Labour wants to increase home ownership, will introduce policies to stop further house price bubbles, Goff says

Labour wants to increase home ownership, will introduce policies to stop further house price bubbles, Goff says

The Labour Party would like to recreate a New Zealand where more Kiwis owned their own home by controlling house prices through disincentives for property investment, and by allowing people to build up money for deposits through schemes like KiwiSaver, Phil Goff says.

The Labour leader acknowledged that the government’s changes to depreciation laws, where depreciation cannot be claimed on buildings with a usable life over 50 years, had already had some effect on controlling house prices.

Goff reiterated Labour’s ring-fencing policy of not allowing property investors to make losses on rental properties and claim that back against other income in order to minimise tax, as another disincentive for property investment that would help control prices.

Goff was following on from comments made by Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe yesterday, who said Labour would work to put home ownership back within the reach of average income earners.

Cunliffe also said Labour would broaden New Zealand’s tax base if elected to government on November 26, and while Goff would not rule out a capital gains tax yesterday, his previous comments suggest he preferred the ring-fencing policy over a more comprehensive capital gains tax.

Back to the future

“The concern that Labour has is once upon a time 80% of New Zealanders could aspire to owning their own home, that was the Kiwi dream. Predictions are that that will now drop to 59%,” Goff told media in Parliament on Tuesday.

“That means that 40% of Kiwis can never hope to own their own home. That’s not satisfactory in terms of what our Kiwi dream is, so we need to assist with that,” he said.

“One of the ways is to keep house prices down, rather than have the inflationary housing boom. The other is through things like KiwiSaver, that we introduced, that give people the chance to get money as a deposit for a home.”

KiwiSaver members are allowed to access their funds after three years of being in the scheme to put the money towards a deposit on their first house. The only other way to access funds before age 65 is via a hardship allowance under certain circumstances of financial stress.

The Labour Party has attacked the government for signalling its intentions to cut government contributions to KiwiSaver in Thursday's budget, while requiring KiwiSavers and their employers to contribute more to the scheme.

Labour was looking at ways to control house prices in its broader policy platform, which had not yet been finalised, Goff said. Labour has already expressed support for allowing the Reserve Bank to be able to control maximum loan to value ratios, and use further supplementary prudential tools to help control asset price bubbles.

“The [cancellation of the] depreciation allowance has been one factor there, ring fencing would be another factor, for example,” Goff said.

“The real objective has got to be to try to get more Kiwis owning their own home, rather than being forced to rent if their real desire is to have home ownership,” he said.

“That’s the New Zealand that most of us grew up in, that’s the New Zealand that we’d like to recreate.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

80 Comments

Labours policies involve making housing more expensive to make it cheaper.  That is stupid.

If they actually wanted to do something about affordable housing they should just allow houses to be built by doing something serious to the RMA.  But they won't - this is just emotive vote buying.

Ironically is the more lefty planners in council who get most upset about affordable housing and do everything the can to obstruct it because it's not "flash" (expensive) enough or doesn't have enough carparks.  They are so desperate to control every aspect of someone elses dwelling  that they even have rules about  the size wardrobes in the CBD.

Whatever policies are introduced, bob, won't make houses 'more expensive'.

This is what most buyers do:

(A)How much have I got + (B)How much can I borrow = (C)What can I buy for that amount.

If Land Tax, Stamp duty, CGT or 'whatever' is introduced, it's ' all 'below the line' ~ it comes off the amount the vendor sells at (C), not what the buyer can pay ( he's already had his amount set by the above formula!). So as vendors accept less; they have less to pay, (A), for the next property, and so the prices generally fall. What stops the fall? When renting becomes more than owning ~ enough to offset those 'new' costs.

As previously posted your statement is illogical and is proven illogical by the fact we are having this arguement.

If increased house prices led to lower house prices then wqe would have lower house prices, but we don't.

