- #1683616Hero42MemberMember since: July 18, 2008
Replies: 11800Hero42 June 12, 2018 at 4:57 pm
There are undoubtedly oversea’s buyers buying property in various places across the country but clearly the investors are focusing on central Auckland (18.7%) and Queenstown (9.7%).
Clearly the opposition are focusing on the overall numbers to downplay the situation but that doesn’t change the fact the oversea’s investors with cash are going for the property that they believe will give them the best return.
Cheers 🙂#1683622TedE June 12, 2018 at 5:53 pm
Housing is a need of us all. There is not enough available. It needs to be provided. We have a responsibility to make the changes required to make it available. It is the same for education and health treatment.
The government is getting on with it, so let them.
If it means fewer tax breaks for the wealthy so be it.
If it means I need to pay more tax so be it.
I feel very fortunate that i have been able to provide for our family and I would like all young people today to have the same opportunity. Presently that is not there.
TedE - Papakura -#1683668lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 2029lilith7 June 13, 2018 at 10:49 am
I think most of us would agree with that, TedE.
Its no longer the egalitarian country which we grew up in, & has become far more money focused & unequal & I believe that needs to change if we’re to make progress.#1683681halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4909halcyon June 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm
TedE, you say that housing is a need for all of us. But do we all need to own a house? I would draw attention to the model used in some of the European countries. There the percentage of home ownership is far lower than in NZ. Many of the homes are owned by Pension Schemes. The landlord maintains the building and the outside. The tenant is responsible for the interior, including stove carpet and drapes.
This does not equate to poverty. A friend’s mother died about a year ago. She left an estate worth approximately $40,000. And the family were not middle class by any means, the husband was a gardener at the local Nunnery. Therefore his pay would have been at the lower end of pay. But by saving a small amount each week in the Pension Scheme they grew an asset.
Maybe the time has come for more agencies to develop like the old Buildings Society, where those who invest can benefit by being shareholders in housing at the same time as developing an asset to assist with their pension needs.
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.#1683694Hero42MemberMember since: July 18, 2008
Replies: 11800Hero42 June 13, 2018 at 1:12 pm
We don’t need to own a house but we do need a house to live in.
New Zealand as a society is going through a transition from a place were most of us aspired to being home owners to one where most will be renters if the current trend continues.
If we as a society are happy to go down that path we need to consider how we want that rental model to work.
The European model or the current NZ model with landlords holding too much power and not exercising enough responsibility.
But while we are considering the options we need to get on and build the houses as there are too many people sleeping in cars.
Cheers 🙂#1683783halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4909halcyon June 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Hero, I agree the current NZ model is broken. As you rightly identify, there are landlords who do not exercise adequate responsibility. Likewise , there are tenants who do not exercise adequate responsibility. This is why I favour the Continental model with Landlords being responsible for the exterior and the tenant responsible for the interior.
This would solve many problems. It would be the landlords responsibility to ensure the house was watertight and that the outside appearance of the property was maintained in keeping with the neighbourhood. Conversely, the tenant would be responsible for maintaining the inside of the property at a level of hygiene that they are comfortable with. Therefore if a tenant (for example) was prepared to allow the manufacture of ‘P’ in their home then they would have to live with the consequences. The problem would not come back on the landlord.
As we are considering future models maybe it is time to consider another term instead of landlord. The owner of the property may not be male. And landlady sounds a little sexist as well as not being an inclusive term.
Cheers 🙂 🙂
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.#1683792TedE June 13, 2018 at 8:23 pm
Two things are being addressed at the moment by the present Govt that may really change the situation for our Grandchildren.
1 The Kiwi build will make a difference to the capital cost of homes and will have an affect on the rental market. It does rely on the Government being in long enough to see it through.
2 The financing model that will emerge could be along the lines of the state Advance model that we were involved with and that will make an even bigger difference.
Finally I hope that we manage to change the building materials situation that cannot be justified. Currently materials are far more expensive than they should be, we shoould be able to change that, whether it is done by regulation or competition, the costs should be significantly changed.
TedE - Papakura -#1683795jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7626jens June 13, 2018 at 8:47 pm
Herewith some points containing explanations and solutions to the affordable housing and renting observations in all the previous 5 postings – including everyone’s beginning with TedE’s right down to halcyon’s:
1. Large property investors like e.g. pension funds are capable of building multiple flat buildings at lower rentals per flat than small “couple of flat” investors. I believe this is the situation in all the big cities where the majority are flat dwellers.
2. The higher a basic long term universal (retirement) wealth ownership creative savings rate we have (built into the taxation system) – the more capital will be available for housing, the universal need for all of us.
If that is not refuted as “pie-in-the-sky”, then a meaningful discussion can take place which may have some political influence eventually – to help resolve all the current housing needs, efforts and ambitions.#1683796jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7626jens June 13, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Yes TedE – But if the “State Advances model” is not on the economic profitability principle, it can only be a limited and temporary “side show”, if it is not to become an impoverishing burden.
But perhaps flats in big buildings can be priced at lower lower purchasing and rental costs to make “State Advances” style financing profitable?#1683834TedE June 14, 2018 at 2:28 pm
So the State Advance Model was not profitable?
State house model was not profitable?
What sort of return do you need to call an investment profitable?
What measure do you use to define profitability?
TedE - Papakura -
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.