The 2017 Election Thread

[carbonhed]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12121235

Another fiasco bought to you by the Amateur Hour coalition.

The level of incompetence is mind blowing isn't it? Every minor cockup is stage managed into catastrophe.

Earlier in the week Winnie told her she couldn't have her increased refugee quota and she just buckled under. Like the Clarkula said Ardern's never had to fight for a single thing in her entire life... shit got real sweetie.

ETA maybe all those people who were confident that Cindy could have a baby and perform as prime minister might just be beginning to.... wonder.

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/...-clare-curran/

When even a die hard leftie like Norightturn starts calling you out things aren't going well.

None of this was caused by anybody but Cindy. It's an unfathomable fuckup.

[Ocean1]

You produce no facts again its pretty irelevent your wishes about state homes as they were not what was glaringly wrong with what you posted.
Your opinion as to why there was a housing shortage was.
You are the one claiming you are bipartisan post some evidence that you are or accept that if you are judged by almost everything you post the only logical conclusion is you are that much smitten with the National party you cant see past your own rhetoric.

...................

Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant.

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

[husaberg]

...................

Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant.

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

You produce no facts again its pretty irelevent your wishes about state homes as they were not what was glaringly wrong with what you posted.
Your opinion as to why there was a housing shortage was.
You are the one claiming you are bipartisan post some evidence that you are or accept that if you are judged by almost everything you post the only logical conclusion is you are that much smitten with the National party you cant see past your own rhetoric.

---

I'm doubtful you can attribute the housing shortage to labour policies, it was not under their watch prices skyrocketed. That was more to do with the ready availablity of cheap money with interest rates not seen since the 60's.
With global debt at least 1.5 time higher than in 2007 and countries like Turkey, Argentina having financial issues, the US stock market at record levels assisted by Corporate tax breaks a reset cannot be far away.

Sure we can.

The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.

So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").

They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.

So we can absolutely blame labour for implementing policy that drove the housing market in the direction it subsequently took.


Them, and crooked cunts like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-pos...ian-commission and their developer mates for the seriously dodgy practices that created the shortage that drove further price rises.

................

August 23, 2014
House prices in Auckland

• Council valuations indicate Auckland house prices have gone up by one-third over the last three years. (Auckland Council)
• The average Auckland house price has gone up by nearly $225,000 since 2008, up over $75,000 in the past 12 months. (QV)
• It now takes 50 years to pay off the average house in Auckland. (NZIER)

The residential rebuild in Canterbury

• Only 2,000 houses have been rebuilt in Christchurch when the earthquakes destroyed 11,000 and CERA says 31,000 more are needed in the Canterbury region by 2021. (Christchurch City Council)
• Rents are up nearly 45% and house prices up nearly 30% since the first earthquake. (MBIE & QV)
• MBIE estimates there are up to 7400 people homeless in Canterbury.
• Only 62 of the 700 new state houses Nick Smith promised have been built.

National says it’s policy aims to increase supply of new housing but more houses were built every year under the last Labour Government than National were able to build in their first five years in office.
State housing​

• Labour increased the state housing stock by 9000 when last in government: National have reduced the number of state houses by 1000 in the last 12 months alone.
• There are 2700 vacant state houses, and the waiting lists are at a record high at 5800.
• National has used Housing NZ as a cash cow in the middle of the housing crisis: making a net withdrawal of $212 m (2009-2013) and are budgeting to withdraw another $252 m over the next 3 years.

The National Government denies there is a housing crisis.

• The OECD says we have the 2nd most unaffordable housing in the western world.
• The IMF says house price to income ratios are 30% out of step with historic averages and house price to rent ratios 80%.
• The Reserve Bank says the overheated housing market is a threat to macro-economic stability.

.

All somewhat correct.

*wipes spittle*

And completely irrelevant.

Housing NZ's latest quarterly report reveals the agency's portfolio of 63,276 houses had shrunk by 3922 since 2015, including by 1132 properties in the past year.

2.2. The 1990s
New Zealand’s state housing policy changed direction significantly in the 1990s under a
new National government. In 1993, New Zealand held a stock of approximately 70,000 state
houses which were leased at income-based subsidised rents. The new policy moved towards
market rents plus a cash supplement to assist with issues of affordability. State involvement in
mortgages was reduced with a large proportion of the state mortgage portfolio being privatised.
Finally, the stock of state rentals underwent large changes due to new asset management
strategies that saw a large fall in state rental stock.

