J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

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

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | ... | 45

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862823 12-Sep-2017 14:06

networkn:

allio:

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

I've not heard nor read that at all. She was yakking about $495000 affordable homes being built, but not dragging the current house prices back.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862840 12-Sep-2017 14:12

tdgeek:

networkn:

allio:

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

I've not heard nor read that at all. She was yakking about $495000 affordable homes being built, but not dragging the current house prices back.

What happens when you introduce 100,000 more homes into the market and try and control their prices? The price of existing housing drops. Supply and demand would take care of house prices somewhat, but when you mandate the Max price a house can be worth....

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862848 12-Sep-2017 14:25

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

allio:

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

I've not heard nor read that at all. She was yakking about $495000 affordable homes being built, but not dragging the current house prices back.

What happens when you introduce 100,000 more homes into the market and try and control their prices? The price of existing housing drops. Supply and demand would take care of house prices somewhat, but when you mandate the Max price a house can be worth....

Over time, the supply and demand will equalise house prices, we are talking years for 100,000 houses. The price she mandated was affordables. People in much better homes wont affect that market, thats for the new buyers who arent able to now. Those affordable buyers arent in the market now as they cant afford an 800k home. The market for high priced homes will be decided by supply and demand of those wanting higher priced homes, and the price (should RMA be tackled as I think National wants to do) that would ease the price of higher priced homes. Homes are flat now in general, LVR helped that, as does the election and winter. These prices are here to stay, they wont drop a lot of they do drop. Should interest rates go to 10 or 11 % thats when your 35% will kick in, IMO

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862853 12-Sep-2017 14:32

tdgeek:

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

allio:

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

I've not heard nor read that at all. She was yakking about $495000 affordable homes being built, but not dragging the current house prices back.

What happens when you introduce 100,000 more homes into the market and try and control their prices? The price of existing housing drops. Supply and demand would take care of house prices somewhat, but when you mandate the Max price a house can be worth....

Over time, the supply and demand will equalise house prices, we are talking years for 100,000 houses. The price she mandated was affordables. People in much better homes wont affect that market, thats for the new buyers who arent able to now. Those affordable buyers arent in the market now as they cant afford an 800k home. The market for high priced homes will be decided by supply and demand of those wanting higher priced homes, and the price (should RMA be tackled as I think National wants to do) that would ease the price of higher priced homes. Homes are flat now in general, LVR helped that, as does the election and winter. These prices are here to stay, they wont drop a lot of they do drop. Should interest rates go to 10 or 11 % thats when your 35% will kick in, IMO

Well, I am not a chief economist, but I don't think that's correct. I don't have the details handy, but I heard the other day on the radio one of the Banks, probably ASB, talking about the likely impact and being concerned about significant impact.

Also since she wants to drop immigrant numbers I am wondering who will build these 100,000 houses?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862867 12-Sep-2017 14:56

networkn:

Well, I am not a chief economist, but I don't think that's correct. I don't have the details handy, but I heard the other day on the radio one of the Banks, probably ASB, talking about the likely impact and being concerned about significant impact.

Also since she wants to drop immigrant numbers I am wondering who will build these 100,000 houses?

Neither am I. That's interesting as I saw a comment, I think from RBNZ that they don't see any short term issues. He said that rates here are globally caused, and that Trump had seen them rise a bit. Not a lot, but enough, but they came back. Across all that, still low globally. 2 years no expectations. Irregardless, that is the concern, interest rates, looking at NK and Irma (I saw 300 billion quoted for that)

They wont be built next week. Immigrants will still come in, apprentices etc, increased training and NZ labour. I agree though, if they sneak in, I would bet that will be eased.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1862868 12-Sep-2017 14:59

networkn:

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

As it happens I have just bought a house for about $800k and estimate its true value to be around $500k (which is about the same as my mortgage).

How would I feel about its value dropping to 500k? Mixed. Obviously it's not nice for anything you own to decrease in value. On the other hand, when I move I'll be selling and buying in the same market, so it doesn't really make any difference to me - I'll sell for less and buy for less. On the plus side for me personally, maybe some of my friends will decide to move back to Auckland from overseas. They have all left and none of them see any point in coming back as they can't buy a house. Less selfishly, people who didn't have the same unfair advantages as me (our deposit was my partner's generous inheritance) will get the same opportunity as I did to own a house. So I think it's a good thing and I'm going to enthusiastically vote in the hope that it happens.

