Why housing costs are so ridiculously high

[flyingcrocodile46]

Because banks make electronic money out of thin air and create inflation in speculative areas such as housing so they can make profits. True story, but don't believe me. Watch and learn. Nothing but the facts jack.


http://youtu.be/d3mfkD6Ky5o

P.S to those unimaginative dupes who would point out that the documentary is about another country nothing like NZ. You are dead wrong. The basic formula is the same in nearly every country in the world. Sovereign countries that exercise 100% control over money issuance are all being bombed out of existence by the US and Nato.

Again, don't believe me.. watch and learn
Gaddafi The Truth About Libya- Documentary

See how Libyans standard of living was infinitely better than those of western countries who the central banks feed off.


http://youtu.be/TkTUDw0mjMA

Everything you think you know about how the world works is wrong.

[sidecar bob]

So it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of land, materials & labour?, plus supply & demand?
Well I'll be fucked!

[Mike.Gayner]

Isn't there a thread here already for stupid conspiracy theorists to rant about nothing? Fractional reserve banking isn't hard to understand, but when you're as fucking stupid as someone like flyingcrocodile46 it's easier to dismiss the system as evil black magic than to try to grasp the basics.

[bogan]

So it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of land, materials & labour?
Well I'll be fucked!

I'm still stuck on the 'ridiculously high' bit. They're just not.

[Laava]

You start a thread and post information, for the very people to read, that you also insult in the same post?
What kind of response are you expecting? I wouldn't read it on principle.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of land, materials & labour?, plus supply & demand?
Well I'll be fucked!

Wow! A million dollar post....... If irony was worth $1 Kg. :facepalm:

This is as simple as I can make it (in a compressed illustration).... just for you... just this once.

If all the worlds historical goods services, properties, minerals etc put together was but 5 apples (the wealth of the entire world) and all the worlds money put together was a single $1 in hard currency. The apples can't be worth more than 20 cents each.

Now just imagine what happens to the price of the apples when the banks decide to introduce another $2 of electronic money to stimulate growth of the economy (but there is no increase in the number of apples).

Now imagine what happens when the very first thing the banks do with the new money (before anyone realises that the new money is in play) is to lend it to their best friends to buy 4 of those 5 apples at the established value of 20 cents each? Even if they pay 50 cents each, their friends end up with ownership of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What occurs is that the apples value is soon recognised by the market to be 50 cents each and that it has been swindled out of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What is really happening in the world is the same as above but scaled down over a several decades of boom and bust cycles to disguise the thieving.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Isn't there a thread here already for stupid conspiracy theorists to rant about nothing? Fractional reserve banking isn't hard to understand, but when you're as fucking stupid as someone like flyingcrocodile46 it's easier to dismiss the system as evil black magic than to try to grasp the basics.

Only a complete ignoramus would identify historic fact as a conspiracy theory.

[nodrog]

My name is Jeffy and I like apples.

[jasonu]

Wow! A million dollar post....... If irony was worth $1 Kg. :facepalm:

This is as simple as I can make it (in a compressed illustration).... just for you... just this once.

If all the worlds historical goods services, properties, minerals etc put together was but 5 apples (the wealth of the entire world) and all the worlds money put together was a single $1 in hard currency. The apples can't be worth more than 20 cents each.

Now just imagine what happens to the price of the apples when the banks decide to introduce another $2 of electronic money to stimulate growth of the economy (but there is no increase in the number of apples).

Now imagine what happens when the very first thing the banks do with the new money (before anyone realises that the new money is in play) is to lend it to their best friends to buy 4 of those 5 apples at the established value of 20 cents each? Even if they pay 50 cents each, their friends end up with ownership of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What occurs is that the apples value is soon recognised by the market to be 50 cents each and that it has been swindled out of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What is really happening in the world is the same as above but scaled down over a several decades of boom and bust cycles to disguise the thieving.

But why are the banks buying apples?

[flyingcrocodile46]

You start a thread and post information, for the very people to read, that you also insult in the same post?
What kind of response are you expecting? I wouldn't read it on principle.

I know exactly what to expect. Many are too scared to confront reality. The truth is that they don't need a pretext to shut their eyes, but it makes them feel better when there is one.

I'm just being a nice guy and providing cowards a way out without looking like the total pussy that they are.

[Laava]

I know exactly what to expect. Many are too scared to confront reality. The truth is that they don't need a pretext to shut their eyes, but it makes them feel better when there is one.

I'm just being a nice guy and providing cowards a way out without looking like the total pussy that they are.

Not a people person huh?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Not a people person huh?

It's the peoples fault. They remain ignorant out of choice and effectively sanction everything wrong when they remain silent. Bankers do what bankers do because the people allow it. It's your fault. You and your apathy.

[Laava]

It's the peoples fault. They remain ignorant out of choice and effectively sanction everything wrong when they remain silent. Bankers do what bankers do because the people allow it. It's your fault. You and your apathy.

How the fuck would you know? You don't know me! Seems you are the ignorant one here.

[bogan]

Wow! A million dollar post....... If irony was worth $1 Kg. :facepalm:

This is as simple as I can make it (in a compressed illustration).... just for you... just this once.

If all the worlds historical goods services, properties, minerals etc put together was but 5 apples (the wealth of the entire world) and all the worlds money put together was a single $1 in hard currency. The apples can't be worth more than 20 cents each.

Now just imagine what happens to the price of the apples when the banks decide to introduce another $2 of electronic money to stimulate growth of the economy (but there is no increase in the number of apples).

Now imagine what happens when the very first thing the banks do with the new money (before anyone realises that the new money is in play) is to lend it to their best friends to buy 4 of those 5 apples at the established value of 20 cents each? Even if they pay 50 cents each, their friends end up with ownership of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What occurs is that the apples value is soon recognised by the market to be 50 cents each and that it has been swindled out of 80% of the worlds wealth.

What is really happening in the world is the same as above but scaled down over a several decades of boom and bust cycles to disguise the thieving.

So, are the houses made of apples?

[nodrog]

So, are the houses made of apples?

Fuck you're a dick, cant you read? They are made from crocodiles.

[Edbear]

Crocs, apples, easy mistake to make.

[bogan]

Fuck you're a dick, cant you read? They are made from crocodiles.

Crikey!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zdgsm2Qg1r79nqko1_500.jpg

[pritch]

It's the peoples fault. They remain ignorant out of choice and effectively sanction everything wrong when they remain silent. Bankers do what bankers do because the people allow it. It's your fault. You and your apathy.

I might be more convinced of your grasp of economic theory if you could demonstrate you knew how to use an apostrophe.:devil2:

[Winston001]

Because banks make electronic money out of thin air and create inflation in speculative areas such as housing so they can make profits. True story, but don't believe me. Watch and learn.


What I can't understand is, if banks make money out of thin air, why do banks still go broke? That should be impossible.

[Woodman]

Is he comparing apples with apples or apples with houses, or maybe houses with apple trees. Does a house with an apple tree cost more or does it go up in value because the bankers own the apples, but not the houses.

[yokel]

What I can't understand is, if banks make money out of thin air, why do banks still go broke? That should be impossible.

there is actually something in that thin air, that is government bonds that are IOU's that are backed by the people(you) and land of the government.

I've just had some old poms buy the house next door, so that drives the price up, also the parents helping to pay for their kids house is only going to drive up the house prises even more.
the real problem is why cant young people to get into their own home on their own?
looks to me that the banks want mortgages secured with a nice fat wad of cash from the parents,
the real problem begins when the cash come from one side of the family when the "nice young couple" part ways.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/65913238/Bank-of-mum-and-dad-now-a-home-truth

[jasonu]

there is actually something in that thin air, that is government bonds that are IOU's that are backed by the people(you) and land of the government.

I've just had some old poms buy the house next door, so that drives the price up, also the parents helping to pay for their kids house is only going to drive up the house prises even more.
the real problem is why cant young people to get into their own home on their own?
looks to me that the banks want mortgages secured with a nice fat wad of cash from the parents,
the real problem begins when the cash come from one side of the family when the "nice young couple" part ways.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/65913238/Bank-of-mum-and-dad-now-a-home-truth

I would have thought Pommies moving in next door would drive prices (not to mention the tone of the neighborhood) down not up.

[mashman]

there is actually something in that thin air, that is government bonds that are IOU's that are backed by the people(you) and land of the government.

:killingme Is the govt bond tree the one next to the invisible money tree?

[Mike.Gayner]

What I can't understand is, if banks make money out of thin air, why do banks still go broke? That should be impossible.

Banks don't actually create money, there is a thing called fractional reserve. It's not nearly as scary as the idiot who created this thread thinks.

Here's a way of looking at it:

You have $100,000 in savings that you put into the bank. On your balance sheet now you have a $100,000 cash asset (e.g. cash you have access to any time you want it)
The bank's balance sheet is now a $100,000 credit (liability), cash it owes you. It also has a $100,000 debit (asset), being cash in its own accounts.
Now I come into the bank and ask to borrow $50,000. No problem, because the bank has your $100k in cash sitting in its trading account. The bank lends me $50k, keeping the other $50k in its trading account as a "reserve". Governments mandate how much reserve the bank has to keep. The bank's balance sheet is now $100k liability (your deposit), $50k debit cash reserve, $50k debit loan assets.



The effect of this really is that the bank created money. Just because the bank lent me $50k doesn't affect your $100k deposit as far as you're concerned. So the system started with just $100k in it, and it now has $150k - your $100k plus my $50k. Banks don't literally have authority to create money - the government decides how much reserve banks need, and they can't just create money. Only the reserve bank can print money, and it does so by issuing debt to the government.

The system is simple enough to grasp, but complex enough to make it challenging to fully understand. Most people here have the brain capacity to understand this system if they chose to. The moron who started this thread lacks that brainpower, and the unfortunate side effect is that he ironically thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

[mashman]

Banks don't actually create money, there is a thing called fractional reserve. It's not nearly as scary as the idiot who created this thread thinks.

Here's a way of looking at it:

You have $100,000 in savings that you put into the bank. On your balance sheet now you have a $100,000 cash asset (e.g. cash you have access to any time you want it)
The bank's balance sheet is now a $100,000 credit (liability), cash it owes you. It also has a $100,000 debit (asset), being cash in its own accounts.
Now I come into the bank and ask to borrow $50,000. No problem, because the bank has your $100k in cash sitting in its trading account. The bank lends me $50k, keeping the other $50k in its trading account as a "reserve". Governments mandate how much reserve the bank has to keep. The bank's balance sheet is now $100k liability (your deposit), $50k debit cash reserve, $50k debit loan assets.



The effect of this really is that the bank created money. Just because the bank lent me $50k doesn't affect your $100k deposit as far as you're concerned. So the system started with just $100k in it, and it now has $150k - your $100k plus my $50k. Banks don't literally have authority to create money - the government decides how much reserve banks need, and they can't just create money. Only the reserve bank can print money, and it does so by issuing debt to the government.

The system is simple enough to grasp, but complex enough to make it challenging to fully understand. Most people here have the brain capacity to understand this system if they chose to. The moron who started this thread lacks that brainpower, and the unfortunate side effect is that he ironically thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Commercial banks have absolute authority to create "money".

[sidecar bob]

I'm prepared to bet half a dozen apples that the OP rents a house & doesn't own any property.
It just seems to fit really.
I'm not fucked off with the property values at all & trying to dream up a conspiracy about why I can't afford a house.

[Swoop]

But why are the banks buying apples?
It's a conspiracy... :rolleyes:

[flyingcrocodile46]

.
Banks don't actually create money, there is a thing called fractional reserve. It's not nearly as scary as the idiot who created this thread thinks.

Here's a way of looking at it:

You have $100,000 in savings that you put into the bank. On your balance sheet now you have a $100,000 cash asset (e.g. cash you have access to any time you want it)
The bank's balance sheet is now a $100,000 credit (liability), cash it owes you. It also has a $100,000 debit (asset), being cash in its own accounts.
Now I come into the bank and ask to borrow $50,000. No problem, because the bank has your $100k in cash sitting in its trading account. The bank lends me $50k, keeping the other $50k in its trading account as a "reserve". Governments mandate how much reserve the bank has to keep. The bank's balance sheet is now $100k liability (your deposit), $50k debit cash reserve, $50k debit loan assets.


The effect of this really is that the bank created money. Just because the bank lent me $50k doesn't affect your $100k deposit as far as you're concerned. So the system started with just $100k in it, and it now has $150k - your $100k plus my $50k. Banks don't literally have authority to create money - the government decides how much reserve banks need, and they can't just create money. Only the reserve bank can print money, and it does so by issuing debt to the government.

The system is simple enough to grasp, but complex enough to make it challenging to fully understand. Most people here have the brain capacity to understand this system if they chose to. The moron who started this thread lacks that brainpower, and the unfortunate side effect is that he ironically thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Well gee whiz. Classic pot calling the kettle black. It is apparent that you fail to realise that "fractional reserve banking" and the depositor funds that it revolves around isn't the full extent of banking duplicity. Central banks do indeed create money out of nothing and they decide where they are going to introduce it into the market. You only have to check the recent headlines about the ECB issuing another trillion euros or the Fed which up until a few months back were inventing it at a rate of up to 85 $billion a month. Pull your head out.

Fractional reserve banking is only a small part of the fraud. It has nothing to do with the issuing of new money via quantitative easing. "Money creation".

If you honestly want to start to develop an understanding of where money comes from and the extent of central bank manipulation, watch this recording of the recent Money Creation & Society' Debate in UK Parliament. At least some politicians somewhere understand the problem.

Yes it's a long video and full of interruptions (it is a parliamentary debate after all). But few things worth learning take only a few minutes. You have to put time into your education about world affairs (not through mainstream media disinformation though) if you really want to know the truths out there.



http://youtu.be/EBSlSUIT-KM

[jonbuoy]

I don't think crocs ever heard of supply and demand. Why do you think there is such a huge price difference between Marupara and Devonport property?

[sidecar bob]

I don't think crocs ever heard of supply and demand. Why do you think there is such a huge price difference between Marupara and Devonport property?

