NZ Herald 2 March 2019

AOh no, not bad news about the beloved family bach, scene of many a heart-warming gathering — which I assume is what you’re writing about. But the new tax may not be as bad as you fear, or may not happen at all.

While everyone in the Tax Working Group (TWG) supports the idea of taxing rental property gains, just eight of the eleven members support the wider package, which would cover second homes.

Given this lack of unanimity, the government seems less likely to adopt all of the wider package. And even if it does, it has to be re-elected before the changes take effect. Still it’s important that we all understand what’s being proposed. So let’s answer your two questions:

• The proposed tax would apply to all second homes, regardless of when they were bought. But the tax would be only on the gain made after what the TWG is calling Valuation Day, on April 1 2021.
• No, inflation wouldn’t be used. People with taxable assets would have to get an assessment of their worth on Valuation Day. The taxable gain would be the rise in value since then.

That doesn’t mean all valuations would be done on Valuation Day — an impossible task. You would have five years after that to get the valuation done, but with the value set at what it was in April 2021.

“The rules for Valuation Day should provide taxpayers a choice between simplicity and accuracy and provide different options for different types of assets,” says the TWG report.

For property, the options might include comparison with similar properties, perhaps using Quotable Value (QV) valuations, or recent ratings valutions (RVs). The latter are “easily obtainable but may be inaccurate depending on when it was last updated. A choice between the RV before and after Valuation Day may be more accurate in some cases,” says the report.

If you don’t make a valuation, default rules would apply.

Oh, and don’t give up on the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator. It’s really useful in all sorts of situations. You can use it to work out the effects of general CPI inflation or inflation on food, clothing, housing, wages or transport.

You obviously used the housing calculation, but it’s based on house prices throughout New Zealand. And, as we all know, there are huge regional variations in house price rises. But for many other calculations national figures are fine.

AI love your letter. It goes right to the heart of the issue about fairness — a word that appears no fewer than 54 times in the Tax Working Group’s Final Report Volume 1.

One of the main reasons the group wants tax changes is that under the current system some income is taxed and some is not.

Also, our system is more “regressive” than in many other countries — our taxes and transfers (benefits and Working for Families) reduce income inequality less than in most OECD countries, as the graph shows:

What’s more, the TWG says, the power of taxes and transfers to reduce inequality in New Zealand has weakened over the last three decades.

Both effects — the lack of a CGT and the regressive nature of our system — “weigh against the sense that New Zealanders are all making a fair contribution, and risk undermining the social capital that sustains public acceptance of the tax system and so our shared prosperity in the long term,” says the report.

In other words, the more people think our system is unfair, the more they’ll try to rip it off.

The TWG adds that internationally CGT mainly affects the wealthiest people.

“In the United States, the richest 0.4 percent of returns accounted for nearly 60 percent of capital gains in 1998. In the United Kingdom, less than 0.1 percent of returns accounted for 60 percent of reported capital gains in 1997–1998 and paid more than 75 percent of all capital gains taxes.

“Capital gains are an important source of income for the wealthy but much less so for the middle class.”

So taxing those gains would help reduce income inequality.

AAs I’ve said a few times lately, nobody knows whether you will end up better off financially keeping the rental or investing in, say, a share fund. Both are risky but usually do well over the long term. But diversification is indeed relevant. It’s riskier to have all your savings in housing.

Your comment about the proposed ring fencing of losses on your rental may actually be out of date. Under that proposal, which is part of a tax bill before Parliament, your losses could be used only to reduce tax on future rental income, not on other income such as salaries.

However, if the government starts taxing capital gains on rentals, ring fencing might not be introduced, or might be cancelled.

“The case for residential rental loss ring-fencing is reduced if the taxation of capital gains is extended to cover residential rental investment property,” says the Tax Working Group. “Gains will be taxed when properties are sold, although there will still be some timing benefits for landlords if losses are not ring-fenced because gains are taxed only on realisation.” Realisation basically means sale.

“To the extent the taxation of capital gains could put upward pressure on rents, the removal of ring-fencing on residential rental property may aid in limiting potential rent increases.”

Of course having to pay CGT on gains on your property after Valuation Day might well be a bigger minus than ring fencing. It would all depend on your circumstances.

And yes, these are questions that some financial advisers should be able to help you with. Firstly, look for an adviser who charges you fees and takes no commissions from any providers of financial products. They are much more likely to put your interests first.

On the Advisers page on my website, www.maryholm.com, I explain this more, and at the bottom is a list of such advisers.

Within that list, I would look for advisers who charge by the hour, rather than those who charge a percentage of the money you have invested. The ones who charge hourly are more likely to be unbiased in helping you decide whether to keep your rental.

Check out the advisers’ websites for how they charge, or contact them and ask them.

ATom Hartmann’s thumbs are up! He’s managing editor at the Commission for Financial Capability (CFFC) and one of the main developers of Smart Investor.

“People not only want to invest effectively, they also want to invest ethically,” he says.

“Smart Investor, at the moment, focuses on people getting ahead financially. This was appropriate given it was developed by a ministry aimed at improving the rules around investing (MBIE), a watchdog keeping investors safe (FMA), and an agency focused on lifting people’s long-term financial wellbeing (CFFC).

“There has been so much progress in the field of ethical investing, and should this become a government priority (i.e. it will take funding), we can easily imagine a collaboration with an expert organisation like Responsible Investment Association Australasia that would upgrade the tool in ways like you’re describing. Bring it on!”