Why housing costs are so ridiculously high

[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/p...52671674576218

"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/...l?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/p...52671674576218





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/...l?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.



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?