But we will, bob. Just wait and see how low property prices will go when all the little 'extra's' get added in over time. First, an attack on negative gearing ( looks almost a cert. as all parties seem keen on that one, in some degree!); add in a Land Tax - most see that the land can't get away from being taxed!; perhaps a Stamp Duty, just to dampen down churn and then a full application of the Capital Gains Taxes.... that are already there!

Then, logic will be the least of the property investors problems! The problems will have morphed.... into financial despair...

What is so terrible about allowing more houses to be built?  You seem desperate for all sorts of additional taxes on property to drive prices up, but simply building more dwellings seems like anathema to you for some reason?

To use one of your little closed system arguements - if there are 10 people and their housing cost is $100 they pay $10 each to live in each house (whether they own or rent).  If the cost of that housing is increased to $120 by taxes etc. they on average have to pay $12 each to live in the houses.  $12 is more than $10.

But, bob. If those 10 people only have $10 each, and no more, then what? Answer: They live in less houses; spread the costs, and one, some, remain empty.Then the empty one lowers it's price/rent until it attracts someone out of the re-densified house, probably back at $10 or less!. No? It doesn't matter 'how the $10 ' is made up, whether it's cost of building, plus Stamp Duty plus 'whatever'. It's the price that the buyer can afford that matters, that's it! After that. people move to where they can afford to buy/re-densify etc.

What happens iis that the 10 people who can only afford $10 move farther out to less expensive suburbs and 10 people from outside the original group who can afford the $12 move in.  Usually some of those people also spend $24 and convert two dwellings into 1 so that theres now even less dwellings and they are all even more expensive.  This is what is happening in central Auckland neighbourhoods.

Precisely, bob! And those people that can pay $12 move from....  more expensive areas where they can no longer afford the $14. That ultimatly leaves the house at the top ( whatever price that is) empty. So they then lower their prices to attract a buyers/renters and compress all the levels underneath. ( wouldn't you buy/rent a $20 house that's been forced by being empty on  the market down to $18, instead of just going for a previously $18'er?) That eventually lowers the cost of all housing. It isn't 'the price' of the house that determins what sells, it's what people 'can afford to pay' that does. ( your...$10 people moving etc.) And in an economy of stagnant wages, rising living costs and high unemployment, what they 'can afford to pay' gets less....every day.

Except that your theory is disproved by what is actually happening.

You say there is no housing shortage in central Auckland and claim that making houses more expensive is what's needed to make them cheaper - well it's simply not happening.  Look at how Auckland rents have gone UP since depreciation was removed - making housing more expensive has made it more expensive, not cheaper.

You still have never shared your theory on how building more houses won't make them cheaper - where's your theory on how supply demand doesn't affect prices?

Supply and demand* mean little, bob, if you can't afford whatever it is ( a house, say). I could show you 1000 houses priced at $100, but if you could only muster $50, you won't be buying one. Likewise, If there is 1 house at $100 and you have that same $50 alongside 1000 people, then no one gets to buy it either! There is no housing shortage! It all boils down to money avaliable. The more there is, saved or borrowed, the higher prices will go; the less, the lower. And right now, right here, New Zealanders are running out of it. Their wages have stagnated, their living costs are going upwards and their borrowing capacity is nigh exhausted. When the banks are desperatae enough to revert to '95%' loans in a dodgey market, then people aren't borrowing; aren't buying and prices will fall.

(* demand and desire are different things! )

PS: And I'm not saying 'houses will become more expensive' to make them cheaper. What I am saying, is that vendors will end up with less of the sale price, after they have paid whatever new costs are coming down the line. Buyers pay what buyers pay `~ the gross price ~ and the vendor gets to keep what's left. Just like now; they get what's left after R/E commission, legal etc. Soon there will be more deductions :)

Your comments just don't relate to reality.  Under your theory rents in central Auckland would have have not increased over the last year since the depreciation thing was introduced (an increase to housing cost) because they "can't afford it".  The reality is that rents have increased according to interest.co.nz charts (and by 11% in my case) so obviously they can. 

