Electoral Party most likely to do something about Auckland housing bubble?

Forums › Off topic › Electoral Party most likely to do something about Auckland housing bubble?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 14

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1540583 23-Apr-2016 11:59

I should have answered your question the other day:

Vote Green.

They are the only party that sees the problem and has solutions that will work. The parties who can't see the problem clearly (the usual "market forces!" BS) will say otherwise......but then they caused the problem and have made it clear they can't fix it. So you can't trust anything they say about Green policies. National is still in denial about climate change......which today should be a big red flashing warning to everyone about ANYTHING that party says or does.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1540584 23-Apr-2016 12:03

i use to not take green seriously, from their early days. but their are people in their very like minded to my way of thinking who actually give a ....

sure they arent as good at actual politics, but their answers are good.

thanks, that might be me. a greeny :-)

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1540612 23-Apr-2016 12:08

Linuxluver:

I should have answered your question the other day:

Vote Green.

They are the only party that sees the problem and has solutions that will work. The parties who can't see the problem clearly (the usual "market forces!" BS) will say otherwise......but then they caused the problem and have made it clear they can't fix it. So you can't trust anything they say about Green policies. National is still in denial about climate change......which today should be a big red flashing warning to everyone about ANYTHING that party says or does.

I'm with that.

Id like a 60 year mortgage option to increase affordability. When people own their own home, its pride, their nest, and if they cannot pay it off, their next of kin can.

I like the idea of renovation loans. If the Govt underwrit these, there is little real risk. Same for low or no deposit home loans.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1277

Trusted

#1540695 23-Apr-2016 15:44

TeaLeaf:

Fred99:

I call BS on the claims that "it's always been hard to buy a house".

haha I agree

There is a very simple metric that proves it's now harder than ever: The ratio of income to house prices, and it's never been higher.

A ratio of 3 or less is considered “affordable" but anything over 4 is considered “seriously unaffordable” and over 5 is considered “severely unaffordable”.

Back in the 80's the multiplier never got about about 2.5. In the 90's and through until the early 2000's it peaked at about 3.1. By the mid 2000's it was up around 5 (now “seriously unaffordable”) and as of March 2016 sits at a median of 5.83 for the country as a whole. So the median is now “severely unaffordable”.

But the median for Auckland is now 9.26 (Out of this world unaffordable?) and the North Shore and Central are over 10!

Based on these numbers it's statistically proven that it is now indeed much harder to buy than ever before.

Twitter: ajobbins

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1540928 23-Apr-2016 23:43

The government needs to force the Auckland council to get rid of it's stupid planning rules. Have a look at the old areas of Ponsonby. Alot of the houses there are built to higher density than most new subdivisions today. Even though those houses are over 100 years old. So somewhere along the line someone decided that we were building at too high a density. And they made rules requiring more spread out houses.

The planning rules are also why you can't easily have prefabricated houses. As each house has to be custom designed to fit within the height to boundary restrictions. Then there are development contributions that developers must pay to the council. Either as cash or by gifting land for use as parks. The problem is the developers have to add that cost onto the sale price. And projects that won't make enough money to cover those costs simply don't happen. Far better would be simply charging higher rates on new properties for the first 10 or 20 years.

Also they need to stop allowing rental property tax losses being offset against tax paid via employment (PAYE). As for people in high paying jobs, buying a rental property is an easy way to "get back" some of the tax your boss has paid on your behalf. So it is actually a subsidy for buying rentals.

But what is all comes back to is that if you split the population by age. The older you are the more likely you are to vote. Also the older you are, the more likely you are to own your own home. So of course the government will stick with the status quo of looking after current mostly older homeowners. As they are the ones who vote.

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1540963 24-Apr-2016 08:21

Aredwood:
The government needs to force the Auckland council to get rid of it's stupid planning rules. Have a look at the old areas of Ponsonby. Alot of the houses there are built to higher density than most new subdivisions today. Even though those houses are over 100 years old. So somewhere along the line someone decided that we were building at too high a density. And they made rules requiring more spread out houses.

The planning rules are also why you can't easily have prefabricated houses. As each house has to be custom designed to fit within the height to boundary restrictions. Then there are development contributions that developers must pay to the council. Either as cash or by gifting land for use as parks. The problem is the developers have to add that cost onto the sale price. And projects that won't make enough money to cover those costs simply don't happen. Far better would be simply charging higher rates on new properties for the first 10 or 20 years.

Also they need to stop allowing rental property tax losses being offset against tax paid via employment (PAYE). As for people in high paying jobs, buying a rental property is an easy way to "get back" some of the tax your boss has paid on your behalf. So it is actually a subsidy for buying rentals.

But what is all comes back to is that if you split the population by age. The older you are the more likely you are to vote. Also the older you are, the more likely you are to own your own home. So of course the government will stick with the status quo of looking after current mostly older homeowners. As they are the ones who vote.

It's pretty hard to offset against PAYE since LAQCs were discontinued some years ago.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1541016 24-Apr-2016 09:51

Maybe Auckland and it's surroundings should be designated a 'special economic area' so that different rules could be applied to house buying/selling than to the rest of the country. Make it as far south as Hamilton and north past Warkworth.

It seems unfair that areas such as mine (South Canterbury) have the same restrictions as Auckland when we don't have the same problem. House price inflation is normally around the 4-5%pa mark.

