Ministry confirms funding pulled for new insulin pumps & glucose monitors, raising carer fears of 'Dead in Bed syndrome'; Simmonds didn't tell Cabinet of funding halt designed to help pay for tax cuts
There are some truly alarming issues in this post. Would you open it to the public? A friend has been woken several nights in the last week when her daughter's glucose alarm went off during the night. If it isn't funded children will die.
Bernard you need to remove the reference to landlord tax cuts from the article. You know the reinstatement of tax deductability is not a tax cut. You need to stop misleading and winding up your audience.
Whether it’s described as a cut, a benefit, a subsidy, a gift, or an entitlement, the reinstatement of the tax deduction for landlords is unjustifiable. Residential property gains value over time, unlike a tractor, computer, or other business purchases that depreciate over time. Providing a tax break to make it easier for landlords to purchase an investment property and then not taxing their capital gains when they sell it tells us who our politicians have been listening to and who they have decided to serve and support.
What tax break Mark? There has never been a tax break. Same rules that apply to all businesses in New Zealand used to apply to landlords. Labour changed the rules against IRD and Treasury advice. I am happy to lead the charge in relation to capital gains tax. But do not confuse it with deductibility issue. The two are not related.
NZ Inc. has more than enough problems without demonising every rental property owner who, understandably, would prefer all of their business costs to be tax deductible, as they were until that was changed by the previous government.
And copping the blame for indirectly causing hardship to many people now being deprived of the assistance of the state.
However, Lynn Grieveson points out, above, that the ability to claim tax deductibility on interest payments is actually a support for a capital cost of investment and as such, is a tax anomaly which unfairly disadvantages first, and sole home owners. As I understand her point.
It's a cut in the amount of tax that landlords with mortgages on their investment properties have to pay. Their tax bills will fall and the revenue the government receives will drop. So not calling it a tax cut to appease those insisting it is just a 'reinstatement of previous settings' will not change the fact that it is a change that will result in a cut in many landlord's tax bills. It was to be 'paid for' by the return of foreign buyers into our property market, but with NZFirst blocking that, they have had to go after other ways of filling that 'revenue hole'. Obviously, the bigger question is why income generated by capital gains is not properly taxed in NZ.
Hi Lynn I am with you on the capital gains tax. But this has nothing to do with tax deductability. All business deduct their interest expense. The IRD said as much. So why are landlords being singled out. I agree the government needs more revenue. Let's take deductibility from all businesses. If you take deductibility away from banks and supermarkets and other fat cats you will raise billions of dollars. Why are the landlords being singled out and vilified?
Hi Alister, can argue back on forth on this and I have no intention of doing so ;-) However, landlords can still claim many things related to the holding, management and maintenance of their property/ properties as expenses, but IMHO interest payments are in a different category in that they are (also) the cost of purchasing the asset. Thus, those interest costs are the cost of making a property investment rather than solely an expense. Yes, a grey area that you could argue on for hours I am sure. And, yes, some of the rhetoric around landlords can be overly heated and clearly something you personally feel as unfair, especially if you are trying to provide a good service to your tenants. BUT my main point was that landlords with mortgages ARE getting a cut in the tax they pay so not sure why a thread on the changes for people with disabilities and their families has been hijacked by arguments over semantics (ie the use of the phrase 'tax cuts') and attacks on other commenters. It's obviously struck a nerve for you, but I think everyone (and especially those of us with disabled family members) would appreciate it if we keep things a little calmer and more respectful and focused on the issue of disability support. Cheers.
Lynn I am 100 percent with you. I respect (still) Bernard which is why I am a paying subscriber. The reason I got a bit hot under the collar is exactly as you describe - why did Bernard bring landlords into the discussion about sick kids? That was a cheap shot would not you agree? The same article would have been just as valuable and interesting if it did not include a reference to landlords. Let's agree to stop blaming landlords for everything negative in this country, what do you say? And Bernard is better than making cheap shots like this. At least I hope so.
Without details this makes no sense David. Do you have same income? Do you have same mortgage? Lots of New Zealanders take trips to Sydney. If you want to discuss your friend's luxury lifestyle we need more details.
To be honest, I never thought I would see a headline like that, not even from this lot. Does anybody in this government understand the consequences of what they are doing? or are they so self-centered that achieving their own dreamed goals is the only thing that matters, and fuck everyone else?
You never give up do you Alister. To make things equal, all mortgage and rental payments should perhaps be tax deductible, but then Nicola witch won't have any money for tax cuts.
I am happy to be persuaded with logic and reasoning. But don't like bullying. There is no point comparing rents with interest payments. Interest payments on rentals are business expenses. Interest on mortgage for personal home is not a business expense. As a fun anecdote in America interest payments on mortgage for a personal home are tax deductible. I do not know if it's right or wrong. But I think it is a difference between owning a house for rent and own in your own home. One way or an hour to compare apples with apples we need to compare landlords with our business owners and not with homeowners.
Hi Robert! How are you? I was wondering why you were a bit quiet. You make no substantial or constructive arguments at all so I am not even going to dignify your posts with my responses. You are like Emily here, making yourself feel good by attacking anyone who disagrees with you without engaging with the substance of the matter. John above asked whether I ever give up. I do give up on you and Emily. Very happy to continue a constructive conversation with everyone else.
your fourth sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
I repeat some of my factual/truthful substantial comment: residential rental property owners being allowed mortgage interest deductibility gives them a colossal !!!!!! financial advantage over people who want to buy a home for themself (and family) and consequently makes it impossible for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to buy their own home. therefore hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are being and will continue to be forced to be renters or homeless instead of being able to live in their own home.
Tracy I am not an accountant so I do not have the technical knowledge. A few people here will know better than me. But from my rudimentary understanding all costs associated with a business venture are considered business expense. So rates, insurance, repairs and interest are all business costs. Your profit is determined by taking your revenue and deducting expences and then the rest is taxed. If interest is not counted then you will be taxed on money that you do not actually have as your profit. You will be taxed on money that you paid to the bank. That's how I understand it anyway. I am sure someone here will correct me if I am wrong.
Three things - I will not be replying further as you seem to enjoy a public display of ignorance:
- If a landlord was in business then they would be paying tax on all income not just the rental income. This includes the increase in the value of the asset when sold.
- The interest paid is the cost of leveraging to obtain a tax free capital gain.
