Granny Herald Editorial Way Off Beam

**flyernzl** · 30-10-2012, 11:13 PM

Those who read the print edition of the NZ Herald - or who thoroughly browse her website - will no doubt have choked on their cornflakes this morning when they read today's editorial:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10843728

There are so many false assumptions, unproven accusations and just plain errors in this editorial that it is hard to know where to begin.

(The) . . demand is being driven by investors in rental properties.
Really? That means that all the people flooding into the Auckland area from both overseas and other parts of NZ have no impact on the demand for housing?

If property was placed on the same tax footing as other investments through the introduction of a capital gains tax
I was unaware that any or all other investments in NZ were subject to a CGT.

(With a CGT) . . the supply of houses would increase.
Amazing! We don't need builders. Just bring in a tax and houses will magically appear, like mushrooms after the rain!

. . . the Productivity Commission's analysis . . did not see the absence of such a tax as a significant cause of the housing price surge.
Now what would the experts on the Commission know. Just replace them with a bunch of reporters and the Commission will then reach the correct conclusion.

I could go on, but a cup of Hemlock seems a preferable option.

**Bob Kane** · 30-10-2012, 11:31 PM

The socialist reporters seem to be pushing housing affordability for all they are worth.
It's all bullshit of course.
I wish they'd show some people who couldn't afford a house and then we'd see if there was a problem or not.

**flyernzl** · 30-10-2012, 11:50 PM

I find it interesting when they talk about such things as "Only 20% of the development is in affordable housing".

Excuse me?
So 80% is in unaffordable housing?
In that case, who is going to buy it.
If no-one can afford it, why are they going ahead to build it?

Whacky.

**eri** · 31-10-2012, 12:07 AM

it's like the definition of child poverty

most children own very little, they're all poor

so what does it mean?

apparently they calculate it as some lower percentile of parent earnings/benefits

and then say we have to lift these children out of poverty

but you can't lift a percentile

the bottom 10% is always the bottom 10%

even if you double their money

modern society seems to be changing faster than the common mans ability to keep up

so many of them want it turned back or somehow slowed down

and unfortunately lack the understanding of history to see that that has never worked

so are easy marks for politicians who promise to take off someone else to give to them

so we end up with a government cargo cult based on borrowing ie selling our children's future

now that's child poverty!

**lawt** · 31-10-2012, 02:26 AM

Does the harold fall under the juristiction of the broadcasting standards authority? If so it really does deserve a complaint re the comment intimating that PI is on an unequal tax footing. I really fail to see that this is anything other than straight out dishonest. Surely it would not be possible for the editor to claim ignorance as he's the one setting himself up to be the expert.

**Davo36** · 31-10-2012, 08:22 AM

flyernzl, I flicked through that article, saw a couple of the bits you point out and so skipped reading it.

It is annoying to have such a shoddy article by the editorial staff though. They should know better.

**McDuck** · 31-10-2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by flyernzl

(The) . . demand is being driven by investors in rental properties.
Really? .

It’s an interesting point.
If houses are primarily to fill the human need for “shelter”, then It could be argued that to use that “shelter necessity” for” individual financial gain” is a problem.
It complicates the planning loop.
The distortion gets worse when you get speculation.
That gives you a very difficult beast to manage.
The real problem is the size of the activity. AKA: too many people in on the game.
One monkey loose in a shopping mall is inconvenient, let 500 loose and shopping becomes impossible.

**TheLiberalLeft** · 31-10-2012, 09:08 AM

If it's so inaffordable, what investors in their right mind would be buying? The returns are dismal.

**speights boy** · 31-10-2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by TheLiberalLeft

The returns are dismal.

Compared to what ?

**Keys** · 31-10-2012, 09:16 AM

Investors buy because it is a good investment. Demand is driven by the population (AKA the tenants) wanting accommodation. Many are the times when I see applicants who have fallen by the wayside due to their own actions and are living the consequences.

Investors (generally) have good financial skills. Something which should be taught in our schools as a core subject.