How will my bank feel? I don't think they'll care as long as I keep paying my mortgage.

I don't know anything about you or your personal circumstances. I'm 30 and buying a first home in preparation for starting a family has been my life for the last 2-3 years. I can tell you it is utterly, completely broken in Auckland, and something drastic needs to change.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862873 12-Sep-2017 15:10

allio:

networkn:

You have the same financial understanding of economics as Labour, clearly :)

Quality of life is more important than house ownership. Houses cost to buy, but they cost a lot to maintain as well. Labour wants house prices to fall significantly so more people can afford them, but those who already paid high prices, would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen.

Are you ok with that? If you paid $800K for your house and all of a sudden it was worth 25-30% less, how would you feel? How will your bank feel?

There are thousands of happy renters in New Zealand. I know more than a few owners who wished they hadn't of bought and kept renting.

As it happens I have just bought a house for about $800k and estimate its true value to be around $500k (which is about the same as my mortgage).

How would I feel about its value dropping to 500k? Mixed. Obviously it's not nice for anything you own to decrease in value. On the other hand, when I move I'll be selling and buying in the same market, so it doesn't really make any difference to me - I'll sell for less and buy for less. On the plus side for me personally, maybe some of my friends will decide to move back to Auckland from overseas. They have all left and none of them see any point in coming back as they can't buy a house. Less selfishly, people who didn't have the same unfair advantages as me (our deposit was my partner's generous inheritance) will get the same opportunity as I did to own a house. So I think it's a good thing and I'm going to enthusiastically vote in the hope that it happens.

How will my bank feel? I don't think they'll care as long as I keep paying my mortgage.

I don't know anything about you or your personal circumstances. I'm 30 and buying a first home in preparation for starting a family has been my life for the last 2-3 years. I can tell you it is utterly, completely broken in Auckland, and something drastic needs to change.

You'd like your house to drop by 300k so your friends will move back to AKL? Very noble!

Our home is same value, I have no concerns if the market value drops. I can still sell it and buy the house next door (if same price). If I had a mortgage the bank will have to live with it, they have no option (I do actually have a mortgage until the other place goes) There will be many who overbought on the wave, but they can also keep paying the mortgage. If interest rates rose thats another story, and a sad one

Edit" I dont see any changes once election is over. House prices will probably firm a little, as election and winter slows sales bigly, thats normal

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1863082 12-Sep-2017 22:07

WOW just WOW. I guess its fair to say people should not look here for any financial advice.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1863085 12-Sep-2017 22:11

Wiggum:
WOW just WOW. I guess its fair to say people should not look here for any financial advice.

Why?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1863093 12-Sep-2017 22:35

So, what is to stop these "affordable" houses from being on-sold by their happy new owners for a large profit later? Anything?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1863094 12-Sep-2017 22:36

gulfa:

Quote "

The fact Jacinda can turn around the Labour Party's fortunes just by assuming the leadership is more a commentary on how fickle the public are than her attributes as a leader. That's very scary, frightening in fact.

What attributes do you think she is lacking as a leader?

Please respond as the only one I consider is" lack of experience" but she has shown that she is a very quick learner and has vision

So is my dog...!

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1863098 12-Sep-2017 22:41

allio:

networkn:

Labours policies aren't anything special to be honest, and the big ones don't have beggar all detail so you can't really critisize them. Commentators have universally said that JA needs more details in her plans.

I've posted this before: this blog has a wealth of good analysis of the 2008 election. This and this are particularly interesting reading. You will notice parallel after parallel to this election, except the positions are reversed. Seriously - read those links, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on. It's a great dose of perspective on how both parties are behaving right now.

Under Bill English, policy formation had been severely softened. In fact, this approach was summed up well when a secret recording of English was broadcast during the campaign in which he said ‘nothing beats winning in politics, despite all our highly principled statements ... Do what we need to: win’.

