| Interest.co.nz Residential Rent Report | |||||||||||
| Q1 2023 |
The national median weekly rent for newly tenanted properties increased by $15 a week (+2.7%) over the 12 months to the end of March this year.
The latest data, based on bonds lodged with Tenancy Services each quarter, shows the national median residential rent increased from $550 a week in the first quarter (Q1) of last year to $565 in Q1 this year.
However there were significant differences in the annual rate of rent increases between the main urban districts. Rents increased at a lower rate (up to 5%) in Whangarei, Auckland, Hawke's Bay, the Wellington Region, Timaru and Invercargill, and above 5% in all other districts.
Probably the most significant feature in the data is that the median rent in the Auckland region, which is the country's largest rental market by far, was unchanged at $600 a week in the first quarter year-on-year.
That was the second quarter in a row the median rent in Auckland has been unchanged from the same quarter of the previous year.
Median rents for newly tenanted properties within two Auckland Council Wards - Waitemata & Gulf and Maungakiekie-Tamaki, declined by $13 and $10 a week respectively between Q1 2022 and Q1 2023.
The low rate of rent increases in Auckland combined with Auckland Council data showing that the number of new homes being completed in Auckland is running at a record high, suggests supply and demand for rental housing are likely to be roughly in balance in the region.
However that balance between supply and demand is a fine one, and whether it continues will depend on migration trends, and whether or not the residential construction industry heads into an expected slump.
A migration-driven population surge in Auckland accompanied by a downturn in the number of new homes being built would likely result in a shortage of rental properties and a predictable flow-on effect on rents.
The biggest annual increase in rents over the year to March occurred in Queenstown-Lakes, which is also the second most expensive place to rent in the country (after Orakei Ward in Auckland) with a median rent of $700 a week in Q1 2023, up by $110 a week (18.6%) compared to a year earlier.
Around other major centers median rents were up 5.1% for the year in Hamilton, 8.3% in Tauranga, 1.6% in Wellington City, 5.3% in Christchurch and 5.8% in Dunedin.
The table below shows the annual and three monthly movements in median rents in all major urban districts.
*Note re bond data. The data in this report is based on the rental bonds lodged with Tenancy Services each quarter. This will mainly relate to new tenancies rather than existing ones. Because landlords will usually set rents for new tenancies at whatever rate the market will stand, this tends to set the market rate which other landlords will follow when reviewing rents for existing tenancies. This means this data is a forward looking indicator of where rents are likely headed.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
Auckland Council Wards Map
- You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, register here (it's free) and when approved you can select any of our free email newsletters.
104 Comments
Much less than inflation, so a decrease in real terms. I wonder how much people's mortgage payments have gone up in the same period.
I wonder what percentage of consumer price is covered by rent. While I was renting years ago, rent was a much larger expense than anything else. So we have food inflation well over 10%, negated by low rent movement. Things are just fine I guess.
I wonder what percentage of consumer price is covered by rent. While I was renting years ago, rent was a much larger expense than anything else. So we have food inflation well over 10%, negated by low rent movement. Things are just fine I guess.
This is often referred to as 'share of wallet.'
No its not its an increase. Period. How many peoples wages have gone up 10% to cover that ? That's all after tax increases. The typical type of people renting are not getting those sort of wage increases.
People's wages don't need to increase by 10% to cover the increase in median rent, they need to increase by $15 per week. That's $3 per working day.
What's your idea of a "typical type" or person renting?
Zwifter makes some random comments. I'm looking forward to the "typical renter" reply.
Yes they do, because everything else going up as well. Not all of your increased income goes to rent. Even $15 a week is a $1164 pay increase per year before tax at 33%
You are just lucky I added the word typical as not to include everyone renting. Pretty sure I don't need to add anything else, you are already thinking it and just looking for confirmation and someone to shoot at on a Friday afternoon.
Considering that demographically it is those in the under 30 group who are most likely to be renting, and early career is where pay trajectory is likely to be steepest. This comment seems misplaced.
