Why housing costs are so ridiculously high

[Ocean1]

he's talking per capita

He's talking what?

[Ocean1]

The core problem with public medicine is that science is able to repair and prolong people's lives with the effect many more old people are still alive. And they need more complex and expensive care. I know an 88yr old who went in for a hip operation recently.

Or to put it more succinctly: the core problem with public medicine is fuckwits that demand funding for everything, fuckwit health service providers that pretend we should be delivering it and fuckwit politicians that don't seem to have the balls to point out that there's a limit to funding.

And we don't get the bang for our buck we once did as a direct result.

[husaberg]

He's talking what?

your figures are not adjusted to per capita
Nor do they take into account the burden of debts brought by underfunding (the DHB's are carrying and having to finance) nor the aging population demographic.

[Ocean1]

your figures are not adjusted to per capita
Nor do they take into account the burden of debts brought by underfunding (the DHB's are carrying and having to finance) nor the aging population demographic.

Terribly sorry, I thought the arithmetic was pretty straightforward.

Here:

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/fi...s1997-2007.pdf

Healthcare spending per capita has doubled over that timeframe.

So all that "underfunding" turns out to be "overspending".

Which is a pity, because all of that debt is going to collide with the loss of that aging population's considerable tax revenue as they retire.

Bit of shoddy planning ain't it?

And in spite of the almost complete lack of financial direction throughout the industry we do get good service from our health spend. I read a scathing report commissioned by an off-shore health union and much repeated by the local versions showing NZ health spending lagged behind many other OECD countries. The fact is if you look at the services delivered NZ public health outperformed almost all of them. Particularly interesting was a comparison to the US overall spend, which is much higher than NZ's, and delivers a considerably lower level of services, over a much narrower demographic spread.

[Oscar]

Trolls like you don't upset me, why would you? you are not that important in your own right or to those around you, So why would you think you would be in mine, but after all the thread is about you, So feel free to carry on, seeing as you are still hungry.

So, let's recap - your reply to my post about the DPB/Widows Pension involved penis amputation.
Who's the troll again?

[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.

So, let's recap - your reply to my post about the DPB/Widows Pension involved penis amputation.
Who's the troll again?

You I was just feeding you.
My post was pointing out (albeit in a sarcastic manner) how idiotic your suggestion was.
but that was the whole point of what you wrote, to rile someone up.
I was just giving you the kind of reaction you wanted.

[Voltaire]

Looks like the Govt has no plans other than that plonker Nick the Prick pointing the blame at the Council.

How about they make the interest on rental property non taxdeductable ?

( oh no I hear all the rental owners scream.....we're offering a service ....yeah right)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11445580

[BMWST?]

Looks like the Govt has no plans other than that plonker Nick the Prick pointing the blame at the Council.

How about they make the interest on rental property non taxdeductable ?

( oh no I hear all the rental owners scream.....we're offering a service ....yeah right)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11445580

well they are arent they?Who would provide the rental properties if not the private landlord?The govt or council would then have the investment in a HUGE number of properties.

[Ocean1]

well they are arent they?Who would provide the rental properties if not the private landlord?The govt or council would then have the investment in a HUGE number of properties.

Like fuck they would, they loose more than their ratepayers enjoy paying for on the one's they've already got.

I agree with the basic thrust of the article, although "No other business provides a service few of its customers want" is rampant drivel, and "Rising rents would be another transitional hardship" would seem to shoot the argument dead centre of both feet.

And the obsession with taxing the so-called "rich" more to help the less "rich" identifies the source of the concept as largely discredited Labour policy. Doesn't it make at least as much sense to allow mortgage interest deductions for private home owners as well? Means less tax, of course, which would mean more "inequity".

[gjm]

Capital gains applied to flip resale of property would make a difference to the turnover of ownership, and cut down on the investment aspect a little. Long term, it'd make no difference, but it might give an opportunity to find a better solution.

Like sorting the bloody railway so there was less pressure on living in Auckland!

[BMWST?]

Like fuck they would, they loose more than their ratepayers enjoy paying for on the one's they've already got.

I agree with the basic thrust of the article, although "No other business provides a service few of its customers want" is rampant drivel, and "Rising rents would be another transitional hardship" would seem to shoot the argument dead centre of both feet.

And the obsession with taxing the so-called "rich" more to help the less "rich" identifies the source of the concept as largely discredited Labour policy. Doesn't it make at least as much sense to allow mortgage interest deductions for private home owners as well? Means less tax, of course, which would mean more "inequity".

exactly but you havent ansswered the implied question.If not the private landlord ....who?

[Ocean1]

Capital gains applied to flip resale of property would make a difference to the turnover of ownership, and cut down on the investment aspect a little. Long term, it'd make no difference, but it might give an opportunity to find a better solution.

Like sorting the bloody railway so there was less pressure on living in Auckland!

There's no end to the money you could spend making it easier for people to do what they can't afford to.

And there's already a solution to the price of entry level housing: arsehole the monopoly suppliers parasitizing the market. Seems to me that the easiest way to do that is for govt to take advantage of the same advantages CHH, Fletchers et al and local councils do: favourable purchasing conditions and compliance protocols and sheer size and beat the fuckers at their own game. In short, out monopolise them by supplying small houses at the competitive cost-to-supply.

That advantage would last just a decade or so, until the usual govt departmental rot set in but by that time you'd have flooded the market with cheap housing, you'd flog the whole business to the highest private bidder.

[Ocean1]

exactly but you havent ansswered the implied question.If not the private landlord ....who?

Oooh, ooh, I know: how about the ones actually living in them?

[Voltaire]

A rather ordinary 2 bed unit in a block of 6 next to me sold for $535 000 last week.

Assuming it was a Landlord type who bought it for a moment.

6% of that is $32 000

so $615 a week in interest payments.

+ rates, insurance and other bits..

I'm guessing the rent is going to go up.

But hey, can claim the interest off you tax and all the expenses as its " just like running a business"

Looking at the interest you get off savings and the 33% that the IRD take its not worth bothering with savings.

[eldog]

There's no end to the money you could spend making it easier for people to do what they can't afford to.

And there's already a solution to the price of entry level housing: arsehole the monopoly suppliers parasitizing the market. Seems to me that the easiest way to do that is for govt to take advantage of the same advantages CHH, Fletchers et al and local councils do: favourable purchasing conditions and compliance protocols and sheer size and beat the fuckers at their own game. In short, out monopolise them by supplying small houses at the competitive cost-to-supply.

That advantage would last just a decade or so, until the usual govt departmental rot set in but by that time you'd have flooded the market with cheap housing, you'd flog the whole business to the highest private bidder.

If your going to make cheap houses, there needs to be a standard which they are healthy to live in and the ground needs to be above the water table. Not some cheap freezing cold shitboxes which leak.

But your right, it would work for some. Its just getting work for people to do so they can reasonably be able to pay for it. - this is the kicker