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 | ... | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | ... | 268

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1939039 15-Jan-2018 13:23

The property I own I've had quotes around $20k to install underfloor insulation due to the difficulties of access to the underfloor space. You can technically do it but would need to cut through the foundation wall and dig access trenches etc in tighter spaces.

If I was forced to do that ... I would simply add the depreciation (applicable IRD rate) and 'cost of money' onto the rent.

I insulated the walls and ceilings well when I lived there myself. But I'm guessing the ceiling won't count as I didn't get a code of compliance cert.

Mike

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939117 15-Jan-2018 14:48

tdgeek:

Geektastic:
tdgeek:

SJB:

I don't put the rent up unless there is a change of tenant and then I base the new rent on advice from the property manager who knows the market value. I've put in floor and ceiling insulation and heat pumps and anything that breaks gets fixed. That all makes sense for when you come to sell anyway.

In Timaru the rental market is healthy enough but you can't milk it.

No matter what other investment opportunities there are a lot of people like property. As long as you invest for the long term and can hold on to it even in the slumps you will make money. And unlike shares, bonds etc you can feel it and touch it. That's a big psychological plus for a lot of people.

I've had all sorts of investments over the years, both good and bad, but property has never disappointed.

So you increase the rent, just because you can?

The next step will be rent controls....

I doubt that very much. This post shows that its market driven, and fair enough, what the market will bear.

There isnt really any reason to manage rents, they serve a purpose. If you really wanted to increase the homeowner ratio, you need to make it easier for first home buyers. A side effect is lower rents due to less demand, which then helps the renters, which adds more funds to the economy, assuming renters put cash into the economy and not into interest on investment property mortgages

However, the government is stepping in so it won't be market driven. Germany still has rent controls. Parts of the US have them. There are still some old tenancies in the UK that would have them.

What this government wants is good houses, with insulation, heating and so on, at reasonable rents. I predict that they would act to control rents if the effect of the insulation and heating requirements was to significantly increase rents (which it probably will be, even if that is an excuse as much as anything else) because they would be left with no choice - they would not want to be the government that 'put up rents', they would rather be the government that 'hammered greedy landlords' in terms of the spin put on their actions.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1939183 15-Jan-2018 16:46

The trouble is building houses is expensive due to the cost of materials in NZ and the incentives for councils to gather as much non-rates revenue as possible. Landlords need a reasonable return on the cost of the house and the land after operating costs.

Make it too difficult and other business models (e.g. AirBnB) look more appealing.

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939455 16-Jan-2018 07:13

Well, its a pity that a law to ensure houses are warm and dry means the Govt is bad

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1939532 16-Jan-2018 09:09

tdgeek:
Well, its a pity that a law to ensure houses are warm and dry means the Govt is bad

I believe you are misconstruing the conversation...

It's not bad that the government has ideals for warm and dry homes. Even legislating for it isn't bad in itself, though I feel it might have unintended and unwanted consequences. What is bad is that the government is almost seeming to treat landlords as a social welfare provider whereas it's just a business. Whoever is providing a rental is simply in the business of rental accommodation, and in business in the long term you get paid for your product/service relative to the quality of the product/service that you provide. It's not the job of the rental owners to lift the level of living standards for NZ

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1939567 16-Jan-2018 09:55

rjt123: What is bad is that the government is almost seeming to treat landlords as a social welfare provider whereas it's just a business.

This is 100% at the root of the problem.

Compounding matters is the fact that almost none of Labour's front bench have ever worked in a business, let alone owned or operated one.

Jacinda Ardern – nil private sector experience. Worked in Parliament, UK Government and a US union. Did once demonstrate cookware at Farmers though.
Kelvin Davis – nil private sector experience. Worked as a teacher or for Ministry of Education.
Andrew Little – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then unions.
Grant Robertson – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then MFAT and Otago University
Phil Twyford – worked as a journalist for the Auckland Star and a promoter for Book Month so the first Labour MP to have some private sector experience. Otherwise worked for Oxfam, including as a lobbyist in DC for them.
Megan Woods – has been a copywriter for a private business, and did business development for a CRI.
Chris Hipkins – nil private sector experience – student politics, an Industry Training Organisation (Govt funded) and Parliament
Carmel Sepuloni – nil private sector experience – teaching, NGOs and university
David Clark – nil private sector experience – Treasury, church and Selwyn College

Expecting this government to understand how businesses operate and how they react to market forces is a little like expecting a goldfish to perform brain surgery.

