[Discuss] Things that were meant to bring prices down but have not. (?)

Forums › Off topic › [Discuss] Things that were meant to bring prices down but have not. (?)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3227939 8-May-2024 15:59

tweake:

deepred:

Courtesy of a gift link via Bernard Hickey:

Bloomberg 6/5/2024: Global Housing Shortages Are Crushing Immigration-Fueled Growth

that really only focus on whats been happening in more recent times. however note the uk house price ratio graph. the problem has been around a whole lot longer and thats not immigration driven.

frankly i think the immigration etc simply sped up what has already been happening. we would still have the exact same problem regardless of immigration, tho it would take longer. people will always continue to milk other people for money via the housing market. even today i see an article trying to coax FHBers into fomo, the RE is doing what it does best.

the housing market will top out, people simply run out of money. then it shifts to rent to squeeze them more. as people get paid more the market will come up to take that away. even if govt builds housing, that cost gets put onto the same people, so you have the same result. the only way to stop it is to get rid of the ability to make money out of 2nd hand housing.

Something like this?

HOMELESS ARCHITECTURE IN CAPITALIST SOCIETIES; HOMELESS ARCHITECTURE IN SOCIALIST SOCIETIES | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

elpenguino

3423 posts

Uber Geek

#3227940 8-May-2024 16:07

Handle9:
elpenguino: That's a neo-liberal line the moneyed class spread so that the middle pay the bulk of the tax.

This is not actually true. The tax working group found that 50% of income tax was paid by the top 12% of income earners. The top 3% of income earners were paying 25% of income tax.

It also found that around 50% of house holds were net takers - they got more in transfers than they paid in tax.

OK, I sit corrected.

How badly is the system working when 50% of households need to be propped up?

Although, once you add up the sick, the elderly, the unemployed etc etc, how close are we to 50%?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3227966 8-May-2024 16:27

cddt:

Meanwhile schools are absolutely packed to the gunnels and teachers have to deal with more and more children who don't speak much English. Student enrollments in schools in Auckland alone were 8,000 higher in 2023 than in the previous year. That's an additional 267 classrooms worth in one year - how many new classrooms were built in that year?

There is a bubble at the moment but it's worth pointing out that while enrollments grew by 15,887 in 2023 they fell by 11,421 in 2022 and only grew by 225 in 2021.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/501483/immigration-pushes-school-enrolments-to-biggest-increase-since-1997

It's also worth considering that the current forecasts have the school aged popultaion dropping significantly over the next 10 years due to an aging population.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/485850/there-will-be-30-000-fewer-school-aged-children-in-2032-ministry-predicts

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3227968 8-May-2024 16:38

deepred:

tweake:

that really only focus on whats been happening in more recent times. however note the uk house price ratio graph. the problem has been around a whole lot longer and thats not immigration driven.

frankly i think the immigration etc simply sped up what has already been happening. we would still have the exact same problem regardless of immigration, tho it would take longer. people will always continue to milk other people for money via the housing market. even today i see an article trying to coax FHBers into fomo, the RE is doing what it does best.

the housing market will top out, people simply run out of money. then it shifts to rent to squeeze them more. as people get paid more the market will come up to take that away. even if govt builds housing, that cost gets put onto the same people, so you have the same result. the only way to stop it is to get rid of the ability to make money out of 2nd hand housing.

Something like this?

kinda, was really referring to the working poor and the middle. govt builds houses for them to buy then increases their tax to pay for it. you can't pay both, so it fails.

a better way is to tax the profit made from housing, then spend that money on building more housing, which in turn lowers housing demand. that way the demand and profiteering of housing pays for the correction to the market to keep it under control.

i saw a video recently of homeless people in the usa. instead of the usual junkies etc, it was full of regular people like your neighbors and the camp was huge.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3227970 8-May-2024 16:40

elpenguino:

Handle9:

This is not actually true. The tax working group found that 50% of income tax was paid by the top 12% of income earners. The top 3% of income earners were paying 25% of income tax.

It also found that around 50% of house holds were net takers - they got more in transfers than they paid in tax.

OK, I sit corrected.