2.3. The 2000s
Under the Labour government, state housing policy changed direction again. The new
government placed a moratorium on sales – disestablishing the Homebuy Programme.
Institutional restructuring again took place. This time several agencies were merged together to
form Housing New Zealand Corporation. Income-related rents were re-introduced, a new
Social Allocation System was developed to direct housing resources towards pressing housing
needs, and several new programmes were developed to increase and modernise the state housing
stock and to increase home ownership.

http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/10_13.pdf

[oldrider]

There is little difference between the performance of either government in the long term and all you have done is illustrated that - Tweedledee or Tweedledum - pick either one?

[Ocean1]

...................

---

Housing NZ's latest quarterly report reveals the agency's portfolio of 63,276 houses had shrunk by 3922 since 2015, including by 1132 properties in the past year.

The unicorns were more coherent.

[husaberg]

The unicorns were more coherent.

Yet what you posted is no more truthful than it was yesterday. It will also still be wrong tomorrow.
Here is a hint, as you seem not be not able to understand, what you wrote is not only backed by any facts. It is actually the polar opposite of what occurred.
No amount of your posturing is going to make it any less wrong.
If you want to actually get to the true cause of the Auckland housing crisis you have to admit it actually is real which is something you appear not to be capable of doing.
the previous governments ignoring the problem did not make it not happen either.
Its pretty simple really why it occurred you only have to look at the population growth.
Contrary to what most people consider NZ has actually became one of the most urban countries on the planet (85% POP URBAN) but kiwis are not living in housing that reflects that.
You are always going to have a housing shortage when you have huge population growth and finite land mass to accommodate the 1/4 acre Kiwi dream.

Our home ownership rate has gone from being the highest in the world to the worst New Zealand has seen for more than 60 years. New Zealand is now consistently one of the worst places for housing affordability, even though, as one of the most sparsely inhabited countries, we still have plenty of land.Because thats not the whole problem
Money is readily available to almost all applicants. Quantitative easing by central reserve banks across the world has meant there is more money in circulation than at any other time in history. Banks have never been keener to provide there is more money chasing a dwindling pool of available houses.
There is precious little incentive for developers and builders to construct affordable housing.
the average single Kiwi on the average annual income of just $49,000 a year finds a house affordable when it is three to four times their salary. That puts the truly affordable house price at between $147,000 and $196,000 – and you don’t need to rush to the property guide to know there is absolutely zero chance of finding that in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch. Instead, our most desirable city (Auckland) has had average house prices hovering just under the $1 million mark for the best part of a year. Average house prices at some 20 times the average annual income – that spells crisis to me.

[Katman]

Have you ever considered that you might need psychiatric help?

He refuses to be helped.

[husaberg]

Have you ever considered that you might need psychiatric help? You are really not operating in a way that allows any kind of social interaction. You were weird and creepy when you were posting endless pics of underage girls... things have not got better.

Why don't you help me by showing me where and when i have ever posted any pics of any pics of underage girls, that would be a great start.
As far as i can see from any of your posts you post utter shit. Much the same way Katspam does
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=11247716

He refuses to be helped.

Who do you recommend for Paranoia and Narcissism?
PS your projecting again

[BuzzardNZ]

Have you ever considered that you might need psychiatric help? You are really not operating in a way that allows any kind of social interaction. You were weird and creepy when you were posting endless pics of underage girls... things have not got better.

+1 couldn't agree more! He needs help big time.

[carbonhed]

Why don't you help me by showing me where and when i have ever posted any pics of any pics of underage girls, that would be a great start.

Well you seem very sure of that... do you keep them in a separate folder?

How does this predilection for taut teen pussy go down with the wimmin's section down at the local Labour Party meetings? I'd have thought a whisper of that would have cost you your balls... but perhaps not down in banjo pluckin country eh?

Do you ever have anything to do with Labour Youth camps... recently... like February? Fucking sanctimonious hypocrite.

[Ocean1]

Just to recap on the unicorn discussion....

Except I can't be fucked collecting all the spittle from the other thread.