This is backwards looking analysis. Hopefully the Labour government is doing the same so they get absolutely smoked and aren't prepared for it. Chances of that are high, they seem to like their own narratives.
Rental shortages and increases are coming everywhere in New Zealand over the next 12 months. The only place that might escape is Wellington and that is because rents are already really high, so much so that they are down on student numbers as more move to Canterbury.
The only supply-demand or cost dynamic that is in the favour of tenants is that people are bailing on this country to move overseas and more will do so if Labour stay in power. However that only offsets our massive immigration numbers.
- Building looking forward has crashed
- Rental owners are slowly selling, definitely not buying
- Thousands of other owners converting to Social or AirBNB
- The extra cost pressures are hitting rents. Those who have coasted along not bothering to put up rents are having to do so.
- Inflation always flows into rents on a 1 year lag following wages. Guess what? We are in year 2 of inflation and minimum wages were just hiked.
- Immigration through the roof.
Flip the equation on its head, and look at it from a landlord's perspective. Every time you put the rent up, the supply of renters who can pay it decreases. It doesn't matter how many people there are needing somewhere to live. It only matters how many there are who can pay what you're asking.
The issue that landlords (and tenants by extension) have is the owner doesn't keep any of the extra rent. It all flows to the government as extra tax take because the owner cannot deduct business costs.
So rents will go up and owners will lose money. This does not paint a picture of an excess of rentals flooding the market and more properties being available.
Yep. Over the next decade, the supply of rentals will decrease at a rate that'll likely eclipse the increasing number of people who can't afford them.
This is the result of trying to change the dynamics around landlording without first ensuring an alternate supply of housing.
The houses dont dissapear though do they? Guess more people will be owning their own house.
New builds are exempt so encourages new builds.
If anything the policy is good for supply of housing.
They don't disappear, but usually as you increase the cost to landlords, the number of homes for rent decreases. So they get withdrawn from the rental market.
New houses owe the owner significantly more so rents will be higher to cover the increased holding costs.
Check out how many houses are for rent in Ireland.
For the number of homes for rent to decrease it follows that the number of ex renters living in their own home must increase!
Sounds good to me!
V simplistic view the equation is not 1 to 1. If a person or family by a rental the 3 people flat sharing have to move out and find new rentals. also couples with kids split up take up 2 x 3 bedrooms (either buying or renting). the more ex renters buy homes the more the rental pool decrease on top of everything else mentioned (tax deductibility, building cost on new builds, healthy homes) I feel there is going to be a shortage of rentals
Looks like you are wrong, read further down for the stats.
You correctly note that the houses don't disappear but they do 'disappear' for renters because investors sell them to FHBs and the renters are evicted. As the loss if interest deductibility worsens (50% is deductible this year, 25% next year) the rental shortage will continue to increase unabated. Bigger tax bill realisation for landlords will hit in the next month or so as tax returns for 31/3/23 year are completed. Muldoon meddled in the residential rental mkt in the 1970s with the same results - leading to reversal of such foolish policies by successive governments.
"You correctly note that the houses don't disappear but they do 'disappear' for renters because investors sell them to FHBs and the renters are evicted"
Yes and the FHB's move out of the house they were renting, which opens up a new rental for other renters.
You are both right kind of. The process in which the houses disappear is due to first home buyers on average having less people per house than renters.
This is often overlooked.
There were stats posted in the comment section here a month or two back around the average number of people per OO home vs rental. I recall that there were more people on average per OO household than rentals.
I guess what's more relevant to this conversation would be to know accurate statistics on empty homes. Do we actually have a supply problem, or a distribution problem?
Here it is.
Census data from 2018 showed the occupancy of rentals and owner-occupied properties were almost identical – with an average of 2.7 and 2.8 people in an owner-occupied home and rental respectively.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131589273/landlords-planning-to-quit-b…
Thanks for the link. I think this is a little misleading though. As size of the house is crucial.
a home over could only have 2.8 people per house but on average be a 4 bedroom house for example.
A better measure would be : how many spare bedrooms on average for a homeowner vrs a renter.
