Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
7546 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3963


  Reply # 2109619 17-Oct-2018 12:14
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

it depends on what spin you put on the word property and if you link that to article 25. I am not adding anthing to it I have simply quoted the stated rights, others are adding to the words.

 

 

By no legal definition is "property" referring exclusively to "real estate".

 

There's no spin being applied - except by you possibly - trying to make that clause seem relevant.  It isn't.


13369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6286

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2109625 17-Oct-2018 12:21
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

 

it depends on what spin you put on the word property and if you link that to article 25. I am not adding anthing to it I have simply quoted the stated rights, others are adding to the words.

 

 

By no legal definition is "property" referring exclusively to "real estate".

 

There's no spin being applied - except by you possibly - trying to make that clause seem relevant.  It isn't.

 

 

 

 

It is also not excluding it.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


7546 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3963


  Reply # 2109628 17-Oct-2018 12:24
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

 

it depends on what spin you put on the word property and if you link that to article 25. I am not adding anthing to it I have simply quoted the stated rights, others are adding to the words.

 

 

By no legal definition is "property" referring exclusively to "real estate".

 

There's no spin being applied - except by you possibly - trying to make that clause seem relevant.  It isn't.

 

 

It is also not excluding it.

 

 

But it's absolutely NOT requiring it (property) to be provided as a right.

 

Are we finished here.  Hope so.  


2506 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1222

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109630 17-Oct-2018 12:25
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

I don't see home ownership as a right per se, but I think it's a reasonable expectation. Certainly it was part of the Kiwi social contract years ago. Work hard, be careful with your money, own your own home, have a comfortable retirement.

 

Any Kiwi that manages their life reasonably well should be able to own their own home. That includes working class. I don't think it includes long-term/permanent beneficiaries.

 

I don't think the rest of society should subsidise home ownership for the less well-off. It's just a fact of life that sometimes you can't have what you want.

 

If you don't subsidise home ownership for the less well-off, you'll be subsidising their rent payments, making rich landlords richer. Because everyone has a *right* to adequate housing.

 

But you've bought the neoliberal myth. It's not about "the rest of society" subsidising anyone; it's about the wealth being distributed fairly in the first place. Society should provide a framework where all people have the opportunity to succeed. NB that it's an opportunity, not a guarantee. If you choose to spend your money on drugs or gambling or fast cars or whatever, then you're choosing to not own a house. IMHO, it's the erosion of this opportunity that's led to the drug & crime problems we have today.

 

 


13369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6286

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2109654 17-Oct-2018 12:35
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

 

it depends on what spin you put on the word property and if you link that to article 25. I am not adding anthing to it I have simply quoted the stated rights, others are adding to the words.

 

 

By no legal definition is "property" referring exclusively to "real estate".

 

There's no spin being applied - except by you possibly - trying to make that clause seem relevant.  It isn't.

 

 

It is also not excluding it.

 

 

But it's absolutely NOT requiring it (property) to be provided as a right.

 

Are we finished here.  Hope so.  

 

 

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.

 

 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


7546 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3963


  Reply # 2109667 17-Oct-2018 12:54
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

There's something that you really just don't seem to "get" here.

 

You have the right to own stuff.  There's nothing there in that UN resolution to state either that the right to own stuff means that the state should in any way be obliged to provide that property for you to own, and there's also no obligation that the state must "allow" you to own a home, a siberian tiger, or a kilogram of plutonium - all of which could be property.

 

The more important clause is the next one, which states that property you do own, shan't be arbitrarily taken away.  That's something which does happen, and especially in case of conflict, "ethnic cleansing" whatever.  Arguably it's exactly what did happen WRT seizure of land in NZ, but not just land, other taonga as well.

 

You're fishing for red herrings - and found one.  That clause is not relevant to this discussion.  

 

I regret you think that's "bullying".  It's not intended.


eph

171 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 2109682 17-Oct-2018 13:21
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

SpartanVXL: As people have pointed out, you can live in a home but not necessarily own the property. The problem I see is the way in which having a place to call home is being monetized.

 

Two things I'd like to point out here:

 

1) You don't rent a home, you rent a house (or apartment, etc.). With the current rules around responsibility for damages and other tenants right it's very difficult for landlord to rent you a home.

 

2) The property is not made by trees for free (like air) or just flow out of ground (like water). Somebody has to produce the materials and labour to build it (plus somebody has to give you permission to use the land). Since these costs are significant it will always have to be monetised as somebody has to pay for it. Most renters don't realise how expensive owning the house is (not just buying) and are outraged of how much rent they have to pay for their (mostly) careless living. I'd say most mum&dad landlords who somehow managed to save up to buy an investment property hardly get by and are hoping that the capital gain on the property will provide them with some decent retirement. Which might or might not happen, one of the many risks of owning a property.