One source of Ocean's suggestion that labour probably caused 'the housing crisis' (tm): https://www.interest.co.nz/property/...ential-impacts

Tax changes introduced in 1989 created one of the biggest tax system distortions in the OECD between how property and sanctioned savings schemes were taxed.
Tax system distortion

In 1989, the Lange Labour government, based on a review carried out by Don Brash, changed New Zealand’s tax settings. Until then, New Zealand was like most other OECD countries in that it applied an expenditure tax treatment on savings placed in sanctioned savings schemes (ie what KiwiSaver is today).

The change was that we scrapped NZ’s ‘exempt exempt tax’ system (EET), where income was exempt from tax when earned then saved, exempt when it accumulated and earned interest and dividends, but was taxed at a person’s marginal rate when withdrawn and spent.

We replaced that with income tax treatment, so it would match other forms of savings, except owner-occupied housing. This meant there was a distortion created in our tax settings.

Here are some of the countries that do what New Zealand did up until 1989:

There’s the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom. And Hungary has a very similar way. Furthermore, Denmark, Italy and Sweden exempt tax from when it is saved and put into a retirement savings account.

So we used to be part of the mainstream OECD approach to expenditure taxes. But the Lange government needed revenue, and the change brought forward revenue into the government’s coffers.

Aannnnnd: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/1...eneration-rent

"New Zealand has one of the most distortionary tax environments for housing markets of any country in the OECD," Coleman said in presentation of the paper to a MOTU event last week.

"The root cause is the tax changes made to retirement savings in 1989," he said.

In 1989 the Government changed the tax rules so that investments in pensions and other savings accounts lost their tax-exempt status. This didn't directly change the way housing was taxed, but it effectively gave investing in housing and land a major advantage.

Before 1989, income that was put into a private pension or insurances schemes was not taxed, and neither was the income earned in the schemes. But then the Labour Government changed the rules so that income was taxed before it was put into private schemes and any income earned by the savings was also taxed. This helped save the Government $800 million a year in tax exemptions at the time - in effect pulling forward tax revenue in one-off way. That's because the system at that time taxed income from pension schemes on the way out as it was being spent, which is still also the case in most other countries.

Those of you not currently riding unicorns might have noticed that the effect of the above was to bring forward billions of dollars worth of tax revenue on a very large chunk of income from "when your retirement scheme matures" to "right now".

Those of you even more.... mature may recall that the response of many was to ditch the now extremely unattractive retirement scheme and look around for better things to do with your potential savings. You'd have possibly taken a glance at the stock market, remembered what had happened to your life's savings in your recent foray there and thought fuckit, the best of a very bad set off choices, (by international comparisons) was to buy that old shitter of a cottage up the road. I mean, maybe they're less likely to take that off you too, right

Welcome to the boomer property rush, c'1989.

Now, I get that the whole bollox looks like a classic candidate for reference under one of the many corollaries of the law of unintended consequences. But don't we have a right to expect that the keepers of the national purse strings might have slightly better understanding and foresight? I mean isn't not eating the seed potatoes generally recognised as a damned fine idea?

It might have mattered less, if national had reversed the fuckup a few years later. But, faced with the already high political cost involved, they didn't. And the cost of redressing the balance has grown every year since.

Unfortunately, the most likely "fix" is to balance the distortion by taxing the living fuck out of anything to do with property, starting with the almost mandatory "why not tax capital gains, same as other income?" See, we haven't learned: taxing anything has unintended consequences, especially taxes on savings. Dunno 'bout you, but my response to yet another attempt on my savings, including any that refuses me healthcare on account of being a rich prick.... is to spend it just as fast as I can.

[husaberg]

Just to recap on the unicorn discussion....



Except I can't be fucked collecting all the spittle from the other thread.

One source of Ocean's suggestion that labour probably caused 'the housing crisis' (tm): https://www.interest.co.nz/property/...ential-impacts



Aannnnnd: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/1...eneration-rent



Those of you not currently riding unicorns might have noticed that the effect of the above was to bring forward billions of dollars worth of tax revenue on a very large chunk of income from "when your retirement scheme matures" to "right now".

