Home ownership...surely it's not a right, but a privilege?

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

Forums › Politics › Home ownership...surely it's not a right, but a privilege?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110000 17-Oct-2018 19:28

eph:

The costs just don't disappear so you would just move them to ratepayers? For more houses you still need bigger stormwater, wastewater network, etc. Self build is still allowed (I've got a friend who's building his own house in Northland). To some extend of course - licensed work (like electricity and plumbing) needs to be done by licensed person and you still get council inspection like normal build but you can build the house yourself with friends.

People who build houses are still going to be ratepayers, I just think that more cost should be moved onto larger commercial developers, and people should be able to build houses for themselves without having to adhere to the building act, obey district planning rules, get consents, codes of compliance, etc. Government (local or central) should not be able to stop you, or charge you for, building a house for yourself on your own land.

eph:

Not really sure how this would help the market but I'm all for more freedom :).

I can't afford to buy or build new in my area, but I could afford a section and a cheap house from a removal company. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat, but every new section is covenanted up the wazoo that you can't do that, must build a new house, must look like this, must only use these material, in these colours, etc.

E.g. The cheapest crappiest 3 bedroom house where I live is going for around 400k, most of them are 500+. There are plenty of sections around for around 220-230k, and I've seen some as low as 170-180k, and cheap relocatable houses (e.g. currently Trademe has a 4 bedroom house for 115k including delivery and piles), but the covenants on them prevent me buying a section and putting a relocatable house on it. All up somewhere from 50-100k cheaper, but blocked by covenants.

eph:

I think this will come eventually, just need to work out correct rules around that. Not convinced though it would have a huge impact on the market.

It could, if they do it right.. e.g. Push it through under urgency, backdate it 20 years, but give people 60 days grace to sell all their investment properties before it comes in. Again, glut, prices nosedive.

Introduce punishingly large taxes on anyone owning more than a couple of houses. E.g. If you own 5 houses, you get taxed 10% of their total worth annually.

eph:

This would be I think quite hard to implement - I'd say all of these bigger investors have complex companies/trusts structure in place which owns the various properties, etc. It's not that easy to track physical owners.

Not if we simply ban companies and trust from owning property, which I'm all for. Again, urgency, give them 60 days to get it out of the trust and into a persons name (preferably an NZ citizen), or they forfeit the property to the crown.

eph:

I think this is quite extreme and would be quite damaging to NZ. Also don't forget that there are a lots of residents who can't or don't want to become citizens. Also lots of rich people come only for summer from colder regions around the world who basically just come to spend money.

It is extreme, but extreme measures are required. My sympathy for people that rich is somewhere between none and negative infinity, besides which if they are that rich they can live in a hotel for 6 months.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2110001 17-Oct-2018 19:32

Handsomedan:

reading this article in Stuff (yes, I know) about a lady that earns next-to-nothing and says, "But Tollemache doesn't think her limited means should exclude her from one day owning a home in some sense..."

Owning a house is only a right in communist countries (or the occupancy of one at least).

The problem is that house prices have increased so much compared to wages.

People of limited means used to be able to afford houses in auckland. You see them all over, a working class polynesian family who moved here in the 50s/60s bought in Ponsonby (I think) , just sold up their house for millions. That same family wouldn't have a chance today!

The chickens of the working class being priced out of housing will come home to roost one day.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110005 17-Oct-2018 19:42

surfisup1000:

The chickens of the working class being priced out of housing will come home to roost one day.

It's not just the working class.. I'm white collar, earn pretty good money, have a decent deposit, and simply can't afford to get into the market.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2110019 17-Oct-2018 19:57

Lias:

People who build houses are still going to be ratepayers, I just think that more cost should be moved onto larger commercial developers, and people should be able to build houses for themselves without having to adhere to the building act, obey district planning rules, get consents, codes of compliance, etc. Government (local or central) should not be able to stop you, or charge you for, building a house for yourself on your own land.

Moving more costs onto the larger developers - wouldn't it make the houses even more expensive? You might want to build your own house but I think majority of the people wouldn't.

So you don't want follow building act and you don't want to get council inspections? You might do it properly but other people might not, the inspections are there to ensure minimal safety, right? Though it didn't always work in the past and it might not work now either (I'm sure you've heard the story about "developers" who stripped the insulation after the pre-lining inspection, you can always find a way around regulations and inspections).

Lias:

I can't afford to buy or build new in my area, but I could afford a section and a cheap house from a removal company. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat, but every new section is covenanted up the wazoo that you can't do that, must build a new house, must look like this, must only use these material, in these colours, etc.

