Act's David Seymour claims he can't afford to buy the mouldy house that he rents

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

Forums › Politics › Act's David Seymour claims he can't afford to buy the mouldy house that he rents

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#223156 15-Sep-2017 15:04

I found this article on NewsHub interesting.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/09/david-seymour-can-t-afford-mouldy-house-he-rents.html

The response on Facebook to the story has been predictably harsh given that he is reportedly on a salary on $190k.

Out of interest, I ran some numbers and it turns out that he may have a point.

First up, some assumptions:

- Seymour does not have student loan repayments to make

- Seymour makes the minimum (3%) Kiwisaver contribution

- Seymour has no child-support obligations

- Seymour as the MP for Epsom, resides in Epsom

- Standard 20% deposit required

The inputs:

After tax income on a $190k salary in approx. $129k. (per IRD's PAYE/Kiwisaver calculator)

Market rent for a 2Bdrm house in Epsom is $520pw (according to Tennancy NZ)

Median sale price in Epsom is $1,852,650 (source qv.co.nz)

Saving a deposit:

A deposit required for the "median" Epsom house is $370.5k

After paying rent, Seymour is left with $102k per year. If he (miraculously) saves 100% of his income, it would still take nearly 4 years to achieve that.

Servicing a mortgage:

With a 20% deposit, sorted.org.nz shows a 20yr mortgage will cost 10.6k per month which would leave Seymour with $1800 per year. (This won't even cover his rates.)

So yeah - while at first glance it sounds like a ridiculous assertion that a salary of almost 200k isn't enough to buy in some places in Auckland, there's actually a lot of truth to it.

1 | 2

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1866976 15-Sep-2017 15:40

Perhaps we should cut taxes on bleach, he clearly cant afford that either.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#1867013 15-Sep-2017 16:54

Maybe he might need to downsize to an apartment or get some flatmates :)

Epsom is not exactly what you would describe as a perfect "first home buyers" market thou....

plus he might be able to lean on the 3 family trusts he is a beneficiary of for a leg up with the deposit....

https://www.parliament.nz/media/3926/2017-summary-report-final.pdf

Oldmanakbar

110 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1867016 15-Sep-2017 17:17

Off topic I know, but man, thats a lot of Trusts in Parliament. They seem popluar, I wonder why!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1867070 15-Sep-2017 20:22

6FIEND:

I found this article on NewsHub interesting.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/09/david-seymour-can-t-afford-mouldy-house-he-rents.html

The response on Facebook to the story has been predictably harsh given that he is reportedly on a salary on $190k.

Out of interest, I ran some numbers and it turns out that he may have a point.

First up, some assumptions:

- Seymour does not have student loan repayments to make

- Seymour makes the minimum (3%) Kiwisaver contribution

- Seymour has no child-support obligations

- Seymour as the MP for Epsom, resides in Epsom

- Standard 20% deposit required

The inputs:

After tax income on a $190k salary in approx. $129k. (per IRD's PAYE/Kiwisaver calculator)

Market rent for a 2Bdrm house in Epsom is $520pw (according to Tennancy NZ)

Median sale price in Epsom is $1,852,650 (source qv.co.nz)

Saving a deposit:

A deposit required for the "median" Epsom house is $370.5k

After paying rent, Seymour is left with $102k per year. If he (miraculously) saves 100% of his income, it would still take nearly 4 years to achieve that.

Servicing a mortgage:

With a 20% deposit, sorted.org.nz shows a 20yr mortgage will cost 10.6k per month which would leave Seymour with $1800 per year. (This won't even cover his rates.)

So yeah - while at first glance it sounds like a ridiculous assertion that a salary of almost 200k isn't enough to buy in some places in Auckland, there's actually a lot of truth to it.

You need to provide detail mate!!! :-)

Nice post.