I agree that demand and desire are different, however you seem to thing housing is a desire whereas I consider it a need.  I expect discretionary property to drop in price (holiday houses, unneccessarily expensive properety), which is what is happening.   If the price of food (another neccessity) increases people don't just decide not to buy it.

 

...and wheres your reason why building more houses would be so terrible?

Rents, bob, increase to the degree that other disosable income costs can be re-allocated within a household. If rent goes up, something else has to go down, if income remains static - that's either savings or spending. Once that's been done, there is nowhere else to go - except move, of course, which will happnes from now on. The landlords will be faced with that question:" Do I put the rent up, and risk loosing the rental income for X number of weeks/months, or do I keep it the same, and retain at least some income coming in?". Then, as costs rise in the household, and with nowhere else to go, the tenant HAS to move to cheaper accommodation. Then, the landlord has to ask himeslf the same previous question with "...or should I drop the rent to keep the tenant?"

Let me ask you, bob:

Are you going to be buying any more $10 renters if the vendor has jacked the price up to $12 to cover any new costs he may incurr? Or are you going to ask yourself " That $10 renter is going to cost me $2 when I come to hold or sell it.... Hmmmm I think I'll offer $8 to get the same economic result" See how "more expensive' makes the price cheaper?

We will never agree on this - I can't accept a theory that is not reflected in what is actually happening.

 

...so once again could you please explain why building more houses would be so terrible?

 

Typical Labour party antics. Appealing to the populist vote by trumpeting easy listening ideas, but in reality no real policy to back it up. Unless you count the part where they say "the government has already done this anyway (depreciation)". Going to be a long decade on the opposition benches for Phil and friends.

Massaging all the right places to make his point.

Having done that makes it just a little bit harder for JK to take it up as National policy.

However on the other side, why did they not think of these points when they were in power and before the bubble started to inflate excessively?

Council (/District Plan/RMA) is making housing unaffordable:

"Mt Albert, 74 Kitenui Avenue, application to remove one generally protected cabbage tree, arborist Steve Rowlands has recommended the application be declined; hearing Monday 16 May at 11.30am, Civic Administration Building (I don’t usually mention tree applications, but this just seems extraordinary – there’s another application by a body corporate at 1pm to remove 3 cypress trees at 90 Crummer Rd, Grey Lynn, and an application at 3pm to remove a macrocarpa at 91B St Georges Rd, Avondale, each with a planner’s recommendation that they, too, be declined)"

When you have to spend miniumum $10K on something as menial as removing a small tree, which ends up in an actual hearing (followed by another $20K plus to go to the environment court if one wants a rational decision) it's no wonder housing is unaffordable.

Sure the planners need to keep their jobs and rejecting applications means a whole lot more work for them.  But when they apply their twisted little minds onto how to obfuscate, delay and wring as much work as they can out of any RC application they assess it equals higher house prices.  Even worse is when they don't have enough applications to process so they start writing new rules to keep themselves employed.

Agreed !! Councils are an absolute useless waste of space.  In the past I have cut down trees, built decks, carports and garages, taken out interior walls (load bearing and put in beams etc) and all manner of other projects and all without council 'permission'. 

I have never been bothered to tell the council what I do on my own private property, and I certainly never will ask if I can do something. My property, I'll do whatever I want. The council can go whistle for all I care.

Apparently it costs upwards of $20k to issue a building permit in AKL to put a house on your property, now what exactly are you getting for the money?  nada .. !!  Didn't stop leaky homes, so case closed as far as I'm concerned.

 

A few years ago we wanted to cut down a (not overly large) norfolk pine. It was doing the usual things trees do....going through sewer lines every year or so, breaking up paths, footpath, fence and getting into the power wires.

