Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | ... | 268

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2049826 5-Jul-2018 14:22

networkn:

What will Little do about DotCom? Personally, I think he is a muppet, but the way the entire thing was handled was crazy, a fault of the National Government. If he had been handled properly in the first place, I'd have no questions over his extradition, but given it was handled poorly, I am unsure where I sit.

If after due process has been completed and the Courts believe that grounds for extradition have been proven and the extradition complies with NZ law and policy then he should be extradited. If not, then he stays as per his residential status.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80661 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41083

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2049834 5-Jul-2018 14:33

Removed a post (and quotes) where someone used a derogatory term to refer to people that disagrees with them, in general.

The term is used by right-wing extremists, alt-right, etc.

I see this happening again, you will be banned without another warning.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2049876 5-Jul-2018 15:23

Sorry about that, I did not realize it was a derogatory term, its been used plenty of times here on geekzone. (9 pages of search results).

I will refrain from using it again.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2049878 5-Jul-2018 15:25

networkn:

What will Little do about DotCom? Personally, I think he is a muppet, but the way the entire thing was handled was crazy, a fault of the National Government. If he had been handled properly in the first place, I'd have no questions over his extradition, but given it was handled poorly, I am unsure where I sit.

I believe that the whole process followed the legal system. Issue is with the amount of money Dotcom has available to delay what should be his deportation.

The guy has done no favors to NZ.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2049900 5-Jul-2018 15:36

Aredwood:

Sure, some people will say that that won't be a proper study. But what else changed at the same time as the RMA was passed into law?

A lot has changed:

For a many major things in a typical household budget, prices have either dropped in real terms, or not risen - this has kept the "CPI" down - but not "local" inflation.

Typical appliances are cheaper, cars are cheaper, clothes are cheaper, food is cheaper. In many cases that's because manufacture shifted to low labour cost countries, agriculture is much more intensive, trade has lower barriers and tariffs, and there's more competition.

For houses though, the land is obviously local, the labour costs are local, the administration "red tape" costs are local, perhaps some materials are imported and some haven't gone up in price, there's probably arguably some monopolistic anti-competitive things happening - but each time it's investigated - not a hell of a lot is found.

The price of a filling at a dentist, or to get a sparky to install a wall outlet, or to buy a dozen bluff oysters - those will probably give a gauge of what "local" inflation has been - much higher than "CPI" inflation. Wages have actually kept ahead of CPI inflation - though barely - if at all -for the lowest paid.

So that's one thing that has changed over that time frame - we're using the wrong reference for inflation as we've benefited from cheap overseas labour for production of "most stuff" - but that has little impact on building costs.

Another thing that's changed is that houses on average have got larger. They've also been required to have insulation, double-glazing, there's been the huge debacle with building self-regulation and leaky homes - meaning everybody is now covering their backsides, risk averse, and applying a risk premium. OSH regulations have become much tighter, downtime to meet training/reporting has increased. A builder would get some plans and build a house, now he's probably going to have to get a geotechnical report, design from a structural engineer, a draftsperson or architect, possibly a quantity surveyor. The owner of the house is probably going to want expensive benchtops (not formica), tiles or faux-wooden floors in kitchen etc - not lino, at least one en-suite, double the number of wall power outlets, a heat pump system, double garage with auto openers, indoor-outdoor living. That's an expectation for a "normal" suburban house these days.

Then what else has changed - oh yeah - interest rates. In 1992 they were still up around 14%. NZ had also just been through a very nasty recession. Property had been falling in price.

I think the RMA is scapegoated.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2049940 5-Jul-2018 16:33

Interesting graph here from Statistics New Zealand.

Auckland housing activity declined significantly over the second and third terms of Clark's Labour Government, but steadily increased over the "last 9 years" of neglect (?) by the last National government.

Again, it seems that measurable outcomes appear to be incongruent with the narrative that has been spun in the media.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#2049971 5-Jul-2018 16:44

I'm not familiar with the narrative but housing construction is cyclic like a lot of activity and the low point there more or less coincides with the GFC, which if I recall correctly followed a previous that was not so serious.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2049979 5-Jul-2018 16:58

gzt: I'm not familiar with the narrative but housing construction is cyclic like a lot of activity and the low point there more or less coincides with the GFC, which if I recall correctly followed a previous that was not so serious.

Yes - you can see the early 1990s recession, the 2000 crash, and the 2008 start of the GFC in that graph.

What should also be shown on that chart is population growth over that period:

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2050112 5-Jul-2018 20:51

Net migration is not necessarily immigration.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2050177 5-Jul-2018 21:58

Fred99:
Aredwood:

Sure, some people will say that that won't be a proper study. But what else changed at the same time as the RMA was passed into law?