E.g. The cheapest crappiest 3 bedroom house where I live is going for around 400k, most of them are 500+. There are plenty of sections around for around 220-230k, and I've seen some as low as 170-180k, and cheap relocatable houses (e.g. currently Trademe has a 4 bedroom house for 115k including delivery and piles), but the covenants on them prevent me buying a section and putting a relocatable house on it. All up somewhere from 50-100k cheaper, but blocked by covenants.

Ah, I see what you mean. Didn't really know such things existed, that's pretty dumb.

Lias:

It could, if they do it right.. e.g. Push it through under urgency, backdate it 20 years, but give people 60 days grace to sell all their investment properties before it comes in. Again, glut, prices nosedive.

Introduce punishingly large taxes on anyone owning more than a couple of houses. E.g. If you own 5 houses, you get taxed 10% of their total worth annually.

I would never agree with backdating anything - that's always principally bad, you basically saying yeah we made a deal but now we've changed our mind so pay up. Who would have any confidence in leaders like that?

Lias:

Not if we simply ban companies and trust from owning property, which I'm all for. Again, urgency, give them 60 days to get it out of the trust and into a persons name (preferably an NZ citizen), or they forfeit the property to the crown.

Ban companies from owning the properties? I guess you mean banning companies from owning residential properties? How would it work with say apartment's blocks or new developments? This would likely mean collapse of rental (and residential) market - no sane government would do that.

Lias:

It is extreme, but extreme measures are required. My sympathy for people that rich is somewhere between none and negative infinity, besides which if they are that rich they can live in a hotel for 6 months.

Not sure how to react to this, you know sometimes people actually worked hard and deserve to be rich. But back to my initial reaction - I'm again any backdating - breaking a deal.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2110045 17-Oct-2018 21:32

MikeB4:

By definition the thread title is asking 'is home ownership a right? the answer is yes it is a right. If the question was is 'gifted home ownership a right' then it is not a right. However that does not exclude the right to housing.

Oh re the bolded I do not believe you dictate the course of discussions. Bullying is unbecoming.

MikeB4, you really need to stop constantly pulling out the bullying/courtesy card every time pulls you up for ranting about things on which you know nothing. Fred99's reading is absolutely correct - any silly textural-only based reading of an international instrument would see you laughed out of the court whether you are arguing before a domestic court or a UN institution. This is something that a second year, C-average law student learns. You obviously don't have the relevant professional/educational background but if you are going to spout on these sorts of issues, at least do a quick Google search before aggressively yapping at people. A quick Google search yielded this article from the Journal of Human Rights written by a person who's a member of the Royal Society of Canada, so I would take her word over yours.

Let's have some fun. For brevity, I'll generally eliminate all footnote references.

Article 17 of the UDHR states:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

There was, however, much discussion among the drafters of the UDHR about this right. They disagreed over whether property should refer only to personal property and if so, what personal property meant, as opposed to a more expansive meaning of property, including shares in corporations. The section “alone or in association with others” was a compromise to permit both capitalist forms of joint ownership and Soviet forms of collective ownership. Eventually, the right to own property was introduced into the UDHR.

Nevertheless, the right to own property was not included in the two subsequent international human rights Covenants, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the ICESCR, which introduced into international law the declaratory provisions of the UDHR. Both Covenants prohibit discrimination on the basis, inter alia, of property (ICCPR, Article 2(1), 24(1), 26; ICESCR, Article 2(2)), but they do not include the actual right to own property. Although it is often thought that the omission of a right to own property from these Covenants was a result of opposition from the communist bloc, according to Schabas there was no capitalist-socialist split over this right. Rather, there was disagreement between those who proposed a right to own any form of property and those who proposed a right only to own personal property, similar to the discussion that preceded the formulation of the UDHR. There was also much discussion when the two Covenants were being drafted about what would constitute fair compensation, in the event that a state were to deprive a citizen of property in a nonarbitrary manner, as permitted by UDHR Article 17(2).

The article then goes on to say that expansive notions of right to property have generally not found favour in international law and the author goes on to defend the philosophical grounding for a view that the State should forbear against arbitrarily depriving citizens' property as a human right. She leans against the view that the state ".... has a positive obligation to rovide individuals with property or work in the event that they lack either or both; the state is merely obliged to fulfill those human rights that individuals cannot fulfill themselves because they lack work or property". Whatever one thinks of her philosophical argument, the primary sources she has cited quite clearly show that your view of the UDHR is untenable.