It's very misleading for a number of reasons, but it never stopped landlords using the statistic as justification for their existence (instead of allowing people to buy their first homes) when the prior anecdotal numbers were 2.5 to a house and 4 to a rental.
Empty nesters will skew the occupancy numbers in one direction, whereas student rental accommodation (around Unis etc) and lower income larger renting families will skew in the other direction.
Many of the FHB simply move out of their parents place when they buy a house. Around 50% of under 30's still live at home. No rental home is freed up, and nobody moves into their parents spare room.
That statistic, even if true, doesn't demonstrate that there are many (or even any) people moving out of their parents place when they buy a house. It is very likely that way more 18 year olds live at home than 29 year olds. It is way more likely that 29 year olds buy a house than 18 year olds. And the average age of first home buyers is closer to 35 anyway.
Staggering, isn't it? That this has to be pointed out. And after this argument has been debunked over and over again.
It's like talking to those people carrying bibbles that knock on your door and won't see reason because they just know they're right - they can feel it. Sheesh.
What is a FHB if not a (recently) ex renter!
It's not unreasonable that if houses are sold to FHBs then there are less renters and less need of rentals!
The FHB that I know personally were not renters, but "living at home with their parents still". How do you think they saved the money for the deposit?
None of the first home buyers I know were living with their parents and I know 4 that have bought in the last 2 years (I'm typical FHB age)!
My anecdotal evidence appears to trump yours.
No 30 year olds I know live at home, and as a 30 year old myself you can imagine that I know quite a few.
Likewise, even in my 20's I knew of 1 person that lived at home. I also know of plenty of 30 year olds who rent a full house and don't have flatmates, which to a certain extent puts to bed the idea that every FHB that buys a home makes xx renters homeless.
NKTokyo, they only need to cling on another 6 months because Nat's will repeal it, and they will be in a position to form a coalition.
And Luxon - "He who is not to be believed for at least 48 hours to give his policy wonks a chance to correct him" - wants to wind back the MDRS density rules and give Councils the right to "opt out".
Does Luxon not know that the most significant reason for our housing issues is that Councils (Akl excepted - kind of) have mind-numbingly daft zoning rules that make supplying enough dwellings in the right place near impossible? And he wants to give Councils the option to opt out? Sorry, Luxon. You're an idiot. Time for Nicola to step up.
Luxon's right. More greenfield is the answer.
Who’s going to pay for the infrastructure? Ratepayers usually need to pick up a big chunk of the costs. Thanks but no thanks.
I will vote for anyone who abolishes that hideous density rule. If you want to live in a sunless high rise go live in the city centre. I like having sunlight in my home, it keeps my house warm and dry and lowers my power bill. And I can grow vegetables in my garden. No way do I want a 3 storey apartment block 1m from my boundary.
Exactly, plenty of space for satellite towns with just a mass of high rise apartments. Run the bus right into the centre and down a dedicated bus lane into town. Have some respect for those with single level houses, go build elsewhere.
I am not a fan but it’s happened, and Luxon looks like an egg going back on something his own party championed just a couple of years ago.
A huge amount of public and private money has already been invested in it.
Was rent not just going to go up anyway despite the tax changes though? Many investors were so overleveraged and had such awful yields rents will have to go up no matter what just to get a return on investment. Price increases are likely baked in for years as landlords try to get yields to return to reality after being basically ignored for so many years. And a huge proportion of renters literally may not be able to afford price increases that go above wage rises.
Realistically we don't actually need more rentals we need more people in their own homes. All the tax advantages still exist for building new stock which is what we actually need.
Landlords are charging as much as the market can bear. If mortgage or compliance costs are sufficient drivers to increase the rent past a normal increase amount, then in the absence of those extra costs why not a new boat?
They're implying that rents are set on a cost plus basis. So $500 per week goes to $525 per week. But because of compliance costs, it's now $550 per week. Derp, wouldn't you just increase to $550 even in the absence of those new costs? If National get voted in and reinstate mortgage interest deductibility I assume Landlords will drop their rents?
This assumes landlords increased rents because of the interest rate change. Some did. Many didn’t.
Couldn't is the word you are looking for.