- Real business claim depreciation on their assets. For rental properties it is set at 0% i.e. the cost is not tax deductible.
Summary, the nature of a rental property is completely different to a real business so different tax rules apply. If you had any technical financial knowledge you'd understand this rather than banging you head into a masonry abutment.
David, there is no capital gains tax in NZ on ANY business! You are the ignorant one! Educate yourself.
Quote-
New Zealand has no capital gains tax, so you won’t be taxed on profits you make selling a business. However, there are other taxes and obligations that may apply. Your options when selling can also differ depending on the business structure you have. It’s worth speaking to a professional advisor for specialist help.
your first sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
residential rental property owners being allowed mortgage interest deductibility gives them a colossal !!!!!! financial advantage over people who want to buy a home for themself (and family) and consequently makes it impossible for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to buy their own home. therefore hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are being and will continue to be forced to be renters or homeless instead of being able to live in their own home.
Thank you for such clarity in explaining the difference between 1991 economic situation and now. It is unbelievable how the public is being misled into thinking that cutting what people need is somehow justified.
I'm so glad this post is open to the public and can be shared. As many eyes as possible need to read this. I feel utterly at a loss when I read articles like this.
This is truly embarrassing. Has anyone been able to actually quantify the actual financial impact of carers who have falsely or over claimed things like travel etc? I suspect it's a tiny amount compared to the amount that is being cut to truly needed services.
I also suspect that the amount of benefits claimed by carers is tiny compared to the amount of "business expenses" falsely claimed by small business owners and self employed people around the country. I wonder if anyone has any idea of how much tax revenue we lose to anything from boats to overseas holidays to pet food being claimed as a "business expense".
Of course, I understand that there's considerably more involved in cracking down on business expense tax fraud, but it's not an impossibility. It's just sickening to think that there are vulnerable people who are genuinely just getting by and dealing with crippling illness having essential services while there are people raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and then billing the taxpayer for expensive personal purchases to pad their income even further.
I know for a fact having run a SME that there is a whole industry of accounting and consultancy businesses who make a substantial living from the tax avoidance and tax evasion for other businesses. This gets worse when a large company or global corporations are involved. I read recently that an Auckland based builder was fighting to keep assets even though bankrupt. He has bank accounts here, Australia & the British Virgin Islands, a notorious tax haven available to people who want to hide money & assets from the government.
Strange that the "reducing the need to take a break" aspect of glucose alarms has not been considered as an enabler of productivity for parent carers and disabled adults. Broken sleep increases mental stress, which reduces capacity to work - which also increases financial stress and dependency on benefits etc. It's a merry-go-round! Yes, they cost money, but do you want those affected to be defined by the disability, or do you want them able to participate in society?
You could not resist bringing landlords into this discussion again could you Bernard. There are NO tax cuts for landlords being brought by the coalition government. Reinstatement if deductibility is not a tax cut. It's reinstatement of ability to claim tax as a business expense which every other business in New Zealand can claim. Calling this a tax cut is a deliberate attempt to vilify landlords and the coalition. Thia is very poor effort on your part Bernard. You must understand the difference between tax cuts and interest deductibility reinstatement. Banks can deduct interest cost on their expences. Supermarkets can deduct interest. YOU Bernard I am sure claim a deduction on your expences. Why should not landlords? Many of these children and families you are writing about live in houses provided to them by landlords that you seem to hate so much. Landlorda provide a social good to the society. It is time you have recognized it and stopped using landlords and the reinstatement if deductibility to score cheap points. You are better than this Bernard. Pick up your game.
If landlords use the deduction to reduce rents and/or improve the property (to at least healthy homes standards), then it’s going towards the social good. Otherwise, it’s a tax cut. Yes, landlords are needed because not everyone wants to or can own a house, but owning rental properties as the main form of investment is a major factor in inequality here in Aotearoa.
Mary, Bernard is claiming deductions on his expences running this substack. I am a subscriber so I know how much he charges. With 18,000 subscribers he will be making a lot of money. Is he using his deductions to reduce the fee he charges us? No of course he does not. And if the government takes his ability to deduct his expences away and he looses income and then another government allows him to claim deductions again - it will not be a tax cut. Would you agree?
You want landlords to pass on reinstated deductions? In the climate when insurance costs go through the roof. Rates increases are in double digits. Interest costs highest they have been for years and general inflation still around 5%. ANZ has increased it's credit card interest rate today. Where is the outrage? Where are Mary and Bernard screaming that children may die as a result (the only people paying credit card interest will be the poor people who can not repay their ballance every month).
Landlord have become and easy target for the uneducated and the politically motivated. Cheap shots at landlord expose people's laziness or political bias (or both).
Let's not stereotype landlords - all kinds of people own (or have owned) rental property:
Kirsty Johnston
@kirsty_johnston
·
Nov 17, 2020
My property manager suggested upping my tenant's rent because it was "under let" and because "the tenant is working all the time now". This is despite the fact the rent already covers all costs incl. rates and maintenance. The "market" is just greed.
What are you talking about David. Do you think Bernard is just trying to cover his expences? No. He wants to make a profit. So does your bank and so does your supermarket. What is this nonsense about shaning people for wanting to make a profit. My local cafe sells fries for $9. What the hell? One cut and fried potato for $9??? Where is the outrage? They want to make a profit. If people do not make a profit there will be no business. Have any of you lived in a socialist or communist country? Give it a go and then let's have a chat.
Sorry I was not commenting on Kirsty Johnston's stance here - just showing that all sorts of people own rental properties including longtime Stuff and RNZ journalist Kirsty Johnston.
Landlords have kids. Landlords have parents. Landlord have families. They have sick kids like everyone else. They are human beings like the rest of us. And some of them have a job and make a loss on their rental in which you live and at the same time look after their sick kids with type one and probably cancer and look after their parent. Where do you get this picture of landlords being lazy and greedy and inhumane? Do you have kiwisaver? You are making money on your kiwisaver while doing nothing. Would you like to be shamed for that? Landlords actually have to take risks and look after properties and deal with all sorts of tenants .
That's right. And the only reason tenants have a roof over their heads is because landlords chose to take a risk and put their hard earned money at risk to buy a rental. Without landlords you will not have the choice to rent. Who will provide you rentals if not landlords? Where are all the tenants going to live if landlords do not provide rentals? The rental market only exists because landlords take risks and create this market. The government tried to play in the rental market. Have you read about the disaster that Kainga Ora is? I can send you some links.
