Housing

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Housing

1 | 2 | 3

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835506 2-Aug-2017 10:29

6FIEND:

Geektastic:

So in essence, everyone wants to solve the 'housing crisis' but no one wants to accept any reasonably cost effective solution to do so?

No. It seems that a large number of people are simply waiting for a change in government so that "Rich Pr!cks" such as yourself can be taxed, levied, and otherwise compelled to give up the fruits of your labours for the benefit of those that would not or could not achieve success for themselves. ;-P

Its not about that at all. Building low cost high density housing is no cheaper, it simply moves the costs from one entry in the ledger to another. It needs to be a holistic solution and that is why it is hard.

Oh we probably meet the descriptive of "rich" and are willing to pay more taxes to fix this issue

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1835546 2-Aug-2017 10:56

One thing that always perplexes me when complaints about taxing the 'rich' to help the 'poor' come up, is the implied assumption that the poor are always that way because they are lazy or incapable, and the rich are well-off because they are so 'hard-working'. Of course there is an element of truth to this, but it completely overlooks things like background and opportunity, not to mention simple good luck. I think it is the height of arrogance to assume that someone who is disadvantaged deserves to be, and is therefore not entitled to a hand up by those who have been blessed by life.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1835810 2-Aug-2017 15:25

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

No. It seems that a large number of people are simply waiting for a change in government so that "Rich Pr!cks" such as yourself can be taxed, levied, and otherwise compelled to give up the fruits of your labours for the benefit of those that would not or could not achieve success for themselves. ;-P

That is a rather narrow way of looking at it. Maybe some just need to be shown the satisfaction of helping the less fortunate.

We can help the less fortunate by helping them find work and getting them into jobs (with some welfare if/when needed as a safety net). Continual handouts won't help and is never going to solve anything.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835832 2-Aug-2017 15:53

Wiggum:

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

No. It seems that a large number of people are simply waiting for a change in government so that "Rich Pr!cks" such as yourself can be taxed, levied, and otherwise compelled to give up the fruits of your labours for the benefit of those that would not or could not achieve success for themselves. ;-P

That is a rather narrow way of looking at it. Maybe some just need to be shown the satisfaction of helping the less fortunate.

We can help the less fortunate by helping them find work and getting them into jobs (with some welfare if/when needed as a safety net). Continual handouts won't help and is never going to solve anything.

Taking them away solves nothing and creates a whole lot more trouble and issues even for wage and salary earners.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835868 2-Aug-2017 16:35

sen8or:

For land prices to drop, supply has to increase or demand has to decrease, thats basic economics.

For land supply to increase either crown or council owned land has to be opened up to development or, private owners of large blocks have to be prepared to sell (or develop). Problem is, council or crown owned land is typically parks, reserves, "culturally significant sites" or other such things. Try and develop those and all the perpetually aggrieved tree huggers come out in protest that the blue spotted mite lives there and we can't possibly destroy its habitat for housing developments. If the land is privately owned, sale price is pretty much the only thing that will motivate a land owner to sell, if the price isn't high enough, they'll typically wait until the price is right, restricting supply and driving up the price until they are happy again.

Don't forget, "the country" doesn't have a housing crisis, Auckland does. Theres plenty of land in most other parts of NZ, even in Christchurch where entire suburbs were "lost", the city simply grew in other areas, the "CBD" dispersed to outlying suburbs. The council is now trying to develop the inner city and bring business back in, but business has moved on, people have moved on and realised that business doesn't have to all be done within a few square blocks.

Now if the Govt were to incentivize "big business" away from Auckland to outlying areas but with good access to transport options (air, rail, sea) then this unending need to migrate to Auckland because of the opportunities might ease off and supply might then start to outstrip demand and price will come down, a bit, but in a declining market, unless people have to sell (forced sale through financial or other circumstances) then typically they won't, again, restricting supply until equilibrium of supply/demand is met.

You are correct in your statement that land prices will only fall when either there is more land available than people wish to purchase or there are fewer purchasers than available land.

