- #1686476lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1732lilith7 July 8, 2018 at 11:08 am
Bookshops tend to charge high prices;its little wonder that online sites such as the Book depository in the UK,(which has free postage) have become so popular.
And I’ve noticed that since the advent of BD,traders on TM selling books have adjusted their prices t some extent too.#1687751mommabear70 July 19, 2018 at 1:41 pm
I see that a prefab house building company is in receivership.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.#1687778Hero42MemberMember since: July 18, 2008
Replies: 11409Hero42 July 19, 2018 at 4:12 pm
Shane Jones can’t just give them money, they have to make an application and get it assessed by an independent panel to see if it is a good investment or not.
Cheers 🙂#1687794mommabear70 July 19, 2018 at 4:54 pm
“Shane Jones can’t just give them money.” Ha ha yeah right. Are you forgetting who’s really in charge?
Remember that waste-to-energy project on the West Coast?
MfE said it didn’t add up either economically or environmentally but Shane still gave them $350,000.#1701783mommabear70 November 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm
I’m sure most here can recall the rah rah around Labour’s flagship Kiwibuild policy.
It started as a programme to provide first homes to people who were ‘locked out’ of home ownership. Then, when it arrived, it was a programme for first home buyers, but only for the wealthier ones… most of whom (like the couple we saw a week or so ago who moved into the first Kiwibuild lottery home), given time, could almost certainly have got into the housing market anyway.
Those buying a ticket in the Kiwibuild Lottery have to be fairly well off. For a start there’s the $50,000 – $60,000 deposit required.
This government’s attitude towards property speculators has always been vitriolic. No one is allowed to make a profit out of property. Not ever. No way.
People with chinese-sounding names were a no-no too.
First there was the plan to stop buyers reaping windfall gains – they must not on-sell their home for five years – or else they had to hand all the money they made to the Government.
That’s now changed to if buyers sell within three years, they must give up 30 percent of their profit.
This is heaven for wealthy families. They now don’t even have to move into the Kiwibuild house for a few years. They enter the lottery, win the house, and sell it the next day for a huge profit – keeping 70% of it.
30% is less that the highest marginal tax rate too.
Here’s an example of how it works:
Alan and Amanda have an 18 year old son called Andrew. Alan and Amanda are very well off, earning say $500,000 a year between them.
Andrew works part-time while studying. His parents tell him to enter the ballot, as they will finance the house if he wins. Andrew enters the ballot and wins a Kiwibuild house in Auckland for $650,000. His parents arrange the money and he buys the house.
The next day he sells his house for $800,000. Andrew and his parents get $150,000 profit. They keep 70% of it and so that is $105,000 for winning the taxpayer subsidized lottery.
Andrew continues to live at home with his parents but they now have $105,000 in the bank. Andrew goes off to London after he graduates very grateful to the stupid Twyford.
Someone buying a Kiwibuild property at a discounted price – and it is discounted, even if the government is not actually subsidising it per se – can sell within the agreed 3 year period, and can keep most of the profit because they weren’t speculators?
So the government has just created a whole new type of speculator?
The government had already done this, of course, because a first-time buyer only has to hold on to their subsidised house for 3 years and then they can sell it for whatever price they want. Remember, this is already less than the 5 years required by the Bright Line Test if you don’t live in the house yourself. There is already talk of Kiwibuild properties in Auckland being worth more than the purchase price.
So what’s stopping speculators from buying Kiwibuild houses, in the names of their children or whatever, and selling them on for a significant profit after… not even 3 years now?
Nothing is stopping this. Nothing.
It’s a great country we live in where people can make circa $100,000 overnight from the Labour party policy objective of giving away subsidised houses hoping it will buy them votes.#1701789paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 671paulinem November 9, 2018 at 3:14 pm
Mommabear I presume your post above came from whale oil ….it is an appropriate action to put the author of an article, with a copy paste in not doing so breaches copy rite . Could you please in future put the author ie (whale oil )at the top or bottom of an article your copy paste from this blog.#1701839mommabear70 November 10, 2018 at 7:40 am
Oh dear, we’re back to 1984. Think Police are operating in this area.
The words of a Pink Floyd’s Another Brick In The Wall and John Lennon’s Working Class Hero spring to mind.
paulinem, which particular sentences in my opinion piece do you disagree with and/or wish to discuss?#1701847lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1732lilith7 November 10, 2018 at 10:44 am
<span class=”ind”>”The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.</span>‘there were accusations of plagiarism’”“Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics.”
Plagiarism – Wikipedia
#1701850mommabear70 November 10, 2018 at 10:56 am
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by lilith7. Reason: Gobbledegook AGAIN
ha lilith7 on plagiarism.
Every time you even agree with someone’s opinion, you commit the same offence.
Let alone presumption.
rofl.#1701852halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4664halcyon November 10, 2018 at 11:55 am
Not necessarily mommabear. One can evaluate information and draw conclusions that are similar to what someone else has said. But the process is idiosyncratic. There is a big difference between developing a thought and just regurgitating what someone else has said as one’s own.
I behave therefore I am.
(Apologies to B F Skinner and Rene Descartes)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.