Is Kainga Ora really a disaster? We can look at it's P&L over the last few years of massive building projects & I'm sure its's not pretty reading but when you take out the cost of housing the tenants in motels, of not having them go to hospital due to substandard housing, of the positive affect on stable homes on reducing crime - and all this for the next 40/50/60 years - then I wonder what the bottom line really is.
It might be similar to where reducing prescription charges saves the government money?
If you cant afford your rental properties then sell them. Being a landlord is not a basic human right, it’s a business and if it’s not a good return on investment then why are you doing it?
Exactly. It's a business like any other and should be treated as such. Not singled out for removing basic tax rules. But it's also a social good. If you close all McDonald's restaurants in NZ the impact will be zero. Less rubbish food sold so we all get healthier. If you remove all landlords what is going to happen? Who will provide rental accomodation?
It’s been a while since I have done physics but I’m pretty sure the houses won’t evaporate.
But for the 3rd time I am not arguing whether this is a positive change or not. Im not getting a straw man argument about McDonalds. I’m telling you - it’s a tax cut.
Houses do not disappear. But a lot of people can not afford to buy them. Where should they live? Are you suggesting students buy houses? Where will students live?
Spare houses? Like supermarkets with spare food? How dare they have so much food on which they make profits while people are starving.... Like electricians with spare power sockets which they sell at a profit to people who need then to plug their heaters to keep their children warm. If you try hard you can make anyone a vilan. What about brain surgeons who earn money for life making surgeries? Shall we attack them?
Dude no one is cancelling you, we disagree and are making argument to counter your positions. Please do cry “cancelled” when you don’t find a sympathetic echo chamber.
Dude, I do not complain. You are about the only person actually engaging constructively here. Most other comments are pretty unconstructive. Check out Emily she thinks I am Satan himself! I love learning and I am happy to have my mind changed. But with logic and reasoning. Bring on constructive discussion. The fact is that reinstatement of deductibility is not a tax cut. No matter how much people say that it is. Being a landlord is a business and all businesses can claim interest as a cost and therefore deduct it. The IRD said that removing deductibility was a bad idea because it was confusing the tax system. With treasury said it was a bad idea because it will increase rents. Labor removed it anyway. And now with national is bringing back the sane position we had before labour stuffed it up people complain with landlords get a tax cut. This is simply nonsense. That's all I'm saying.
Some large and erroneous assumptions here and a bit of a cheap shot. I bet Bernard wishes all those subscribers were paying! ;-) (The vast majority don't pay but still get to read a lot of content, and students and academics and many others are provided free subs. This is enabled by the smaller number of paid subscribers who are supporting the work Bernard does, and who are very much appreciated).
Does Bernard get an asset that will grow substantially in value for doing ☆nothing☆after deducting his expenses from his substack? No, no he does not. THAT is the difference Alister
Everyone who owns shares does "nothing". Everyone who has a kiwisaver does "nothing". This is why it's called passive investment. And there is a lot more risk in owning a rental property then owning shares or having your kiwi saver. You have to deal with tenants You have to find tenants some of them don't pay rent some of them damage the property. You may be very lucky as a landlord if you attendance are ideal. But not everyone is so lucky. Papers are full of stories of tenants ruining houses and abusing landlords. So it is not fair to say that landlords do nothing. And it is not guaranteed that their property will be worth a lot more in the future. We just witnessed a 30% drop in property prices in Wellington. So people who bought a house for a million dollars now own an asset that is worth $700,000 how long will it be until prices return to 1 million and then increase? Nobody knows. Owing in property is not risk free. And very few landlords do "nothing". A lot of them like myself work hard to make sure of a tenants are happy.
a landlord does nothing towards their capital asset gain. Whether a kindly or terrible landlord, whether ideal or poor tenants, whether you manage it yourself or outsource management. , the valiue of the asset rises. So what if house prices go up or down ? if you hang in long enough, a massive capital gain is almost guaranteed. The same caanott be said for shares, surely??
That’s what you don’t get. It IS personal. I have two disabled children who were directly impacted by these cuts. Instead of us being able to discuss these cuts a landlord has completely dominated the conversation because they feel the peasants aren’t giving them enough respect. All while we face cut after cut after cut to our families to subsidise their lifestyles. You won’t even let us talk about the risk of our children dying in their sleep without making it about you and think this isn’t personal? It is personal. You will get your money but you will also have to face the people you took that money from. Get used to it.
Oh! This is what this is about. Emily is angry and she needs a target and what better target than landlords. Well in this last message to you Emily I will tell you that your anger does not give you the right to attack people you do not know. You know nothing about me. I came into this country as an immigrant many years ago with no money or language. I worked my arse off to study in university and learn English while helping a tetraplegic person go to the toilet and shower and driving taxies at night. I worked hard all my life and did not steal a dollar from anyone. everything I have is the result of my hard work. I will not apologize to anyone for my success. I was taking away from my family and my kids as I was building my wealth while many others around me where drinking and smoking weed and enjoying their life. I was abused for my accent by my taxi customers and I was paying 50% of my takings for the night to a nice kiwi bloke who owned the taxi car I was driving while he was sleeping. I worked hard to get to where I am, and you will no shame me for my success. I am proud of my achievements. And I am not prepared to waste any more of my time engaging with a sad and bitter person like you. Over and out.
Once again it’s all about you. You. You. You. Nobody has had it harder than you. You’re the only deserving person. We can’t even talk about children without you leaping in and saying “what about me”. Disabled people are just random props in the story of how you made money and now you’ve got all the money you could ever need and it’s still not enough. You need even more. Revolting.
You mention all these other business types who claim interest, and I agree that they should be allowed to, under current tax rules.
But these businesses also pay tax on their profits, something landlords don't do because they insist on calling their profits when a property is sold a capital gain.
A landlord only incurs an interest cost when they get a mortgage to help buy a property. So, if the profit is tax free then the interest expense against that profit should not be tax deductible.
Steve you are very confused. The landlords make profits on rent. And they pay tax on the rent they get just like everyone else. Capital gains are not taxed and that's a separate question. But every landlord in NZ who makes a profit (and not all of them do) they all pay a tax. Please do not confuse landlords with property speculators.
