Green Party suggests the Govt gives the RBNZ tools to further restrict bank lending to property investors, and forces it to use these tools if it doesn't on its accord

All very sensible. Its probably too late though; these policies could trigger a crash, so I doubt any major party would want to implement all of them now.

1 yes.
2 yes
3 yes
4 - resounding 'no'.

Until the Greens advocate de-growth, they're wasting their - and our - time. We need to turn the clock back to a time where you could build your own house, but at a level which was much less complex. It is all the ticket-clipping and backside covering, coupled with population increase and sprawl area, that is the problem. Public housing without population curtailment, is self-reinforcing nonsense. Genter should know better than that. And at the right level, people can sort their own. I started with a 25ft by 10 ft ex-bach, one cold tap and no bathroom. Compare that to "Everyone has the right to a decent, affordable home". How many everyones?

All that said, these folk are making the rest of Parliament look like zombies; dead dinosaurs walking...

What you guys mean by CRASH, property price increase 40% from 2017 (labour comes into power) and no one have guts to get it reduce by 10%. If this is the case than don't change anything and take it to the moon.

Increasing benefits just puts more cash in the pockets of landlords and increases the value of their investments. It just makes the problem worse.
There is only one thing that will fix the problem really. Build lots more houses by making them affordable. Principally by force-ably opening up a huge amount of land. The intensification idea is a dead end that has lead nowhere for decades now, and a heavy handed effort from the Commerce Commission to force down building material prices. A big change in the building regulations to remove the non tariff barriers to perfectly adequate materials and kit houses would be good also.

Who cares what the Greens say. Even if they held the balance of power they would still let Labour neuter them. They would even supply the scalpel. They would never work with any other party. They are irrelevant.

I am interested in "Requiring cash deposits for mortgages on investment properties, not just equity from other homes". At first glance this seems very sensible, but I'm not sure about the consequences. For example, can it not be circumvented merely by realising the equity before reinvesting? That is, if you want to use equity from house 1 to buy house 2, now you just sell house 1 and use the proceeds to buy two houses? Furthermore, with the common use of revolving credit lines, what is the distinction between equity and a cash deposit?

The bright line test is already avoidable anyway.

Own house A and occupy it, buy house B as an investment property. Sell house A and move into house B, then sell house B which is now your owner-occupied property. No need to pay tax.

With a 5 year bright-line threshold, there's not a huge amount of incentive to do the above. But with the Greens policy proposal, where if you've held a house for 20-25 years, you could be looking at saving hundreds of thousands in tax, so doing the above is worthwhile.

I'm sure there are other elaborate things you can do as well, like transfer ownership of properties to trusts, or between family members, to avoid it. Again may not be worth the hassle for a 5 year test, but for an 'unlimited' bright line test, it will be worth doing.

Sensible as in opposistion Just like the favourite Jacinda Arden......but what happens when get power.............It becomes.......once upon a time.

give us a decent return on our money eg 5% in bank deposits or bonds and i will be glad to sell my properties as a boomer i just want the income for retirement, couldnt care less how much my property is worth and i would sell them all if i can get a decent secure income from somewhere else dont need the hassle of rented properties and have many friends that would do the same capital gain at my age is my kids gain.

"House prices will CRASH !!"
No they won't.
They were never likely to, and that's the annoying part of whatever the recent RBNZ and Government interference has created.
What will happen?
Not much!
Vendors will still put their property to market and buyers will make their best offer under whatever new restrictions they face. If it's not enough, there will be no transaction. Unsold stock will accumulate and become what it purported to be already - Long Term Investment Property.
The property market in this country has been ingrained with multi-decades of "Property ALWAYS goes up" and it's going to take a lot longer than any coming regulatory changes to immediately alter that.

If the Government has any sense it will 'do its worst' next week, because in the much longer term, it will pay dividends for all of us.

It is no brainner that any profit from housing speculation (sorry investment) should be taxed just like any other investment or earning. Specially when data suggest that just in one year people made more $2500000 !and in just one month in February people made $100000 in a month that $25000 per week.

BUT the policy has been framed by people with vested biased interest and continued as decession makers all have heaps invested in property so their is a clash of interest.

Understand that Jacinda has taken an oath that come what may, she will never I produce CGT as if she is from some sort of royal family, whose words are like writting on the stone, though that is a different topic that the very same Jacinda, when she was normal human being promised CGT, before taking a U turn.

So fine, the Queen has given a word and her words are supreme even if it screws kiwi as words from queen are more important than also WHY NOT introduce just like buyers have to sign a declaration for money laundering and residency status check, WHEN selling vendors have to give and UNDERTAKING, if they own any other house be it in individually or in parts, jointly or as a director in a company or in a trust and IF YES, when was it pirchased and the same to be send to IRD for verification - their should be no expection a s get away by saying that the house am selling is family home and investment property is different - should be straight if have two or more property and selling one, will be taxed- use BLT so the promise from esteemed and might Queen will not be broken.

Also DTI and INTEREST ONLY LOAN to be used as all measures required to control before targeting supply and any other nonsense that you want to try BUT First target Speculative demand.

