The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

Fuckin really?
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19242...ext-month.html
From who's pocket is the 47 million going to come?
They have basically said that an entire industry can't charge the end user for their services.
The only way for landlords to cover the expense is through higher rent.
Rent caps to follow for sure.

Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

[Ocean1]

Fuckin really?
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19242...ext-month.html
From who's pocket is the 47 million going to come?
They have basically said that an entire industry can't charge the end user for their services.
The only way for landlords to cover the expense is through higher rent.
Rent caps to follow for sure.

What do you expect? They're socialists, they have zero interest in how money is made, only how it's spent.

[sidecar bob]

What do you expect? They're socialists, they have zero interest in how money is made, only how it's spent.

"The change will put 47 million in to the pockets of kiwi families every year" .
No, what it will do is take 47 million from one group of families & give it to another group of families.
I cant decide if Twyford is stupid or thinks voters are stupid.
Hes talking like hes a champion thats plucked 47m out of his arse.

[sidecar bob]

Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.

[husaberg]

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.

Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

A group representing property investors says renters like letting fees, because paying them gives them an advantage over other potential tenants.
Andrew King, head of the Property Investors Federation, told The AM Show getting rid of them - as the Government is expected to do - will make rents go up about $10 a week.
"A lot of tenants ironically actually like the letting fee. At the moment around about 50 or 60 percent of properties available for rent don't have a letting fee. You don't have to pay a letting fee if you don't want to.
"But if you are a tenant and you want access to 100 percent of all the properties available and you're willing or able to pay a letting fee, you can get that access.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

[Ocean1]

Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

Tyford's full of shit, he knows full well tenants won't be any better off, it's a legitimate cost of supplying the rental and they'll be paying that cost one way or another.

And if you think the service isn't required you're as deluded as he is.

[husaberg]

Tyford's full of shit, he knows full well tenants won't be any better off, it's a legitimate cost of supplying the rental and they'll be paying that cost one way or another.

And if you think the service isn't required you're as deluded as he is.

That comment came not from tyford but from the landlord body.

group representing property investors says renters like letting fees, because paying them gives them an advantage over other potential tenants.
Andrew King, head of the Property Investors Federation, told The AM Show getting rid of them - as the Government is expected to do - will make rents go up about $10 a week.
"A lot of tenants ironically actually like the letting fee. At the moment around about 50 or 60 percent of properties available for rent don't have a letting fee. You don't have to pay a letting fee if you don't want to.
"But if you are a tenant and you want access to 100 percent of all the properties available and you're willing or able to pay a letting fee, you can get that access.

You are confusing your opinion with Tyfords Knowledge.
If the letting fee If its so required why is it not used by over 1/2 the landlords then?

Every other business has to evolve when goverments and local bodies change rules and impose regulation on their business, Farmers face this everyday yet cant change the price they can't charge for their products they just have to evolve and become more efficient. Landlords need to stop moaning about it as it will get them know where and concentrate their efforts on stuff they can change thus do the same as every other business does.

Lets be serious here What really concerns Bob and other landlords is the government is making changes to lessen the housing crisis (Which national ignored existed)which will erode both his potential capital gains and annual profit both of which need a housing shortage to maximise the landlords gain. Landlords are a small demographic not a huge voter base.
What is a double concern for Bob and other landlords is if other landlords decide to get out of rented property it will lead to a further drop in house prices as more properties are put up for sale.

[Ocean1]

That comment came not from tyford but from the landlord body.

https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19242...ext-month.html

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford says this will come into effect next month.

“Around half of all Kiwis now live in rented homes. This change could put up to $47 million into the pockets of Kiwi families each year.

You are confusing your opinion with Tyfords Knowledge.

But I'm confused?

If the letting fee If its so required why is it not used by over 1/2 the landlords then?

Tampons are not used by 50% of the whole country! Ban the supermarkets from selling those fuckers!

Every other business has to evolve when goverments and local bodies change rules and impose regulation on their business, Farmers face this everyday yet cant change the price they can't charge for their products they just have to evolve and become more efficient. Landlords need to stop moaning about it as it will get them know where and concentrate their efforts on stuff they can change thus do the same as every other business does.

Only a fuckwit would claim that it's businesses responsibility to adapt to obnoxious, predatory government cash grabs. Only a fuckwit would claim the solution is for those businesses to work harder to make up for govt legislating against their ability to charge for their product.

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.