I'm sorry Alister but if I am confused then so are you. I used to be an accountant and did lots of tax returns for landlords.
Perhaps my previous last paragraph should have been: - "A landlord only incurs an interest cost when they get a mortgage to help buy a property. So, if the profit ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY is tax free then the interest expense against that profit should not be tax deductible".
Why? What does sale of a business have to do with anything during the operation of the business? What if the landlord sells at a loss? What if a future government introduces a capital gains tax? You are very confused Steve. Profit is taxed annually. If landlords make a profit in a certain year they pay tax. This is the bottom line. You want to introduce capital gains tax - go for it. I will probably support you. Buy it has nothing to do with the tax payable by all landlords Evey year just like every other taxpayer. No difference. Do not confuse the capital gains tax issue with the deductability issue. Two separate issues.
Nah. If you want to be treated as a business it has to be all the way. You get deductibility and you pay tax on capital gain. If you sell at a loss, then so be it, but most will not. That's a lame argument against introducing CGT which is only fair towards other businesses.
I agree! Capital Gain Tax may well be justified and I think it's only a matter of time until lit is introduced. But it has nothing to do with interest deductibility. Two separate and unrelated issues.
The issue is Alister that most landlords never made a tax profit in on their rentals ever as this was standard tax planning. Until 2019 everyone had huge mortgages over their rentals (and would instead pay off their home mortgage) to make the interest deductible. The losses from their rental would then offset their wage income to get a tax refund. In 2019 these losses were limited to only other residential rental income.
Alas although it helped, it still made sense to keep huge mortgages over their rentals. In fact it even made sense to be interest only and to never ever pay off the loan. Landlords would still never make a tax profit despite clearing getting huge accounting profits through untaxed capital gains. Hence the increase in the bright line rule to try capture these gains and the removal of interest deductibility to get regular tax paid.
Believe it or not we do actually have a capital gains tax. However as it’s based on an individual’s intentions on purchase, it is near impossible to prove. The entire reason for extending the brightline test was to catch people who were most likely doing it for capital gains. In the IRD’s analysis of the brightline test, this is stated as the reasoning for increasing it.
As a former tax accountant I agree, the interest deductibility rules were terrible. But they were implemented because labour put themselves into a corner by ruling out a wealth or CGT and were better than nothing.
Thank you Paul. Constructive comment! Of course there are capital gains tax in NZ for speculators. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look into this issue but trying to argue it is impossible because people just do not want to hear. Same as issue of landlird taxes. I agree with you and appreciate your comment.
You missed my point Alister. Most speculators do not pay capital gains for the gains they obtain. They hide behind the facade of being a landlord as their intentions can not be proven. Hence the reason why the brightline test was going up
Yes the whole intention at the time of purchase is a bit of a minefield. People will always play games there's nothing that can be done about it. But the rules are there and it's a question of enforcing them. If people want to game the system they always will.
Allister, you must have read a different article than me, as there was no mention by Bernard of landlords. The tax cuts alluded to are the much promised, and campaigned on tax cuts for the "seemed middle" due in the upcoming budget
There are more landlords out there who care than those who do not. The generalisations and the comments of the sorts that Bernard makes are not helpful. Especially coming from Bernard who is educated and knows that landlord tax cuts do not exist.
Naked greed? As opposed to dressed up greed? Who is providing more than 80% of rentals in NZ? Do you accommodate anyone Dean? Or course they want to make a profit and they are not charities. Everyone around you wants to make a profit. Your plumber when he comes to your house - do you think he wants to clear crap out of the toilet ? Is that his motivation?' no. He wants to make a profit. The Uber driver who drives you after you have a few drinks does not want to hear your drunken talk. He wants to make a peofit. The fact is that landlord's "naked greed" as you call it results in a social good and it's a fact that needs to be recognized. I am not asking for special priviledges for landlords. All I. Saying is thet they need to be treated like other businesses. No more and no less. Stop landlord bashing. It's not constructive.
I don't know why you waste everybody's time by commenting on 'The Kaka'. Your extreme right wing views are completely out of place - you should confine yourself to a crappy site like Kiwiblog. The vast majority of comments on 'The Kaka' are from intelligent, educated, progressive, humanitarian viewers. You have none of those attributes.
You do not know me Dean. Sorry I am disrupting your kumbaya session. But we still live in NZ and not in North Korea. I have as much right to voice my view as everyone else here. People have different views. And if you have not noticed my views are the views of the majority in NZ who have elected the current government. May be you should at least be open minded enough to hear a different view to your own?
Agree. But the fact is that we do house people. Banks are in the business of making money but thanks to banks people are able to buy homes to live in. Plumbers don't want to shovel crap all day but they end up helping us when our toilets are blocked. It's just a fact that landlords while pursuing their personal financial goals provide a social good in society. There is nothing wrong with it and no point denying this fact. In my opinion
💔
There are some truly alarming issues in this post. Would you open it to the public? A friend has been woken several nights in the last week when her daughter's glucose alarm went off during the night. If it isn't funded children will die.
I've opened it up for the public from the start. Feel free to share. It went out in full to all 18,300 subscribers.
Thanks, Bernard
Bernard you need to remove the reference to landlord tax cuts from the article. You know the reinstatement of tax deductability is not a tax cut. You need to stop misleading and winding up your audience.
correct spelling is deductibility
Whether it’s described as a cut, a benefit, a subsidy, a gift, or an entitlement, the reinstatement of the tax deduction for landlords is unjustifiable. Residential property gains value over time, unlike a tractor, computer, or other business purchases that depreciate over time. Providing a tax break to make it easier for landlords to purchase an investment property and then not taxing their capital gains when they sell it tells us who our politicians have been listening to and who they have decided to serve and support.
What tax break Mark? There has never been a tax break. Same rules that apply to all businesses in New Zealand used to apply to landlords. Labour changed the rules against IRD and Treasury advice. I am happy to lead the charge in relation to capital gains tax. But do not confuse it with deductibility issue. The two are not related.
I’m with you
NZ Inc. has more than enough problems without demonising every rental property owner who, understandably, would prefer all of their business costs to be tax deductible, as they were until that was changed by the previous government.
And copping the blame for indirectly causing hardship to many people now being deprived of the assistance of the state.