Because there is a government conspiracy to make prices higher in popular areas. Have you not been paying attention?

[bogan]

Because there is a government conspiracy to make prices higher in popular areas. Have you not been paying attention?

Obviously, it is to force the plebs into some sort of concentration camp. I'm pretty sure this is the basis behind the housing push in christchurch, move plebs down there, then release the last of the fault line (govt controls these things obviously) and send them off into the pacific.

[flyingcrocodile46]

What I can't understand is, if banks make money out of thin air, why do banks still go broke? That should be impossible.

That's just it. With few exceptions they haven't gone broke. They are nearly all trading insolvent and are being bailed out by politicians who are underwriting their current shortfalls with tax money and the promise of your children's and now grand children's tax money.

They continue to either directly (or indirectly through targeted market lending) manipulate markets and commodities, inflating prices to provide exceptional short and medium term returns. However it ain't anywhere near that simple either as there are are shitload more factors at play than anything covered here. I can't explain it to anyone. You have to get out there and research it.

If you want links I can help, but I ain't breaking it down for anyone. It takes too damn long.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I don't think crocs ever heard of supply and demand. Why do you think there is such a huge price difference between Marupara and Devonport property?

Oh Puleaze... :rolleyes: If it ain't an abundance of debt (money from thin air) that causes the demand (On a market wide basis) just exactly what do you think does??

[sidecar bob]

I'm prepared to bet half a dozen apples that the OP rents a house & doesn't own any property.
It just seems to fit really.


You haven't answered, but I'm right aren't i?

[sidecar bob]

Oh Puleaze... :rolleyes: If it ain't an abundance of debt (money from thin air) that causes the demand (On a market wide basis) just exactly what do you think does??

No, it's all the Asian immigrants buying the property that causes the demand.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Because there is a government conspiracy to make prices higher in popular areas. Have you not been paying attention?

Fuck! You people are thick. It's the central banks doing it, the govts go along with it because they are made up of shallow fools who's thought process is limited to the opportunities of self promotion and ability to buy votes for the next elections.

[bogan]

Oh Puleaze... :rolleyes: If it ain't an abundance of debt (money from thin air) that causes the demand (On a market wide basis) just exactly what do you think does??

Is the debt owed back to the thin air then?

[jasonu]

It's a conspiracy... :rolleyes:

There is a lot of that going around (this forum).

[jonbuoy]

Oh Puleaze... :rolleyes: If it ain't an abundance of debt (money from thin air) that causes the demand (On a market wide basis) just exactly what do you think does??

No it's a high demand and short supply of houses that cause high prices. The bank just offers you a way to buy one.

You do know the seller sets the price of the house? Retirees with no mortgage can sell for as little or as much as they like.

[sidecar bob]

No it's a high demand and short supply of houses that cause high prices. The bank just offers you a way to buy one.

You do know the seller sets the price of the house? Retirees with no mortgage can sell for as little or as much as they like.

The seller sets the price?? That's a novel yet boring theory, but quite plausible. I think they do it differently on Mars from what I can gather though.

[mossy1200]

Lets shake everything up and dump the market so the ones that saved a deposit and bought a house in the last 5years owe more than the house is worth. Punish them for saving for their home.

I think its more a case of too many people taking on finance for luxury items like phones, interweb, gadgets, vehicles, hookers and fast food so they don't save for a house.
If you think you need own a house but your income or combined income cant fund it upskill or move. You don't need to live in Auckland you choose to live in Auckland. Auckland prices are high because too many people seem to WANT to live there.

[mossy1200]

No it's a high demand and short supply of houses that cause high prices. The bank just offers you a way to buy one.

You do know the seller sets the price of the house? Retirees with no mortgage can sell for as little or as much as they like.

????

Person with the highest and best offer will set the price in most cases surely.

[yokel]

Because there is a government conspiracy to make prices higher in popular areas. Have you not been paying attention?

No, the government conspiracy is that they want more people renting rather than owning their own home, that should be pretty obvious.

and when people start using their kiwi saver for a deposit, that will keep the house prices rising.

the government likes people that need them.

[Woodman]

No, the government conspiracy is that they want more people renting rather than owning their own home, that should be pretty obvious.

and when people start using their kiwi saver for a deposit, that will keep the house prices rising.

the government likes people that need them.

Why do the gummint want people renting?

[Ocean1]

????

Person with the highest and best offer will the price in most cases surely.

Correct.

Which is more than the basis for this thread can claim. Housing in NZ is not, in fact any more expensive that it's ever been. That's if we're comparing apples of course. Hrs worked on an average income per square meter of house is pretty much the same now as it was in granma's day.

The difference in purchase price is almost exclusively down to the size. NZ houses are fucking huge, more than twice the size of gran's and twice the size of the average in the western world.

Now, how desperately poor are we that we can apparently afford a level of luxury well beyond that of our grandparents?

[jonbuoy]

????

Person with the highest and best offer will set the price in most cases surely.

At an auction yes - a seller would set a minimum price. The banks dont set your asking price.

[nodrog]

Correct.

Which is more than the basis for this thread can claim. Housing in NZ is not, in fact any more expensive that it's ever been. That's if we're comparing apples of course. Hrs worked on an average income per square meter of house is pretty much the same now as it was in granma's day.

The difference in purchase price is almost exclusively down to the size. NZ houses are fucking huge, more than twice the size of gran's and twice the size of the average in the western world.

Now, how desperately poor are we that we can apparently afford a level of luxury well beyond that of our grandparents?

I blame spoilt little cunts that expect their first apple to be 200sq metres with 3 bathrooms and a maid.

[Woodman]

I blame spoilt little cunts that expect their first apple to be 200sq metres with 3 bathrooms and a maid.

Don't forget them who are not willing to compromise their lifestyle and do the hard yards to even save for a deposit.

[mossy1200]

I blame women's lib.
The fact is that when families had one income then prices of everything needed to match income of ONE or you couldn't sell anything.

TWO incomes equals higher affordability. When something is in short demand its value increases to the highest bidder. That is now governed by TWO incomes not ONE.

Want a house in an expensive area? Marry someone with a good income unless your rich yourself. Next option is shop in an area that's in your budget.

Some people would be happier living in a more affordable town or city they just choose not to move.
If I could talk my wife into moving idd move. We are new in the housing ownership and our mortgage is 120% of my wifes income. That's ok because the house costs a smaller percentage of that as incomes increase and the value of the house increases. That's why the generation before seems to be well off. They hardened up and did the hard yards at the beginning which became easier in the later years. A lot of people now seem to have a very high expectation for gadgets and café foods.

Prices in the 80s are interesting.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80selectrical.html

Microwave $580.00 was more than 2 weeks pay.
Luxury item affordable if you had higher income only.
Now $50 odd for a cheap one. Half a days pay for a low income earner.
If things that got in the way of a persons goals they did without.
Now people buy the latest xbox1 and rent a room complaining about house prices.


1983 Space Saver Microwave
Price: $579.99
Description Set time and power for up to three separate cooking operations with the computer-type electronic memory and oven will to another automatically. Has convenient 12-hour Delay Start. Large 1.3 cubic foot capacity oven and removable shelf permit versatile "whole-meal" cooking

[BMWST?]

It's the peoples fault. They remain ignorant out of choice and effectively sanction everything wrong when they remain silent. Bankers do what bankers do because the people allow it. It's your fault. You and your apathy.

what do we do then o wise one?

[Woodman]

No, the government conspiracy is that they want more people renting rather than owning their own home, that should be pretty obvious.

and when people start using their kiwi saver for a deposit, that will keep the house prices rising.

the government likes people that need them.

Why do the gummint want people renting?

[yokel]

I blame women's lib.
The fact is that when families had one income then prices of everything needed to match income of ONE or you couldn't sell anything.

TWO incomes equals higher affordability. When something is in short demand its value increases to the highest bidder. That is now governed by TWO incomes not ONE.

Want a house in an expensive area? Marry someone with a good income unless your rich yourself. Next option is shop in an area that's in your budget.

Some people would be happier living in a more affordable town or city they just choose not to move.
If I could talk my wife into moving idd move. We are new in the housing ownership and our mortgage is 120% of my wifes income. That's ok because the house costs a smaller percentage of that as incomes increase and the value of the house increases. That's why the generation before seems to be well off. They hardened up and did the hard yards at the beginning which became easier in the later years. A lot of people now seem to have a very high expectation for gadgets and café foods.

Prices in the 80s are interesting.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80selectrical.html

Microwave $580.00 was more than 2 weeks pay.
Luxury item affordable if you had higher income only.
Now $50 odd for a cheap one. Half a days pay for a low income earner.
If things that got in the way of a persons goals they did without.
Now people buy the latest xbox1 and rent a room complaining about house prices.


1983 Space Saver Microwave
Price: $579.99
Description Set time and power for up to three separate cooking operations with the computer-type electronic memory and oven will to another automatically. Has convenient 12-hour Delay Start. Large 1.3 cubic foot capacity oven and removable shelf permit versatile "whole-meal" cooking

now a woman can be a doctor and leave her baby to cook in the car.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zCpjmvaIgNA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mossy1200]

At an auction yes - a seller would set a minimum price. The banks dont set your asking price.

That minimum price the seller sets isn't worth a thing if its above the market and buyers affordability.
Seller trys to capture as much money as possible but that's still set by the highest buyers highest price.

[mossy1200]

now a woman can be a doctor and leave her baby to cook in the car.




Problem is now the market is governed by 2 income no children affordability. This is because blue collar NZ realised they couldn't afford to breed and own a home.

If you have one high income earner in the house you can still breed.
If you are low income or no income you can breed to get ahead more.

If your in the middle your going to get nothing much easily or cheaply.

[Oakie]

I blame the Real Estate Agents. The more a house sells for, the more goes into their back pocket. It's in their own interests to inflate the prices.

[mossy1200]

I blame the Real Estate Agents. The more a house sells for, the more goes into their back pocket. It's in their own interests to inflate the prices.

Real Estate Agent represents him/herself. They drive either party to a sales figure in either direction. Idd say their first priority is securing a sale.

Step one- Promise the seller enough to get the listing.
Step two- Introduce potential buyers.
Step three- Relocate both the buyer and sellers expectations to secure the deal.

[Winston001]

That's just it. With few exceptions they haven't gone broke. They are nearly all trading insolvent and are being bailed out by politicians who are underwriting their current shortfalls with tax money and the promise of your children's and now grand children's tax money.



Yeah I've read that. But found a huge list of banks which have gone under and none of them appear to have been bailed out. Its weird. If each bank can create money then it would take a meteor strike to wipe out all the people who rely on each bank and that hasn't happened.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

[jonbuoy]

That minimum price the seller sets isn't worth a thing if its above the market and buyers affordability.
Seller trys to capture as much money as possible but that's still set by the highest buyers highest price.

That's why house prices have become unaffordable in a lot of areas. Sellers are asking for more -buyers are willing to stretch themselves to buy.

[jonbuoy]

I blame the Real Estate Agents. The more a house sells for, the more goes into their back pocket. It's in their own interests to inflate the prices.

Yup they are a major driving force.

[Winston001]

Correct.

Which is more than the basis for this thread can claim. Housing in NZ is not, in fact any more expensive that it's ever been. That's if we're comparing apples of course. Hrs worked on an average income per square meter of house is pretty much the same now as it was in granma's day.

The difference in purchase price is almost exclusively down to the size. NZ houses are fucking huge, more than twice the size of gran's and twice the size of the average in the western world.

Now, how desperately poor are we that we can apparently afford a level of luxury well beyond that of our grandparents?

Must admit I've been bewildered in recent years at what people build as holiday homes. Veritable mansions compared to the farm cottage my dad grew up in - and his parents as farmers were relatively well off compared to most.

The holiday crib I was eventually lucky enough to share with other people consisted of two Tiwai workers huts joined together with a leaking roof and no insulation at all. Continually spent various sums on plumbing and replacing a frozen superheater. Aye but we were lucky... :D

[Winston001]

Banks don't actually create money, there is a thing called fractional reserve. It's not nearly as scary as the idiot who created this thread thinks.

Here's a way of looking at it:

You have $100,000 in savings that you put into the bank. On your balance sheet now you have a $100,000 cash asset (e.g. cash you have access to any time you want it)
The bank's balance sheet is now a $100,000 credit (liability), cash it owes you. It also has a $100,000 debit (asset), being cash in its own accounts.
Now I come into the bank and ask to borrow $50,000. No problem, because the bank has your $100k in cash sitting in its trading account. The bank lends me $50k, keeping the other $50k in its trading account as a "reserve". Governments mandate how much reserve the bank has to keep. The bank's balance sheet is now $100k liability (your deposit), $50k debit cash reserve, $50k debit loan assets.


The effect of this really is that the bank created money. Just because the bank lent me $50k doesn't affect your $100k deposit as far as you're concerned. So the system started with just $100k in it, and it now has $150k - your $100k plus my $50k.

Ok, but as I understand it, the borrower pays $50k to a builder who then deposits that amount in the bank. The bank now has my $50k reserve plus $50k from the builder sitting in the accounts doing nothing. $100k. So they then lend $25k from each account =$50k to another customer who wants to open a shop.

The bank is relaxed because they know the first borrower and the second borrower will do their best to repay the loans. Plus they hold $75k in reserve....but hang on - how'd the $50k suddenly become $75k?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm a younger person (less than 30) yet I bought a House, in Auckland.

I must be doing something wrong.....

[awayatc]

What a load of croc.........



bad tempered grumpy cold blooded bastards those crocs

[mossy1200]

I'm a younger person (less than 30) yet I bought a House, in Auckland.

I must be doing something wrong.....

Get a deposit and buy a house in your price range?

[TheDemonLord]

Get a deposit and buy a house in your price range?

Something like that, I did have to do some fancy bits of banking for the deposit - but nothing overly complex

[Voltaire]

In Auckland:
There are less apples than apple buyers.
Apple buyers who used to go to Aussie to get there apples are staying here.
There are more apple buyers coming into NZ than leaving.
Lots of the overseas Apple buyers want to live in Auckland with all the other overseas apple buyers.
The Govt makes it so hard for the apple grower he grows less apples.
Apple prices go up.
Parents are now lending money to kids to buy apples.