For better or for worse, I think the "detail free campaign" is just how you win an election from opposition these days. To pre-announce too many complex policies prior to the election pretty much guarantees that you're going to be publically caught out short on detail in a "show me the money" moment, no matter how fleshed out your policies are. You'll note that National hasn't announced anything complicated or gamechanging either - just more of the same. Incumbent's advantage. Labour are trying to equalize that advantage and are taking some flak for it.

For all Labour's opaqueness this time round, they are actually being far more open with detail than National was in 2008. National actually categorically ruled out a rise in GST and then did it anyway. Do you think they'd have won the election if they'd campaigned on raising it? Maybe. Maybe not. If it had let to National shedding just 0.93% of their vote to NZF - very plausible, given retirees were disproportionately disadvantaged by National's tax reform - we might have had a very different government.

I'm not saying it's right - I'm saying maybe it's just the way it is.

networkn:

A house (owned) for everyone is just nonsense.

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

The Germans seem to do somewhat better than us in many areas and many Germans rent their houses forever and never buy.

In NZ, where rents are often lower than mortgage payments, it would be possible to save quite a lot of money depending on where you live and what the current interest rates were, compared to ownership.

Ownership is only a form of saving: instead of putting the cash in funds, shares etc, you pay the bank for your house. Eventually you own it and could sell it. Not all houses go up like Auckland has. Our house is worth the same today as it was when we bought it 10 years ago and indeed possibly less.

Had I rented, even at $1000 a week, I would have been far better off today in pure cash terms.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1863134 13-Sep-2017 06:45

Geektastic:

So, what is to stop these "affordable" houses from being on-sold by their happy new owners for a large profit later? Anything?

The location, base design, base features. They arent subsidised, thats what they cost.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1863142 13-Sep-2017 06:52

Geektastic:
allio:

networkn:

Labours policies aren't anything special to be honest, and the big ones don't have beggar all detail so you can't really critisize them. Commentators have universally said that JA needs more details in her plans.

I've posted this before: this blog has a wealth of good analysis of the 2008 election. This and this are particularly interesting reading. You will notice parallel after parallel to this election, except the positions are reversed. Seriously - read those links, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on. It's a great dose of perspective on how both parties are behaving right now.

Under Bill English, policy formation had been severely softened. In fact, this approach was summed up well when a secret recording of English was broadcast during the campaign in which he said ‘nothing beats winning in politics, despite all our highly principled statements ... Do what we need to: win’.

For better or for worse, I think the "detail free campaign" is just how you win an election from opposition these days. To pre-announce too many complex policies prior to the election pretty much guarantees that you're going to be publically caught out short on detail in a "show me the money" moment, no matter how fleshed out your policies are. You'll note that National hasn't announced anything complicated or gamechanging either - just more of the same. Incumbent's advantage. Labour are trying to equalize that advantage and are taking some flak for it.

For all Labour's opaqueness this time round, they are actually being far more open with detail than National was in 2008. National actually categorically ruled out a rise in GST and then did it anyway. Do you think they'd have won the election if they'd campaigned on raising it? Maybe. Maybe not. If it had let to National shedding just 0.93% of their vote to NZF - very plausible, given retirees were disproportionately disadvantaged by National's tax reform - we might have had a very different government.

I'm not saying it's right - I'm saying maybe it's just the way it is.

networkn:

A house (owned) for everyone is just nonsense.

I find that view profoundly sad. What better thing is there for a society to aspire to?

The Germans seem to do somewhat better than us in many areas and many Germans rent their houses forever and never buy.

In NZ, where rents are often lower than mortgage payments, it would be possible to save quite a lot of money depending on where you live and what the current interest rates were, compared to ownership.

Ownership is only a form of saving: instead of putting the cash in funds, shares etc, you pay the bank for your house. Eventually you own it and could sell it. Not all houses go up like Auckland has. Our house is worth the same today as it was when we bought it 10 years ago and indeed possibly less.

Had I rented, even at $1000 a week, I would have been far better off today in pure cash terms.

Not really, the German home ownership rates are 52%. Ours is on par with the US and UK at around 65%

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#1863154 13-Sep-2017 07:23

The affordable homes in the ballot require you to live in them for two years and the Welcome Home loans require you to live in it until the loan is repaid.

Not sure what that means in practice as you could pay it back by refinancing it, but the ballot rules seem pretty set in stone.

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | ... | 45