The 2017 Election Thread

[Ocean1]

The way the interest rates adjusted to keep a similar cost of ownership, seem like corrective behaviour.

It was mostly off shore markets that caused that rates spike, bugger all to do with local behaviour.

Local corrective behaviour is buyers taking advantage of recent historic low rates by buying bigger houses with all the bells and whistles.

[eldog]

But don't worry about the poor let them move south....

Fixed it for you.

[Graystone]

It was mostly off shore markets that caused that rates spike, bugger all to do with local behaviour.

Local corrective behaviour is buyers taking advantage of recent historic low rates by buying bigger houses with all the bells and whistles.

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

[Ocean1]

I imagine

Of course you do, it's what you always do in lieu of thinking.

[eldog]

Would have been approx 100m2.

The EQC cap of $100k plus gst was set when EQC was invented as the standard three bedroom one bathroom family house back then was 100m2

That’s about what I thought, when I visited people who lived in those houses.
always wondered why so small, when families generally had more kids than nowadays.

shirley the EQC cap was linked to some sort of average house price?

[Ocean1]

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

Yes, we discussed it, house prices go up some more, until they come back.

[sidecar bob]

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

Please explain these mechanisms.

[sidecar bob]

I think a few places will see an adjustment in pricing as they are overinflated.
But don't worry about the poor let them eat Steak......

Attachment 336039Attachment 336040

Unfortunately when my brain sees or hears the word poor it translates it into lazy & stupid. I appreciate its my problem & im the one that needs to get help for it, but I am working on it.
To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.

[eldog]

The daughter ownd a typical ex state house, was 90sqM. Probably another 3sqM for the enclosed back porch converted into a laundry. No garage. No driveway. No front fence.

No internet, no insulation, 1 light bulb, 1 power socket, per room, 1 telephone jack
all on a reasonable sized section. Yes washing machine generally jammed in the back door entry.
front door used for storage. Brought back some good memories, writing this paragraph.

Think of all all of those state houses on Auckland’s foreshore, Tamaki drive etc. imagine the value of them today.

I know of one resident there, value has risen 3x or more.........

[eldog]

To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.

there are some, generally quiet ones, usually not seen at food queues or travelling far for free food because the Cant afford fuel. But there’s plenty more who come Xmas/party time drop the kids and go for a good time.

there isn’t one size fits all rule.

some are in the wrong location or don’t have the skill set or no jobs to suit.
others can’t be arsed....and make it a lifestyle, move and get free furniture from gubbermint each time, etc.
dont care about society

[Graystone]

Please explain these mechanisms.

Interest rates can modify the affordibility in contrast to the purchase price. Plus basic market forces, obviously.

Please explain why this source of investment income should not be taxed.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh do fuck off with these long winded posts of drivel, learn the value of a concise counterpoint for fucks sake.

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation - unless you are saying it's all a bit too complex for you?

So 60% in ten years. Seems pretty drastic to me.

Does it? Well, let's do the Numbers, with a 4% interest rate, calculated and paid per-annum:

Year 0 - 100
Year 1 - 104
Year 2 - 108
Year 3 - 112
Year 4 - 116
Year 5 - 121
Year 6 - 126
Year 7 - 131
Year 8 - 136
Year 9 - 142
Year 10 - 148
Year 11 - 153 (for reference)

If I was to re-run the calculation, but using monthly calculations and payments - I'm fairly certain I'd hit pretty close to a 60% increase of 10 years, thanks to the magic of Compound interest.

Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs.

If they aren't wiling to make the choice - either the choice isn't acceptable to them (the individual), or they don't really want the result of Owning a house.

It's a strawman since you are applying an assumption about motivations and arguing against that, instead of addressing the point, which is that the goal is to tax income, it will achieve that goal; the driver is an even playing field.

No - I said - I don't believe that the stated goal is the real reason for wanting the tax. My reasons for thinking that are not a Strawman of anything.