Went to Council. Needed a notified resource consent. 2 submissions. 1 from a neighbour in favour of cutting it down. 1 from a  woman 15km away who objected. Council opposed...refused to give us arborists report. Went to hearing. 1 commissar said yes, one said no and the other said do this, this and that and i'll say yes (cost $10k). We gave up but subsequently found out the arborist had advised the council the tree should be heavily pruned.

Im in the same camp as Mat. Local Govt in NZ is slowly strangling the country to death.......and until they are brought under control you can forget about affordable anything to do with property.

Oh Yes Bob..!!    Totally agree with u....   Councils and the whole building consent process is the problem,......  

After that there is the almost Duopoly position of the building materials supply sector.

Fundamental economic law of supply and demand....    very Basic.....   If we want prices to come down we must allow the Supply of housing to increase.... and focus on reducing the costs of the whole building process.

SADLY....   Labour have made no mention of sorting these issues out...  They would never confront Councils and the monopolistic stranglehold that they have on the building process.

What Labour offer, as solutions,... is NOTHING..........

cheers  Roelof

National haven't offered anything either though.  In fact they are only contributing to the problem with their foray into property development (Hobsonville Point).

Meh...  Yes... National also offer nothing.

The building construction industry is in a DEPRESSION.....   Kitchen manufacturers, window fabricators are closing down....  Builders are struggling.

real estate construction contributes to GDP.....  There is an inelasticity in housing supply..... In Auckland they are forecasting a profound shortage of housing over the next 20 yrs.

Either Party could make a difference...  They could...." kill 2 birds with one stone"... BUT neither has the will or common sense. ( changes could help employment, GDP, and home affordability )

Bob has given examples of just how much Councils have hijacked the RMA to cement their control over the whole building process....  They show a real disregard for a low cost, efficient building consent process....  They put their own ideology ahead of everything.... Bureacracy is the antithisis of common sense.

If Government got serious about this.....  they could make a profound difference....  This would help "employment " in the buiding sector..... would mitigate future "booms"... by providing ample supply.....   Would help place housing back where it should be...(  A home.. )

What we have is the financialization of the housing sector....  Banks just love it.

Government needs to take a sledgehammer to local councils...  ( the super city has probably entrenched things..even more ).

I'm all for the environment and sustainability issues....BUT...within the context of common sense..

In that respect I like what Hugh P. says.

Throw on top of that ... a Govt review of the whole building materials supply industry.

cheers  Roelof

 

 

Bob - um, most of the folk I know who pushed the issue, were the ones who bought ten leveraged renters, then built themselves a mausoleum with triple dunnies, which leaked. The houses, not the dunnies. It was an across-the-board social arrogance; a 'we are superior to nature' one.  Then they panicked about losing their equity, that reflected on the BIA (sorry, how silly of me, the DBH) and here came the rules.

I could still build my 135 sq.m for under 100 thou, all up, including the engineers producer statement, which is the easiest/best way of addressing being outside the 'rules'.

That 'flashness' is driven by neighbours worrying about their resale, not by the desk-sitters, and car-parks? for houses?  Show them this:

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/

followed by your bike-rack plans....

I presume you are saying that house prices were driven up was by " the ones who bought ten leveraged renters"?

I think that is incorrect and simplistic.  The greatest capital gains have been in the suburbs with NO renters and the least capital gains where there's been the most renters.

It's not the Building Act that is responsible for most of the price increases (your example relates to Building Act) it's the RMA, or rather misapplication of the RMA, which drives up land cost - the biggest component of price.  The RMA is supposed to be about protecting the environment, but is used to protect the status quo of big suburban sites right up to the edge of the CBD which is not the same thing.  

If the RMA was being used to protect the environment District Plans would concentrate on increasing density, minimising reliance on cars etc. but they don't - they require/encourage big houses on big expensive sites.