That you chose to mendaciously assert that Fred99 was bullying you for merely having the intellectual honesty to pull you up for your BS is the true act of bullying here.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2110060 17-Oct-2018 21:38

Lias:

Eliminate council related compliance costs (e.g. building consents, infrastructure levies, etc) for first home builders who want to build without a developer. Commercial developers can and should pay these fees, but Joe Blogs should be able to get a couple of his mates and build a house over a few months of working in weekends like was done 50 years ago.

That just moves the problem around. I agree that charges should be brought in line with actual costs rather than loading them up as a revenue source. But not everyone has the skill to build their own house. You are pretty much proposing that the costs of someone with the ability to build their own house should be shifted on to those who choose to use a developer or large building firm.

Lias:

Make covenants on the types of buildings in new subdivisions illegal, because every developer always insists houses in their subdivision should all be new and a certain colour and style etc. You should be able to buy any section in a new development , and self build a log cabin or transport an old house onto it, etc.

Actually, I pretty much agree with this one. Provided it meets basic building code and sanitation standards,

Lias:

Introduce Capital Gains Tax on all houses after the first (e.g. you can own a family home, but if you own a home and a bach or a home and a rental, you pay CGT on one).

Wouldn't do much for house prices. And why the seeming hate for anyone who owns a bach?

Lias:

Introduce punishingly large taxes on anyone owning more than a couple of houses. E.g. If you own 5 houses, you get taxed 10% of their total worth annually.

Landlords aren't going to rent at a loss. That would make rentals pretty scarce, and send rents sky high. Which would suck if you needed/wanted to rent and didn't qualify for a Housing NZ house.

Lias:

Only allow citizens who reside in NZ to own residential property, and require anyone who's not a citizen to sell their property within a very short time frame or forfeit it to the crown, say 60 days. Withdraw from any free trade agreements or treaties we are signatories to that would prevent this. It would cause a nice glut, and prices would nosedive as all the foreign investors tried to salvage something.

Apart from being basically retrospective and punitive, and repugnant to most people's sense of fair play, that wouldn't do wonders for our international reputation. That is essentially confiscation of assets, and would probably cause massive capital flight, massive loss of investor and business confidence, and send the currency plunging. As well as inviting countries we have agreements with to retaliate.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2110074 17-Oct-2018 22:01

Lias:

People who build houses are still going to be ratepayers, I just think that more cost should be moved onto larger commercial developers, and people should be able to build houses for themselves without having to adhere to the building act, obey district planning rules, get consents, codes of compliance, etc. Government (local or central) should not be able to stop you, or charge you for, building a house for yourself on your own land.

Some of the district planning rules are there for a reason. To, for instance, stop you putting up a monstrosity that blocks other peoples' light or otherwise unreasonably interferes with their enjoyment of their property.

Lias:

Not if we simply ban companies and trust from owning property, which I'm all for. Again, urgency, give them 60 days to get it out of the trust and into a persons name (preferably an NZ citizen), or they forfeit the property to the crown.

Why the hate on trusts?

I have friends (basically typical middle class who own their own house and have a few other assets). They have a fairly severely intellectually disabled child, and have wrapped their house and other major assets up in a trust with trustees they have confidence in. That means if/when they die their daughter always has a place to live, and no one can come along and essentially asset strip her. Which would be easy to do - she trusts anyone.

Another friend has set up a family trust for their parent's assets, to protect their mother (who has dementia) when their father dies.

Why, for example, do you want to prevent people like that taking reasonable steps to protect their child's future welfare, or their parents.

Lias:

It is extreme, but extreme measures are required. My sympathy for people that rich is somewhere between none and negative infinity, besides which if they are that rich they can live in a hotel for 6 months.

You know that not everyone who owns a bach, investment property or has a family trust is rich don't you? At least, not by the standards of what most kiwis would consider rich. Why the searing hate for anyone who has managed to accumulate a few assets for their requirement?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2110108 17-Oct-2018 22:34

surfisup1000:

Owning a house is only a right in communist countries (or the occupancy of one at least).

Not in the one I grew up in. You could only get a house if you bought/inherited/been gifted one or built one. Government only supported apartments blocks. But to get one you had to apply to get into the queue and then if you successfully went through all the political and other screenings you had to wait years and years. Then finally when you get at the top of the queue you had to work thousands of hours on the new apartment block and pay some money to get one in the end.

Of course everything was much easier when you knew the right people and been able to bribe with the right stuff. Then you could get one quite quickly.

But there was no right as far as I'm aware. If you didn't have a place to move to you just stayed with your parents until you could.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2110230 18-Oct-2018 09:14

Home ownership is not and never has been a right in this country.