However, Lynn Grieveson points out, above, that the ability to claim tax deductibility on interest payments is actually a support for a capital cost of investment and as such, is a tax anomaly which unfairly disadvantages first, and sole home owners. As I understand her point.
It's a cut in the amount of tax that landlords with mortgages on their investment properties have to pay. Their tax bills will fall and the revenue the government receives will drop. So not calling it a tax cut to appease those insisting it is just a 'reinstatement of previous settings' will not change the fact that it is a change that will result in a cut in many landlord's tax bills. It was to be 'paid for' by the return of foreign buyers into our property market, but with NZFirst blocking that, they have had to go after other ways of filling that 'revenue hole'. Obviously, the bigger question is why income generated by capital gains is not properly taxed in NZ.
Hi Lynn I am with you on the capital gains tax. But this has nothing to do with tax deductability. All business deduct their interest expense. The IRD said as much. So why are landlords being singled out. I agree the government needs more revenue. Let's take deductibility from all businesses. If you take deductibility away from banks and supermarkets and other fat cats you will raise billions of dollars. Why are the landlords being singled out and vilified?
Hi Alister, can argue back on forth on this and I have no intention of doing so ;-) However, landlords can still claim many things related to the holding, management and maintenance of their property/ properties as expenses, but IMHO interest payments are in a different category in that they are (also) the cost of purchasing the asset. Thus, those interest costs are the cost of making a property investment rather than solely an expense. Yes, a grey area that you could argue on for hours I am sure. And, yes, some of the rhetoric around landlords can be overly heated and clearly something you personally feel as unfair, especially if you are trying to provide a good service to your tenants. BUT my main point was that landlords with mortgages ARE getting a cut in the tax they pay so not sure why a thread on the changes for people with disabilities and their families has been hijacked by arguments over semantics (ie the use of the phrase 'tax cuts') and attacks on other commenters. It's obviously struck a nerve for you, but I think everyone (and especially those of us with disabled family members) would appreciate it if we keep things a little calmer and more respectful and focused on the issue of disability support. Cheers.
Lynn I am 100 percent with you. I respect (still) Bernard which is why I am a paying subscriber. The reason I got a bit hot under the collar is exactly as you describe - why did Bernard bring landlords into the discussion about sick kids? That was a cheap shot would not you agree? The same article would have been just as valuable and interesting if it did not include a reference to landlords. Let's agree to stop blaming landlords for everything negative in this country, what do you say? And Bernard is better than making cheap shots like this. At least I hope so.
Dancing on the head of a pin ?
A friend with a rental financed via his mortgage will now pay less tax.
As a homeowner with a mortgage, I will pay the same amount of tax.
He agrees with me he is getting a tax cut and has told how he will spend it - a trip to Sydney.
Without details this makes no sense David. Do you have same income? Do you have same mortgage? Lots of New Zealanders take trips to Sydney. If you want to discuss your friend's luxury lifestyle we need more details.
this comment is bullying !!!!!!
To be honest, I never thought I would see a headline like that, not even from this lot. Does anybody in this government understand the consequences of what they are doing? or are they so self-centered that achieving their own dreamed goals is the only thing that matters, and fuck everyone else?
And it's all for the sake of a few measly dollars a week, unless you're a landlord and then you're open to this governments largess.
Landlords do not get any favours from this governmemt John. See extensive discussion on this topic below.
You never give up do you Alister. To make things equal, all mortgage and rental payments should perhaps be tax deductible, but then Nicola witch won't have any money for tax cuts.
I am happy to be persuaded with logic and reasoning. But don't like bullying. There is no point comparing rents with interest payments. Interest payments on rentals are business expenses. Interest on mortgage for personal home is not a business expense. As a fun anecdote in America interest payments on mortgage for a personal home are tax deductible. I do not know if it's right or wrong. But I think it is a difference between owning a house for rent and own in your own home. One way or an hour to compare apples with apples we need to compare landlords with our business owners and not with homeowners.
your first sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
your continual absurd nonsense proves that you are a bully !!!!!!
Hi Robert! How are you? I was wondering why you were a bit quiet. You make no substantial or constructive arguments at all so I am not even going to dignify your posts with my responses. You are like Emily here, making yourself feel good by attacking anyone who disagrees with you without engaging with the substance of the matter. John above asked whether I ever give up. I do give up on you and Emily. Very happy to continue a constructive conversation with everyone else.
your fourth sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
I repeat some of my factual/truthful substantial comment: residential rental property owners being allowed mortgage interest deductibility gives them a colossal !!!!!! financial advantage over people who want to buy a home for themself (and family) and consequently makes it impossible for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to buy their own home. therefore hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are being and will continue to be forced to be renters or homeless instead of being able to live in their own home.
Alister, why are interest payments on rentals a business expense? Can you explain this reasoning clearly please? Thanks!!
Tracy I am not an accountant so I do not have the technical knowledge. A few people here will know better than me. But from my rudimentary understanding all costs associated with a business venture are considered business expense. So rates, insurance, repairs and interest are all business costs. Your profit is determined by taking your revenue and deducting expences and then the rest is taxed. If interest is not counted then you will be taxed on money that you do not actually have as your profit. You will be taxed on money that you paid to the bank. That's how I understand it anyway. I am sure someone here will correct me if I am wrong.
Three things - I will not be replying further as you seem to enjoy a public display of ignorance:
- If a landlord was in business then they would be paying tax on all income not just the rental income. This includes the increase in the value of the asset when sold.
- The interest paid is the cost of leveraging to obtain a tax free capital gain.
- Real business claim depreciation on their assets. For rental properties it is set at 0% i.e. the cost is not tax deductible.
Summary, the nature of a rental property is completely different to a real business so different tax rules apply. If you had any technical financial knowledge you'd understand this rather than banging you head into a masonry abutment.
David, there is no capital gains tax in NZ on ANY business! You are the ignorant one! Educate yourself.
Quote-
New Zealand has no capital gains tax, so you won’t be taxed on profits you make selling a business. However, there are other taxes and obligations that may apply. Your options when selling can also differ depending on the business structure you have. It’s worth speaking to a professional advisor for specialist help.