In the 'special economic area' you could apply a number of conditions.

Firstly stamp duty (say 10-15% of the purchase price) that the purchaser pays. A nice little earner for the government and first time home buyers could be exempt.

Secondly restricting loans to 2-3 times income. Again first time home buyers exempt.

Thirdly, as everyone thinks it's an issue, make it impossible for foreign based investors to buy residential property. This may be contrary to existing trade agreements but you could always argue that they could buy outside the 'special economic area'.

Wise

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

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1541030 24-Apr-2016 10:43

SJB:

Maybe Auckland and it's surroundings should be designated a 'special economic area' so that different rules could be applied to house buying/selling than to the rest of the country. Make it as far south as Hamilton and north past Warkworth.

It seems unfair that areas such as mine (South Canterbury) have the same restrictions as Auckland when we don't have the same problem. House price inflation is normally around the 4-5%pa mark.

In the 'special economic area' you could apply a number of conditions.

Firstly stamp duty (say 10-15% of the purchase price) that the purchaser pays. A nice little earner for the government and first time home buyers could be exempt.

Secondly restricting loans to 2-3 times income. Again first time home buyers exempt.

Thirdly, as everyone thinks it's an issue, make it impossible for foreign based investors to buy residential property. This may be contrary to existing trade agreements but you could always argue that they could buy outside the 'special economic area'.

Rather than restricting foreign buyers like that, restrict them to their choice of property over $1 million. That way they are not competing with the typical home buyer.

From experience, Stamp Duty only has one effect unless you do not band it - it causes house prices to stall around the top of each band and buyers/sellers to find ways around it. I know of instances in the UK where, for example, a house was sold for £x and a lawnmower sold for £y to the same buyer, where £x + £y equalled the correct house price agreed between the parties, but £x was below the Stamp Duty threshold...!

Sideface

9439 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14863

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1541052 24-Apr-2016 10:47

Geektastic:

<snip>

Rather than restricting foreign buyers like that, restrict them to their choice of property over $1 million. That way they are not competing with the typical home buyer.

<snip>

They would still compete with typical home buyers in the Auckland North Shore. Not joking.

EDIT This policy could also increase asking prices, because people with homes worth less than $1 million would bump up their price to attract foreign buyers.

Sideface

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1541069 24-Apr-2016 11:18

No party is going to bring in any policy that makes a realistic difference as those who own home would interpret a drop in valuation as money stolen from them.

There are more people with home than are looking to buy homes. I wonder if endless stories about higher house prices in the nz herald are actually aimed at those who own houses already to make them feel happy about how rich they are on paper.

If they do decide to build a national waterside stadium, then they should build several tall multi story apartment complexes on the site of old Eden park. ie 20 stories.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1277

Trusted

#1541086 24-Apr-2016 11:55

I reckon we are somewhere between "Greed" and "Delusion" at the moment.

Twitter: ajobbins

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1541088 24-Apr-2016 11:57

Didn't I hear that 40% of AKL property ownership is not owned by the Tennant.
If investors have a significant share of the market that will drive prices up but the core problem is demand, thee are just too many people. How you address that is by doing what's happening now, spreading them out across the rest of the country but this will also drive prices up.

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1541089 24-Apr-2016 11:59

ajobbins:

TeaLeaf:

Fred99:

I call BS on the claims that "it's always been hard to buy a house".

haha I agree

There is a very simple metric that proves it's now harder than ever: The ratio of income to house prices, and it's never been higher.

A ratio of 3 or less is considered “affordable" but anything over 4 is considered “seriously unaffordable” and over 5 is considered “severely unaffordable”.

Just saying I agree, not I told you so, but I did mention this.

Thats my point about why immigration wont keep the bubble afloat.

In my example $40k for a family of 3 is impossible. $80k you get $50 a week to buy a beer or play lotto. And this is just rent.

It is ultimately what will cause a crash.

Is a crash impossible?

It seems a lot of Auckland home "owners" dont think so and tend to come up with the, if anything it will be just a long plateau. To that I kind of rofl. Of course its never happened anywhere else in the world. ;-p

Even during GFC when the government started this problem by trying to protect house prices they still fell, sure only a little, but they were being protected. When you have nothing left as a safety net Im afraid its splat from that high above.

Either way the reason I started this thread is I give a damn about other people, Im not greedy and that 25yo couple with a baby dont need their lives ruined by greed. I was perhaps naive in thinking there was a political solution to this.

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1541091 24-Apr-2016 12:03

ajobbins:

I reckon we are somewhere between "Greed" and "Delusion" at the moment.

Im with you. How uncanny that graph looks like the Auck housing market. My idea was take a pencil pre first boom say 99, be generous with 8% CG and draw a line, where that ends is where I think our properties are worth. We have done nothing to make them worth more.

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1541105 24-Apr-2016 12:42

Sideface:

Geektastic:

<snip>

Rather than restricting foreign buyers like that, restrict them to their choice of property over $1 million. That way they are not competing with the typical home buyer.

<snip>

They would still compete with typical home buyers in the Auckland North Shore. Not joking.

EDIT This policy could also increase asking prices, because people with homes worth less than $1 million would bump up their price to attract foreign buyers.

Make it $3 million then. It's pretty hard to just bump your price up to that level without something very special to offer.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 14