I agree, its not silly. Now go back to the labourer/builder who has lots of jobs in AKL to partake in, not easy if its an arm and half a leg to live there.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1867072 15-Sep-2017 20:25

tdgeek:

You need to provide detail mate!!! :-)

No Detail? I though there was plenty of detail in that post. You need to click on the links :-)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1867083 15-Sep-2017 20:40

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

You need to provide detail mate!!! :-)

No Detail? I though there was plenty of detail in that post. You need to click on the links :-)

OMG get with the play, you need to catch up, I've already given you advice to read more.

Obviously there is plenty of detail, hence the SMILEY FACE ( :-) )

1. Hop off high horse

2. Read

3. Participate.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1867095 15-Sep-2017 20:43

tdgeek:

I agree, its not silly. Now go back to the labourer/builder who has lots of jobs in AKL to partake in, not easy if its an arm and half a leg to live there.

Often they can only get by if the owner of the construction site they are working on allows them to also live there. Free rent along with free use of the site power easily outweighs alot of the negatives. Even if those negatives mean no kitchen, and often no bathroom either.

The owner benefits from better security due to someone being on site at night and on weekends. Although it also causes alot of liability issues due to things like the residential tenancy act.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1867097 15-Sep-2017 20:54

Aredwood:

tdgeek:

I agree, its not silly. Now go back to the labourer/builder who has lots of jobs in AKL to partake in, not easy if its an arm and half a leg to live there.

Often they can only get by if the owner of the construction site they are working on allows them to also live there. Free rent along with free use of the site power easily outweighs alot of the negatives. Even if those negatives mean no kitchen, and often no bathroom either.

The owner benefits from better security due to someone being on site at night and on weekends. Although it also causes alot of liability issues due to things like the residential tenancy act.

Makes a lot of sense. Is that legal/legit?

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1867142 15-Sep-2017 23:41

Wiggum:

Perhaps we should cut taxes on bleach, he clearly cant afford that either.

Bleach doesn't kill mould. It's a myth.

He would be better if he genuinely can't afford to buy, to talk to his landlord into a DVS or similar ventilation system in exchange for a increase in rent.

Geese

1028 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#1867176 16-Sep-2017 07:55

I'm in the same position effectively, but scaled down relative to where I live. I live an austere lifestyle, earn in the 80th percentile income, single no kids, good savings history, exemplary credit history, owned several houses and land with never a missed or late payment... And I'm even realistic about what I'm looking for, small apartment or 1-2 bedroom unit.

I went into the bank yesterday, got absolutely denied. They said there have been loads of changes in the last 2 years since they last approved a mortgage for me, they blamed National government/reserve bank changes.

They said apartments are a no go now, or anything under 65m², unless I can stump up 50% deposit; due to my workplace being out of town, and where I intend to buy is technically easily commutable for average person in 8 hour job, since I work 14 hour days, I couldn't commute that far, I'd need a secondary place nearer to work (ie board with workmate but have my own place for days off)... They said I'd need 40% deposit as while clearly it would be my primary residence, if I can't sleep there >50% if nights it'll be classed as an investment property. If I then buy a house way larger than I need to meet their requirements, and pay top dollar to get a house they feel needs to be close to work, then they say we run into the next problem, that because of my age I can't have a 30 year mortgage as I won't live/work long enough to pay it off, so if we shorten the term up, oh, now we can't approve it on affordability as your single income.

So that was a pretty sobering experience. I'm in no particular hurry, I guess I'll wait and see if there are any changes in coming months, and maybe next point of call is a credit union who do mortgages with lower equity so I can an apartment/small footprint unit.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1867415 16-Sep-2017 23:08

Banks have always been more risk adverse with apartment lending. And they have tightened up alot more now, as if there is a property market crash. Apartment values fall the most. Also more risk of being suddenly asked to pay up a 6 figure sum at short notice for leaky building repairs.

Also there is the responsible lending code. Which means that the banks have a legal duty to ensure that the repayments are "affordable" to you. It was originally intended to make things more difficult for loan sharks, loans to buy used cars etc. But it doesn't allow for the situation of someone wanting to cut their living expenses to the absolute bone, so they can buy a house and escape the rent trap.