A lot has changed:

For a many major things in a typical household budget, prices have either dropped in real terms, or not risen - this has kept the "CPI" down - but not "local" inflation.

Typical appliances are cheaper, cars are cheaper, clothes are cheaper, food is cheaper. In many cases that's because manufacture shifted to low labour cost countries, agriculture is much more intensive, trade has lower barriers and tariffs, and there's more competition.

For houses though, the land is obviously local, the labour costs are local, the administration "red tape" costs are local, perhaps some materials are imported and some haven't gone up in price, there's probably arguably some monopolistic anti-competitive things happening - but each time it's investigated - not a hell of a lot is found.

The price of a filling at a dentist, or to get a sparky to install a wall outlet, or to buy a dozen bluff oysters - those will probably give a gauge of what "local" inflation has been - much higher than "CPI" inflation. Wages have actually kept ahead of CPI inflation - though barely - if at all -for the lowest paid.

So that's one thing that has changed over that time frame - we're using the wrong reference for inflation as we've benefited from cheap overseas labour for production of "most stuff" - but that has little impact on building costs.

Another thing that's changed is that houses on average have got larger. They've also been required to have insulation, double-glazing, there's been the huge debacle with building self-regulation and leaky homes - meaning everybody is now covering their backsides, risk averse, and applying a risk premium. OSH regulations have become much tighter, downtime to meet training/reporting has increased. A builder would get some plans and build a house, now he's probably going to have to get a geotechnical report, design from a structural engineer, a draftsperson or architect, possibly a quantity surveyor. The owner of the house is probably going to want expensive benchtops (not formica), tiles or faux-wooden floors in kitchen etc - not lino, at least one en-suite, double the number of wall power outlets, a heat pump system, double garage with auto openers, indoor-outdoor living. That's an expectation for a "normal" suburban house these days.

Then what else has changed - oh yeah - interest rates. In 1992 they were still up around 14%. NZ had also just been through a very nasty recession. Property had been falling in price.

I think the RMA is scapegoated.

Practically nothing of what you have said affects the price of land. Yet increases in the price of land is what is causing the bulk of the house price increases.

Developers and builders are reacting to this. As apart from the cost of land, most of the extra costs mentioned above are fixed costs.

So why would they build a basic 3 bedroom house, which would only sell for around 700K. When they can spend say an extra 100k to 200K or so on construction costs. And instead sell the house for 1.2 to 1.5 Million.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2050215 5-Jul-2018 23:37

Pumpedd:
Net migration is not necessarily immigration.

Nigel Latta did a program a while back in which he got some numbers from local economists that showed that immigrants pay more tax that kiwis born here...

I don't recall the exact details but that was the conclusion. So immigrants are good, where they are skilled ones.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2050279 6-Jul-2018 09:16

Geektastic:
Pumpedd:

Net migration is not necessarily immigration.

Nigel Latta did a program a while back in which he got some numbers from local economists that showed that immigrants pay more tax that kiwis born here...

I don't recall the exact details but that was the conclusion. So immigrants are good, where they are skilled ones.

Not sure who pays tax here...seems 50% of families are now collecting working for families...people earning under $180k can now enter a ballot for a half price house and sell it at market rates 3 years later.

Someone must pay tax here....

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2050292 6-Jul-2018 09:27

Pumpedd:

Geektastic:
Pumpedd:

Net migration is not necessarily immigration.

Nigel Latta did a program a while back in which he got some numbers from local economists that showed that immigrants pay more tax that kiwis born here...

I don't recall the exact details but that was the conclusion. So immigrants are good, where they are skilled ones.

Not sure who pays tax here...seems 50% of families are now collecting working for families...people earning under $180k can now enter a ballot for a half price house and sell it at market rates 3 years later.

Someone must pay tax here....

We sure as hell do at a horrible rate. I have just done my wife's tax return and alone she paid close to 6 figures in tax over last fiscal year

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050403 6-Jul-2018 12:03

MikeB4:

We sure as hell do at a horrible rate. I have just done my wife's tax return and alone she paid close to 6 figures in tax over last fiscal year

ROFL. My heart bleeds (absolutely not).

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2050490 6-Jul-2018 14:36

Hah! She must be one of those "Rich Pricks" who don't pay enough tax ;-)

BTW, one of my pet-peeves with the tax system is that couples can't income split. It makes it so much more expensive to be a single income household.

Eg. Household 1 with income of 140k. One high-income earner, one stay-at-home parent. Tax bill $38,844.00

Eg. Household 2 with income of 140k. Two income earners each earning $70k. Tax bill $29,985.12

1 | ... | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | ... | 268