The real issue is overleaveraged landlords relying on capital gains that are no longer there. The yield was always garbage.
Yeah nice idea. Doesn’t work like that unfortunately for you.
Why doesn't it work like that? A LL needs only one tenant who'll pay what they're asking.
Obviously, if they go too high, and there are similar at lower prices then the LL will be waiting a long time. Was that what you meant?
You nailed it.
Again something I said to the government bureaucrats about 1.5 years was the looming private rental crisis, which wouldn’t rear its ugly head till 2023/2024.
They didn’t agree. Planning reform and a strong and sustained house building environment would ensure a rental crisis would not emerge.
Unbelievably they are still in lala land. Just read Treasury’s report accompanying the Budget, they forecast only a minimal drop in residential development over the next couple of years.
Is it right that your basic argument is that a change of government (e.g., NAT/ACT) will restore the original tax settings (ring fencing/interest deductions etc.) and as a result, market rent prices will go down?
Any predictions as to how much - i.e., the percentage decrease you might expect?
Rents rarely go down. It's likely though the rate of increase would slow.
0%
The question was posed on the FB property investors page recently and all answers were "No", "Not running a charity" etc. It's self interest only, there is no "tenant tax", only concern for the protection of ones "hard earned" equity in the house.
Perhaps they need to write to the oxford dictionary to change the term hard-earned within the context of New Zealand to "to have sat on ones' backside and watched the value of an investment property increase over time"
You omitted the responses that said rents wouldn’t change because they didn’t change in the first place because of the legislation changing.
Yes you’re right.
But still 0% chance of decrease in that case
In that scenario I reckon they're unlikely to go down, but just not increase as fast over coming years.
Rent increases over the long term would be lower, because the supply/demand dynamic would improve, no? It could also prevent owners from reacting to their tax bills by increasing rents, however I believe that ship has now sailed. We saw it in Auckland during the pandemic... more rentals available = lower prices.
Many renters still fondly remember the rent decreases they received when mortgage interest rates were slashed 3 years ago.....
Houses don’t disappear. If a landlord sells the house, the house doesn’t disappear. It’s either sold to another “hardworking mum and dad investor (c)” in which case supply remains constant, or it is sold to a current renter in which case demand drops constant with supply.
The “migration boom” is already done. Record consent numbers being completed mean an increase in supply.
Internal migration is high as people move out of Auckland given the power of remote working for white collar jobs.
The sun is setting on the boomer-landlord industrial complex.
“Christopher” backing the wrong horses and will get obliterated at the election unless he gets binned beforehand and a change of tack is put in place.
"The sun is setting on the boomer-landlord industrial complex." .......and it's about time ! Great quote btw
Finally those arrogant, greedy, "know all's" will shut their loud mouths at BBQ's, gatherings etc around the country ...hooray, some peace at last !
Here's a piece I wrote on this site a couple of days ago - but was a bit late in that discussion, but fits in here .....
by Crazy Horse | 24th May 23, 1:10pm
I was shouting this from the rooftops from about 2014 onwards on this forum, with NZ residential property, and just how much money was being sucked out the system for mortgage P & I and rents etc
While overseas money was using Auckland real estate to park their funds and protect them from their homeland's "financial regimes".....and pushing up prices !
I would always say we would be all so much better off with those funds, over all the years, going into businesses, capital investment, R & D, investment in new technology etc etc
But everyone just shut us down, as being "DGM's" and we where "financial idiots" for not joining in the PPP (property ponzi party)
Well, it went very well for a while, I will admit and some did do well out of it, however did anyone out there think of the long term ramifications of so much money going into a "NON PRODUCTIVE ASSET" and for all those PI's out there, rents DO NOT qualify.
Really I have never known a group of people to be so "swung" by the "property spruikers", media , banks , their "know all" uncle around the BBQ etc etc ......and the "greed" and penny pinching out there !
It only leads to a conclusion that these people weren't that "bright" financially ....or were so weak and indecisive and got caught up in the "hype" as couldn't make their own decisions, which brings us back to the issue of financial education and the almost non-existent lack thereof in this country, which the banks absolutely love btw :)
I have no sympathy for anyone who "overextended" themselves in any way - you can struggle and stress your way out of it on your own (and don't include the taxpayer !)