Typical true storey.  Council have to choose between allowing 6 apartments to be built in the CBD which will involve trimming a tree (Council arborists acknowledge that tree will be fully recovered back to same shape within 5 years) or not allowing those 6 apartments to be built (so that they will be built on the city fringe where the inhabitants will have to drive to town every day).  What is better for the environment?  Council decided that the tree must not be trimmed - 12 extra cars on the road so that a tree looks the same for a few years.

It annoys me that all this redherring discussion constantly goes on about making housing affordable by making it more expensive when main reason it's unaffordable is in District Plans.

 

Madness... oh lordy...what madness....

Bob...  U sound pragmatic and knowledgeable...  Those anecdotes are fascinating.

Bernard should sign u up to give us one story a week.......

The lack of common sense and itelligence is.... insane.

Cheers  Roelof

 

 

 

Yay....  That's interesting. As of now, my vote will be either for Labour or Greens. Will  finally decide when they announce their policies regarding Kiwisaver. 

OH my G, we really are stuffed.

Can you honestly see Goofy as the next PM, I'm off to Oz if he is :)

 Goff is a gentlemen, hard working and well organised person – not really an ideal political leader.

Why not? I am willing to give him a chance. I voted for National last time around and have not been any better for that.

 So for me and I imagine a lot of first home buyers it will be either Labour or Green. 

 

With thinking like that no wonder you are a first home buyer and not a first home owner ..

 

How affordable do you think buying a house will be after a credit downgrade and the cost of your potential mortgage payments skyrocket .  It doesnt matter how cheap a house is perceived to be its the cost of servicing the debt which counts  

That is likely situation if Labour take power with there save the poor and screw everyone else mentallity

 

Good Luck , houses plenty cheap in Otara ..

With your thinking you have ended up with your pants down.

Hmm... wonder what's next for you if National comes back again for another term

Pretty much what Alex just said

You get your first home by working hard , pushing yourself forward in life and with a lot of sacrifice not by voting for a politcal party that trying to suck in the unwashed masses by offering lollies 

and if your wondering , Im in my 20's with a nice house in a good area with mortgage thats easy enough to manage even  with paying above the minimum each month and I got there by not complaining and focusing on the first statement above

 

 

 

and maybe a little help from Mum and Dad...???

"I voted for National last time around and have not been any better for that." 

You do not get better by voting for one group of parasites or another; they will be better off,  for sure, by getting their feet into the trough, but not you.

You get better off by hard, smart, skilled, productive work at 2:41pm on a working day, not by voting or blogging on this site...

(And, before you ask, I bought my first home decades ago and have worked hard for decades after that, so can now take it easy...)

love it.

excellent news, why wait...

regards

Yeah a lot of us voted for national thinking they would be fiscally responsible, and just in time too, before the GFC got way.

 

They have proven themselves to be clueless, visionless, and politically cynical. That last bit is the main reson i won't vote for them this time. The options are lousy though. Goff is hopeless and Cunliffe/Parker are waiting until after the election is lost to make their move, which I also find gutless. I'm not sure Cunny is that much of a realist either....

So then its down to ACT, whose chicago-school shenanigans have had their day so they are out. The Mana party are hilarious - nationalising monopolies and duopolies is the funniest thing ever - but at least they talk about a tobin tax (probably haven't looked closely at it though). Then Peter Dunn's mob. That's a big no there. And lastly the Greens. They used to just talk about voting rights for dolphins and getting rid of the army, but on q&a last weekend russel norman was the only one who talked sense - balance the budget by lowering costs and raising income. I was stunned.

so its a really crappy set of choices : liars, fools, dreamers and schemers. I don't know but if i judge it on who stands up and talks the least bullshit then i'm shocked and horrified to say its the greens by a nose at present.

 

and if the greens  got in to a position of power, do you really think the equity firms and banks and ratings agencies would bail overnight or whack their rates up overnight? i don't think so. i know they'd like you to think that but the truth is there are 4million people here and  we are still a fairly lucrative place to be.....just because we've had 2 decades of clowns in govt doesn't mean we're not worth dealing with.  

Quite possible, then...

