Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 86986	2008-02-03 20:21:00	Housing	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
637194	2008-02-04 08:03:00	So true Rosso,I will try to be more appreciative in the future. So you should be! Lowered our taxes That would be nice. When they were talking about lowering personal taxes, most people would have looked at what was offered and asked if they could afford to give us such a small amount. While I'm all in favour of personal tax cuts I wonder if it would be a better idea to cut some of the tax on a tax on a tax on petrol? That would be a tax cut that would benefit everyone as it would lower the cost of just about everything.	Roscoe (6288)
637195	2008-02-04 08:17:00	I wonder if it would be a better idea to cut some of the tax on a tax on a tax on petrol? Half the time I agree with you on this but then I remember it isn't just taxpayers paying the excessive taxes on petrol. So do all tourists and non-taxpayers.	Mercury (1316)
637196	2008-02-04 10:09:00	Au contraire Cicero, I know at least one for a fact (mother of a good friend of mine) and I'll wager that most of the people who have grown fat on the housing market boom and in reality have caused it by their speculative practices are, wait for it, ..... a big surprise, ..... YES _ ***NATIONAL PARTY MEMBERS*** and if their party gets in you can expect even more of the same feathering of the nests by already privileged members of said party. This Labour Party is a Labour party in name only, "chardonnay socialists" is the term I believe, here is a real Lefty if you can be bothered to read it all, I have and it is well worth the read, oh for a few like him in this country: Empowering People, Not Elites SAUL ALINSKY www.progress.org Here is the interview all on one page: What Would Saul Alinsky Do? www.forestcouncil.org	zqwerty (97)
637197	2008-02-04 10:18:00	A real estate agent told me a few years ago that Labour are good for landlords and that property prices increase more under Labour than National. I tend to think he is right. Labour have a real tendency to come up with solutions to problems that actually cause the opposite of what they intended to solve.	Mercury (1316)
637198	2008-02-04 13:19:00	Housing affordability is governed by a variety of factors, most of which are government generated. Local Government Levies on development. The Resource Management Act which is another name for adding cost without benefit to virtually any development in NZ. It is the cost of money, which is possibly the biggest hurdle - ever increasing interest rates " to control inflation", which so far have failed to do so, and in the process making victims out of all the battlers struggling to buy a family home, as if it were they who are the ones responsible for the inflation. Reflect on the proposition that if increasing interest rates causes the price of housing to fall or stabilise, what is the effect is on the average kiwi homebuyer who has been priced out of the house he was struggling to buy by his mortgage no longer being affordable due to increases in interest rates - a case of the remedy killing the patient. The unpallatable fact is the Government is dedicated to a strong NZ Dollar to keep foreign funds in New Zealand, the NZ economy and NZ's productive capacity and not great enough to do this on its own, so jacking up interest rates "to control inflation" to a level higher than foreign investors receive in most countries, makes it attractive to foreign speculative "investors" to bring funds into NZ. I think the greatest joke is compelling developers to build "affordable housing " - this is another way of taxing development to the detriment of those who do not "qualify" as being eligible for this affordable housing.	KenESmith (6287)
637199	2008-02-04 18:26:00	You have that right....Ken. I think the greatest joke is compelling developers to build "affordable housing " - this is another way of taxing development to the detriment of those who do not "qualify" as being eligible for this affordable housing. Pity no one has read the articles I posted,including ZQWERT. Most comments are on effects.	Cicero (40)
637200	2008-02-04 21:42:00	Everything could be solved if the labour just made synthetic petrol and sold all their assets and abolished tax alltogether, then they could buy everyone houses, and we could fly to work each day. But we'd only be there for an hour because our replacement robots would do all the work for us. In heaps of countries it's just accepted that renting is the way to do it. Europeans typically don't own their own houses, and that's the way it's been for centuries. We're lucky that we can. Even if they are expensive it's because enough people are happy to pay that much for them. Cut demand, cut prices. Anyway, this thread sounds like a poor excuse for cicero to push his "don't vote labour" agenda.	Thebananamonkey (7741)
637201	2008-02-04 22:09:00	The affect of making developers include "affordable housing" in a development: - The cost will be passed on to the purchasers of the other buildings in the development - The cost of the "affordable housing" will rise to reflect the neighbourhood prices eg older state houses in wealthy areas are expensive not due to the house itself but the value of the land. I heard that in Australia the Govt gave first home buyers $5,000 to help buy a new home. House prices jumped by 5 grand immediately and people who didn't have the budgeting skills to buy a house bought them. Some then defaulted on the mortgage, they went to mortgagee sale and people with better financial skills bought them cheap. There are lots of examples of Govt policies with good intent back firing badly. Some things are best left to market forces.	Mercury (1316)
637202	2008-02-04 23:52:00	Just had a thought. Do you think house prices go down under national because unemployment figures typically go up? Labour tends to live up to their name. NZ for a time (not sure about now) had the lowest unemployment figures in the world. More people in jobs=more people being able to afford to go from renting to ownership	Thebananamonkey (7741)
637203	2008-02-05 00:20:00	Many, many moons ago I started work on $2,200 per annum (to all you young ones this means my salary per YEAR, not per month) . We bought our first house for $26,500 a couple of years later . Getting finance was extremely hard . Mercury: Sounds as though you bought your house about the same time as we did . Price identical, but I had just obtained a promotion so I was on $3,597 - gross! Anyway, this thread sounds like a poor excuse for cicero to push his "don't vote labour" agenda . Can't see too much wrong with that . I'm not too certain that I agree with Hugh Pavletich's idea of affordable housing on the suburban fringe unless you are able to work in your suburb . Travel costs to your job in town may negate any savings . While I applaud those who use public transport to go to work it can be expensive . I live in the centre of the city and even then travel is dear! He speaks of sections at $30,000 but who will sell sections at that price if they can attract more elsewhere? I don't think that sort of money would buy anything on the city fringe or elsewhere for that matter . To say that we need to open more fringe land to development will not please those against the urban sprawl, and to use, perhaps, Botany and Albany in Auckland, as examples, they are certainly not areas that I would choose to live in . (Ugly and all look the same . ) Unfortunately many people do not have a choice . That is not to say that I don't support affordable housing . That would have been nice when I was buying a house, but it gives you little choice as to where you live . He says that we should not be required to spend any more than three times our annual gross household income to house ourselves . Perhaps, but my house cost about seven times my annual income in 1977 - and things have become worse since - and so I think that three times, while nice, is unrealistic in today's market .	Roscoe (6288)
1 2 3 4