need to be taken into account. Having children: this is the thing which may not be possible.
It is definitely not a level playing field. I welcome the proposed changes. And I would like interest only mortgages to be banned. For everyone. And for the term of loans to be no more than 20 yrs. No covered bonds. No OBR.
If I wanted to be a politician, no way would I get any bank sourced political donations and I would not be voted in anyway!

Their plan was to renovate the first house and use the capital gain arising from the renovation to then sell and buy down such that they could afford to have that first child - and hence pay a mortgage on one income. It worked well for them as that's exactly what they did. So their second home was less flash than their first!

Kate - Doesn't this make your children investor/speculators as well - the same thing you thought was the problem with the market? (i.e. buying for capital gain with the intention of resale?)

To a degree. As owner-occupiers they put a huge personal work effort into the re-decoration, which subsequently earned them most of that gain. It was a two story house with high pitched ceilings inside and a high roof line outside. So they had to remove brightly patterned 80s wallpaper, some at two story heights inside (and then re-paint) and they also re-stained the cedar exterior - again some at heights that made the challenge a bit too difficult for many older homeowners.

Once they'd done that difficult work, the house then sold for its proper market value to a retired couple - as it was then virtually maintenance free.

Kate you said he was outbid at auction then proceeded to tell us how he spent an afternoon looking at dump houses with prices. I am surprised anyone still does the rounds with an agent in tow like it's the 1990s and 1980s. Just have all new listings emailed out and then doing the legwork and research is far more effective. Though good on him and you for securing a satisfactory house at the right price

Houseworks, we're going back quite a few years here - he's now 35 and their first purchase was when he was 21. The agent that took a "shine" to them as a young couple was so very determined to get them onto the 'ladder'. So, yeah they spent about three months looking and missing out. Even back then I was surprised she took us all out for such a long spell of looking (3-4 hours).


Nice story but it’s the borrowing to the max that worries me. Not only does it leave you exposed in a downturn but you basically transferring all your future earning potential to the mortgage.

It's definitely what they hated about it too. But that was the only way to secure a house with good, as opposed to crap, potential. Second time around they didn't borrow to the max by any means. They liked enjoying life and not be a slave to the mortgage.


Oh dear, how sad. Idiots stacking interest only on the never never waiting on capital gain are getting flushed. They all cry there was never a tax advantage...yeah right tui.

"Let them eat cake" ...and pay tax.

Tax breaks for owners of rental properties have benefited a fairly comfortable class of people that has grown in numbers in recent years and that is the dual income, mortgage free, folk.

These people have a lot of spare cash and a lot of equity in their homes that banks are happy to leverage. The old "rich get richer" scenario applied to a group that wasn't traditionally rich by any means but now find themselves in a position where they can exploit these things. One can hardly blame them. What to do with all that money now the mortgage is paid off?

This is highlighted in the MBE Household Financial Comfort Report:

Leveraged investors better off than owner-occupiers with mortgages.
Financial comfort continued to vary a great deal across households paying off mortgages.Households with ‘mortgages on investment properties only’ or who ‘own their own home outright’ reported higher household financial comfort than households with mortgages on their home and an investment property and, to a greater extent, households with only a home mortgage. This arguably reflects that households with investment loans tend to have both higher incomes (before and after tax) as well as higher (net) wealth.

One small group that I think this change will be a little unfair to are the ones that rent and also own a rental in another locality. This has often been a suggested strategy for getting into the housing market for someone who needs to live in an unaffordable area for job reasons.

Another small group that will suffer are the 'get rich through property' gurus as tax breaks were an important pillar of their blurb.

Quite simple really - in areas where rents cover the cost of ownership and landlords are positively geared, there will be no impact. Its in locations where rents do not cover the cost of ownership, and landlords face a cashflow problem. Here rents are likely to go up. So like Australia in the 80's, large towns like Auckland where rental yields are very low, will face rent rises. In regional areas like Rotorua and Invercargil where rental yields are much higher, there will be no effect.

We purchased 2 rentals 25 years ago, they were negatively geared, at the time, the cost to us was $80/week
I was on a reasonably high income so could afford it , the marginal tax rate was 48%
They have been mortgage free for 10 years. They were purchased to provide income for our retirement which is now close. NOT A SPECULATOR.
We have always set the rent below the going rate as we are not interested in high turnover. NOT A GREEDY LANDLORD.
We have been paying tax to the government for probably 15 years.

I see many comments here from people who have obviously not been there but have slanted views about landlords, like society we are all different.

We need more Landlords. I reckon everyone should have 2 rentals, then the Government wouldn't need to worry about superannuation.