"When Germany's left-leaning Green party was born 30 years ago, former Chancellor, Hemut Schmidt, dismissed them, "They’re just environmental idiots who will have disappeared again soon," he said....They didn't. In fact, in a turn of events reverberating across the nation, the Greens (in March 2011) ended six decades of conservative rule in one of Germany’s wealthiest states, completing their transformation from a radical protest party to a mainstream force shaking the traditional political order."

"but on q&a last weekend russel norman was the only one who talked sense - balance the budget by lowering costs and raising income. I was stunned."

Have to laugh at that.   Anyone can have aspirations to do anything. It's how it is achieved that's important. How will the Greens lower costs? All their policies point to higher costs. How will they raise income? More to the point how will they raise income without raising inflation. If you are representative of the average voter, I see now why we get so many dubious characters with big promises get into power.

You may not agree with Key, but his policies clearly point to 1, lowering costs by cutting wff, ks, student loans etc, and 2, Raising income by cutting taxes. It may not be what you want, but at least it's out there and obvious. And it stands more chance of working than simply raising taxes for the 'rich pricks' and incrteasing the minimum wage by more than inflation

no tim i voted for key to do exactly that - get costs down and tidy up a bloated govt - but they have absolutely failed to do what they promised:

 

 they are borrowing like crazy, govt is certainly not smaller, they did some bullshit bailouts, failed to fix the tax system when they had a chance, and now want to sell profitable state assets to get a one-off cash bump to retire a wee bit of debt that they needn't have had if they had done in the first place what they said they'd do!  

i guess its how people in the usa feel about obama - they elected him to act boldly in a time of crisis, but instead they got a politician whose main aim is re-election. so i'm thinking of the greens (and believe me i'm not happy about it) because the people i did vote for have disappointed me so badly and don't give me much hope for the future

Actually cutting taxes has shown little positive effect unless the % is very high, eg 90% and not low ie 30%ish....Take a look at the taxes in Germany, not that low yet in-arguably one of the best economies in the world....and ones with a large Green party.  Look at the bush tax cut years, the economy staggered along, it didnt boom, and it actually deteriorated. It actually boomed in the Clinton years.  So no raising taxes stands less chance of doing a thing.  Minimum wages, this pushes the cost of employing low skilled workers onto the employers where it should be....otherwise its NZ voters subsidising them....

regards

 

 

You would think with an election at the end of the year by now we would be seeing some real policy releases and debates rather than rhetoric. Instead all we hear about is that guy who is certainly NOT a White $#$*%r  $%*##$ who has been raping this country. He is such a likeable fellow and so is his mum.....

Stood by?

Actually, they had no choich. Too many wide-eyed, greedy folk making up too much of the vote.

Cullen didn't want to do tax cuts - but it was political suicide to not do so.

They also reduced Govt debt to nothing - about all they could do, while the greed did it's thing.

What they, and anyone else, couldn't do, is make things - houses, fittings, services - cheaper. That process had run it's course. It was kept going temporarily, by outsourcing cheap labour, outsourcing pollution (Pike River coal comes to mind), and unloading the costs of related infrastructure (like factories).

That phase is over, so your bubble won't return. Neither, unfortunately for those wishing otherwise, will growth in incomes from anywhere else. Indeed, take away the cumulative debt, and I suggest we haven't 'grown' for a long time.

Don't worry, when the BB generation shuffles off, there will be surplus housing to burn.

"Indeed, take away the cumulative debt, and I suggest we haven't 'grown' for a long time."

I think that's probably right, quite probably for 20 years anyway....the only way to give an illusion of growth and lifestyle improvement was to rob the growth, energy availability and lifestyle from the future, and in some cases from the next generation(s)...who had no say...

regards

"Indeed, take away the cumulative debt, and I suggest we haven't 'grown' for a long time."