And besides, wasn't your first comment about woe-betide those poor first home buyers? Now it's about purely trying to tax what you perceive to be an Income.

Yet, you try and tell me that you aren't resentful of people who you perceive as having ill-gotten wealth and that this personification of you isn't accurate? Maybe try making an argument that doesn't hinge on being unhappy that some people (not you) got ahead in life, then I might retract that statement, but I don't think you can.

Guess you never had the perspective at all then.

Right - I clearly just one day magically owned a house...

But funny how in order to maintain your narrative, you have to resort to such a patently ridiculous statement.

They have income from both the renters, and the capital gains. What is the justification for only taxing one of those?

You are already taxing my source of Income (the rent).

When I sell an asset (and receive a capital gain) I forgo the source of income (the rent).

You only get to tax me on my Income.

Furthermore, if that capital gain goes into a Bank, you tax me on the Interest I earn as Income.

That's still drum beating anecdotal evidence which fails to address the point that house values are rising far quicker than wages/inflation/sizes can account for.

In some cities - such as Auckland, Maybe - but there are other factors - namely Demand outstripping supply (which is a combination of many factors - with investment speculation being a minor one)

[Graystone]

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation - unless you are saying it's all a bit too complex for you?



Does it? Well, let's do the Numbers, with a 4% interest rate, calculated and paid per-annum:

Year 0 - 100
Year 1 - 104
Year 2 - 108
Year 3 - 112
Year 4 - 116
Year 5 - 121
Year 6 - 126
Year 7 - 131
Year 8 - 136
Year 9 - 142
Year 10 - 148
Year 11 - 153 (for reference)

If I was to re-run the calculation, but using monthly calculations and payments - I'm fairly certain I'd hit pretty close to a 60% increase of 10 years, thanks to the magic of Compound interest.



If they aren't wiling to make the choice - either the choice isn't acceptable to them (the individual), or they don't really want the result of Owning a house.



No - I said - I don't believe that the stated goal is the real reason for wanting the tax. My reasons for thinking that are not a Strawman of anything.

And besides, wasn't your first comment about woe-betide those poor first home buyers? Now it's about purely trying to tax what you perceive to be an Income.

Yet, you try and tell me that you aren't resentful of people who you perceive as having ill-gotten wealth and that this personification of you isn't accurate? Maybe try making an argument that doesn't hinge on being unhappy that some people (not you) got ahead in life, then I might retract that statement, but I don't think you can.



Right - I clearly just one day magically owned a house...

But funny how in order to maintain your narrative, you have to resort to such a patently ridiculous statement.



You are already taxing my source of Income (the rent).

When I sell an asset (and receive a capital gain) I forgo the source of income (the rent).

You only get to tax me on my Income.

Furthermore, if that capital gain goes into a Bank, you tax me on the Interest I earn as Income.



In some cities - such as Auckland, Maybe - but there are other factors - namely Demand outstripping supply (which is a combination of many factors - with investment speculation being a minor one)

4.8% Around double the inflation rate. Which seems pretty drastic. See how I took less than one line while you took over 10? Concise is good.

The number of lifestyle choices that result in home ownership reduces as the price of home ownership rises. Do you understand that?

Your belief (or lack thereof) in the stated goal is utterly irrelevant.

The perspective to which I refereed was never one of owning a house, please stop with the strawmans.

When you sell an asset, the sale price from the asset is income. Any profits (or lack thereof) that said asset had the potential to make in future are irrelevant.

Investment speculation is still a factor, so lets close the loophole and treat it as a taxable investment.

[husaberg]

Unfortunately when my brain sees or hears the word poor it translates it into lazy & stupid. I appreciate its my problem & im the one that needs to get help for it, but I am working on it.
To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.

I believe in hand ups rather than handouts. Regardless a society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate and less able.
No child growing up in NZ should be deprived from the basic human right be warm and fed and to feel safe. Children can’t control are smart or hard working their parents are.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation -

Bro. No cunt reads you're ten thousand wanky words responses. Boring as fucking batshit.