And next time you find your mouth talking "2 to the dozen" about property, at that family and friends BBQ - stop and think BEFORE opening your trap !
DYOR NFA
"I will admit and some did do well out of it"
I just don't get the point of doing well out of something if it contributes to the destruction of our social and financial stability.
As the wisdom of the bible says: 'For what shall it profit it a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?' Mark 8:36
We have a lot of people in NZ who have lost their souls the last 10-20 years. They view other people as their path to riches (rent slaves).
Instead of 'Love thy neighbour' our slogan has become, 'turn thy neighbour into they rent slave'.
As Jesus said; "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God"
If you want to get rich turning your neighbour into your rent slave, good for you. But remember that this wealth will be of no benefit to you in the end. It will bring you no peace or happiness.
IO, that is the whole point as "some did well out of it" BUT would then run around, shouting from the rooftops, look at me and how "well" I am doing, as those people knew at that point, the only way for their "property ponzi party" to continue FOR THEM was to simply bring in new players to support whatever equity, cash flows etc they already had in the game.
And that is where the GREED comes in and the "vested interests" of the above, and with so many other stakeholders already at the PPP !
I totally agree with you and the saddest and biggest loss for this country that I have witnessed, is the younger ones saying "stuff your crappy, damp, overpriced houses" and heading across the ditch to Aussie.
Don't get me started on the mental health issues - this affects so many people, in so many ways, as you have landlords becoming more greedy, self serving and "entilted" while young families struggling with mortgages and the stress that brings, and even if they keep the house, that mortgage will carry on till the end of their working life !
To me the biggest thing is anyone with a "vested interest" in the now twilight of this "PPP" has been lying, deceitful or hiding crucial information about property matters, to their OWN pecuniary advantage. And that is why even the media are culpable, as their part in the game was more advertising for "revenue raising".
Speaking of "vested interest" did I ever tell you about a year or so ago, that beloved Auckland major publication would not publish my comment, until I removed the term "vested interest" - tells it all.
Yes I think there is a high correlation between our private debt levels (for young people) and their levels of stress, anxiety, depression, sense of desperation.
It is very sad and doesn't need to be this way.
Many media corporations/sources have sold their souls to financial interests. Was reading the other day that trust in media is about 20% - down from nearly 100% 40-50 odd years ago. People no longer trust the media. Why? Because they have flushed their values and principles down the toilet and given in to financial interest/supporters. They no longer provide unbiased reporting of news and current events - they sell a story that their financial sponsors want them to tell - not the one that people need to hear (RE industry has been a classic in NZ). It isn't good - it is why everyone is suffering from cognitive dissonance because deep down they know what they are being told by supposedly reputable news sources is only half truth's and not the full truth. If you dig a bit, you realised that quite often they are attempting to mislead you. There is no integrity in that. And integrity is where quality journalism starts.
NZers' trust in the media here is at 43% and falling, according to this 2023 study:
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/trust-in-the-news-slips-further
RNZ, TVNZ and ODT were the most trusted, NBR and interest.co.nz a close second. And more people are relying on facebook for "news" instead.
Have never had an issue with the ODT. Most of the time I have a read it gives me a sense of nostalgia for back when you could actually trust the information you were given on the news etc.
Yes, they could have put it into the stock market which has plunged. Or gold bars which is about the worst 'investment' ever. Property's been a big winner and will always be. Ask Frank Lowy.
Great post
Partially correct, some of the houses are indeed sold to ex renters who are FHBs, but many go to FHBs who have been living with parents or friends resulting in a net loss of houses for renters. Coupled with increasing net immigration and transfer of rental properties to AirBnB means neverending pressure on rents and renters. Great for my daughter and hubby/child getting their first home but a spiral disaster for renters.Thanks for fiddling Labour.
It's a shame we can't do anything about the rate of immigration. Completely out of our hands, inevitable, the government can't do a thing about it despite some of the obvious negative externalities that are going to be imposed on renters and the wider economy.