One of the problems, as I have said before, is that NZ rules require the land owner to become a quasi developer, as in order to get title in a subdivision the owner has to build the roads, fences, power, phone, drainage and so on before the council will allow seperate title to be granted.

Simply because a person owns (or at least, pays the mortgage on) land which could be subdivided does not mean that person can access the significant funds required to execute the works which may well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases.

A change in the law to allow the title to be issued so the sale can take place, with the obligation for executing the works falling on the purchaser not the vendor will likely free up a lot more land.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1836604 3-Aug-2017 14:48

Heh heh:

https://nzlabour.nationbuilder.com/housingproblem

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1836805 3-Aug-2017 19:29

Rikkitic:

One thing that always perplexes me when complaints about taxing the 'rich' to help the 'poor' come up, is the implied assumption that the poor are always that way because they are lazy or incapable, and the rich are well-off because they are so 'hard-working'. Of course there is an element of truth to this, but it completely overlooks things like background and opportunity, not to mention simple good luck. I think it is the height of arrogance to assume that someone who is disadvantaged deserves to be, and is therefore not entitled to a hand up by those who have been blessed by life.

Yes, potentially there is a lot of luck, which can also come down to who you know. Also comes down to IQ and intelligence. As well as upbringing and morals. Another thing is health, which then goes back to luck. If you are unlucky enough to have health problems that prevent you from working, then you are likely to be poor.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1839396 4-Aug-2017 23:35

Internet Party (yes they do exist) have quite a different idea of how it could be solved

TLDR, There are apparently 30,000 empty houses in Auckland, their plan is to fill them with vetted tenants instead of the govt paying $2000 per week for motels (excluding baches and second family homes)

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1839426 5-Aug-2017 09:11

Yabanize:
Internet Party (yes they do exist) have quite a different idea of how it could be solved

TLDR, There are apparently 30,000 empty houses in Auckland, their plan is to fill them with vetted tenants instead of the govt paying $2000 per week for motels (excluding baches and second family homes)

Do you mean that they wish to purchase these houses from their owners, or that they merely intend to steal them by force?

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1839490 5-Aug-2017 12:10

Geektastic:
Yabanize:

Internet Party (yes they do exist) have quite a different idea of how it could be solved

TLDR, There are apparently 30,000 empty houses in Auckland, their plan is to fill them with vetted tenants instead of the govt paying $2000 per week for motels (excluding baches and second family homes)

Do you mean that they wish to purchase these houses from their owners, or that they merely intend to steal them by force?

No, the same people would own them, They just can't keep them empty, the owners must rent out their empty houses. All explained in the video, about 7 mins long.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1839495 5-Aug-2017 12:34

This kind of thing has also been done in Europe by making it illegal to keep investment properties empty when there is not enough housing to meet demand.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1839510 5-Aug-2017 13:57

There's a new "vacancy tax" for foreign investors in Aus, IIRC a $5k tax if a property is vacant more than 6 months.

I expect this to have no impact at all on property prices and rents within spitting distance of the CBD of Sydney/Melbourne CBDs.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1839711 6-Aug-2017 08:28

Rikkitic:

This kind of thing has also been done in Europe by making it illegal to keep investment properties empty when there is not enough housing to meet demand.

I guess that would mean I would have to sell up the bach. It stands empty most of the year.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1839754 6-Aug-2017 10:01

"Fundamentally Auckland house prices are amongst the least affordable in the world because most Auckland voters are more than happy with the status quo," he says.

"They care little for the inequity of their untaxed gains or the plight of low-income young families at the bottom of the housing ladder."

(From forward to ACT Party leader / Epsom candidate David Seymour's new book)

But wait...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1839782 6-Aug-2017 11:21

Wiggum:

I guess that would mean I would have to sell up the bach. It stands empty most of the year.

Batches and second homes specifically excluded. This is about properties being kept empty for investment or other speculative purposes.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3