Samsung

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

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1939568 16-Jan-2018 09:56

In my case maintaining the property to a good standard makes sense because (a) your tenants are happier, they stay longer and you can maximise the rent for the type of property and (b) when you come to sell it you can get the best price possible at the time.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939576 16-Jan-2018 10:15

rjt123:
tdgeek:

Well, its a pity that a law to ensure houses are warm and dry means the Govt is bad

I believe you are misconstruing the conversation...

It's not bad that the government has ideals for warm and dry homes. Even legislating for it isn't bad in itself, though I feel it might have unintended and unwanted consequences. What is bad is that the government is almost seeming to treat landlords as a social welfare provider whereas it's just a business. Whoever is providing a rental is simply in the business of rental accommodation, and in business in the long term you get paid for your product/service relative to the quality of the product/service that you provide. It's not the job of the rental owners to lift the level of living standards for NZ

Its the job of a Govt to provide a minimum level of standards in society. This is why you buy food that is labelled, rules and regulations across any product or service that you can name to ensure you are not being tricked or ripped off . Nothing to do with social support. Compliance for building and many and so ons. Ensuring that rented housing is compliant with a base level of heating and insulation is just another modern society benefit. Adds to quality of life, reduces future and current health costs. It is just a simple means that a modern society can live in, nothing more. Or we can remove many such regulations across many products and services and be a third world country full of poor practices and conditions

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939583 16-Jan-2018 10:19

SJB:

In my case maintaining the property to a good standard makes sense because (a) your tenants are happier, they stay longer and you can maximise the rent for the type of property and (b) when you come to sell it you can get the best price possible at the time.

That's good, I'd do the same. Some landlords wont, and provide sub standard accommodation, so this rule is just pushing the laggards along, that's all. Its not some conspiracy. Maybe building compliance is a conspiracy, weights and measures too. CGA as well? No, they and many other things are what a modern society does to help have a quality and safe environment

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1939584 16-Jan-2018 10:23

6FIEND:

Expecting this government to understand how businesses operate and how they react to market forces is a little like expecting a goldfish to perform brain surgery.

So what are you actually saying here? That no-one who does not fit the big business mould can ever be competent in government? That only conservatives obsessed with making money are fit to rule? That those who place human values above profit can never successfully run a country? I find that a pretty narrow and depressing world view. I also think it is wrong.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939615 16-Jan-2018 11:12

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

Expecting this government to understand how businesses operate and how they react to market forces is a little like expecting a goldfish to perform brain surgery.

So what are you actually saying here? That no-one who does not fit the big business mould can ever be competent in government? That only conservatives obsessed with making money are fit to rule? That those who place human values above profit can never successfully run a country? I find that a pretty narrow and depressing world view. I also think it is wrong.

He is saying, quite correctly, that expecting a Government made up entirely of people with zero business or private sector experience, to act in a way that is beneficial to private sector/businesses which the majority of the tax in NZ comes from (through employment as well) is unlikely. What Labour have always failed to see in my experience, is that businesses making money is the foundation of a healthy economy which allows for spending on people less fortunate.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100606433/business-confidence-drops-with-fewer-expecting-to-hire-or-invest

Sounds like a recipe for success!

Before someone starts the usual whine of the National 9 years poor people carry on, what do you think the state of NZ would be without 4 Natural Disasters and a GFC to deal with?

Asking someone like Little who is a lifelong unionist to lead Small Business ministry, is akin to asking a convicted burglar to house sit whilst you go on holiday. Shows where they are at!

In Short, it would be in my opinion, a reasonable thing, to have a balance of people in your leadership group, with varying experiences, but I'd suggest CV's could have been xeroxed they would all read so similarly.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1939642 16-Jan-2018 11:36

Rikkitic:

So what are you actually saying here? That no-one who does not fit the big business mould can ever be competent in government? That only conservatives obsessed with making money are fit to rule? That those who place human values above profit can never successfully run a country? I find that a pretty narrow and depressing world view. I also think it is wrong.

No.

Those are your words - not mine. (And for the record, I also believe them to be wrong)

However, in my opinion, the three most important functions of Government are:

1) To protect its people (Defence, Law & Order, National Security, Etc.) In this respect, the Government is/should be responsible for actually delivering outcomes. Employing Police, Border Control, etc.