Yes and many people die and those houses are also sold, often to FHB as well, but that’s all just part of a natural movement.
We have negative population rates (birth rate is below rate of replacement) so as the boomers are shuffling off to the retirement village or cemetery then again more houses come online for FHB.
Check out the demographics, or even just how many people currently get our inflation linked on-means tested super (800k).
So all these empty threats are just that.
Also, a word on Air BNB. Eventually we will end up like most of the world regulating it - income is already taxable anyway and the Queenstown eating itself alive experience (similar to that of Barcelona) is leading the charge here for a crackdown.
Boomers often hold high end houses so its an entire chain of sales .... at the moment only one person wanting last years price is holding up the entire chain....
Yea
Not sure why people are celebrating so early, just because the rate of growth has slowed does not mean rent prices will continuously decline…in fact the market forces that nktokyo pointed out makes sense for the complete opposite to occur. People that are expecting a terminal decline in the rental market posting “the end is near” comments on their landlords Wi-Fi are in for a rude awakening over the next 6-12 months.
Auckland too. It's been flat for a while now.
That's 2 fairly big rental centres.
Auckland has been building lots and lots of new dwellings since the new Unitary Plan of 2016.
The new zoning rules allow far higher dwelling densities per 1000sqm. Hat's off to the Auckland Mayor & Councilors that fought hard to do it. (We also had a flatline of house prices between 2016 and covid. See the REINZ median price on this web site, click the 'Charts' item on the menu at the top of the page.)
But wait! That pillock Luxon wants to reverse Central Government's MDRS rules that forced all other Councils to do what Auckland did in 2016. (Actually, the MDRS rules are slightly bigger for some areas in Akl.) And Luxon says he's 100% going to provide more houses? Does he know that he can't do both? More importantly, do voters - especially renters who rather be owners - know that too?
Even better than that, it would be reversing what his own party said was so critical just 2 years ago (MDRS was bipartisan, and I think even initiated by National?)
The guy is all over the place
Reading through the breakdown by suburb, many auckland suburbs were underwater, rent price speaking. The latest period has been a catchup and brought them above zero. Although not yet for tamaki and waitemata
I think rents will nudge up in auckland. I don't like to see it, but rents will track wage increases. It's economics
Would all the affordability fix itself if house prices fell 50%?
Could a new landlord buy with existing tax setting and manage to pay off a principal and Interest mortgage with CURRENT rents.... and interest rates?
There I fixed it for ya...
Rise of large scale build-to-rent? Turn the likes of South Auckland, Porirua, Frankton into shanty towns.
With all rental income and profits going offshore to foreign investors, sucking even more money out of local economies.
I would have expected more new builds would have bolstered rental supply more than they have. Only 362 townhouses for rent in Auckland on TradeMe as I type.
New supply will keep coming through over the next few months, but will it keep getting eaten up by immigration?
so then what happens when the surge in supply disappears in 3-4 months?
I think the surge is mainly partners and dependants...... sure be a few new workers but a huge number of arrivals are under 18 and over 65, says it all. Labour announced this some time back
That's correct.
Our real GDP per person employed has remained flat since 2012, despite importing 600k more working age people and working more hours in that period.
Shows what a failed experiment high migration has been for our economy. With already high inflation and huge deficits (public revenue, current account, infrastructure), expect high influx to break the camel's back!
Ask yourself this, where would we be without those 600k?
With a birth rate below the natural rate of replacement, an enormous baby boomer retiree cohort sucking up govt expenditure through super, healthcare, transport etc.
Who would be here to wipe their backsides? Pick fruit? Work as nurses or doctors in our hospitals and clinics? Pour pints and bring food to your table in hospo?
There isn’t an immigration failure. There is a planning and infrastructure failure - driven by gutless politicians pandering to the boomer-landlord industrial complex who wanted to take more and more but not put back into the system.
Yes this theory/thinking aligns with Treasury reports/forecasts.
We need immigration to prevent the boomer demographic from crippling the country's finances as they retire from the workforce.