Yes, everyone should have two rentals. That way, we could each live in someone else’s rental and rent another one as a holiday house. Prices would go up every year and we could fund our retirement by borrowing against the perpetually growing equity.

Wait, that makes no sense.

Everyone should go out and buy rental properties before the next generation starts working. Then we can remind them how grateful they are for us Landlords who provide a roof over their head, they’d never be able to buy a house anyway because we aren’t selling for anything less than a shit tonne of capital gains. You good for nothing avocado eating snot rags are paying for our bi-annual cruises whether you like it or not.

You come across as Jekyll and Hyde sometimes Nzdan one minute praising and lauding property owners and investors then raging how landlords stole the future of younger nzers, but tongue in cheek I guess

Yeah don't take what I say seriously, I normally just throw comments out there for a bit of a laugh or to get a reaction. It's all tongue in cheek. I'm not a property bear or a spruiker, and i'm not bitter about issues around housing affordability (I bought my first home last year).

You joke but there are people here who believe property is a perpetual motion machine.

You cannot reason with the bitter, vengeful horde who seek solace in this domains comments section. Most landlords become so by making sacrifices and forgoing consumption.They make accommodation available to these whose circumstances mean they don't want to (or can't) buy a house/flat. Has anyone ever moved city or country for work? Your first priority is to find a decent rental. I have tenants who want to rent a house until they retire as they love it and don't want the responsibility of owning. I have seen queues around the block and people in tears hoping to get a rental - none of them want to buy, they just want a rental.

I have no problem with landlords not paying CGT. But then why not level the paying field and scrap corporate tax like hong kong, so business people can have the same advantage? We could easily afford it if we scrap superannuation - which I have consistently advocated for here.

"... ring-fencing losses from rental properties would make property speculation less attractive and level the playing field between property investors and home buyers." This is an admission that home buyers will have costs in excess of what they would have paid in rent and Shamubeel Equab confirmed this a number of times. So why would home buyers want to pay more?? Oh, it's because of the capital gain they will receive over time by getting on the property ladder.

Perhaps we all need to contribute towards some new calculators for treasury.
Simple calculation. $190 million extra tax per year divided by 450,000 rentals gives an average of $10 per week rent increase. Sure only a small percentage of landlords affected at any one time but it will spread itself out like oil on water. Of course this is just like the existing tax situation for trusts whereby losses are already ring fenced. It just means once the investment starts making a profit (after putting rents up and paying down mortgage) no tax at all will be payable for several years. This could be a handy strategy for those people planning on getting older and retiring some time in the future!

Clearly those who are working on a loss each year are only working for capital gain. Accordingly if you have ever done a loss you should be charged tax on any capital gain. Each and every one of you.

While the ring -fencing of losses is a good thing , its evident this Government clearly does not want property investors in the market in any way shape or form , and are actively discouraging all investment in the sector.

Residential property investment is difficult enough with huge deposits required to raise a mortgage , all manner of costly requirements for heating etc that we who own and live in our homes dont have , nonsense from tenants non -payment , risks of damage , high insurance costs , high rates , high maintenance costs ,interest rate risk , market risk , etc etc

I hope the Government has got deep enough pockets to become " landlord of not -just last resort " to house those many families who will not be able to afford to pay a market rent , let alone buy a home.

Indeed, scrap the joke that kiwibuild has become, and just build State houses.

And whinge as much as you like about the govt imposing decent minimum standards on rental properties, but this is nothing new. We impose food hygiene standards on lunch bars and restaurants that we don't impose on private kitchens for the very same reason, one is a business, and one is your choice, if you want to make yourself sick by handling and storing food improperly, its you that wears the physical consequences, if you fail to insulate a rental house, you impose those consequences on somebody else.

Its not a 'tax break' - it is a legitimate deduction available to everyone who conducts a business.

The IRD has no knowledge as to how the residential property market operates, so obviously they consequentially have no idea how it will be affected.

...nah. As long as a home owner cant claim interest as a dedn on own home....neither should a landlord. The break has not resulted in landlords building houses, just plundering the opportunity of home ownership for our young.

The pendulum will swing hard against landlords, before it swings back. Overshoot always occurs, brace yourself.

Landlords with a couple of houses that become debt free, and now under rent for retirement and pay tax on the incomes should relax They are great, and not the issue here.

Those however who have leveraged to the max stacking houses/debt in a twisted game tax loss, interest only debt ponzi are a blight on society. Banks are as much to blame here and like Australia have proven they cannot self regulate risk. Banking changes will surely follow here.

The sad part is that Govt changes and regulation will be the usual sledgehammer on a walnut and will likely effect the first group as well.