I think that's probably right, quite probably for 20 years anyway....the only way to give an illusion of growth and lifestyle improvement was to rob the growth, energy availability and lifestyle from the future, and in some cases from the next generation(s)...who had no say...not to mention the top 10% say have systematically robbed from the other 90%.......crazy.......Of course that robbing hasnt finished yet....the BBs will be insisting on more and better healthcare and given the size of the voting block I cant see it not happening....

I wonder how long the robbing/illusion will continue, NZ hasnt really suffered yet.....

regards

No, it was down to voter greed, where is the self-responsibility? so loudly proclaimed by libertarians to go with liberty? no where.....simply greed let loose.

Meanwhile the centre voters are generally better off....take away their tax dodges and wave good bye to votes....and being in Govn.

Yes, sure HC etc should have done something about it....even small tweaks would have helped.....but to blame Labour when National would have been no better is pathetic.

regards

Well said Hugh. You are absolutely correct and thanks for reminding us!

In fairness to Goff, Aunty Helen called the shots then and if anyone begged to differ they were destined to be shot down by the almighty Helen. However, if he goes for a capital gains tax on investment properties now, he's just playing politics; if he really wanted to raise more tax and lower house prices, he would have all properties being taxed.  But suddenly those who like to see others taxed, but of course not themselves, would be outraged and ensure the end of Gof'f's political career,.

Yet thats exactly what the green's have called for...however not just the Green's various other organisations have also thrown their economic thinking behind it....and its not so much seeing others taxed as seeing areas that are untaxed or lightly taxed to not good reason taxed...

regards

 

Hello

NZ should be looking at the large growing group of people that are unskilled.Business people need people who can turn up an work,every country needs employable people.

We are paying people to sit in statehouses an grow fat doing nothing.

Why would you build more statehouses for people who have no money an will never get a job.

The country has to have time limits on this welfare system.

Cheap houses are all over Auckland,just look in the areas where nobody wants to live.

People flock to the areas which have good schools,house prices are expensive near good schooling.

Well why would'nt you make every school a good school

More teacher help,to catch the ones falling behind.

The young people are the future of this country,it would be easy to make the changes.

Do it now as are children are being left behind an will never catch up.

To rebuild NZ we need smart can do people,we have them so train them now.

 

 

RMA relax & sell state housing to public and build more state housing with the cash generated. It's all about more supply.

DC - a bit last century, methinks. All that happens is that the PI's mop up behind, and max it out again. Keeps the beginners off the ladder.

If Goff wants to get them on the ladder, just legislate for one house apiece. They all live in one apiece now, after all.

What's that? Is that squealig I can hear? Sounds like stuck pigs..........

We get over-building....that is just a waste....you can look at the USA for how that played out....

 

A bit of oversupply might be good! Drive the prices down and force investment elsewhere.

NA had it right in the second post on this thread but didnt reach the final conclusion.  The price of a house is solely down to what people can pay for it being how much they have plus how much they can borrow.

Therefore to reduce house prices it would be beneficial if there were limits on how much people could borrow.  For example minimum 20% deposits and/or restrictions on loans as a proportion of income would stop people who really shouldnt be buying a house from pushing up prices for people who could actually afford to while still being prudent.

What at the chances of sheeple understanding if a politician said we're going to make it easier for people to buy houses by making it more difficult.  Pretty much none so it'll never happen.

Spot on, Bullitt ! Mine 7.49pm, above crossed with yours, but yours re LVR dots all the "i" 's.

The LVR looks to be one of the strongest ways to influence house prices Ive seen...it also controls bank's leverage....I really dont understand why it isnt done.

Give it to the RB to vary....80% +/- as needed.

regards

 

You assume that everyone is poor and needs to borrow lots.  In Delhi there is a 100% LVR requirement - i.e. you cannot get a loan and have to pay 100% cash.  Does this mean they have ended up with some sort of egalitarian society where everyone can afford to buy a house?  No.  They have way more unaffordable housing than here - a family doesn't rent a house, they rent a room in a house.  Under your scenario society would split into landowners and non landowners with an unbridgeable gap between.