This hasn't happened by accident.
Australian Govt analysis showed that only 1 in 4 immigrants was a skilled worker, the rest were students, dependents, parents, or a (usually) unskilled partner.
I wonder where is Shaft, I havent seen him for a few days
Shafted 😘
Hemi is off sailing?
Another sailor like yourself ITGUY
He said he was gonna last, oh dear
We already know the answer. He is slowly but surely translating the next scroll from the Prophet in the language of the crystal ball. What wisdom will it impart? What ridicule will it attract? What truths will be laid bare for deniers who will, as previously, be proven wrong by the teachings of the Prophet?
Think he got banned. His name was blacked out on Sunday.
Who could have seen that coming
Goneburger
Anecdotally, i could totally believe rents are rising in Auckland.
Not because of demand, per se, but because I've noticed a lot of very nice houses are now listed, and asking for more.
Our house, which was slightly over-priced when we rented it, simply isn't in the same ballpark either pricewise, or quality-wise, as the comparatively sized houses we're seeing on the market in the local area now.
There seems to have been a significant increase in the number of large houses listed.
Probably belonging to people who have left the country. They rent their house out rather than selling it in case they cant get work overseas and are forced to return. A safety net. In a year or so when they are settled overseas, those houses will be sold.
It would seem logical that LLs would be buying new for profit maximisation reasons. Ergo we'll see a lot of recently built rentals appearing for a while yet.
Personally, I'd prefer to see Labour & National do a deal to re-instate interest deductibility in exchange for a comprehensive and retrospective CGT part payable annually with the bulk payable on realization.
Next year assuming Labour wins the election Airbnb will have to pay GST. The number of rentals advertised in trademe for Auckland has gone from more than 6000 to just over 3000 in a year. My guess is that tourism is a major contributor. Hopefully adding GST will help put some back into rentals.
For a first home buyer getting decent interest on their saving and with rents and the cost of housing decreasing its all good news.
Just make sure you vote for a party that supports workers not the real estate industry
You mean a party that cancelled a legitimate deduction from a legitimate enterprise? The interest cost on the mortgage.
It's going to cost Labour big time, there's hundreds of thousands of landlords in NZ. And if there wasn't who's going to provide housing, because the government certainly can't?
There's 40,000 empty houses in Auckland, owned by people who can't be bothered with the bureaucracy.
I was going to vote Labour, but not now, solely for that reason.
🤣🤣🤣🤣💩💩💩💩💩😜😜😜😜 this guy. How about the hundreds of thousands people who are sick of the greed and tax rinsing LL brigade. Not to mention the LLs that can see how badly things are going because of this and how it affects our social fabric.
The tears of LLs poor me'ing over this is confirmation things are on the right path.
Clever satire.
You had me fooled for a sec.
Are you also assuming that NAT/ACT don't stand a chance? you building a home on sand here.
There will be a LOT of this in small town New Zealand.
More and more rentals go to AirBnb, or social housing to pay the extra tax, or are simply sold.
Perhaps someone on here should point out to this family that it's OK because the houses still exist and some people get to stay in them. They might be homeless trucked into the region like Rotorua had, or tourists, or the home might have been a holiday home rented out 48 weeks a year in the past but you can't do that anymore, so holiday homes can ONLY go on airBNB or sot empty.... but hey, have another blanket.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/homeless-family-of-five-sleeping-in-car-i…
Unintended consequences from the most useless government this country has had. Spoke to a homeless guy the other day, he said he’s been living in his car for five years, calls the housing department regularly but nothing. There an allot of homeless in my area now, never was the case under the national government…..go figure. And no I’m not a national fan….voted JA in her first term…biggest mistake ever. And I will never vote labour again.
Except those consequences were pointed out by all and sundry. Fella living in his car now was considered expendable in the wider picture.
Maybe he had a house in 2015, but by 2017 the Government had removed 4000 homes from their managed social housing stock (from 67k to 63k). This meant social housing tenants had to go into the private rental market. Or the new incoming Government had to put them up in motels at huge expense to the taxpayer.
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.