Its a bit tiring that parties keep going after investors like they are a problem. They provide a necessary service that is and should be heavily regulated. Should they a fair tax rate on their earnings? yes of course. But there is no reason to target them in other ways in the vain hope of allowing first home buyers into the market at the expense of renters.

The facts are house prices will continue to rise until they reach a point where returns on equity are a 5% or so above the risk free rate. Trying to fight this with rules that do not target the underlying issue is like pissing in the wind. The key driver here is interest rates (OCR decreasing from 0.75% to 0.25% is a lot bigger deal than going from 6% to 5%) but also rent and expectations for increases in rent, the primary driver for this is immigration and supply of dwellings.

If you want to decrease house prices (and you aren't the reserve bank) the easiest way is to reduce the return on equity. How? a land tax would work, even 0.1% on the value of the land would go a long way, but here is the important part sell it with a corresponding DECREASE in income taxes. One would think labour would want to tax capital more, so that those that provide LABOUR are better off? Land prices (and property) find a new equilibrium maybe 10% lower than current prices. Calibrate land tax to how much you want prices to fall by.

Failing the above solutions are obviously build more houses and control immigration. This is a longer term solution.

Capital gains taxes won't work. Australia has one of the steepest CGT and that didn't stop it from breaking a new record of $1.06M for median house price. Here's a chart to that show; if anything, prices suddenly escalated higher when CGT was introduced.

https://ibb.co/tLHnHyP

In terms of limiting use of interest only, economic opportunities are destroyed within the economy and so will price discovery. This will impede growth expectations which may drive away more people from home ownership. As more people move away from home ownership, one of the fundamental and well-travelled paths to retirement is lost and the government will have to consider an exponential growth in burdens by dependencies in the ever-growing pool of retirees.

An artificially mandated debt to income ratio again destroys the efficiency of the free market. By implementing such mechanism, prices, debts and risks will no longer find its true equilibrium. There will be no real incentive to be productive in the economy from the housing perspective. By pegging mortgages permanently to the general income of its applicants, there'll be a perverse incentive to work less hours collectively in expectations of bringing house prices further down. That in essence is also why communism in its purest form will always fail.

Increasing benefits without a real plan for productivity and social mobility is the Greek version of running the country. However, unlike Greece, New Zealand is not part of the European Union but it could always try the International Monetary Fund when it does ran out of money doing this.

Getting Kāinga Ora to build houses will only result in a Twyford style 100K homes unbuilt 2.0. Kāinga Ora is not in the business of building homes and the great inefficiencies that will follow will be an expensive exercise. Increasing the debt limit to Kāinga Ora will only result in paying for an expensive lesson in building houses. The private sector should take the lead instead with the assitance of Kāinga Ora.

The Green party's four-point plan is nothing more than the promises of Nicolás Maduro when he took power in Venezuela.

Plus sort out the Council rules to increase development and then we're sorted.

Strip RBNZ of their powers. They never received single vote, yet they wield great power and influence over our lives without any real accountability. Government should call all shots and be accountable to voters. Otherwise we will see increasingly shifting blame and hard decisions from government to RBNZ as we have seen recently.

Old Julie Anne build me a cycleway or the Victoria tunnel gets it Genter.

“Kāinga Ora should be aiming for at least 5,000 new builds every year until supply matches demand and prices stabilise at affordable levels.'

But that is not how demand and supply works, either on the way up or down.

“Kāinga Ora needs to be properly supported to acquire land and redevelop it into thriving and accessible communities, with affordable homes, green spaces, and clean transport links.'

But you are acquiring land in an artificially restricted market you created, so you are paying too much for it going in.

It's like have a year 5 maths discussion with someone that still hasn't figured out 2 + 2 = 4. And even if they did would still argue that maths is a social construct and 2+2 can equal anything they want it to.

As another has said below, building more simply means that investors buy more, leaving lesser % for those not wanting to rent out, but in fact, live in property.
Hence, investor growth simply decreases the available OO stock available to buy.
Put the deposit rate back up to 3.5%. that would be an "incentive" to save perhaps ?
Auckland stock rose 13% 2013-18 and pop rose 15%

By the way, with a wider perspective , Auckland sales in last 5m simply playing catch up.
Put it in 4 year blocks:

2013-16: Auckland total sales were 122,879
2017-20: 98,027

2009-12: 98,490
2005-08: 119,043

I presume Non Bank lenders would take up the lending.

I’d say Labour will act on one of these policies: they’ll raise benefits. And they’ll raise deposit grants for FHB’s. The taxpayer is on the hook for it all, from the looting of the monetary system occurring via the property racket, to covering up some of the blushes caused by runaway inequality.

This site is now full of gutter dirt throwing posts by infuriated renters all wanting to buy houses for 300k.

We even had a guy yesterday having a go a Clarke Gayford for owning a couple of houses in Hawkes Bay that he’s probably had for decades.
It used to be full of highly intelligent posts by successful and positive people. What a shame.

Boo hoo, wishy wishful thinking by the green.. the greed voters have decided and govt shall comply.
If all youth voted to lower drinking age more? - and like JA said, they'll do what ever.. been requested by voters.

It is an insane day when the Greens are making the most sense in parliament...