2) To care for its people (Education, Health, Social Services) In this respect, the Government is/should be responsible for actually delivering outcomes. Employing Teachers, Nurses etc. and providing facilities such as Schools, Hospitals, Etc.

3) To manage the economy (Trade, Business, Jobs, Growth, Etc.) In this respect, the Government is/should be responsible for managing a framework to enable the private sector to deliver the outcomes. a.k.a. adjusting the levers of power. The extent to which a government should actively intervene in the marketplace is a fundamental debate between the political left & right - but that's not what I'm talking about here...

[Note: The success of 3) directly impacts the ability to deliver points 1) & 2) ]

What I'm actually saying here is that there is a significant imbalance in the collective "experience" of Labour's front bench. The private sector accounts for roughly 75% of the economy. Yet over 75% of Labour's front bench have no experience operating in it. (And now they're expected to govern it.)

This inevitably leads to scenario's like the one presently being discussed where Labour (a) increase the demand on student accommodation be providing free study and (b) increase the students' ability to pay for it by increasing allowances by $50pw and then (c) being seemingly surprised by the fact that rents for students have skyrocketed.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1939659 16-Jan-2018 11:55

I think the Government legislating warm and dry houses for the rental sector is a good thing. My concern is degree. The landlords should only be forced to do reasonable changes to the property eg underfloor(where it is reasonably possible) and ceiling. Expecting landlords to retrofit double glazing and insulate walls is crazy.

I also expect landlords to be able to make a reasonable return on investment, like any other business model, so taxation should apply.

On the side of the coin tenants can be disgusting, they never let the house breath or ventilate and when this happens mold will always occur.

Tenants have a choice to rent a property or not. Thats how it should be.

When landlords have really good tenants I have seen them look after those tenants with more reasonable rent.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1939668 16-Jan-2018 12:13

tdgeek:
rjt123:
tdgeek:

Well, its a pity that a law to ensure houses are warm and dry means the Govt is bad

I believe you are misconstruing the conversation...

It's not bad that the government has ideals for warm and dry homes. Even legislating for it isn't bad in itself, though I feel it might have unintended and unwanted consequences. What is bad is that the government is almost seeming to treat landlords as a social welfare provider whereas it's just a business. Whoever is providing a rental is simply in the business of rental accommodation, and in business in the long term you get paid for your product/service relative to the quality of the product/service that you provide. It's not the job of the rental owners to lift the level of living standards for NZ

Its the job of a Govt to provide a minimum level of standards in society. This is why you buy food that is labelled, rules and regulations across any product or service that you can name to ensure you are not being tricked or ripped off . Nothing to do with social support. Compliance for building and many and so ons. Ensuring that rented housing is compliant with a base level of heating and insulation is just another modern society benefit. Adds to quality of life, reduces future and current health costs. It is just a simple means that a modern society can live in, nothing more. Or we can remove many such regulations across many products and services and be a third world country full of poor practices and conditions

I agree in principle with what you are saying. However, if a landlord decided that they didn't want to invest in insulation etc and decided to sell the house and a family purchased it then they are allowed to live in it in whatever state it is , with little or no insulation etc.

Would the government regulate to force home-owners to improve the standard of their homes? No all they have done is provided a subsidy for insulation etc which is a good thing, has created both an awareness and transformed the industry, probably bringing down costs.

What I don't agree with is the government's assumption that business can absorb whatever regulatory cost they throw at them. They (and many of their supporters ) have a mindset that a business owner is "rich". In reality many are scraping by and survive by sheer hard work. Tbh I don't actually really care about these new regulations. It's their lack of business experience ( as mentioned in the posts above) and the resulting policy that ignores the value of a strong private business sector to the economy that I care about.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1939670 16-Jan-2018 12:20

I agree that this Govt seems to think businesses are rich. In actual fact for the number of hours a lot of business owners work, it would be shocking to see what the hourly rate would work out to. I agree that the Government also doesn't care the cost of it's compliance and regulation costs, they use snide little comments like "we are sure that most landlords would be happy to wear the cost of a safe and warm home for their tenants". That's about as loaded as you can get.

The dumbest thing is that they don't understand that most landlords will simply pass on the costs of these changes to the tenants themselves, which will then cause rents to rise and there to be less disposable incomes for those families, and this may cause those who are struggling, to really struggle, which in turn then forces the Government to bail them out with additional welfare, paid for by..... and the circle continues.

1 | ... | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | ... | 268