Having to lend ( give) your kids money to make up the 20% is just wrong, This happened in Ireland in the early 2000's and that ended badly.

Keen to hear what I can do to stop it though....:msn-wink:

[swarfie]

In Auckland:
There are less apples than apple buyers.
Apple buyers who used to go to Aussie to get there apples are staying here.
There are more apple buyers coming into NZ than leaving.
Lots of the overseas Apple buyers want to live in Auckland with all the other overseas apple buyers.
The Govt makes it so hard for the apple grower he grows less apples.
Apple prices go up.
Parents are now lending money to kids to buy apples.

Having to lend ( give) your kids money to make up the 20% is just wrong, This happened in Ireland in the early 2000's and that ended badly.

Keen to hear what I can do to stop it though....:msn-wink:

Seems logical to me....Get out of the apple orchard?

[nodrog]

In Auckland:
There are less apples than apple buyers.
Apple buyers who used to go to Aussie to get there apples are staying here.
There are more apple buyers coming into NZ than leaving.
Lots of the overseas Apple buyers want to live in Auckland with all the other overseas apple buyers.
The Govt makes it so hard for the apple grower he grows less apples.
Apple prices go up.
Parents are now lending money to kids to buy apples.

Having to lend ( give) your kids money to make up the 20% is just wrong, This happened in Ireland in the early 2000's and that ended badly.

Keen to hear what I can do to stop it though....:msn-wink:

maybe people should forget about apples and maybe try coconuts, they can always plant an apple tree.

[swarfie]

maybe people should forget about apples and maybe try coconuts, they can always plant an apple tree.

I thought Dorkland already had enough coconuts.....

[Voltaire]

They say a house in Auckland is $700k, there was a 'do up' ex state one near me that the Agent said was going to be $720+

so 20% deposit: $140K

at 5.5% : $39600 PA interest

$761 per week.

Whats the average salary? $50k?

[sidecar bob]

In Auckland:
There are less apples than apple buyers.
Apple buyers who used to go to Aussie to get there apples are staying here.
There are more apple buyers coming into NZ than leaving.
Lots of the overseas Apple buyers want to live in Auckland with all the other overseas apple buyers.
The Govt makes it so hard for the apple grower he grows less apples.
Apple prices go up.
Parents are now lending money to kids to buy apples.

Having to lend ( give) your kids money to make up the 20% is just wrong, This happened in Ireland in the early 2000's and that ended badly.

Keen to hear what I can do to stop it though....:msn-wink:
Now I see the problem, we are living in apples, not peaches.
I once read about this kid that lived in a giant peach & it worked for him.

[Oscar]

Banks don't actually create money, there is a thing called fractional reserve. It's not nearly as scary as the idiot who created this thread thinks.

Here's a way of looking at it:

You have $100,000 in savings that you put into the bank. On your balance sheet now you have a $100,000 cash asset (e.g. cash you have access to any time you want it)
The bank's balance sheet is now a $100,000 credit (liability), cash it owes you. It also has a $100,000 debit (asset), being cash in its own accounts.
Now I come into the bank and ask to borrow $50,000. No problem, because the bank has your $100k in cash sitting in its trading account. The bank lends me $50k, keeping the other $50k in its trading account as a "reserve". Governments mandate how much reserve the bank has to keep. The bank's balance sheet is now $100k liability (your deposit), $50k debit cash reserve, $50k debit loan assets.



The effect of this really is that the bank created money. Just because the bank lent me $50k doesn't affect your $100k deposit as far as you're concerned. So the system started with just $100k in it, and it now has $150k - your $100k plus my $50k. Banks don't literally have authority to create money - the government decides how much reserve banks need, and they can't just create money. Only the reserve bank can print money, and it does so by issuing debt to the government.

The system is simple enough to grasp, but complex enough to make it challenging to fully understand. Most people here have the brain capacity to understand this system if they chose to. The moron who started this thread lacks that brainpower, and the unfortunate side effect is that he ironically thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

You forgot the 50k liability on your balance sheet (the loan which you are repaying).
No money has been "created".

[yokel]

Why do the gummint want people renting?

tax is one reason

[Oscar]

tax is one reason

How so?
Rental properties tend to be geared heavily resulting in tax losses.

[nodrog]

They say a house in Auckland is $700k, there was a 'do up' ex state one near me that the Agent said was going to be $720+

so 20% deposit: $140K

at 5.5% : $39600 PA interest

$761 per week.

Whats the average salary? $50k?

How much is a house in otara?

[Voltaire]

How much is a house in otara?

I don't think you would get one for under $450 k :shit:

Thinking of moving up here :laugh:

[nodrog]

I don't think you would get one for under $450 k :shit:

Thinking of moving up here :laugh:

So houses in auckland are only 450 not 750

We already live in niggersville

[jasonu]

So houses in auckland are only 450 not 750

We already live in niggersville

Winston Peter's neighborhood???

[nodrog]

Winston Peter's neighborhood???

Na, just the hood.

[swarfie]

Na, just the hood.

You've got a view of the water haven't you? Your place has got to be worth a mill...

[nodrog]

You've got a view of the water haven't you? Your place has got to be worth a mill...

Only when it floods.

we do have the Soothing sounds of the pacific islands though.

[Woodman]

tax is one reason

Ya reckon? Can you elaborate on that a tad more?

[Voltaire]

So houses in auckland are only 450 not 750

We already live in niggersville

if you have 10 apples...
and Bob has 5 apples

on average you have 7.5 apples.

[nodrog]

if you have 10 apples...
and Bob has 5 apples

on average you have 7.5 apples.

But everybody cant live in the same apple.

[Swoop]

we do have the Soothing sounds of the pacific islands though.
I bet that is nice at 3am...

[nodrog]

I bet that is nice at 3am...

I never seen a drunk coconut awake after sundown, must be still on island time.

[yokel]

How so?
Rental properties tend to be geared heavily resulting in tax losses.

you can longer clam deprecation on the house and now add to that the 20%+ deposit leaves less of a tax loss.
and a landlord is more likely to get someone in to do work on a house so you have some expenses to clam vs a home owner that will do the job him self, or get a mate who's a sparky or plumper to do it for a box of beers.

[avgas]

if you have 10 apples...
and Bob has 5 apples
on average you have 7.5 apples.
Until David has 450 apples. Then tell me how useful the average is.

[avgas]

How much is a house in otara?
Bad part is about 350-450K. Good part is about 500K.

[avgas]

Now I see the problem, we are living in apples, not peaches.
I once read about this kid that lived in a giant peach & it worked for him.
When did he move out of Cromwell?

[jasonu]

Bad part is about 350-450K. Good part is about 500K.

When did Otara get a 'good part'?

[jasonu]

and a landlord is more likely to get someone in to do work on a house so you have some expenses to clam vs a home owner that will do the job him self, or get a mate who's a sparky or plumper to do it for a box of beers.

Any landlord that does that just to get a tax write off is stupid and should talk to a tax accountant. You end up spending $100 to get a $25 tax rebate. Spending money on stuff or services you don't really need just to gain tax savings is a backwards move.

[sidecar bob]

I rent a commercial property off me. That has advantages, or so my accountant tells me. :facepalm:
At least I have a fuckin awesome landlord anyway if nothing else.

[Voltaire]

you can longer clam deprecation on the house and now add to that the 20%+ deposit leaves less of a tax loss.
and a landlord is more likely to get someone in to do work on a house so you have some expenses to clam vs a home owner that will do the job him self, or get a mate who's a sparky or plumper to do it for a box of beers.

Sparky for a box of beers.... hope your not expecting a COC for that.
You only need 20% deposit to buy if you don't have any equity in a house already, hence 'investors" buying what used to be 1st home buyers houses.
Lots of things you can claim, fees, interest on the borrowed money, rates, insurance, agents fees ( if you use one), It is easier to get repairs done as Tennants don't like you around on the weekends. I don't think you can make a reasonable yield on Auckland houses now, probably have to hope for capital gains. Its all a bit stuffed really. Still the housing minister thinks its all good....Nick Smith...that name rings a bell.

[Woodman]

plumper to do it for a box of beers.

Done too many jobs for beers is probarbly why he/she is a obese:laugh::laugh:

[Ocean1]

I rent a commercial property off me. That has advantages, or so my accountant tells me. :facepalm:
At least I have a fuckin awesome landlord anyway if nothing else.

Good move. I've been looking for a new landlord myself...

[BMWST?]

Any landlord that does that just to get a tax write off is stupid and should talk to a tax accountant. You end up spending $100 to get a $25 tax rebate. Spending money on stuff or services you don't really need just to gain tax savings is a backwards move.
i doubt any landlord spends money that doesnt NEED to be spent.

[jasonu]

i doubt any landlord spends money that doesnt NEED to be spent.

Fair point and neither should they. The same could be said for any business or business owner.

[Oakie]

Now I see the problem, we are living in apples, not peaches.
I once read about this kid that lived in a giant peach & it worked for him.

Perhaps we should be building split level bananas?

[Winston001]

you can longer clam deprecation on the house and now add to that the 20%+ deposit leaves less of a tax loss.
and a landlord is more likely to get someone in to do work on a house so you have some expenses to clam vs a home owner that will do the job him self, or get a mate who's a sparky or plumper to do it for a box of beers.

Yeah I know this happens currently but it is an abberation. Illogical.

I've advised people buying property for 30 years (from the late 1970s) and nobody ever bought a property where the rent didn't cover the mortgage plus rates insurance etc.

And yet today that is supposed to be the clever thing to do.

This does not make sense and eventually property values will fall back to historic fundamentals.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah I know this happens currently but it is an abberation. Illogical.

I've advised people buying property for 30 years (from the late 1970s) and nobody ever bought a property where the rent didn't cover the mortgage plus rates insurance etc.

And yet today that is supposed to be the clever thing to do.

This does not make sense and eventually property values will fall back to historic fundamentals.

Not so, it makes perfect sense:

You less the loss you are making on your investment property from your normal income - so instead of making 70k a year, your net income (gross income + Net Loss) is now 59k, and you aren't paying tax in the higher tax bracket.

Meanwhile, since you are paying off the mortgage on the other house, you are effectively getting a free ride (increasing your net wealth)

It's something that if I can wrangle my financials - I would like to do in the next 5-10 years

[swarfie]

Not so, it makes perfect sense:

You less the loss you are making on your investment property from your normal income - so instead of making 70k a year, your net income (gross income + Net Loss) is now 59k, and you aren't paying tax in the higher tax bracket.

Meanwhile, since you are paying off the mortgage on the other house, you are effectively getting a free ride (increasing your net wealth)

It's something that if I can wrangle my financials - I would like to do in the next 5-10 years

FFS, I earn wages, I pay taxes. Why can't everyone else pay taxes the same way I do. If that was the case the whole bloody country would be doing okay, not just the ones that are NOT paying their share of the taxes. :bash::brick:

[Oscar]

FFS, I earn wages, I pay taxes. Why can't everyone else pay taxes the same way I do. If that was the case the whole bloody country would be doing okay, not just the ones that are NOT paying their share of the taxes. :bash::brick:

Half of all NZ families pay no income tax.

[Banditbandit]

Lots of things drive up house prices ...

To me the bottom line is that anyone who buys real estate at present expects to sell it for a higher price ... that just pushes prices higher and higher ...

The neo-liberal changes of the 1980s, and onwards, changed the concept of home ownership in Godzone from one of owning your own home for security (the landlord can't boot you out) .. to one of an economic asset from which people can make money ... either by capitalizing the asset (a dead giveaway) by borrowing against it and investing that money; by charging rent for investment properties; and finally by the capital gains when it is sold ..

Security of home has changed to an economic model - and home owners invest money in the capitalist schemes (and they lose their investments and homes at the whim of the capitalist schemers who walk away scott free ...) Once again we are sucked in by the politcal progoganda perpetrated by the capitalist powers ..

Why do you think 5% of the world's population have 90% of the wealth? they conned us into their money-making schemes and stole our money ..

[caspernz]

Four months ago sold our house in Wellington, just bought another here in Auckland. All in all I don't see a big problem in Auckland, but being just a blue collar worker my wife and I bought within our means close to our places of work. By close I mean 10 min drive for me, 10 min walk for her.

Auckland has become a lot more cosmopolitan in the 10 years we were away though. The Asian and Indian influences are much more obvious now. More representative of the worlds' population I suppose.

Don't subscribe to the idea of non-NZ residents being able to buy property here though.

[WNJ]

Just in the process of getting a 5 bedroom house on 7 acres land,( 2 acres native with stream ) 15 mins from hams and Cambridge, for a little over 420k, this our second purchase just outside hams in 5 years, fuck living in Auckland again :motu:

[sidecar bob]

FFS, I earn wages, I pay taxes. Why can't everyone else pay taxes the same way I do. If that was the case the whole bloody country would be doing okay, not just the ones that are NOT paying their share of the taxes. :bash::brick:

Its a matter of managing the tax so you don't end up with an arse raping from a big angry black man.
I'd be chuffed to be paying just the tax on the wage I draw. Unfortunately that is a tiny portion of the entire tax I pay.
I think most people do pay taxes the way you do & many pay tens of thousands a year more in addition to that.
Basically, tax is a fine for being successful, the more successful you are, the more you pay, if you can look a little less successful on paper, the black man is a little less angry (however the arse raping is still imminent)
To give you some idea, the tax I paid between the time I came back from my Christmas holiday & the end of January this year was equivalent to roughly 23 times my weekly take home pay, & that is one of several instalments per year.

[Laava]

Cost of building a new house is very achievable at $1300 a sqm for a fully finished, house with double glazing and airconditioning etc. this is for a rural property with water tank and biolytix system.

[yokel]

Cost of building a new house is very achievable at $1300 a sqm for a fully finished, house with double glazing and airconditioning etc. this is for a rural property with water tank and biolytix system.

well wait for all the new health & safety nonsense to come in to the building trade.
I've just built two new truck decks for brand new trucks for scaffolders

[TheDemonLord]

FFS, I earn wages, I pay taxes. Why can't everyone else pay taxes the same way I do. If that was the case the whole bloody country would be doing okay, not just the ones that are NOT paying their share of the taxes.