Lets be serious here What really concerns Bob and other landlords is the government is making changes to lessen the housing crisis (Which national ignored existed)which will erode both his potential capital gains and annual profit both of which need a housing shortage to maximise the landlords gain. Landlords are a small demographic not a huge voter base.
What is a double concern for Bob and other landlords is if other landlords decide to get out of rented property it will lead to a further drop in house prices as more properties are put up for sale.

I'll leave you to tell us all about what concerns Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.

[husaberg]

https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19242...ext-month.html

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford says this will come into effect next month.

“Around half of all Kiwis now live in rented homes. This change could put up to $47 million into the pockets of Kiwi families each year.



But I'm confused?



Tampons are not used by 50% of the whole country! Ban the supermarkets from selling those fuckers!



Only a fuckwit would claim that it's businesses responsibility to adapt to obnoxious, predatory government cash grabs. Only a fuckwit would claim the solution is for those businesses to work harder to make up for govt legislating against their ability to charge for their product.

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.



I'll leave you to tell us all about what concern's Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.

You replied to my quote then you seek to claim otherwise. I never quoted twford.
You can go on claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you "is a fuckwit" all you like.It just makes it funnier to point out later how hypocritical your opinion is when you will later claim the complete opposite when its the natzsi that change rules.

What do you expect? They're socialists, they have zero interest in how money is made, only how it's spent.

the rules have changed wine elsewhere where someone might care about how hard done by you feel about the government blah blah.
National when they find a new leader will start campaigning with the promise of tax cuts for the top 40% of earners to buy votes for the next election
What they wont say is they will pay for by selling off assets and borrowing more money same as every nat gov since years ago have.

Net govt debt
June 2008: $10 billion, 5.6 per cent of GDP
June 2011 (projected): $42 billion, 21 per cent of GDP

• Main Stats
• Average GDP, 1990 to 1999: 2.4%
• Average GDP, 2000 to 2008: 3.5%
• Average GDP, 2009 to 2013*: 1.2%

* 2013 figure averaged over three Quarters only.
(Calcution based on RBNZ raw data spread sheet)

as for labour buying votes, they do whats best for their majority voter base thats politics.
National was just caught selling mps thats new, natszi politics. National will physically sell of NZ to grasp power.
when i cried fowl over the natzsi laying off thousands of hard working kiwi jobs and at the same time bailing out private business you insisted it was kosha market forces because those jobs were not part of the gov plan and market force rahrah

[sidecar bob]

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.



I'll leave you to tell us all about what concern's Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.

When I could be arsed having a business, Helen Clarke gave all my staff one more week's holiday, thus reducing my company's productivity for the same wage bill.
I call this shit, "having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollys"
It cots my business neighbour, NZ's largest manufacturer of coaches & buses 113 weeks extra wages for no return.
This latest crap with the letting fee has pretty much no effect on me personally, due to the stability of great tenants I chose myself, one being my current employer, but in the larger scheme of things it's nothing short of communism.

[husaberg]

When I could be arsed having a business, Helen Clarke gave all my staff one more week's holiday, thus reducing my company's productivity for the same wage bill.
I call this shit, "having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollys"
It cots my business neighbour, NZ's largest manufacturer of coaches & buses 113 weeks extra wages for no return.
This latest crap with the letting fee has pretty much no effect on me personally, due to the stability of great tenants I chose myself, one being my current employer, but in the larger scheme of things it's nothing short of communism.

Where as increasing GST was pure capitalism at it finest.
You never did answer my questions Bob?

[sidecar bob]

Where as increasing GST was pure capitalism at it finest.
You never did answer my questions Bob?

sorry, what was the question?

[sidecar bob]

as for labour buying votes, they do whats best for their majority voter base thats politics.

Majority? LOL.
Yes, sadly that amounts to 36% or less of the actual voting population.

[husaberg]

Majority? LOL.
Yes, sadly that amounts to 36% or less of the actual voting population.

Their Bob Their....
Labour formed a coalition government just as National has had to since the introduction of MMP

The latest poll show Labour surging ahead of National.
Worrying for your team is there are currently more voters in nz that are called Wesley that are gay and live with both parents called nancy and Tom with a ginger cat called fluffy with yellow letter box than would currently vote to have nationals leader as a PM of NZ.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-th...ading-national

sorry, what was the question?

Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.

Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

[Swoop]

Thats why you never relied to my post.

???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

I cant decide if Twyford is stupid or thinks voters are stupid.

The correct answer is "both".

It looks like the deluded cunt is being shown for what he (& they) really are...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12154010