Link
https://www.business.govt.nz/how-to-grow/planning-to-exit/what-to-do-when-selling-your-business/#:~:text=New%20Zealand%20has%20no%20capital,professional%20advisor%20for%20specialist%20help
your first sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
residential rental property owners being allowed mortgage interest deductibility gives them a colossal !!!!!! financial advantage over people who want to buy a home for themself (and family) and consequently makes it impossible for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to buy their own home. therefore hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are being and will continue to be forced to be renters or homeless instead of being able to live in their own home.
Thank you for such clarity in explaining the difference between 1991 economic situation and now. It is unbelievable how the public is being misled into thinking that cutting what people need is somehow justified.
I'm so glad this post is open to the public and can be shared. As many eyes as possible need to read this. I feel utterly at a loss when I read articles like this.
This is truly embarrassing. Has anyone been able to actually quantify the actual financial impact of carers who have falsely or over claimed things like travel etc? I suspect it's a tiny amount compared to the amount that is being cut to truly needed services.
I also suspect that the amount of benefits claimed by carers is tiny compared to the amount of "business expenses" falsely claimed by small business owners and self employed people around the country. I wonder if anyone has any idea of how much tax revenue we lose to anything from boats to overseas holidays to pet food being claimed as a "business expense".
Of course, I understand that there's considerably more involved in cracking down on business expense tax fraud, but it's not an impossibility. It's just sickening to think that there are vulnerable people who are genuinely just getting by and dealing with crippling illness having essential services while there are people raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and then billing the taxpayer for expensive personal purchases to pad their income even further.
I know for a fact having run a SME that there is a whole industry of accounting and consultancy businesses who make a substantial living from the tax avoidance and tax evasion for other businesses. This gets worse when a large company or global corporations are involved. I read recently that an Auckland based builder was fighting to keep assets even though bankrupt. He has bank accounts here, Australia & the British Virgin Islands, a notorious tax haven available to people who want to hide money & assets from the government.
Strange that the "reducing the need to take a break" aspect of glucose alarms has not been considered as an enabler of productivity for parent carers and disabled adults. Broken sleep increases mental stress, which reduces capacity to work - which also increases financial stress and dependency on benefits etc. It's a merry-go-round! Yes, they cost money, but do you want those affected to be defined by the disability, or do you want them able to participate in society?
You could not resist bringing landlords into this discussion again could you Bernard. There are NO tax cuts for landlords being brought by the coalition government. Reinstatement if deductibility is not a tax cut. It's reinstatement of ability to claim tax as a business expense which every other business in New Zealand can claim. Calling this a tax cut is a deliberate attempt to vilify landlords and the coalition. Thia is very poor effort on your part Bernard. You must understand the difference between tax cuts and interest deductibility reinstatement. Banks can deduct interest cost on their expences. Supermarkets can deduct interest. YOU Bernard I am sure claim a deduction on your expences. Why should not landlords? Many of these children and families you are writing about live in houses provided to them by landlords that you seem to hate so much. Landlorda provide a social good to the society. It is time you have recognized it and stopped using landlords and the reinstatement if deductibility to score cheap points. You are better than this Bernard. Pick up your game.
If landlords use the deduction to reduce rents and/or improve the property (to at least healthy homes standards), then it’s going towards the social good. Otherwise, it’s a tax cut. Yes, landlords are needed because not everyone wants to or can own a house, but owning rental properties as the main form of investment is a major factor in inequality here in Aotearoa.
Mary, Bernard is claiming deductions on his expences running this substack. I am a subscriber so I know how much he charges. With 18,000 subscribers he will be making a lot of money. Is he using his deductions to reduce the fee he charges us? No of course he does not. And if the government takes his ability to deduct his expences away and he looses income and then another government allows him to claim deductions again - it will not be a tax cut. Would you agree?
You want landlords to pass on reinstated deductions? In the climate when insurance costs go through the roof. Rates increases are in double digits. Interest costs highest they have been for years and general inflation still around 5%. ANZ has increased it's credit card interest rate today. Where is the outrage? Where are Mary and Bernard screaming that children may die as a result (the only people paying credit card interest will be the poor people who can not repay their ballance every month).
Landlord have become and easy target for the uneducated and the politically motivated. Cheap shots at landlord expose people's laziness or political bias (or both).
The difference is Bernard works and landlords don’t. Being a landlord is not a job.
Let's not stereotype landlords - all kinds of people own (or have owned) rental property:
Kirsty Johnston
@kirsty_johnston
·
Nov 17, 2020
My property manager suggested upping my tenant's rent because it was "under let" and because "the tenant is working all the time now". This is despite the fact the rent already covers all costs incl. rates and maintenance. The "market" is just greed.
What are you talking about David. Do you think Bernard is just trying to cover his expences? No. He wants to make a profit. So does your bank and so does your supermarket. What is this nonsense about shaning people for wanting to make a profit. My local cafe sells fries for $9. What the hell? One cut and fried potato for $9??? Where is the outrage? They want to make a profit. If people do not make a profit there will be no business. Have any of you lived in a socialist or communist country? Give it a go and then let's have a chat.
Sorry I was not commenting on Kirsty Johnston's stance here - just showing that all sorts of people own rental properties including longtime Stuff and RNZ journalist Kirsty Johnston.
Man it must suck to be a landlord, pity there's no way out
Have you tried? Sound like you have not. Let's talk after you give it a go.
Sorry this comment was for Emily.
Yeah yeah hardest job in the world. Definitely harder than being a parent of a type one kid who has to subsidise your lifestyle.
Landlords have kids. Landlords have parents. Landlord have families. They have sick kids like everyone else. They are human beings like the rest of us. And some of them have a job and make a loss on their rental in which you live and at the same time look after their sick kids with type one and probably cancer and look after their parent. Where do you get this picture of landlords being lazy and greedy and inhumane? Do you have kiwisaver? You are making money on your kiwisaver while doing nothing. Would you like to be shamed for that? Landlords actually have to take risks and look after properties and deal with all sorts of tenants .
Also, Alister, Bernard’s subscribers can choose not to subscribe - without losing the roof over their heads
That's right. And the only reason tenants have a roof over their heads is because landlords chose to take a risk and put their hard earned money at risk to buy a rental. Without landlords you will not have the choice to rent. Who will provide you rentals if not landlords? Where are all the tenants going to live if landlords do not provide rentals? The rental market only exists because landlords take risks and create this market. The government tried to play in the rental market. Have you read about the disaster that Kainga Ora is? I can send you some links.
please provide all the pertinent links here.