If there is a way to legally pay less Tax, then I am all for it. If you disagree with this, then by all means, close the loopholes that allow people to do this.

[Ocean1]

FFS, I earn wages, I pay taxes. Why can't everyone else pay taxes the same way I do. If that was the case the whole bloody country would be doing okay, not just the ones that are NOT paying their share of the taxes. :bash::brick:

Who is it that you think don't pay their share of the taxes?


Half of all NZ families pay no income tax.

Pretty much... http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/net-tax-small.png

[jasonu]

Its a matter of managing the tax so you don't end up with an arse raping from a big angry black man.
I'd be chuffed to be paying just the tax on the wage I draw. Unfortunately that is a tiny portion of the entire tax I pay.
I think most people do pay taxes the way you do & many pay tens of thousands a year more in addition to that.
Basically, tax is a fine for being successful, the more successful you are, the more you pay, if you can look a little less successful on paper, the black man is a little less angry.
To give you some idea, the tax I paid between the time I came back from my Christmas holiday & the end of January this year was equivalent to roughly 23 times my weekly take home pay, & that is one of several instalments per year.

I'm happy to pay my fair share of tax 'cause that is what keeps the country running. However, I ALWAYS ensure my fair share is legally as small as possible.

[mashman]

Who is it that you think don't pay their share of the taxes?

Those who don't appreciate what's being done with their taxes?

[mashman]

So the public individually limit their tax liability in protest to how it's being spent (economic terrorism ;)). :facepalm: This leads to the govt receiving less funding to provide the "common" services that the individuals that make up the public rely on. A moderately amusing approach... and the response even more so. "Privatise" the service... quite possibly to an overseas "investor". Also add to that, companies also structure theirselves in such ways so as to limit their tax liability. Result: less govt (not a bad thing in itself), but plenty of SME's that are reliant on govt projects in the areas that are "privatised". And that's considered sound fiscal policy? The ripple effects of such a solution are evident i.e. the costs associated with housing.

Kinda ironic on many levels.

[Swoop]

well wait for all the new health & safety nonsense to come in to the building trade.
I've just built two new truck decks for brand new trucks for scaffolders

Scaffolding and orange cones.
Two of the busiest expanding businesses.

I know a few roofers who have been in the trade for over 30 years and they are packing up business. The reason? Bullshit osh and paperwork. Having to spend 30mins EACH day at EVERY site, to "indoctrinate" staff on the exact same site and hazards (that were there yesterday, and the day before...).

Scaffolding companies actively drive around looking for ANY work being done without copious amounts of scaffolding, then dob them in to WorksafeNZ.

Surprise bonus points here: If you are a house owner and decide to do some work on your Schloss, YOU can now be prosecuted for not having the shit used by the tradies!

[jasonu]

.

Surprise bonus points here: If you are a house owner and decide to do some work on your Schloss, YOU can now be prosecuted for not having the shit used by the tradies!

Really??????
If OSH tried telling me to get off my roof they would get a short sharp 'get fucked and get the fuck off my property' Luckily, where I live I can do pretty much whatever I want, however I want and on whatever day I want as a home owner.

[Ocean1]

Those who don't appreciate what's being done with their taxes?

What the fuck's that got to do with what they're paying or otherwise.

Actually, don't bother, just read the chart, the correct answer is anyone earning less than $50k to start with.

[mashman]

What the fuck's that got to do with what they're paying or otherwise.

Actually, don't bother, just read the chart, the correct answer is anyone earning less than $50k to start with.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

No, they pay their fair share of taxes.

[sidecar bob]

What the fuck's that got to do with what they're paying or otherwise.

Actually, don't bother, just read the chart, the correct answer is anyone earning less than $50k to start with.

Here's a reversal of events, I usually (read always) disagree with Mash & agree with you, however, here's an example.
Any money taken by the govt to be re distributed as they see fit, by any name, is a tax. That makes the acc portion of bike a rego tax also.
I know of a young chap that fucked himself up royally on a bike recently to the point of near death, with years of rehabilitation ahead of him & probably the prospect of being a sickness beneficiary for the rest of his life.
His bike had no rego (& therefore no acc levy paid) because apparently " he doesn't believe in that sort of thing"
He seems to believe in all the free healthcare & benefit he is receiving that I'm helping to fund however.
So yeah, there's an example of someone that doesn't appreciate how their taxes (if they actually paid any) are being spent"

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

No, they pay their fair share of taxes.

They take more in benefits than they pay in tax, fucking weird idea of "fair" you got, there.

[Ocean1]

Here's a reversal of events, I usually (read always) disagree with Mash & agree with you, however, here's an example.
Any money taken by the govt to be re distributed as they see fit, by any name, is a tax. That makes the acc portion of bike a rego tax also.
I know of a young chap that fucked himself up royally on a bike recently to the point of near death, with years of rehabilitation ahead of him & probably the prospect of being a sickness beneficiary for the rest of his life.
His bike had no rego (& therefore no acc levy paid) because apparently " he doesn't believe in that sort of thing"
He seems to believe in all the free healthcare & benefit he is receiving that I'm helping to fund however.
So yeah, there's an example of someone that doesn't appreciate how their taxes (if they actually paid any) are being spent"

Meh. A targeted tax not paid might reasonably amount to the related benefit not being made available, no?

Fair enough, bring it on, make every tax targeted, and every benefit dependent on payment of the related tax.

Which was the point I was making, the bottom half of all taxpayers don't contribute enough to cover their benefits. And fuckwits bitch about the evel business owner's tax avoidance depriving them of their rightful alms. :rolleyes:

[mashman]

They take more in benefits than they pay in tax, fucking weird idea of "fair" you got, there.

Stop baggin the system man.

[FJRider]

I blame the Real Estate Agents. The more a house sells for, the more goes into their back pocket. It's in their own interests to inflate the prices.

A house can only sell for the price anybody/somebody is willing to pay.


If you think the price is too high ... don't buy it ...

[mossy1200]

Get ready for a huge price increase for new houses.
New workplace Safety Reform due to start about July.
Just had a short training course and my workplace is going to be about 25% less efficient.
Ill be required to wear safety glasses and gloves 100% of the time. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform

[JimO]

you get way more apples for your dollar in Dunedin

[sidecar bob]

Get ready for a huge price increase for new houses.
New workplace Safety Reform due to start about July.
Just had a short training course and my workplace is going to be about 25% less efficient.
Ill be required to wear safety glasses and gloves 100% of the time. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform

That should drive up the price of existing homes too.

[Delerium]

Get ready for a huge price increase for new houses.
New workplace Safety Reform due to start about July.
Just had a short training course and my workplace is going to be about 25% less efficient.
Ill be required to wear safety glasses and gloves 100% of the time. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform

Dear public servant STOP TRYING TO HELP ME!

[yokel]

the future of affable housing

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2014/02/NEW_StatewayBasketball-copy1.jpg


http://www.sootoday.com/userfiles/images/Miscellaneous%20Stock%20Shots/trailer-park-keywords.jpg

[Laava]

. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform

Surely you will get that done in china now?...while you sit there waiting in your chair with helmet glasses gloves and biohazard suit on.

[mossy1200]

Workplace Safety NZ is taking WINZ up on the shooting because WINZ failed to keep their employees safe from the hazard. One Government department fining another. To me this stinks of WINZ taking a fall for Workplace Safety NZ to have a case win that all other cases to be compared to as the president will have been set in a court of law.

[sidecar bob]

Workplace Safety NZ is taking WINZ up on the shooting because WINZ failed to keep their employees safe from the hazard. One Government department fining another. To me this stinks of WINZ taking a fall for Workplace Safety NZ to have a case win that all other cases to be compared to as the president will have been set in a court of law.

Like any other retail business, at any point a masked gunman may turn up at my workplace to demand the days takings. Does that mean that if I don't install bulletproof glass around my staff and one of them gets shot that I can be charged with not taking all steps to keep them safe?

[mossy1200]

Like any other retail business, at any point a masked gunman may turn up at my workplace to demand the days takings. Does that mean that if I don't install bulletproof glass around my staff and one of them gets shot that I can be charged with not taking all steps to keep them safe?

Correct. If there is any perceived risk prior to an incident then you could face 600k-3mill fine for failure to prevent a workplace injury if you are a business owner or company director as far as the course we attended last week indicates. The likelihood is not yet certain but the possibility is real.

Currently I am looking into a trust fund for my assets as a form of protection.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Correct. If there is any perceived risk prior to an incident then you could face 600k-3mill fine for failure to prevent a workplace injury if you are a business owner or company director as far as the course we attended last week indicates. The likelihood is not yet certain but the possibility is real.

Currently I am looking into a trust fund for my assets as a form of protection.

Not entirely correct (depending on whether the fine is levied with or without evidence of such an accident/event). The law only requires that you take all practicable steps to prevent such an occurrence. They can't make you spend more than a contracts value (if that's what it costs) if you can demonstrate that it isn't practical (but that you have taken all 'practicable steps to prevent a foreseeable accident event). However, if someone is seriously incapacitated or killed, A judge will find that even ten times the cost of the contract is reasonable (after the fact) if it would have prevented that injury or death and will fine you (and your customer if you are a contractor). See determination in worker death at the Botany Downs shopping complex.

So yes. If you are a contractor you are well fucked.

BTW as a director of a company you will be held personally liable unless you had absolutely nothing to do with the development, execution or monitoring of your OSH obligations. Even then, A single site visit can be argued to make you liable. If you actually work on the project you are well fucked.

[caspernz]

Correct. If there is any perceived risk prior to an incident then you could face 600k-3mill fine for failure to prevent a workplace injury if you are a business owner or company director as far as the course we attended last week indicates. The likelihood is not yet certain but the possibility is real.

Currently I am looking into a trust fund for my assets as a form of protection.

While I find the law changes dodgy at best, in reality how often does one get fined? The fines are one thing, but in Health & Safety terms, how often does an employer get a fine without just cause of some sorts?

Bringing this panic down to earth, and onto another topic for a second...if the average motorist were worried about fines then they'd all drive like model citizens...

[blue rider]

so another house in my street is on the market.

it was sold in November for 690.000, and has been empty since. A bit of color on the fence, some trimming of the trees and a lick of paint around the window sills. Back on the market fro about 890.000. Only advertised to chinese it appears as these are the only ones coming for a look. I expect the house to sell quickly.

We don't have a housing crisis per se, we have a speculation crisis.

Btw. of all the houses in my area that have been sold - some 20 odd, only two went to caucasians. The rest are chinese, indian and other asians.

some of these houses are empty and not on the market. I expect them to go on the market within a few month.

[nzspokes]

Get ready for a huge price increase for new houses.
New workplace Safety Reform due to start about July.
Just had a short training course and my workplace is going to be about 25% less efficient.
Ill be required to wear safety glasses and gloves 100% of the time. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform

Yup. New reforms are on the way. I did the course a few weeks back. It will make things very real for those that have done nothing and hurt somebody.

[sidecar bob]

so another house in my street is on the market.

it was sold in November for 690.000, and has been empty since. A bit of color on the fence, some trimming of the trees and a lick of paint around the window sills. Back on the market fro about 890.000. Only advertised to chinese it appears as these are the only ones coming for a look. I expect the house to sell quickly.

We don't have a housing crisis per se, we have a speculation crisis.

Btw. of all the houses in my area that have been sold - some 20 odd, only two went to caucasians. The rest are chinese, indian and other asians.

some of these houses are empty and not on the market. I expect them to go on the market within a few month.
If someone wants to sell me something for less than its worth & somebody else wants to buy it off me for more than its worth, I fail to see the problem.
Nobody hands out cash on the street corner, a bit of market research, some commitment & courage & bingo, 200k in the bank.
You will never get anywhere just saving what remains of your pay each week.

[JimO]

yep everybody wants affordable housing apart from when they are selling then its top dollar

[TheDemonLord]

yep everybody wants affordable housing apart from when they are selling then its top dollar

This.

Entirely this.

Not Asians.
Not investors.
Not the Boogeyman.

Just everyone wanting to make a profit when they sell their house.

[sidecar bob]

The real issue is estate agents taking a far too big a cut for essentially doing fuck all.
Most people just want to break even, but must get 30k more for their property just to pay the fees.
I have lost count of how many properties I have bought & sold without an agent, nobody died & I have saved well more than 100k in the process.

[TheDemonLord]

The real issue is estate agents taking a far too big a cut for essentially doing fuck all.
Most people just want to break even, but must get 30k more for their property just to pay the fees.
I have lost count of how many properties I have bought & sold without an agent, nobody died & I have saved well more than 100k in the process.

Its easier to blame the Real Estate Agents as opposed to accepting that we are all Greedy Cunts that want to make a profit on the sale of our house....

[Voltaire]

Its easier to blame the Real Estate Agents as opposed to accepting that we are all Greedy Cunts that want to make a profit on the sale of our house....

Its so we can get more equity and then go down to the bank to borrow money for holidays, cars and stuff.:innocent:

Thats how the West is set up isn't it? A civilization fueled by debt to banks.

[Kickaha]

Its so we can get more equity and then go down to the bank to borrow money for holidays, cars and stuff.:innocent:
And Sidecars

[sidecar bob]

Its easier to blame the Real Estate Agents as opposed to accepting that we are all Greedy Cunts that want to make a profit on the sale of our house....

So being market savvy, & prepared to take an educated punt in order to make a buck for myself so as not be state dependant in my old age makes me a greedy cunt.
Does not doing that that make you a lazy cunt?

[TheDemonLord]

So being market savvy, & prepared to take an educated punt in order to make a buck for myself so as not be state dependant in my old age makes me a greedy cunt.
Does not doing that that make you a lazy cunt?