The strongest way to influence house prices is to do what they did in Florida and California - build too many of them.

oh yeah, well I'm 16 and after 10 years of paper rounds and studying hard at school, unlike the rest of you people who clearly are uneducated or else you'd also own 35 rentals in remers and kohi... I bought my first home in St Heliers for only $950 000 and 42 cents. when I was just 11.

 Everyone who hasn't done as well as me is clearly a moron. John Key is the answer to this country and the sooner the poor people and stuffed middle class realise this, and bugger off to Oz the better for all of us rich people... We won't have to listen to this insesent moaning about fairness and the rorts we have going with our buddies in blue in the capital...

It's only fair you all just go away because as a rich person I'm clearly a better person than all of you people who aren't as rich as me... After all it is ONLY the rich who keep NZ moving forward the rest are just in the way...

hmmm maybe I'll go in to dairy... heard there's money to be made in pricing kiwi kids out of it... oh yeah, it's because their parents spend all their money on ciggies and Chardonnay...

 

 

 

hahahha seems you know lots about me!

But as you're probably poorer than me, I'll ignore you from here on. Pack your bags boy and move to Aus, poor people like you are not welcome!

Wowoweeewa it gets rough around here on the night shift...and from the look of it a few bevys n a toke or two before hitting the keyboard ....eh..?

Mandalay......... "Everyone who hasn't done as well as me is clearly a moron."

Did you say  the M word......?..I think you did say the M word....that's not gonna be good...nosireee bob.....

Hey GBH.... come over here see what Mandalay gone n done

He gone and  used the " M " word , moron ! .............. Ooooooooooops : Big Bad Bernie's gonna have to ban me and Mandalay ........ Feck !

........... where's Westminster , to alleviate the boredom around here , and to provide a few chuckles !

Re-engage your S.O.H. , Hickey .

no mor GBH...

understated as it was KW John....not bad ...ya clever scamp....you would have enjoyed some of our frollicks the other day then I take it....?

 KW John  : More on this , meebee we could vote to have Bernard biffed out , until he reclaims his sense of humour , and to have the Man , the Duke of Westminster , re-instated !

............. Phuket !

you said phuket... am horrified...

It's actually spelt whuket...

Cheers neco , those cartoons are brilliant  ! ....

.... Meebee we could launch a " Moron's On Parade " magizine in NZ  ..... . The first edition could look at the country's finance industry ........... best to start with an extra big bumper edition .

yes ta neco ...really good..

duh... well clearly... you can use words like that if you're young and rich and really important and chasing away the riff raff middle class ...

Seriously though... I was in the Koru lounge in our nations capital last week Thursday and I saw the higher ranks of our great national party (English, Coleman et al) scoffing the free food like they hadn't eaten for weeks. The free Chardonnay and Tiger beers (yeah go figure) were being swilled like there was no booze available anywhere else in the country... I had a guest with me and they were disgusted...

Just made me think of Wolly's most excellent description of the porkers at the trough and I laughed out loud! Snorted actually and had another Steinlager... Pure I'm afraid... they didn'y have Classic...

good for you Mandalay...your going too need that money  for the shrinks bills......megalomaniacle delusions of grandure can take quite a while to treat I'm told.

meglomania is a gift not a disease to be treated...

ha ...! I'm starting to like you..............a cracking yarn...yep your gonna be popular round these parts yesindeedy.

huh as long as they are rich people... i don't want to be reading nonsense from the bludging middle-class... trying to steal $1000 a year from us with their corrupt and schemeing kiwisaver rorts... fortunately our XO (exectutive officer - second in command) Great Leader English is on to them and will be redistributing back to us....

Great troll.......

regards

I'm going to piss myself if you keep this up.....and I have not a treasure in the house.

He would be an asset to the IMF ...... Apparently there's a vacancy for a new mandalay the chambermaid .