Is Kainga Ora really a disaster? We can look at it's P&L over the last few years of massive building projects & I'm sure its's not pretty reading but when you take out the cost of housing the tenants in motels, of not having them go to hospital due to substandard housing, of the positive affect on stable homes on reducing crime - and all this for the next 40/50/60 years - then I wonder what the bottom line really is.
It might be similar to where reducing prescription charges saves the government money?
If you cant afford your rental properties then sell them. Being a landlord is not a basic human right, it’s a business and if it’s not a good return on investment then why are you doing it?
Exactly. It's a business like any other and should be treated as such. Not singled out for removing basic tax rules. But it's also a social good. If you close all McDonald's restaurants in NZ the impact will be zero. Less rubbish food sold so we all get healthier. If you remove all landlords what is going to happen? Who will provide rental accomodation?
It’s been a while since I have done physics but I’m pretty sure the houses won’t evaporate.
But for the 3rd time I am not arguing whether this is a positive change or not. Im not getting a straw man argument about McDonalds. I’m telling you - it’s a tax cut.
Houses do not disappear. But a lot of people can not afford to buy them. Where should they live? Are you suggesting students buy houses? Where will students live?
The people with spare houses are so hard done by
Spare houses? Like supermarkets with spare food? How dare they have so much food on which they make profits while people are starving.... Like electricians with spare power sockets which they sell at a profit to people who need then to plug their heaters to keep their children warm. If you try hard you can make anyone a vilan. What about brain surgeons who earn money for life making surgeries? Shall we attack them?
I should have said spare time
Are you being sarcastic about the unemployed? Be careful the crowd here is a bunch of bullies. You will soon get canceled.
Dude no one is cancelling you, we disagree and are making argument to counter your positions. Please do cry “cancelled” when you don’t find a sympathetic echo chamber.
Dude, I do not complain. You are about the only person actually engaging constructively here. Most other comments are pretty unconstructive. Check out Emily she thinks I am Satan himself! I love learning and I am happy to have my mind changed. But with logic and reasoning. Bring on constructive discussion. The fact is that reinstatement of deductibility is not a tax cut. No matter how much people say that it is. Being a landlord is a business and all businesses can claim interest as a cost and therefore deduct it. The IRD said that removing deductibility was a bad idea because it was confusing the tax system. With treasury said it was a bad idea because it will increase rents. Labor removed it anyway. And now with national is bringing back the sane position we had before labour stuffed it up people complain with landlords get a tax cut. This is simply nonsense. That's all I'm saying.
your first sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
you are continually complaining in the Kaka comments.
Some large and erroneous assumptions here and a bit of a cheap shot. I bet Bernard wishes all those subscribers were paying! ;-) (The vast majority don't pay but still get to read a lot of content, and students and academics and many others are provided free subs. This is enabled by the smaller number of paid subscribers who are supporting the work Bernard does, and who are very much appreciated).
Does Bernard get an asset that will grow substantially in value for doing ☆nothing☆after deducting his expenses from his substack? No, no he does not. THAT is the difference Alister
Everyone who owns shares does "nothing". Everyone who has a kiwisaver does "nothing". This is why it's called passive investment. And there is a lot more risk in owning a rental property then owning shares or having your kiwi saver. You have to deal with tenants You have to find tenants some of them don't pay rent some of them damage the property. You may be very lucky as a landlord if you attendance are ideal. But not everyone is so lucky. Papers are full of stories of tenants ruining houses and abusing landlords. So it is not fair to say that landlords do nothing. And it is not guaranteed that their property will be worth a lot more in the future. We just witnessed a 30% drop in property prices in Wellington. So people who bought a house for a million dollars now own an asset that is worth $700,000 how long will it be until prices return to 1 million and then increase? Nobody knows. Owing in property is not risk free. And very few landlords do "nothing". A lot of them like myself work hard to make sure of a tenants are happy.
a landlord does nothing towards their capital asset gain. Whether a kindly or terrible landlord, whether ideal or poor tenants, whether you manage it yourself or outsource management. , the valiue of the asset rises. So what if house prices go up or down ? if you hang in long enough, a massive capital gain is almost guaranteed. The same caanott be said for shares, surely??
You seem to have missed the point of the piece, that vulnerable people are not getting medical devices that can save their lives 🤔
I got the point very well Karen. It could have been delivered just as well without taking a cheap ahot at the landlords.
Nah it’s all about Alister.
People do get personal when they have no constructive response. Educate yourself Emily. Including in the art of constructive discussion.
That’s what you don’t get. It IS personal. I have two disabled children who were directly impacted by these cuts. Instead of us being able to discuss these cuts a landlord has completely dominated the conversation because they feel the peasants aren’t giving them enough respect. All while we face cut after cut after cut to our families to subsidise their lifestyles. You won’t even let us talk about the risk of our children dying in their sleep without making it about you and think this isn’t personal? It is personal. You will get your money but you will also have to face the people you took that money from. Get used to it.
Oh! This is what this is about. Emily is angry and she needs a target and what better target than landlords. Well in this last message to you Emily I will tell you that your anger does not give you the right to attack people you do not know. You know nothing about me. I came into this country as an immigrant many years ago with no money or language. I worked my arse off to study in university and learn English while helping a tetraplegic person go to the toilet and shower and driving taxies at night. I worked hard all my life and did not steal a dollar from anyone. everything I have is the result of my hard work. I will not apologize to anyone for my success. I was taking away from my family and my kids as I was building my wealth while many others around me where drinking and smoking weed and enjoying their life. I was abused for my accent by my taxi customers and I was paying 50% of my takings for the night to a nice kiwi bloke who owned the taxi car I was driving while he was sleeping. I worked hard to get to where I am, and you will no shame me for my success. I am proud of my achievements. And I am not prepared to waste any more of my time engaging with a sad and bitter person like you. Over and out.
Once again it’s all about you. You. You. You. Nobody has had it harder than you. You’re the only deserving person. We can’t even talk about children without you leaping in and saying “what about me”. Disabled people are just random props in the story of how you made money and now you’ve got all the money you could ever need and it’s still not enough. You need even more. Revolting.
Hi Alister
You mention all these other business types who claim interest, and I agree that they should be allowed to, under current tax rules.
But these businesses also pay tax on their profits, something landlords don't do because they insist on calling their profits when a property is sold a capital gain.