In fact home ownership has been difficult for the average kiwi for many decades. It had become ridiculously easy over the last 20 years when banks would lend you close to 100% of the value and capital gains would take care of the rest.

The only change is that the cost of housing finally took off with a hiss and a roar based on demand and a booming economy.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2110286 18-Oct-2018 09:40

JimmyH:

Another friend has set up a family trust for their parent's assets, to protect their mother (who has dementia) when their father dies.

Why, for example, do you want to prevent people like that taking reasonable steps to protect their child's future welfare, or their parents.

There's nothing "wrong" with doing that, so long as it's done within the law - not for example to protect/hide assets in order to qualify for taxpayer subsidised care in a rest home.

I'd have thought that an enduring power of attorney was the way to go in the above circumstance.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2110620 18-Oct-2018 19:08

Asset protection is a legal use of trusts.

I haven't done it myself, but I know a number of people who have. Not just for rest home subsidies tho, or even mainly for that. Mostly because they are in business (and as a partner can be liable if the firm folds), or to protect property before getting married.

Providing the assets are moved more than 7 years before the person goes into a rest home, my understanding is that it's fully within the law?

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2110779 19-Oct-2018 08:59

JimmyH:

Lias:

Make covenants on the types of buildings in new subdivisions illegal, because every developer always insists houses in their subdivision should all be new and a certain colour and style etc. You should be able to buy any section in a new development , and self build a log cabin or transport an old house onto it, etc.

Actually, I pretty much agree with this one. Provided it meets basic building code and sanitation standards,

Covenants exist to maintain a tolerable 'tone' of development in subdivisions. This is so people can be confident the price they buy at won't be devalued by someone building an earth-ship, shack, implement shed, or (shudder) log-cabin next-door or dropping in a few shipping containers.

Is there an amount of snobbery in that? For sure. But mostly it's based on what the market values.

I live in a subdivision with covenants in which houses are being built at present. There is wide range of cladding, architectural styles, colours sizes, shapes. There are a couple of obvious spec-homes and others that have appear to have been designed by an architect.

There are other subdivisions, with fewer covenants dug into the shady sides of hills in other parts of town. Much cheaper and much more freedom about what can be built. So there are choices. But the subdivisions with tighter controls tend to be in better locations.

If covenants were banned what would developers do? Possibly achieve the same thing by creating large unit title developments.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2110827 19-Oct-2018 10:35

JimmyH:

Providing the assets are moved more than 7 years before the person goes into a rest home, my understanding is that it's fully within the law?

IANAL, but as I understand it no. There's no expiry date / statute of limitations, if they could show that assets were shifted to a trust to avoid means testing, then they could go back as far as they wanted, even if in practice - they don't.

It's a dishonest and immoral use of trusts - IMO. I'm not sure if it still works well either - changes to laws re gifting etc a few years ago may have put a spanner in the works.

So is the lovely situation where high profile bankrupts owing creditors millions so frequently seem to end up living in the same multi-million dollar houses, driving the same expensive cars, wearing the same expensive shoes.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2110878 19-Oct-2018 11:09

Fred99:

So is the lovely situation where high profile bankrupts owing creditors millions so frequently seem to end up living in the same multi-million dollar houses, driving the same expensive cars, wearing the same expensive shoes.

We decided to establish Ltd liability companies a long time ago. The situation you describe is a consequence of that.

Unfortunately, the bigger the borrowing, the less likely a bank is to seek a home to be offered as security.

If everyone establishing a business had to put everything they own on the line, fewer people would risk establishing businesses. If you extend liability to shareholders in LTD companies, you also capture naive investors.

Mike

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2111160 19-Oct-2018 18:56

Bluntj:

Home ownership is not and never has been a right in this country.

In fact home ownership has been difficult for the average kiwi for many decades. It had become ridiculously easy over the last 20 years when banks would lend you close to 100% of the value and capital gains would take care of the rest.

The only change is that the cost of housing finally took off with a hiss and a roar based on demand and a booming economy.

Difficult, but not difficult to the point where you put your entire life on hold because you can't secure a place to live.

I'm now older than my father was when I was born. In fact, my parents were two down at this point.

The cost of housing is a by-product of using mass-immigration to prop up the economy (it means you can ignore the people who are leaving to live somewhere else and why) and councils that have become personal fifedoms without delivering proper infrastructure or development to keep up with current populations.

NZ basically cashed in on the growth then and said the next generation can pick up the tab. And then people scratch their head as to why millenials don't get married, buy houses, have families until later, etc. Could it be because you inflated house prices so much your kids can't afford to buy them?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5