The point here, is that EVERYONE has the same aspiration - to Make a Buck for themselves - to retire in comfort. Does it make you a Greedy cunt? Well in a way it does - Am I going to do the same thing? You bet your ass I am (I am hoping that the Penlink gets Delayed long enough for me to afford an investment property on the Peninsula)

The difference here is that I accept that I want to make money, and that my actions (along with everyone elses) are responsible for driving House Prices up, rather than blaming everyone else - I accept the blame - and continue to do it anyway - because Fuck other people.

[sidecar bob]

The point here, is that EVERYONE has the same aspiration - to Make a Buck for themselves - to retire in comfort. Does it make you a Greedy cunt? Well in a way it does - Am I going to do the same thing? You bet your ass I am (I am hoping that the Penlink gets Delayed long enough for me to afford an investment property on the Peninsula)

The difference here is that I accept that I want to make money, and that my actions (along with everyone elses) are responsible for driving House Prices up, rather than blaming everyone else - I accept the blame - and continue to do it anyway - because Fuck other people.

Yeah, I have to admit that I spend fuck all time lying awake at night worrying about people that rekon they cant affort to own homes yet.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, I have to admit that I spend fuck all time lying awake at night worrying about people that rekon they cant affort to own homes yet.

Exactly - I did it, in Auckland, Under 30, with little Deposit - According to the Media, I am some form of Mythic Unicorn.....

[sidecar bob]

Exactly - I did it, in Auckland, Under 30, with little Deposit - According to the Media, I am some form of Mythic Unicorn.....

Believe it or not there are also places other than Auckland that a house can be purchased in. There are decent houses on full sites in Wanganui for between 80k & 140k.

[JimO]

Believe it or not there are also places other than Auckland that a house can be purchased in. There are decent houses on full sites in Wanganui for between 80k & 140k.
about a year ago i bought a 4 bedroom brick house on a reasonable sized section with a separate garage for 210k in a good area near 2 excellent primary schools a really good intermediate and 2 top highschools, at the moment one of my boys (app builder) is living in it and doing a bit of work as sweat equity and will either buy it off me or when its sold he will get a slice of the action

[Laava]

The point here, is that EVERYONE has the same aspiration - to Make a Buck for themselves - to retire in comfort. Does it make you a Greedy cunt? Well in a way it does - Am I going to do the same thing? You bet your ass I am (I am hoping that the Penlink gets Delayed long enough for me to afford an investment property on the Peninsula)

The difference here is that I accept that I want to make money, and that my actions (along with everyone elses) are responsible for driving House Prices up, rather than blaming everyone else - I accept the blame - and continue to do it anyway - because Fuck other people.

You should hit it off well with Mashie and Axahole!

[blue rider]

bwhahahahahahahaha

suckers, if yer aint from overseas with access to cheap credits, yer not gonna buy a house....go live under a bridge

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11429699

A big state-owned site in Auckland once earmarked for social and affordable housing is being carved up for sale - and the first 50 houses will be sold privately at market rates.

The 24ha site formerly part of the Papakura army camp, between Walters Rd and McLennan Park, was bought by Housing NZ in June 2004 for $10.7 million. Its rating valuation has more than doubled to $23.4 million because of Auckland's desperate housing shortage, but no houses have yet been built.

snip


Instead, real estate agent Barfoot & Thompson yesterday advertised seven "super lots" of up to 16 sites each for sale by expressions of interest, with pre-designed two-, three- and four-bedroom houses designed by Studio of Pacific Architecture.

Housing NZ general manager of asset development Leonie Freeman said the release of 50 sites on 2ha would all be for private sale at prices that "will reflect the current market at the time of sale".



ahhh yeah, the market will provide.

[sidecar bob]

bwhahahahahahahaha

suckers, if yer aint from overseas with access to cheap credits, yer not gonna buy a house....go live under a bridge

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11429699

A big state-owned site in Auckland once earmarked for social and affordable housing is being carved up for sale - and the first 50 houses will be sold privately at market rates.

The 24ha site formerly part of the Papakura army camp, between Walters Rd and McLennan Park, was bought by Housing NZ in June 2004 for $10.7 million. Its rating valuation has more than doubled to $23.4 million because of Auckland's desperate housing shortage, but no houses have yet been built.

snip


Instead, real estate agent Barfoot & Thompson yesterday advertised seven "super lots" of up to 16 sites each for sale by expressions of interest, with pre-designed two-, three- and four-bedroom houses designed by Studio of Pacific Architecture.

Housing NZ general manager of asset development Leonie Freeman said the release of 50 sites on 2ha would all be for private sale at prices that "will reflect the current market at the time of sale".



ahhh yeah, the market will provide.

Sorry, I dont understand the problem, is there a reason why the property shouldnt be sold at market rates?
Like I said earlier, there are places people can buy houses other than Auckland. Believe it or not there is a whole country of small & affordable towns south of the Bombays, so no need to live under a bridge, unless your head is firmly up your arse.

[husaberg]

Sorry, I dont understand the problem, is there a reason why the property shouldnt be sold at market rates?
Like I said earlier, there are places people can buy houses other than Auckland. Believe it or not there is a whole country of small & affordable towns south of the Bombays, so no need to live under a bridge, unless your head is firmly up your arse.

I think Bob is on to something if all the poor people moved elsewhere the Auckland affordable housing crisis would be over.
Chalk it up as another win to the rock star economy.

I might be being facetious but he does have a point.but
with the ex Amry land though was that esp re zoned and part of the Nats campaign about providing cheap housing for the er roadies in the rockstar economy.

[sidecar bob]

I think Bob is on to something if all the poor people moved elsewhere the Auckland affordable housing crisis would be over.
Chalk it up as another win to the rock star economy.

I might be being facetious but he does have a point.but
with the ex Amry land though was that esp re zoned and part of the Nats campaign about providing cheap housing for the er roadies in the rockstar economy.

I dont understand why the Govt should provide knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid paid for by the taxpayer.
Lazy & stupid are choices, so is having fuck all of a house.

[bogan]

Sooo, what's wrong with renting?

[husaberg]

I dont understand why the Govt should provide knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid paid for by the taxpayer.
Lazy & stupid are choices, so is having fuck all of a house.

Because they said they would, I know that was before the election, but I guess I am somewhat naïve or somewhat jaded take your pick. :killingme

[gjm]

Sorry, I dont understand the problem, is there a reason why the property shouldnt be sold at market rates?
Like I said earlier, there are places people can buy houses other than Auckland. Believe it or not there is a whole country of small & affordable towns south of the Bombays, so no need to live under a bridge, unless your head is firmly up your arse.

The land was bought by HNZ to provide state housing under the HNZ banner. HNZ are now selling it at a profit, rather than complete the plan that was expected.

[mashman]

bwhahahahahahahaha@what I refer to as blind scared old white muthafucka way.

They know no other way.

[mashman]

I think Bob is on to something if all the poor people moved elsewhere the Auckland affordable housing crisis would be over.
Chalk it up as another win to the rock star economy.

Fortunately investors won't waste their $ on building a city big enough to hold them ;). Although the rich could afford to build their own city. Once done they could hire millions of people to help build their wall.

[mashman]

I dont understand why the Govt should provide knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid paid for by the taxpayer.
Lazy & stupid are choices, so is having fuck all of a house.

They could train the next generation of builder at the same time.

[sidecar bob]

The land was bought by HNZ to provide state housing under the HNZ banner. HNZ are now selling it at a profit, rather than complete the plan that was expected.

We'll thank fuck for that. I thought they were going to miss a fantastic speculative opportunity there in favour of propping up losers.
Now they have a heap more money to buy a patch of dirt in a more appropriate location to house the poor & needy.

[nodrog]

.... According to the Media, I am some form of Mythic Unicorn.....

I think they may of hacked your world of warcraft account.

[sidecar bob]

Sooo, what's wrong with renting?

Sooo, what's wrong with paying someone else's mortgage off & being left with nothing to show for it at the end?

[bogan]

Sooo, what's wrong with paying someone else's mortgage off & being left with nothing to show for it at the end?

Nothing.

If you can't afford to buy, you rent, or you work harder, or find something cheaper. Not owning a house isn't the end of the world.

[Ocean1]

Because they said they would, I know that was before the election, but I guess I am somewhat naïve or somewhat jaded take your pick. :killingme

I don't recall any election promises to provide knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid.

There was some discussion about changing local authority processes to help reduce costs. Some movement there, but I'm keen to see the fuckers charging a bunch less for developments they're not actually paying for. Arseholes.

[Ocean1]

Sorry, I dont understand the problem, is there a reason why the property shouldnt be sold at market rates?
Like I said earlier, there are places people can buy houses other than Auckland. Believe it or not there is a whole country of small & affordable towns south of the Bombays, so no need to live under a bridge, unless your head is firmly up your arse.

Never mind that shit, what rent are all these bridge tenants paying? And to who?

[husaberg]

I don't recall any election promises to provide knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid.

There was some discussion about changing local authority processes to help reduce costs. Some movement there, but I'm keen to see the fuckers charging a bunch less for developments they're not actually paying for. Arseholes.

Re the compliance That's not completely true they gave developers some dispensations to not have to comply with a lot of legally set rules such as NZECP34. Now that is going to cost a lot of tax payers a lot of money later.

Keys plans Private consortiums, mmm the wonder who the big players will be.


To watch Key's speech, visit: tinyurl.com/nzuzh7l

Housing NZ is to accelerate reviews of its existing tenants from about 2000 announced previously to 5000 over the next two years. Reviews will target the 3300 tenants already paying market rents and others on near-market rates, requiring many of them to move into private rentals or home ownership.

Fletcher Housing director Alan Jackson said private developers would be interested in forming consortiums with community agencies. Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford said ministers were trying to hose down public alarm about a large-scale sell-off of state housing.

"It is clear that they are moving to a different model of social housing where anybody can own the houses and the Government just pays a subsidy," he said.

"The legislation and their public statements have explicitly left the door open to for-profit providers."


Selling state houses


Why is the Government selling state houses?
Ministers want to encourage "a more diverse ownership of social housing with more innovation and responsiveness to tenants and communities".

How many will be sold?
About 1000-2000 in the next year and up to 8000 in the next three years.

Who can buy them?
Anyone, in theory, but they must be managed by registered community housing providers. They may form consortiums with iwi and private developers or financiers.

What are the conditions?
Properties will have to stay in social housing unless the Government grants an exception, such as for a mixed public/private development of more intensive housing on a site.

What else is changing?
About 5000 existing state house tenants will have their tenancies reviewed in the next two years and those whose incomes are high enough to rent or buy in the private market may be required to move out, making room for some of the 3600 people on the priority social housing waiting list.

Building far less per year than they sell. market rents for the rest.
Creates demand when there was little That needs to be filled by private interests, the market dictates lol
Machiavellian at its best.

F-ing glad I am not poor in Auckland. Or poor, or don't own my own house. Or live near Auckland or think Auckland's the only place in the world worth living in.



The land was bought by HNZ to provide state housing under the HNZ banner. HNZ are now selling it at a profit, rather than complete the plan that was expected.

After they said that they would use the money from the sales of now affluent area houses to build lots of new ones

[Ocean1]

Re the compliance That's not completely true they gave developers some dispensations to not have to comply with a lot of legally set rules such as NZECP34. Now that is going to cost a lot of tax payers a lot of money later.

Keys plans Private consortiums, mmm the wonder who the big players will be.



Building far less per year than they sell. market rents for the rest.
Creates demand when there was little That needs to be filled by private interests, the market dictates lol
Machiavellian at its best.

F-ing glad I am not poor in Auckland.

Oh I wasn't bothered about govt not providing knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid themselves. I just figured it's a given that's a bad idea.

I was kinda hoping they'd simply shoo the parasites away from the communal housing production industry trough. So that those simply wanting to build a house can just get on with it without having to pay for all of the attendant bullshit.

Can't comment on that particular std, but it's true that a large number of standards are more barriers to competition than protection for consumers. And there's nothing preventing house builders making their houses to whatever advisory criteria they see fit.

I was talking to a guy today that's been battling his local council for two years and $40k over compliance work on his 120 year old guest house. He's about ready to break out the 12swg and settle it once and for all. Can't say I wouldn't be there, calling in targeting.

[husaberg]

Oh I wasn't bothered about govt not providing knock down cheap housing for the lazy & stupid themselves. I just figured it's a given that's a bad idea.

I was kinda hoping they'd simply shoo the parasites away from the communal housing production industry trough. So that those simply wanting to build a house can just get on with it without having to pay for all of the attendant bullshit.

Can't comment on that particular std, but it's true that a large number of standards are more barriers to competition than protection for consumers. And there's nothing preventing house builders making their houses to whatever advisory criteria they see fit.

I was talking to a guy today that's been battling his local council for two years and $40k over compliance work on his 120 year old guest house. He's about ready to break out the 12swg and settle it once and for all. Can't say I wouldn't be there, calling in targeting.

Google what NZECP34, is its a barrier all right, But a very important one, it was put in place for a very good reason though, to protect people from being electrocuted in their homes.
Some of the new housing doesn't have to comply with it or consider it at all.
I like the Councils will take up the slack bit best with the new builds so who pays for that.

Don't get me started on Consents today, I have to notify a local council now as well when we do works on DOC land now.

[Ocean1]

Google what NZECP34, is its a barrier all right, But a very important one, it was put in place for a very good reason though, to protect people from being electrocuted in their homes.
Some of the new housing doesn't have to comply with it or consider it at all.
I like the Councils will take up the slack bit best with the new builds so who pays for that.

Don't get me started on Consents today, I have to notify a local council now as well when we do works on DOC land now.

Serve them right then eh? Seriously, sounds like there's more to that story.

I don't want councils to take up any slack, I just want them to charge reasonable fees for supplying the services their clients want, rather than the currently fashionable charging whatever the fuck they like for supplying nothing anyone really wants simply because they have a monopoly on supply.

You have my deepest sympathies, nobody should ever have to soil their day to the extent of having to interact with either "organisation", and if I had to deal with both on the same piece of business I think I'd slit my wrists. Actually, on mature reflection I'd probably slit their wrists, far better solution.