A landlord only incurs an interest cost when they get a mortgage to help buy a property. So, if the profit is tax free then the interest expense against that profit should not be tax deductible.
Steve you are very confused. The landlords make profits on rent. And they pay tax on the rent they get just like everyone else. Capital gains are not taxed and that's a separate question. But every landlord in NZ who makes a profit (and not all of them do) they all pay a tax. Please do not confuse landlords with property speculators.
I'm sorry Alister but if I am confused then so are you. I used to be an accountant and did lots of tax returns for landlords.
Perhaps my previous last paragraph should have been: - "A landlord only incurs an interest cost when they get a mortgage to help buy a property. So, if the profit ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY is tax free then the interest expense against that profit should not be tax deductible".
Why? What does sale of a business have to do with anything during the operation of the business? What if the landlord sells at a loss? What if a future government introduces a capital gains tax? You are very confused Steve. Profit is taxed annually. If landlords make a profit in a certain year they pay tax. This is the bottom line. You want to introduce capital gains tax - go for it. I will probably support you. Buy it has nothing to do with the tax payable by all landlords Evey year just like every other taxpayer. No difference. Do not confuse the capital gains tax issue with the deductability issue. Two separate issues.
Nah. If you want to be treated as a business it has to be all the way. You get deductibility and you pay tax on capital gain. If you sell at a loss, then so be it, but most will not. That's a lame argument against introducing CGT which is only fair towards other businesses.
I agree! Capital Gain Tax may well be justified and I think it's only a matter of time until lit is introduced. But it has nothing to do with interest deductibility. Two separate and unrelated issues.
correct spelling is deductibility
your last sentence is erroneous/false/incorrect/untruthful/wrong.
The issue is Alister that most landlords never made a tax profit in on their rentals ever as this was standard tax planning. Until 2019 everyone had huge mortgages over their rentals (and would instead pay off their home mortgage) to make the interest deductible. The losses from their rental would then offset their wage income to get a tax refund. In 2019 these losses were limited to only other residential rental income.
Alas although it helped, it still made sense to keep huge mortgages over their rentals. In fact it even made sense to be interest only and to never ever pay off the loan. Landlords would still never make a tax profit despite clearing getting huge accounting profits through untaxed capital gains. Hence the increase in the bright line rule to try capture these gains and the removal of interest deductibility to get regular tax paid.
Believe it or not we do actually have a capital gains tax. However as it’s based on an individual’s intentions on purchase, it is near impossible to prove. The entire reason for extending the brightline test was to catch people who were most likely doing it for capital gains. In the IRD’s analysis of the brightline test, this is stated as the reasoning for increasing it.
As a former tax accountant I agree, the interest deductibility rules were terrible. But they were implemented because labour put themselves into a corner by ruling out a wealth or CGT and were better than nothing.
Thank you Paul. Constructive comment! Of course there are capital gains tax in NZ for speculators. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look into this issue but trying to argue it is impossible because people just do not want to hear. Same as issue of landlird taxes. I agree with you and appreciate your comment.
You missed my point Alister. Most speculators do not pay capital gains for the gains they obtain. They hide behind the facade of being a landlord as their intentions can not be proven. Hence the reason why the brightline test was going up
Yes the whole intention at the time of purchase is a bit of a minefield. People will always play games there's nothing that can be done about it. But the rules are there and it's a question of enforcing them. If people want to game the system they always will.
Allister, you must have read a different article than me, as there was no mention by Bernard of landlords. The tax cuts alluded to are the much promised, and campaigned on tax cuts for the "seemed middle" due in the upcoming budget
Squeezed
End of first paragraph under the heading messy and painful decision Karen. Pay attention! 😉
My bad. You have spent alot of time talking about landlords Alister, are you one? I was one for a short while
Yes I am. And proud of it. I am housing a lot of people and they are all very greatful they live in nice warm houses.
Good for you. Not all landlords care as much.
There are more landlords out there who care than those who do not. The generalisations and the comments of the sorts that Bernard makes are not helpful. Especially coming from Bernard who is educated and knows that landlord tax cuts do not exist.
I'm sure theyd be more grateful if they could own them themselves.
Not everyone wants to buy a house. A lot of people want to rent for many different reasons. And they depend on me providing them accomodation.
Alister, you are completely delusional - you seem to think that landlords are doing God's work, when in fact all that motivates them is naked greed.
Naked greed? As opposed to dressed up greed? Who is providing more than 80% of rentals in NZ? Do you accommodate anyone Dean? Or course they want to make a profit and they are not charities. Everyone around you wants to make a profit. Your plumber when he comes to your house - do you think he wants to clear crap out of the toilet ? Is that his motivation?' no. He wants to make a profit. The Uber driver who drives you after you have a few drinks does not want to hear your drunken talk. He wants to make a peofit. The fact is that landlord's "naked greed" as you call it results in a social good and it's a fact that needs to be recognized. I am not asking for special priviledges for landlords. All I. Saying is thet they need to be treated like other businesses. No more and no less. Stop landlord bashing. It's not constructive.
I don't know why you waste everybody's time by commenting on 'The Kaka'. Your extreme right wing views are completely out of place - you should confine yourself to a crappy site like Kiwiblog. The vast majority of comments on 'The Kaka' are from intelligent, educated, progressive, humanitarian viewers. You have none of those attributes.
You do not know me Dean. Sorry I am disrupting your kumbaya session. But we still live in NZ and not in North Korea. I have as much right to voice my view as everyone else here. People have different views. And if you have not noticed my views are the views of the majority in NZ who have elected the current government. May be you should at least be open minded enough to hear a different view to your own?
No land lord I know bought property because they had a desperate desire to house people, as an, ahem 'service'.
Agree. But the fact is that we do house people. Banks are in the business of making money but thanks to banks people are able to buy homes to live in. Plumbers don't want to shovel crap all day but they end up helping us when our toilets are blocked. It's just a fact that landlords while pursuing their personal financial goals provide a social good in society. There is nothing wrong with it and no point denying this fact. In my opinion
Dean, whatever it is who calls themself Alister is a raving nutcase (and that is being polite).
Thanks Robert - I did previously suggest to 'Alister' that he/she would benefit from psychiatric help - obviously 'Alister' hasn't taken my advice!
It's called sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I like the content of the link.