Those of you even more.... mature may recall that the response of many was to ditch the now extremely unattractive retirement scheme and look around for better things to do with your potential savings. You'd have possibly taken a glance at the stock market, remembered what had happened to your life's savings in your recent foray there and thought fuckit, the best of a very bad set off choices, (by international comparisons) was to buy that old shitter of a cottage up the road. I mean, maybe they're less likely to take that off you too, right

Welcome to the boomer property rush, c'1989.

Now, I get that the whole bollox looks like a classic candidate for reference under one of the many corollaries of the law of unintended consequences. But don't we have a right to expect that the keepers of the national purse strings might have slightly better understanding and foresight? I mean isn't not eating the seed potatoes generally recognised as a damned fine idea?

It might have mattered less, if national had reversed the fuckup a few years later. But, faced with the already high political cost involved, they didn't. And the cost of redressing the balance has grown every year since.

Unfortunately, the most likely "fix" is to balance the distortion by taxing the living fuck out of anything to do with property, starting with the almost mandatory "why not tax capital gains, same as other income?" See, we haven't learned: taxing anything has unintended consequences, especially taxes on savings. Dunno 'bout you, but my response to yet another attempt on my savings, including any that refuses me healthcare on account of being a rich prick.... is to spend it just as fast as I can.

Right so when you say couple of Labour goverments you mean 5 labour goverments ago
so you claim that a housing chrisis occured in 2018 because of a change in the tax system 29 years ago
But if that is the true cause cause there has been subsequently 5 National governments that never fixed that one cause of the crisis
I am not surprised National never fixed it myself as up until they lost power they claimed there never was a housing crisis.
Nor does that theory address that fact that the Kiwi house has aleways been the Kiwi life saving scheme.
Nor does it address that NZ had an Amazing Superanuation scheme that was scapped and robbed by National in the 1975 so using your own data the true Cause is actually National
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=10465138

PS your theory doesnt include the fact that there is 1 million more people living in Auckland which is actually why there is a shortage that and there is less houses being built than is needed which is nationals fault.
I say this as every time National is in power they build less houses.

“The number of homes we’re building is lower than in the mid-1970s, but we’re building more in terms of total floor area,” business indicators senior manager Neil Kelly said. “This is because houses are now so much bigger than they used to be.”
Consented homes nowadays are over 60 percent bigger than they were in the 1970s.
For comparison, in the year ended August 1974:

• 38,000 new homes were consented
• the average floor area was 110 square metres
• the total floor area consented was 4.2 million square metres.

In the year ended August 2004:

• 33,000 new homes were consented
• the average floor area was 181 square metres
• the total floor area consented was 5.9 million square metres.

In the year ended August 2016:

• 30,000 new homes were consented
• the average floor area was 182 square metres
• the total floor area consented was 5.4 million square metres.

Floor area includes shared spaces and basement carparks in apartment buildings.

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_...r-5oct-16.aspx

[Swoop]

The level of incompetence is mind blowing isn't it? Every minor cockup is stage managed into catastrophe.

...that Cindy could have a baby and perform as prime minister...

Isn't it surprising how the propaganda of "the new sprog will not change anything" has been forgotten now that the use of an air force transport is required because the patagonian toothfish needs to be with the little one and cannot possibly travel with the rest of the three-ring circus called "the coalition"?

[AllanB]

I'm more interested in the fuel crisis - Mega Woods dragged them into her office earlier this year to bitch-slap them into competitive practices and the result months later is ........ NZ's highest fuel prices ever. Nice one minister. Yeah we know you get a company car and fuel card.

[Ocean1]

so you claim that a housing chrisis occured in 2018 because of a change in the tax system 29 years ago

Did you see my name on any of the documents I posted?

So no, it's not my "theory". Is is, however, with 20:20 hindsight rapidly becoming an accepted historic economic fact.

And yes, I pointed out that national failed to correct the fuckup well before you predictably picked that up as some sort of partisan point scoring coup, need I point out that I don't play that game? Again?

The reason they didn't put the money back in the biscuit tin was that without the same revenue they would never again have bought enough votes to compete. And you still don't see the problem with a system that rewards petty vote buying bullshit over prudent, ethical governance?

And no, I don't know how many Kiwis you know who bought residential property specifically as a retirement investment before that, but the number I know who did so only after their pension scheme was burgled amounts to most of the double income professional middle class households I know.

Aaannnd straight back into the anti-nat whataboutist bullshit. See ya.