[husaberg]

Serve them right then eh? Seriously, sounds like there's more to that story.
No the people who buy the houses ill pay ,that are compliant with the fast track regs they are built too rather than the appropriate legal acts, Its the the government that has said they could this bypass (RED TAPE) to speed up stuff.
So the owners and the councils and utilities will end up paying to sort it. By the time someone decides this is utter madness and tries to solve what the heck has been allowed to occur, by then The developers will be long gone.


I don't want councils to take up any slack, I just want them to charge reasonable fees for supplying the services their clients want, rather than the currently fashionable charging whatever the fuck they like for supplying nothing anyone really wants simply because they have a monopoly on supply.
Its not that its just councils are paid by us still they will just carry the can to fill the gaps to revent people living on the streets

You have my deepest sympathies, nobody should ever have to soil their day to the extent of having to interact with either "organisation", and if I had to deal with both on the same piece of business I think I'd slit my wrists. Actually, on mature reflection I'd probably slit their wrists, far better solution.

Hell No, In my experience DOC are bloody awesome to deal with, on the level I deal with them anyway.
The councils and I deal with 5, of them 3 are excellent 1 is "interesting" in what concerns them and one is extremely bureaucratic and condescending, but yet do not hold themselves to any where near the same level of scrutiny.
In fairness to them a lot of the compliance stuff has been forced on the councils they would rather be out of it. but we are at the stage where we are having multiple consents from multiple authorities to do one job.

[sidecar bob]

Nothing.

If you can't afford to buy, you rent, or you work harder, or find something cheaper. Not owning a house isn't the end of the world.

So when you reach an age at which you would like to retire & you have no assets or money, you live exactly how? By getting a cheap Govt subsidised flat in shitsville & a benefit until you die in poverty & misery?

[Swoop]

Some of the new housing doesn't have to comply with it or consider it at all.
I like the Councils will take up the slack bit best with the new builds so who pays for that.

Apart from the regular fun-filled time of dealing with retards at Council, what is concerning me more is the work done by Asian and indian builders.
There is some particularly scary shit going on out there and it will come back to bite a home-owner who believes that he has purchased a decent building (which has been signed off by council).

[husaberg]

So when you reach an age at which you would like to retire & you have no assets or money, you live exactly how? By getting a cheap Govt subsidised flat in shitsville & a benefit until you die in poverty & misery?

Yeah but it will be fast can't have the poor lingering on wasting resources.
because you wont be able to afford the free health care or decent electricity for heating or be able to buy food by then.


Apart from the regular fun-filled time of dealing with retards at Council, what is concerning me more is the work done by Asian and indian builders.
There is some particularly scary shit going on out there and it will come back to bite a home-owner who believes that he has purchased a decent building (which has been signed off by council).
I'm in the same situation I will be the one that will be told that he has to tell them its not right afterwards and has to be sorted.

[bogan]

So when you reach an age at which you would like to retire & you have no assets or money, you live exactly how? By getting a cheap Govt subsidised flat in shitsville & a benefit until you die in poverty & misery?

House ownership is not the only form of having assets, or money.

[blue rider]

https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10644586_417903931710747_8213425785120012418_n.jpg ?oh=400c8a07acb21f4bb947f21d1936b420&oe=5599ABA5

bludgers
some are more deserving that others

[sidecar bob]

House ownership is not the only form of having assets, or money.

I'm very well aware of that. It's called a balanced portfolio.

[Ocean1]

No the people who buy the houses ill pay ,that are compliant with the fast track regs they are built too rather than the appropriate legal acts, Its the the government that has said they could this bypass (RED TAPE) to speed up stuff.
So the owners and the councils and utilities will end up paying to sort it. By the time someone decides this is utter madness and tries to solve what the heck has been allowed to occur, by then The developers will be long gone.


Its not that its just councils are paid by us still they will just carry the can to fill the gaps to revent people living on the streets


Hell No, In my experience DOC are bloody awesome to deal with, on the level I deal with them anyway.
The councils and I deal with 5, of them 3 are excellent 1 is "interesting" in what concerns them and one is extremely bureaucratic and condescending, but yet do not hold themselves to any where near the same level of scrutiny.
In fairness to them a lot of the compliance stuff has been forced on the councils they would rather be out of it. but we are at the stage where we are having multiple consents from multiple authorities to do one job.

If the houses were built to current reg's then there's only one person responsible for any future modifications: the owner. The developer did his job, not his fault. The council did theirs, why should they pay? The whole thing about council being some responsible for build quality as defined by standards is bullshit. If the guy paying for the house wants it built to any given standard then that's his call, and his cost.

Yes the councils are paid by us, my point is that we want very little of what they charge us for. Given the choice, if building I'd be selecting and defining my own standards and if necessary hiring an inspector to manage compliance.

In my experience councils have just one objective: to maximise rates and the number of properties that pay them, requiring any new builds to pay way too much for the privilege and spending as little as possible to achieve that end. This does not make for a "service" most ratepayers want.

And welcome to the thick end of the bureaucratic bandwagon caused by people bitching about "govt should do this/that".

[Ocean1]

Apart from the regular fun-filled time of dealing with retards at Council, what is concerning me more is the work done by Asian and indian builders.
There is some particularly scary shit going on out there and it will come back to bite a home-owner who believes that he has purchased a decent building (which has been signed off by council).

Exactly. What fucking use is a standard if it's not applied? And yet I hear from an inspector mate that no councils make any money from that part of their "service". Pretty sure SGS or one of the other independents could make it work for a fucking sight less.

[husaberg]

If the houses were built to current reg's then there's only one person responsible for any future modifications: the owner. The developer did his job, not his fault. The council did theirs, why should they pay? The whole thing about council being some responsible for build quality as defined by standards is bullshit. If the guy paying for the house wants it built to any given standard then that's his call, and his cost.

Yes the councils are paid by us, my point is that we want very little of what they charge us for. Given the choice, if building I'd be selecting and defining my own standards and if necessary hiring an inspector to manage compliance.

In my experience councils have just one objective: to maximise rates and the number of properties that pay them, requiring any new builds to pay way too much for the privilege and spending as little as possible to achieve that end. This does not make for a "service" most ratepayers want.

And welcome to the thick end of the bureaucratic bandwagon caused by people bitching about "govt should do this/that".

Read what NZECP34 is about before you leap to conclusions too much.
There is regulations acts and laws.
It’s not about the houses it’s about the fact where they are in relation to their proximity to other things.

[Swoop]

... I will be the one that will be told that he has to tell them its not right afterwards and has to be sorted.

Unfortunately I'm thinking about those who will find out years down the track. When foundation slabs crack and require replacement...

[TheDemonLord]

Oh, are we doing this again?

I still don't see what all the fuss is about - I did it, I had to make compromises and I had to be smart to do it. But it is possible.

[TheDemonLord]

https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10644586_417903931710747_8213425785120012418_n.jpg ?oh=400c8a07acb21f4bb947f21d1936b420&oe=5599ABA5

bludgers
some are more deserving that others

Doesn't that entirely prove the point though :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[sidecar bob]

Oh, are we doing this again?

I still don't see what all the fuss is about - I did it, I had to make compromises and I had to be smart to do it. But it is possible.

How did you manage all your subsequent investment properties?
You make it sound like buying one house to live in is akin to the moon landing.

[Oscar]

https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10644586_417903931710747_8213425785120012418_n.jpg ?oh=400c8a07acb21f4bb947f21d1936b420&oe=5599ABA5

bludgers
some are more deserving that others

What a crock of shit.
Key's Father left the family home when he (John) was 6 years old and died a couple of years later.

[TheDemonLord]

How did you manage all your subsequent investment properties?
You make it sound like buying one house to live in is akin to the moon landing.

They are on my 10 year plan to acquire, and screw over the poor degenerates who can't afford their own house.

[oldrider]

What a crock of shit.
Key's Father left the family home when he (John) was 6 years old and died a couple of years later.

That is a typical case of what the benefit was put in place for and it is a success story - fine looking woman to boot! :sunny:

Well done that young mother - well done New Zealand welfare system. :yes:

[Oscar]

That is a typical case of what the benefit was put in place for and it is a success story - fine looking woman to boot! :sunny:

Well done that young mother - well done New Zealand welfare system. :yes:

That is exactly what the benefit was for.
What Hosking is talking about is either women who think the DPB is a lifestyle choice, or women already on the benefit who choose to keep breeding.

[oldrider]

That is exactly what the benefit was for.
What Hosking is talking about is either women who think the DPB is a lifestyle choice, or women already on the benefit who choose to keep breeding.

True! - John Key's mother found herself left in a difficult position and the country went to her aid! - (we can be proud of that)

There is absolutely no evidence that Mrs Key abused the system!

One can only assume that - John Key is attempting to repay the debt by being Prime Minister - whether or not his effort is value for money is another issue entirely!

[Voltaire]

How did you manage all your subsequent investment properties?
You make it sound like buying one house to live in is akin to the moon landing.

Probably took Neil Armstrong less time to get to the moon than driving to Auckland from Gulf Harbour:rolleyes:

[husaberg]

True! - John Key's mother found herself left in a difficult position and the country went to her aid! - (we can be proud of that)

There is absolutely no evidence that Mrs Key abused the system!

One can only assume that - John Key is attempting to repay the debt by being Prime Minister - whether or not his effort is value for money is another issue entirely!

The irony of your words are not lost on me.

Government debt has reached $60 billion, having climbed $27 million a day since John Key became prime minister - and forecasts show it will rise for years to come.

Despite tax revenue being higher than expected and expenses lower in recent months, Treasury figures show net Crown debt reached the highest yet at $60,015,000,000 at the end of September.

It already equates to 28 per cent of New Zealand's economic output, is more than $13,000 for every person in New Zealand and is forecast to climb by another $10b by 2017.

When National took control of the Beehive in 2008, debt was just over $10b,

[TheDemonLord]

Probably took Neil Armstrong less time to get to the moon than driving to Auckland from Gulf Harbour:rolleyes:

I've got it down to about 50 minutes in average traffic (thats all the way to Penrose), 40 in no traffic and 1 hour in heavy traffic

[Voltaire]

I've got it down to about 50 minutes in average traffic (thats all the way to Penrose), 40 in no traffic and 1 hour in heavy traffic

112 kms of SH 1 goodness :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

112 kms of SH 1 goodness :laugh:

Yup - the thing that annoys me the most is when I have to replace tires with Heaps of meat on the edges, but flat and showing cords in the centre :( I don't do enough twisty roads riding :(

[buggerit]

Oh, are we doing this again?

I still don't see what all the fuss is about - I did it, I had to make compromises and I had to be smart to do it. But it is possible.

Ownership, or a minor shareholding?

[TheDemonLord]

Ownership, or a minor shareholding?

If by Minor shareholding you mean I have a Mortgage with a Bank......

but yes. I own my house (until the point that I stop paying the mortgage....)

[blue rider]

That is exactly what the benefit was for.
What Hosking is talking about is either women who think the DPB is a lifestyle choice, or women already on the benefit who choose to keep breeding.

nope what Hosking was talking about is parents that have children that they can't afford.

This was in regard to the changes to the IRD System of establishing child support, and Hoskins comment came in regards to Men!!! that complained that they had not enough money left over to live once they paid child support.

https://www.facebook.com/ONENewsNZ/posts/10152671674576218


"The cost of a child is the cost of a child. If you can't afford one, why did you have one?"
Seven Sharp's Mike Hosking tonight weighed in on changes to child support, asking: "Why are you expecting the rest of us to pay the bill?"



I understand that for Oscar pregnancies and childbirth and child rearing are obviously tasks that don't involve Men!! Men!! are only involved in the fucking and the ejaculation into the vagina of an ovulating women (because we all now that MAN!! will not use condoms for fear of not feeling anything, and besides babies are womens shit) - and then MEN!! are done, and women will then these have children for the DPB aka lifestyle Choice - I would agree insofar as that DPB Bludger Paula Bennett did manage to get a really nice lifestyle out of i, but then she is more equal then other unresponsible women that have children they can't afford themselves.

Again the comments of Hoskins are about People that can not afford to pay child support under the new rules of the IRD (courtesy of the National Party) , or otherwise support their children on their own. https://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/tool-name/tools-c/ir150-form-cs-calculating2015.html?id=righttabs

Now I will only raise one example of a single Parent on the DPB (regardless of gender btw). Man/Women looses their spouse to a vehicular accident, and is now a single parent. This person, might now due to changed circumstances can not afford their children on their own, as Mrs Key, once a widow could not afford her children on her own, and thusly was eligible to the widowers benefit and a statehouse.

The image, does not point to Mrs. Key as a bludger, but to a women who by changes to her life style was unable to afford her children. By Mr. Hoskins comment she should have never had children that she could not afford on her own.

Now, to those that have had children while young, healthy and in employment.....would you be able to work full time, and look after your children on your own, if your partner died, ended up severely handicapped or simply walked out on you one day. Again, this is regardless of gender. There are many single Dads on the DPB, and the largest number of single parents are divorced/separated/widowed parents. ...BTW. The widowers benefit were scrapped in 2009 under National, and Mrs. Key today would have to apply for the DPB and/or job seeker allowance - and then blokes like Oscar could fault her for her life style choices and her irresponsible breeding.

[Oscar]

nope what Hosking was talking about is parents that have children that they can't afford.

This was in regard to the changes to the IRD System of establishing child support, and Hoskins comment came in regards to Men!!! that complained that they had not enough money left over to live once they paid child support.

https://www.facebook.com/ONENewsNZ/posts/10152671674576218





I understand that for Oscar pregnancies and childbirth and child rearing are obviously tasks that don't involve Men!! Men!! are only involved in the fucking and the ejaculation into the vagina of an ovulating women (because we all now that MAN!! will not use condoms for fear of not feeling anything, and besides babies are womens shit) - and then MEN!! are done, and women will then these have children for the DPB aka lifestyle Choice - I would agree insofar as that DPB Bludger Paula Bennett did manage to get a really nice lifestyle out of i, but then she is more equal then other unresponsible women that have children they can't afford themselves.

