- #1724878jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7637jens July 11, 2019 at 9:47 pm
In other words, something and more has to be saved to get a house built and developed according to existing rules and personal needs and preferences – subject to the prices set by the (market) forces of supply and demand.
Since even a powerful government cannot build too many houses by just printing money “debt free” or even borrowing good money without debt repaying savings commitments or (austerity) enforcement before achieving serious inflation or bankruptcy –
then should not our most urgent priority be in getting at least the government to move towards systematically increasing the national capital wealth creative savings rate ?
Or – why not ?#1724879mommabear70MemberMember since: February 20, 2017
Replies: 1909mommabear70 July 11, 2019 at 10:24 pm
If the socialists owned all the building materials, infrastructure, land and workers and taxed everyone much much more, they could get houses built for peanuts. The only downside is after being taxed so heavily, people in the houses wouldn’t have enough to live on.#1724900jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7637jens July 12, 2019 at 11:42 am
Well mommabear70 – that’s why the systematically raised national savings rate should be on personal (retirement) accounts so it will not develop into govt. monopoly capitalism or Socialism –
but will spread prosperity (wealth ownership) to all and very effectively also help the sustainability of a more liberal welfare state., including NZ Super entitlement at age 65.#1724901phun83179MemberMember since: November 19, 2013
Replies: 23phun83179 July 12, 2019 at 11:48 am
<p>I was staying in a near-new house in the Bay-of-Plenty recently. It was the type and style of house I have been advocating. Two bedrooms off a large kitchen/lounge area (breakfast bar in the kitchen area) a good size bathroom with all the normal services and an ample wash house as you entered by the back door. There was no hall (which is a massive waste of space, and adds cost to the build) and front entry was from the patio at the front through a ranch slider.</p><p>The cost: $250.000.00. I am not sure of the land price, but looking at the area it would have been reasonable when compared with bare land housing sites I have seen advertised all round New Zealand. This house was built about two and a half years ago and is fully insulated with double glazing.</p><p>The owner is in the building trade and told me a three bedroom version in the same style would be under $300,000.00. He also said a one bedroom cottage would be $80,000.00. If the land price is reasonable then the “average” punter would have a reasonable chance of paying the mortgage.</p><p>I was very impressed with the build quality and the fittings were also good quality. </p><p>In earlier days you”cut your coat to suit your cloth”, but nowadays they “want it all and want it now”. If people understood by building large houses they are in many cases setting themselves up to fail financially, they might think again.</p><p>The tried and true system of the 1950’s to 70’s would still work if buyers went down that road.</p><p>The present Government like the previous have no idea about building enough (affordable) houses and so we have the debacle of promising “X” number of builds in “Y” number of years. To anyone with common sense this was logistically and financially impossible. The new housing Ministers should tell the truth, scrap “silly” target figures and start again. I think the public would accept the original idea was fanciful and go with a sensibly thought out new approach. It might have been a vote-catcher at the last election, but may turn out to be a vote loser at the next election.</p>
phun83179#1725007paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 949paulinem July 12, 2019 at 7:40 pm
Thanks Phun for this comment above, yes I have been told by an informed person, that a problem with our housing crisis is that much of the building shortage etc of our homes, is that it is tied up with pressure coming from I suspect from the more wealthy in our community for those in the building industry to build time and labour consuming large luxury homes. I have seen the homes you are talking about as one is close to where I live, and I see no reason why more of these cannot be built especially for first home buyers with a small family. Land: I know where I live in, there is ample cheap land available for housing.
Maybe there is not in Auckland etc cheap land, but maybe the answer is for more satellite towns built as Wainuiomata was developed to provide affordable homes for the Wellington work force back in the 1950s . Or maybe more enticement for those wanting their own homes to move into the provinces where land is cheaper, as I understand there is work available due to worker shortage.#1725023phun83179MemberMember since: November 19, 2013
Replies: 23phun83179 July 13, 2019 at 10:46 am
Enjoyed reading all those comments in reply to my two posts about affordable housing. I can see we are all on the same page, probably because we are all of a certain age. If we don’t learn from the success of the past, then any Government housing ideas are not going to work unless they have the gumption to listen and learn.
I know that builders make more out of building larger houses.
I know that developers put covenants on the type of house you can build (it is their land to start with).
We are not advocating that type of house. I’d love to hop across the Strait and knock a few heads together at the Beehive!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.