So yes, the bank are right about loads of changes having happened in the last 2 years. At least the credit union won't be restricted by the deposit requirements. Although I guess they would still be strict on the min floor area.

Although still annoying as I see that you fall in the gaps not anticipated by the rulemakers. I know someone who wanted to buy a home that was an old batch, which was on 30M2 or so floor area. But they couldn't get a mortgage for it as the bank classed it under the same rules as apartments.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1867987 18-Sep-2017 12:13

networkn:

Wiggum:

Perhaps we should cut taxes on bleach, he clearly cant afford that either.

Bleach doesn't kill mould. It's a myth.

He would be better if he genuinely can't afford to buy, to talk to his landlord into a DVS or similar ventilation system in exchange for a increase in rent.

I guess thats debatable. One thing is certain, it does get rid of mold if used to wipe it down. The bleach prevents the mold from growing back quickly. But it will grow back, and that's due to a bigger problem.

The best way to keep mold away for good is to make sure your humidity levels inside your house never go higher than 50%. This task is actually pretty simple. It can be monitored with a simple hydrometer up on the wall somewhere, but its an ongoing task of monitoring/opening windows etc when humidity levels are high.

People who complain about moldy houses always get my back up. Because most of the time its actually their own fault. Mold generally would not start to grow on its own in an unoccupied house.

If there is mold in your house its a reason to be concerned. Wiping the mold away that you can see is not going to cause the problem to go away. It means the house is damp and humidity levels are too high, therefore there is probably also other mold growing in places where you cant see it. Ie behind dry walling etc..

Sometimes not even a DVS system or dehumidifier will work. Problem tenants don't seem to like using these things as it costs them money to run.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1868010 18-Sep-2017 12:47

Wiggum:

networkn:

Wiggum:

Perhaps we should cut taxes on bleach, he clearly cant afford that either.

Bleach doesn't kill mould. It's a myth.

He would be better if he genuinely can't afford to buy, to talk to his landlord into a DVS or similar ventilation system in exchange for a increase in rent.

I guess thats debatable. One thing is certain, it does get rid of mold if used to wipe it down. The bleach prevents the mold from growing back quickly. But it will grow back, and that's due to a bigger problem.

The best way to keep mold away for good is to make sure your humidity levels inside your house never go higher than 50%. This task is actually pretty simple. It can be monitored with a simple hydrometer up on the wall somewhere, but its an ongoing task of monitoring/opening windows etc when humidity levels are high.

People who complain about moldy houses always get my back up. Because most of the time its actually their own fault. Mold generally would not start to grow on its own in an unoccupied house.

If there is mold in your house its a reason to be concerned. Wiping the mold away that you can see is not going to cause the problem to go away. It means the house is damp and humidity levels are too high, therefore there is probably also other mold growing in places where you cant see it. Ie behind dry walling etc..

Sometimes not even a DVS system or dehumidifier will work. Problem tenants don't seem to like using these things as it costs them money to run.

White vinegar undiluted

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1869547 20-Sep-2017 16:17

Aw....the poor diddums.

Couldn't go live in an apartment could he.

We can't afford to buy a Porsche on our pension.

CourtJester

9 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1872384 25-Sep-2017 12:02

Look even a brain dead beneficiary, given his salary for the time he's been in Parliament could have not only saved up sufficient deposit to buy, but would have by now, having bought a home in the second year of the first term, paid off more than half of the mortgage.
It's just that he is singularly incompetent, and too lazy to exercise a sensible budget.
More than $2500 in the hand per week, and after rent ( or mortgage repayments) and basic living expenses he should have an additional $1800 per week ($93k per year) to dump into a mortgage.
It's just that he's an arrogant twit who thinks the suns shines out of his nether regiones, and so wants to live a grandiose lifestyle divorced from reality. And thanks to National, he gets to do so at the Taxpayers expense.
But at least it now appears he's been put aside by National as spurious to their future plans, and so his $190,000 parliamentary salary has a termination date. So of course he can't afford to buy a house because he is terminally redundant!

1 | 2