 

 

Whether it be rentals or mortgages, its getting to a point where if people are having to spend a majority of their life income just to keep a place to stay. Far too much thinking in society around profits and financial gain and not enough around doing it right. It's like putting a price on water or air, you're putting a pricetag on something that is a part of living and almost never ends well. I really wish NZ got its act together around infrastructure and housing planning. Profits shouldn't be a part of it and any money should be put right back in to get better quality/service. I've got far too many mates in construction who tell me how builds are made for best profit, use material that only lasts 5 years because it looks fine and will be sold off anyway.

 

I can agree with that - though not sure what are you proposing? Create government non-profit banks to supply mortgages? Create government non-profit building companies to build the houses?


3472 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1928

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109688 17-Oct-2018 13:25
Send private message quote this post

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I consider it a right, but I certainly believe the government has a moral obligation to keep housing affordable (which both the current and previous governments have abjectly failed at). My personal belief is that the government should keep the average price steady at a point where someone on the average wage would only spend around 30% of their pre-tax income on a mortgage for an average house. The current average income in NZ is about 50k, and the national house price average is 556k, giving a monthly income of $4166 pre tax, and monthly repayments of around $2984*, a whopping 71.6% of the average income. So the government should be aiming to lower house prices to more than half the current values.

 

*Mortgage payment calculated via Westpac's online calculator, assuming a house value of 556k, a 10% deposit, 30 year term and current floating rate of 5.95%





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


Mad Scientist
19161 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2491

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109707 17-Oct-2018 13:38
Send private message quote this post

It should be a concretely achievable if you work hard at that goal. But currently it doesn't appear to be so.




Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


3556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109708 17-Oct-2018 13:38
Send private message quote this post

It saddens me that 'The Army' now has a political wing. Despite my late uncle being a Major in the Sallies, and cousins who are still involved, I no longer donate.
Yet another impost on the shrinking number of us in the middle that bear the majority of the tax burden with no ability to escape.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

gzt

10270 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2109709 17-Oct-2018 13:39
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

The fact the lady needed to move seven times in three years may have something to do with her desire for home ownership. The practical level of insecurity for many renters is massive. The government has improved the notice period situation but has not improved security of tenure as far as I'm aware.

Security of tenure would see tennants able to plan and have the option of putting more into improve properties for the longer term for example.

Ownership does provide more security and stability than renting and has many other social benefits.

eph

171 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 2109710 17-Oct-2018 13:41
Send private message quote this post

Lias:

 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I consider it a right, but I certainly believe the government has a moral obligation to keep housing affordable (which both the current and previous governments have abjectly failed at). My personal belief is that the government should keep the average price steady at a point where someone on the average wage would only spend around 30% of their pre-tax income on a mortgage for an average house. The current average income in NZ is about 50k, and the national house price average is 556k, giving a monthly income of $4166 pre tax, and monthly repayments of around $2984*, a whopping 71.6% of the average income. So the government should be aiming to lower house prices to more than half the current values.

 

*Mortgage payment calculated via Westpac's online calculator, assuming a house value of 556k, a 10% deposit, 30 year term and current floating rate of 5.95%

 

 

I think the usual metric of house affordability is median house price to annual household income ratio. Anything below 3 is affordable, anything above is unaffordable (above 5 is considered severely unaffordable). Auckland currently is between 8.3 - 10.13 (Sep 18 data), NZ is 6.28.

 

What do you think government should do to fix this situation?


eph

171 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 2109717 17-Oct-2018 13:50
Send private message quote this post

gzt: The fact the lady needed to move seven times in three years may have something to do with her desire for home ownership. The practical level of insecurity for many renters is massive. The government has improved the notice period situation but has not improved security of tenure as far as I'm aware.

Security of tenure would see tennants able to plan and have the option of putting more into improve properties for the longer term for example.

Ownership does provide more security and stability than renting and has many other social benefits.

 

Have you considered level of insecurity for landlords? 3 weeks and the tenant is gone with very little chance to find a new one in that time frame.

 

You've got options to increase security of the tenure (like fix term contracts). Not really sure what you mean by "and have the option of putting more into improve properties"? Who would put what where?


653 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126


  Reply # 2109765 17-Oct-2018 14:07
Send private message quote this post

eph:

I think the usual metric of house affordability is median house price to annual household income ratio. Anything below 3 is affordable, anything above is unaffordable (above 5 is considered severely unaffordable). Auckland currently is between 8.3 - 10.13 (Sep 18 data), NZ is 6.28.


What do you think government should do to fix this situation?



Start hiking the OCR? It would be a very blunt and painful tool. Or force the banks to lend on non owner occupied housing at commercial interest rates? Toy with LVRs, first home minimum 20% equity, second home, 40% across both, 60% across three...
I don't know, I'm just spit balling. But I do have friends who couldn't pay their mortgage at 8%..

7546 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3963


  Reply # 2109766 17-Oct-2018 14:08
Send private message quote this post

eph:

 

What do you think government should do to fix this situation?

 

 

Jump in the Tardis and revisit the '80s, with the benefit of 35 years hindsight.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.