How badly is the system working when 50% of households need to be propped up?

Although, once you add up the sick, the elderly, the unemployed etc etc, how close are we to 50%?

It's the point of a progressive tax system - to redistribute wealth from those with more to those with less. Personally I see the primary issue being a lack of investment over many years rather than the tax system but it's a very complex and interconected problem with no quick fixes. If anyone say XYZ will solve the economy/housing/poverty IMO they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3227972 8-May-2024 16:49

wellygary:

You can only justify the "Rich pay less % in tax" if you include unaccounted Capital Gains from real estate and other non financial assets

And I do, since that makes more money than a salary would for the very wealthy.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3227973 8-May-2024 16:52

kingdragonfly:
The MAGA crowd have a hard-on for 1950's USA.

And 1861 USA, even.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#3227982 8-May-2024 17:11

Specsavers ?

elpenguino

3423 posts

Uber Geek

#3227983 8-May-2024 17:13

Handle9:

elpenguino:

How badly is the system working when 50% of households need to be propped up?

Although, once you add up the sick, the elderly, the unemployed etc etc, how close are we to 50%?

It's the point of a progressive tax system - to redistribute wealth from those with more to those with less. Personally I see the primary issue being a lack of investment over many years rather than the tax system but it's a very complex and interconected problem with no quick fixes. If anyone say XYZ will solve the economy/housing/poverty IMO they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Indeed.

To explain my point about the system being broken a little better, I'll say we now have the situation where workers with children get a tax benefit (working for families), in recognition of how expensive it is to have a family.

I am not against this payment but I want to discuss the situation where a productive member of society doesn't earn enough from their employment to cover their costs. This is partly because of great difference in earnings across different job classes and also when you're having babies you tend to be at the beginning of your work experience.

In addition, we have a new group of people, 'the working poor'. You may have 2 jobs but in total, you are still on the bones of your behind. I think the social contract is broken in this situation. It's no wonder so many people opt out / drop out of the system,

These situations partly exist due to low pay but also due to high outgoings. Not only are we subject to high house prices but we get stiffed by megacorps at every turn. Over the years, the megacorps buy up their competition and ramp up the prices.

I feel like the guy in the matrix, kept alive to be milked.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3228017 8-May-2024 17:43

Handle9:

it's a very complex and interconected problem with no quick fixes. If anyone say XYZ will solve the economy/housing/poverty IMO they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

that i agree with.

but i would also add, that politics loves singles fixes.

also that many things come under the same driving force, or root cause. instead on trying to fix lots of small things, fix the driving force and the small things will sorts themselves.

but after all that, the single biggest problem is simply people. we could fix the problems today, but many are against it because that implies they did something wrong. its really hard to fix a problem that don't own up to.

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3228018 8-May-2024 17:47

tweake:

Handle9:

it's a very complex and interconected problem with no quick fixes. If anyone say XYZ will solve the economy/housing/poverty IMO they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

that i agree with.

but i would also add, that politics loves singles fixes.

also that many things come under the same driving force, or root cause. instead on trying to fix lots of small things, fix the driving force and the small things will sorts themselves.

but after all that, the single biggest problem is simply people. we could fix the problems today, but many are against it because that implies they did something wrong. its really hard to fix a problem that don't own up to.

I'm reminded of a notable quote by the American architect/futurist Buckminster Fuller: "In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

It speaks true of the over-financialised housing markets in NZ & other Anglosphere nations.

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3228019 8-May-2024 17:50

elpenguino:

I feel like the guy in the matrix, kept alive to be milked.

thats the housing market in a nutshell. the days of having kids and a house, on a single income has long gone. nowadays people want you to buy a house because it funds their lifestyle not yours.

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3228044 8-May-2024 17:54

deepred:

I'm reminded of a notable quote by the American architect/futurist Buckminster Fuller: "In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

It speaks true of the over-financialised housing markets in NZ & other Anglosphere nations.

catch is people fight change unless its advantage to them. if you change the system so they make more money they are in, not so much if you change it so they can't.

this is why in some ways it would be better if the housing market crashed and burnt to the ground. then people would be open to a change.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7