Again the comments of Hoskins are about People that can not afford to pay child support under the new rules of the IRD (courtesy of the National Party) , or otherwise support their children on their own. https://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/tool-name/tools-c/ir150-form-cs-calculating2015.html?id=righttabs

Now I will only raise one example of a single Parent on the DPB (regardless of gender btw). Man/Women looses their spouse to a vehicular accident, and is now a single parent. This person, might now due to changed circumstances can not afford their children on their own, as Mrs Key, once a widow could not afford her children on her own, and thusly was eligible to the widowers benefit and a statehouse.

The image, does not point to Mrs. Key as a bludger, but to a women who by changes to her life style was unable to afford her children. By Mr. Hoskins comment she should have never had children that she could not afford on her own.

Now, to those that have had children while young, healthy and in employment.....would you be able to work full time, and look after your children on your own, if your partner died, ended up severely handicapped or simply walked out on you one day. Again, this is regardless of gender. There are many single Dads on the DPB, and the largest number of single parents are divorced/separated/widowed parents. ...BTW. The widowers benefit were scrapped in 2009 under National, and Mrs. Key today would have to apply for the DPB and/or job seeker allowance - and then blokes like Oscar could fault her for her life style choices and her irresponsible breeding.

Jesus, you are such a twat.

My point was that the State should support the very circumstances you go into great detail about - i.e. Mrs Key's husband running off and snuffing it.
The DPB is not furnished so that a single parent can have MORE children after those circumstances have happened...

[Gadget1]

That is exactly what the benefit was for.
What Hosking is talking about is either women who think the DPB is a lifestyle choice, or women already on the benefit who choose to keep breeding.


Yep, I'd go with that.

[mashman]

Jesus, you are such a twat.

My point was that the State should support the very circumstances you go into great detail about - i.e. Mrs Key's husband running off and snuffing it.
The DPB is not furnished so that a single parent can have MORE children after those circumstances have happened...

Couldn't find an image of a man ironing in the mirror.

http://cdn.riveraveblues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/miss-the-point2.jpg?1051d9

Pay them more money, as there aren't enough jobs in the country (govt backed fact), and you won't have half of the problems you currently do... for instance, the tiny tiny tiny minority of people getting themselves knocked up for more $. They could afford to buy their own ipods n stuff that they're taunted with every now and then on the TV that they have plenty of time to watch. Someone HAS to be unemployed. Why would you not pay them a decent rate and buy their civil "obedience"? Shit, you can print the stuff out of thin air if it's for the good of the economy... yet not if it's for the unlucky people who want, but don't have a decent job, let alone being one of the unlucky ones that aren't fit for a job (and you want them in the workforce? fuckin idiot)... let alone being burdened with any of the circumstances that bluerider mentioned.

[bogan]

Jesus, you are such a twat.

My point was that the State should support the very circumstances you go into great detail about - i.e. Mrs Key's husband running off and snuffing it.
The DPB is not furnished so that a single parent can have MORE children after those circumstances have happened...

Exactly, but in practice; short of tying up some tubes how can you distinguish between the two in such a way that the child is not disaffected?

[Oscar]

Couldn't find an image of a man ironing in the mirror.



Pay them more money, as there aren't enough jobs in the country (govt backed fact), and you won't have half of the problems you currently do... for instance, the tiny tiny tiny minority of people getting themselves knocked up for more $. They could afford to buy their own ipods n stuff that they're taunted with every now and then on the TV that they have plenty of time to watch. Someone HAS to be unemployed. Why would you not pay them a decent rate and buy their civil "obedience"? Shit, you can print the stuff out of thin air if it's for the good of the economy... yet not if it's for the unlucky people who want, but don't have a decent job, let alone being one of the unlucky ones that aren't fit for a job (and you want them in the workforce? fuckin idiot)... let alone being burdened with any of the circumstances that bluerider mentioned.

Ah, the Chief Twat has weighed in.
What has the number of jobs in the country got to do with wimmin on the DPB?
It's a simple concept really, get knocked up (once), hubby (or wife) runs off or dies - the state should support you and the kid (and I agree the amount is too low).
But have a second kid whilst yer on the DPB?
That's a whole other thing.

[Oscar]

Exactly, but in practice; short of tying up some tubes how can you distinguish between the two in such a way that the child is not disaffected?

Tricky.
And that's probably why the problem will never be addressed.

[gjm]

Why would you not pay them a decent rate and buy their civil "obedience"?

I thought that was what is happening now... Can't see any other way National got re-elected! ;)

I read earlier how people have made sacrifices to buy a house. I know we did, originally.

Median house price in Auckland - around $650000
Median annual wage (age 20-35) in Auckland - around $50000

What sacrifices are going to make up that sort of difference?

Get out of Auckland is the only option for many people, which while an easy answer is much more difficult to actually do.

[mashman]

Ah, the Chief Twat has weighed in.
What has the number of jobs in the country got to do with wimmin on the DPB?
It's a simple concept really, get knocked up (once), hubby (or wife) runs off or dies - the state should support you and the kid (and I agree the amount is too low).
But have a second kid whilst yer on the DPB?
That's a whole other thing.

Ah, there you are Pocahontas. I see you've brought me shit for dinner again.


The DPB is not furnished so that a single parent can have MORE children after those circumstances have happened... erm, well, erm. If they don't have a job coz there isn't one like.
I don't fundamentally disagree with that at all.
I don't fundamentally disagree with that either... but that ignores the reality of people in love and their desires.
It's not another thing at all. It's, I'd say connected, but it's such a mess I prefer entangled.

[mashman]

I thought that was what is happening now... Can't see any other way National got re-elected! ;)

I read earlier how people have made sacrifices to buy a house. I know we did, originally.

Median house price in Auckland - around $650000
Median annual wage (age 20-35) in Auckland - around $50000

What sacrifices are going to make up that sort of difference?

Get out of Auckland is the only option for many people, which while an easy answer is much more difficult to actually do.

Cheap fuckerz iz cheap fuckerz.

Apparently, that's life and you should just jolly well get on with it.

[blue rider]

Exactly, but in practice; short of tying up some tubes how can you distinguish between the two in such a way that the child is not disaffected?

how about some vasectomies? they are reversible, and finally it would tie man into pregnancy prevention.

or easier still, how about some dna testing on all new born babies, and anytime a women is getting pregnanct without being married, or rich, a test is done on the new born to see who the irresponsible bloke is that fucked around without any birth controll.

or also easy, free contraception, free unadultared access to abortion at any time no question asked, no fake morality about how the fetus is more important then the incubator and such. Free, no question asked contraception, free abortion.



but in saying that our Oscar knows which women are deserving of tax payers largess and who are just slutty sluts that fuck around to get pregnant to recieve 60 odd bucks a week. :)

[bogan]

how about some vasectomies? they are reversible, and finally it would tie man into pregnancy prevention.

or easier still, how about some dna testing on all new born babies, and anytime a women is getting pregnanct without being married, or rich, a test is done on the new born to see who the irresponsible bloke is that fucked around without any birth controll.

or also easy, free contraception, free unadultared access to abortion at any time no question asked, no fake morality about how the fetus is more important then the incubator and such. Free, no question asked contraception, free abortion.



but in saying that our Oscar knows which women are deserving of tax payers largess and who are just slutty sluts that fuck around to get pregnant to recieve 60 odd bucks a week. :)

That takes care of half of the dolists, what about the other half?

Problem is, at that point it does not matter who the parents are; once a child comes into this world, it is deserving of the same minimum level of welfare as any other.

That'll work for unplanned (and those who do not morally reject it) pregnancies, but what about the rest? those who see a child as a pay check?

I've not seen anything from Oscar posted to that affect.

[sidecar bob]

Get out of Auckland is the only option for many people, which while an easy answer is much more difficult to actually do.

Believe it or not, the road actually continues beyond the top of the Bombay hills & we have roads, cars & jobs down here too, so probably not as hard as you imagine.

[WNJ]

We have just purchased our 3rd house just north of Hamilton, 7 acres, 3 in native bush with a stream less then $400 k, why would you want to live north of the bombays? :violin:

[husaberg]

Ah, the Chief Twat has weighed in.
What has the number of jobs in the country got to do with wimmin on the DPB?
It's a simple concept really, get knocked up (once), hubby (or wife) runs off or dies - the state should support you and the kid (and I agree the amount is too low).
But have a second kid whilst yer on the DPB?
That's a whole other thing.

That's not going anywhere near far enough Oscar, to make it fair any man that fathers a child with theses wanton hussies, should be made actually pay for the upkeep of that child directly rather than it being the taxpayers burden.
Failing that maybe remove their willies.
Where is a sarcasm font gone.

[blue rider]

oh well maybe we want to stop talking about tying tubes and cutting willies....ack ack ack its so messy.

maybe we should just accept the fact that people like fucking. There, its fun, its messy, it makes us feel good, its awesome stress relieve n what not. Maybe we should also admit that many if not most of us have done the noughty without being married, without wanting to procreate and with partners that we never wanted to be with or get married to but who were ultimatlvly very fuckable.

Such is life. And sometimes people fuck even when they are poor, or they fuck because they are lonely, or because they are drunk, or because they want to be loved....or any other reason, but mainly because us humans we like to fuck.

it is easy to single out women for irresponsible fucking, but really those welfare babies are not making themselfs alone, man need to come to the party and help with the fucking.

but really I understand Oscar, i do. And because I want him to feel good about himself I will add a different picture for him. One that he will like better.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11120526_1567277220187865_221502918912945034_n.jpg ?oh=24f1b708a12751fdb553a2030aa986a0&oe=55AFCDC5&__gda__=1437689758_98a2013b773658e69ad43443b13c3b4 e

and for those that are interested in who receives that Benefit that does not exist anymore becasue done away by National here are the new rules and regulations, that, btw apply to single Dads or single Mums be they just slutty singles, or divorced parents, or widowed parents.

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/domestic-purposes-benefit-sole-parent.html

[bogan]

oh well maybe we want to stop talking about tying tubes and cutting willies....ack ack ack its so messy.

maybe we should just accept the fact that people like fucking. There, its fun, its messy, it makes us feel good, its awesome stress relieve n what not. Maybe we should also admit that many if not most of us have done the noughty without being married, without wanting to procreate and with partners that we never wanted to be with or get married to but who were ultimatlvly very fuckable.

Such is life. And sometimes people fuck even when they are poor, or they fuck because they are lonely, or because they are drunk, or because they want to be loved....or any other reason, but mainly because us humans we like to fuck.

it is easy to single out women for irresponsible fucking, but really those welfare babies are not making themselfs alone, man need to come to the party and help with the fucking.

but really I understand Oscar, i do. And because I want him to feel good about himself I will add a different picture for him. One that he will like better.

Speaking of fucking, you're fucking way off the track now :facepalm:

The deliberate decision to have a child despite being unable to provide for them is the point. Accident happen, unplanned pregnancies, unplanned loss of parents/income; this is what welfare is for. What it is not for, is to encourage people to have children despite their lack of ability to provide for them.

[husaberg]

I have got it, Oscar is really on to something, We need a new law.
Hence force there shall be no fornication with out the ownership of accommodation.:bleh:
So for all those Horny bitches out there feeling a little left out, because of this new law, I do have a 5 bedroom house.:corn:

[blue rider]

Speaking of fucking, you're fucking way off the track now :facepalm:

The deliberate decision to have a child despite being unable to provide for them is the point. Accident happen, unplanned pregnancies, unplanned loss of parents/income; this is what welfare is for. What it is not for, is to encourage people to have children despite their lack of ability to provide for them.



Again you did not realise what Mike Hoskins refered to with his comment. His comment was about Man having issues paying alimony as per the new rules under which the IRD now establishes how much a divorced/seperated Father has to pay.

So while you and Oscar are going on and on about women.....having babies for fun, Hoskins is telling Man not to have children that they can afford.

Feel better now? As I said above, that would mean that before you, Oskar or humpty dumpty could even think abut finding a lovley lass to procreate about you should have at least 25 years of child rearing costs tucked away because if you can't afford your child when sick, or unemployed, or a widower, someone like Hoskins can and will call you a bludger.

And to all the blokes that think only women are irresponsibly having children, no according to Hoskins, Man do to. :)

[bogan]

Again you did not realise what Mike Hoskins refered to with his comment. His comment was about Man having issues paying alimony as per the new rules under which the IRD now establishes how much a divorced/seperated Father has to pay.

So while you and Oscar are going on and on about women.....having babies for fun, Hoskins is telling Man not to have children that they can afford.

Feel better now? As I said above, that would mean that before you, Oskar or humpty dumpty could even think abut finding a lovley lass to procreate about you should have at least 25 years of child rearing costs tucked away because if you can't afford your child when sick, or unemployed, or a widower, someone like Hoskins can and will call you a bludger.

And to all the blokes that think only women are irresponsibly having children, no according to Hoskins, Man do to. :)

And what exactly is your problem with that? All I've seen is you twatting on about some feminist drivel. What exactly has Hoskins and Oscar said that has so upset your sense of feminism?

Not at all, you simply have to have the means to pay for them as you go.

Who has the responsibility to abort the birth?

[nodrog]

And what exactly is your problem with that? All I've seen is you twatting on about some feminist drivel. What exactly has Hoskins and Oscar said that has so upset your sense of feminism?

Not at all, you simply have to have the means to pay for them as you go.

Who has the responsibility to abort the birth?

Maybe she can't afford a house with a tongue and groove floor.

[blue rider]

And what exactly is your problem with that? All I've seen is you twatting on about some feminist drivel. What exactly has Hoskins and Oscar said that has so upset your sense of feminism?

Not at all, you simply have to have the means to pay for them as you go.

Who has the responsibility to abort the birth?



abortion in nz is criminal, albeit permitted in some cases.

i have an issue with what Hoskins says insofar as circumstances change. People have children, they love their children ,they raise them and then they die, have an accident, get unemployed and at that stage might need help from the same government that they helped finance while they worked and paid taxes. The children will eventually work and pay taxes to the same government.

that is why the comment is so outrageous. It implies that people that can't assure to have an income till the end of their lifes shall not have certain things we take for granted. Most people will want children at some stage in their lifes. But now only someone with a Trustfund and a guaranteed income for the rest of their lifes can have a child?


As for the rest, dear Bogan, i did not start with the bene abuse. I merely pointed out that Mike Hoskins is a statuesque micro penis, who is ugly inside and out who should think twice about his comments.

Life has an issue of biting people in the arse every now and then, today one has a job, a nice house, a lovely wife/husband/partner, and tomorrow nada, nix zilch.

[bogan]

abortion in nz is criminal, albeit permitted in some cases.

i have an issue with what Hoskins says insofar as circumstances change. People have children, they love their children ,they raise them and then they die, have an accident, get unemployed and at that stage might need help from the same government that they helped finance while they worked and paid taxes. The children will eventually work and pay taxes to the same government.

that is why the comment is so outrageous. It implies that people that can't assure to have an income till the end of their lifes shall not have certain things we take for granted. Most people will want children at some stage in their lifes. But now only someone with a Trustfund and a guaranteed income for the rest of their lifes can have a child?


As for the rest, dear Bogan, i did not start with the bene abuse. I merely pointed out that Mike Hoskins is a statuesque micro penis, who is ugly inside and out who should think twice about his comments.

Life has an issue of biting people in the arse every now and then, today one has a job, a nice house, a lovely wife/husband/partner, and tomorrow nada, nix zilch.

And how exactly was the comment about accidental loss of income instead of deliberate reliance on the benefit?

[BMWST?]

Get ready for a huge price increase for new houses.
New workplace Safety Reform due to start about July.
Just had a short training course and my workplace is going to be about 25% less efficient.
Ill be required to wear safety glasses and gloves 100% of the time. Cant wait to fit off electronics in gloves.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform


its all a bit stupid now.I work in a prenail plant.If i have to go to the toilet i walk through the factory.I have to don ear muffs to make the 30 second walk

[husaberg]

its all a bit stupid now.I work in a prenail plant.If i have to go to the toilet i walk through the factory.I have to don ear muffs to make the 30 second walk

We have to ensure everyone wears Full body cover of fire retardant PPE while just in the depot loading utes yet none of the stuff we load is even flammable...........:eek:

[Ocean1]

its all a bit stupid now.I work in a prenail plant.If i have to go to the toilet i walk through the factory.I have to don ear muffs to make the 30 second walk


We have to ensure everyone wears Full body cover of fire retardant PPE while just in the depot loading utes yet none of the stuff we load is even flammable...........:eek:

And people wonder why they can't make ends meet. I see we're still not in the black re the national budget, I wonder what all of this safety fetish actually costs every year...

[husaberg]

And people wonder why they can't make ends meet. I see we're still not in the black re the national budget, I wonder what all of this safety fetish actually costs every year...

From what I understand its about $700 each pair.
They are needed in the field, through. but in the depot the only thing that is likely to catch fire appears to be the receptionists crotch.
The budgets in the red and it will stay in the red cause the Nats keep borrowing and at the same time selling us all out for more debt.


Government debt has reached $60 billion, having climbed $27 million a day since John Key became prime minister - and forecasts show it will rise for years to come.

Despite tax revenue being higher than expected and expenses lower in recent months, Treasury figures show net Crown debt reached the highest yet at $60,015,000,000 at the end of September.

It already equates to 28 per cent of New Zealand's economic output, is more than $13,000 for every person in New Zealand and is forecast to climb by another $10b by 2017.

When National took control of the Beehive in 2008, debt was just over $10b,

[Ocean1]

From what I understand its about $700 each pair.
They are needed in the field, through. but in the depot the only thing that is likely to catch fire appears to be the receptionists crotch.
The budgets in the red and it will stay in the red cause the Nats keep borrowing and at the same time selling us all out for more debt.

I meant the whole national safety caboodle. Including probably 10% extra labour involved.

:laugh: Have you seen the reaction when they start talking about spending less?

[Laava]

Sorry to get back on topic but interestingly the price of housing going up hasn't been affected by chippies putting their rates up. Yet. I was getting better labour only rates 12 yrs ago. That is likely to change real soon.

[husaberg]

I meant the whole national safety caboodle. Including probably 10% extra labour involved.

:laugh: Have you seen the reaction when they start talking about spending less?

If they are not borrowing reducing health or pensions they will be sweet.
There is plenty of fat in the system like how much did the asset sales actually cost.

[Winston001]

https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10644586_417903931710747_8213425785120012418_n.jpg ?oh=400c8a07acb21f4bb947f21d1936b420&oe=5599ABA5

bludgers
some are more deserving that others

Nonsense.

The Domestic Purposes Benefit did not exist in 1961.

It was a new and revolutionary welfare change which began in 1974.

Mrs Key was supported by her husband and when he left, whatever child and spousal maintenance he could afford. Often it was sod all which is why the DPB eventually came into being.

When John Key's father died, Mrs Key might have been entitled to a small widows pension.

The reality in those days is that separated/widowed women had it bloody tough and scraped up cleaning jobs or whatever to feed their kids.

[Ocean1]

If they are not borrowing reducing health or pensions they will be sweet.
There is plenty of fat in the system like how much did the asset sales actually cost.

Oh yeah, I've never met anyone who didn't have better ideas about how govt should spend their money.

Dunno about pensions but health spending has increased every year for the last decade or more. Mostly because they keep inventing new and expensive ways to keep people alive.

[Ocean1]

Nonsense.

The Domestic Purposes Benefit did not exist in 1961.

It was a new and revolutionary welfare change which began in 1974.

Mrs Key was supported by her husband and when he left, whatever child and spousal maintenance he could afford. Often it was sod all which is why the DPB eventually came into being.

When John Key's father died, Mrs Key might have been entitled to a small widows pension.

The reality in those days is that separated/widowed women had it bloody tough and scraped up cleaning jobs or whatever to feed their kids.

Ah come on, you're spoiling all that righteous indignation!

My grandmother raised 6 of her 9 kids by selling what shellfish she could collect and what sewing repair work the neighbourhood gave her. Couple of the girls had after-school jobs and one of the boys made a quid or so shooting rabbits but it wasn't much help. She was eligible for the Mayoral relief fund, which at the time amounted to a sack of spuds every couple of months and a sack of coal or two through winter. That was the sum total of official help for a widower not all that long ago.

[husaberg]

Oh yeah, I've never met anyone who didn't have better ideas about how govt should spend their money.

Dunno about pensions but health spending has increased every year for the last decade or more. Mostly because they keep inventing new and expensive ways to keep people alive.

Imagine how much it will go up when Pharmac is dismantled and they are forced to buy non generics. Great deal for US again

[Ocean1]

Imagine how much it will go up when Pharmac is dismantled and they are forced to buy non generics. Great deal for US again

Pharmac doesn't need to be dismantled in order to prevent parallel imports. And while there's a bunch of stuff they buy far cheaper from suppliers other than the original developers there's actually very few that are affected by international legal constraints. So unless someone's re-writing patent law the damage, while painful shouldn't be huge. I'm interested in the changes in NZ law that made parallel importing possible way back, I never did understand the details.

I must say I approve of the concept of patents in general but the US patent system has some wrinkles that favour US patents over those of other countries. It's a minefield. And that's without considering how long should patents apply for? And how "different" from existing technology should an applicant need to be?

[husaberg]

Pharmac doesn't need to be dismantled in order to prevent parallel imports. And while there's a bunch of stuff they buy far cheaper from suppliers other than the original developers there's actually very few that are affected by international legal constraints. So unless someone's re-writing patent law the damage, while painful shouldn't be huge. I'm interested in the changes in NZ law that made parallel importing possible way back, I never did understand the details.

I must say I approve of the concept of patents in general but the US patent system has some wrinkles that favour US patents over those of other countries. It's a minefield. And that's without considering how long should patents apply for? And how "different" from existing technology should an applicant need to be?

Excuse me, the government is in the process of signing us all up to a deal are you unaware of that?

[Ocean1]

Excuse me, the government is in the process of signing us all up to a deal are you unaware of that?

Yes. They're re-writing patent law?

[husaberg]

Yes. They're re-writing patent law?

No...........they are rewriting the free market. Its a brave new world........I wonder where it will land us.

Think about it.

[Swoop]

I've got it down to about 50 minutes in average traffic (thats all the way to Penrose), 40 in no traffic and 1 hour in heavy traffic
You need to lift your game. If there is more than 2mins difference between traffic and no-traffic there is a problem.

The DPB is not furnished so that a single parent can have MORE children after those circumstances have happened...
After the FIRST childbirth the people involved can "normally" realise where it originated from. Perhaps we need to follow the chinese example of single childbirth - and especially so with regards to the taxpayer funding this. If people want more kids (catholics, muslims, etc) then they can finance them by themselves.

Ah, there you are Pocahontas. I see you've brought me shit for dinner again.
:scratch:
You really are a strange one. Have you consulted your mental health care professional recently?

[Ocean1]

No...........they are rewriting the free market. Its a brave new world........I wonder where it will land us.

Think about it.

I occasionally do. And we'll soon know whether the new market will be more or less free. If it's influenced by people wanting to be protected from competition it'll be less free. Which certainly seems to be the general US trend of late.

[husaberg]

I occasionally do. And we'll soon know whether the new market will be more or less free. If it's influenced by people wanting to be protected from competition it'll be less free. Which certainly seems to be the general US trend of late.
Yes, By the time we do know for sure what most have prophesied it will be too late. bop bop bop ............

https://youtu.be/tvtJPs8IDgU

Sometimes what the free market dictates is a bit less about freedom and more about a dictatorship "husaberg 2015"

[Ocean1]

Yes, By the time we do know for sure what most have prophesied it will be too late. bop bop bop ............

https://youtu.be/tvtJPs8IDgU

Sometimes what the free market dictates is a bit less about freedom and more about a dictatorship "husaberg 2015"

Look on the bright side, maybe pirates will become gainfully employed again running un-customed goods up and down the coast.

A free market is free by definition, but it's not uncommon for changes to be made or pursued in the name of market freedom that are in fact the opposite. It's not difficult to spot the difference.

[husaberg]

Look on the bright side, maybe pirates will become gainfully employed again running un-customed goods up and down the coast.

A free market is free by definition, but it's not uncommon for changes to be made or pursued in the name of market freedom that are in fact the opposite. It's not difficult to spot the difference.

The only reason it would be difficult to spot is it is being sold to us in secret by people that are meant to put the countries best interests first.
Someone's certainly been selling something to get a buy in on it. Oh well The silverware is going, so why not get rid of the medical cabinet to boot.

[mashman]

:scratch:
You really are a strange one. Have you consulted your mental health care professional recently?

:killingme... yes, my kids think such strangeness amusing. Thanks for asking.

[sidecar bob]

Again you did not realise what Mike Hoskins refered to with his comment. His comment was about Man having issues paying alimony as per the new rules under which the IRD now establishes how much a divorced/seperated Father has to pay.

So while you and Oscar are going on and on about women.....having babies for fun, Hoskins is telling Man not to have children that they can afford.

Feel better now? As I said above, that would mean that before you, Oskar or humpty dumpty could even think abut finding a lovley lass to procreate about you should have at least 25 years of child rearing costs tucked away because if you can't afford your child when sick, or unemployed, or a widower, someone like Hoskins can and will call you a bludger.

And to all the blokes that think only women are irresponsibly having children, no according to Hoskins, Man do to. :)
If you spell a well known man's name completely wrong four times in one post when it is printed in bold letters several posts above your own, it calls your level of comprehension seriously into question & makes me wonder if anything you say is particularly well researched or worth reading about.
For fucks sake it's Hosking, HOSKING FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!:facepalm:

[Oscar]

After the FIRST childbirth the people involved can "normally" realise where it originated from. Perhaps we need to follow the chinese example of single childbirth - and especially so with regards to the taxpayer funding this. If people want more kids (catholics, muslims, etc) then they can finance them by themselves.



That's a tricky one.
As far as I'm concerned the DPB is to protect children.
So whereas I don't think it's appropriate for a parent to continue breeding on the taxpayer’s dollar, there are no sanctions that don't cause more problems.
If you cut the Mother's income, the child suffers, if you take the child away the child suffers and forced sterilisation or abortion is too draconian.

[Oscar]

That's not going anywhere near far enough Oscar, to make it fair any man that fathers a child with theses wanton hussies, should be made actually pay for the upkeep of that child directly rather than it being the taxpayers burden.
Failing that maybe remove their willies.
Where is a sarcasm font gone.

Another twat who hasn't seen the damge that broken families/single parents can do to our kids and obviously pays little or no tax .

[husaberg]

Another twat who hasn't seen the damge that broken families/single parents can do to our kids and obviously pays little or no tax .

For someone who nothing about me it is not that actually surprising that you are so wrong in pretty much every detail.
Nice work National blooger.......

[Oscar]

For someone who nothing about me it is not that actually surprising that you are so wrong in pretty much every detail.
Nice work National blooger.......

Au contraire, Mon ami - your post tells me quite a bit about you.

[husaberg]

Au contraire, Mon ami - your post tells me quite a bit about you.

No it doesn't but that fact that you think it does speaks volumes about you.
He's the thing Ocsar you are no where near half as insightful, as you are full of crap.
Put your glasses on before you read some posts next time.:clap:
Better still go troll another thread....or are you still hungry?
Because I already fed you once?

[Oscar]

No it doesn't but that fact that you think it does speaks volumes about you.
He's the thing Ocsar you are no where near half as insightful, as you are full of crap.
Put your glasses on before you read some posts next time.:clap:
Better still go troll another thread.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.
You seem to be slipping into a Brian de Marge-esque literacy (or lack of it).
You also have jumped to the conclusion that because you think I’m a Tory, I must be anti-beneficiary.

[husaberg]

Maybe you should follow your own advice.
You seem to be slipping into a Brian de Marge-esque literacy (or lack of it).
You also have jumped to the conclusion that because you think I’m a Tory, I must be anti-beneficiary.

No I think you are a pitiful troll, did you miss that?
What is so hard for you to comprehend about that.

[Oscar]

No I think you are a pitiful troll, did you miss that?
What is so hard for you to comprehend about that.

Oh dear, have I upset you?
You seem to have issues...

[Edbear]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11431243