Tweet
Originally posted by Anthonyacat
View Post
-
Hehehehehehehe. Fair comment.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/ -
Well presented, Peter.Comment
-
Hate how these sites make you register before you can watch anything.Squadly dinky do!Comment
-
Anyone got any figures on electricity price changes, over the years? Especially since mad Max Bradford broke the previous systems so as to allow consumers to be screwed.Comment
-
Not sure Perry.
There was a documentary on Prime last year about building the hydro electric dams during the late 50s-60s and how the MW had an amazing amount of talent/expertise developed by sending engineers all round the world but which was all lost when MW was disestablished.
They interviewed one former engineer now living in a small town down in Central talking about the deregulation in the 90s and how it was supposed to bring down electricity prices. He gave a wry smile, looked directly at the camera and said “How is that working out for you?”.
Never seen a better comment re how deregulation/privatisation has worked out.
Craig
Comment
-
Thanks for that link. The first anomaly that struck me was this:
On the valid presumption that the government has no money that it does not first take from taxpayers, what was or is it that was being "paid off" by consumers?This finding is contrary to claims that consumers have . . . already paid off past investments.
Similarly, the whole ROI seems dubious, if NZ taxpayers paid for and therefore own the investment.
And, as for . . .
. . . I wonder where the Rio Tinto tariff rate was factored in?The research also shows that historically, commercial consumers have paid a high proportion of the costs to supply them . . .Last edited by Perry; 28-07-2017, 04:19 PM.Comment
-
There are a number of cities around the world where it has been claimed that housing is severely unaffordable. Auckland is one, some of the others are Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver in Canada.
There are, of course, two sides to this situation. While the headlines usually feature well-earning couples who can’t afford to buy and therefore feel poor, there are also homeowners of modest means who now feel wealthy. Those without a stake in the property market may be cash rich but equity poor in such cities where real estate hysteria prevails.
During my recent visit to the country I found that Canadians are generally extremely well off. They have a strong economy, and while there have been some resource-related speed bumps they have not experienced The Big Correction. People in the area around Vancouver look like the wealthiest in Canada at first glance. Households in the city had average total assets of C$1.25 million in 2016. That puts Vancouver ahead of Toronto, Calgary and Ottawa. However, once the value of real estate is stripped out, the picture changes. Households in the Vancouver region have the lowest average income among the six largest cities in Canada apart from Montreal. The figures reveal a picture where younger groups have high incomes and high savings but nothing in real estate and older people are real estate wealthy and rather cash poor. Such groups may either feel poor but aren’t really, who feel rich who aren’t really, or may feel both rich and not rich at the same time.
All this has resulted in political pressure on those in charge of our economic lives so that, rather than let market forces work through this scenario, they feel the need to take action to remedy this situation. In Vancouver, this action has led to the imposition of a Foreign Buyer tax of 15% of the purchase price on any residential property that is sold to a non-Canadian. This tax was imposed as from August 2016, and has been widely reported in the media.
So what effects have resulted from this tax? The volume of sales has been reported as declining significantly for the 60 days prior to the imposition of the tax, so it appears that the market was already cooling at this time. The decline continued through into February 2017, and since then the Vancouver housing market has been reporting a steady increase in selling prices. Notable has been the lack of impact of the FBT on properties below C$2million. Even during the slump months, with so few listings prices remained strong. The only good news for buyers seems to be for those in the C$4million and above area.
So why has this tax not resulted in property price stabilization? Maybe the demand is just so strong that a 15% tariff on the cost is acceptable. Maybe those buyers affected are largely avoiding the tax by working through agents who are listed as the new owner but whom, in reality, are just straw men. Maybe the problem is not actually being caused by those foreign buyers after all.
Over in Toronto, on the other side of Canada, the YIMBY movement has begun. This is said to be a response to those people who already own property in a neighbourhood and who oppose any further development there – the NIMBYs. The Yes- In-My-Back-Yard people point to the basics of economic theory, the more property that is built in an area the lower the prices will be. However, they have not gained a lot of traction so far. The millennials are possibly being side-tracked into railing against foreigners who buy expensive homes that are actually outside their price bracket, or at Landlords who are raising their rents in response to steadily rising rates, bodycorp fees, maintenance charges and insurance costs.
The second move by the Vancouver authorities has been to propose a vacancy tax. In order to reduce the number of residential properties that sit empty for long periods of time (estimated to be 25,400) they have voted to impose a 1% tax on the assessed capital value of any such property that remains continually unoccupied for more than six months. The stated aim of such a tax is to coerce those owners to either rent out their property or to sell it to someone who will.
Of course, setting up a system to identify and levy those properties does not come cheap. When the proposal was adopted, the setup cost was said to be C$4.7million. Now, just seven months later, this cost has blown out to C$7.4million. That’s an increase of $2.7 million in just a few months, and you can bet your bottom dollar that won’t be the end of it. Ongoing running costs have been estimated (yeah, right) at C$2million a year. Some of the opponents of the scheme have already pointed out that the city is building a whole new bureaucratic money-pit.
Obviously there has been some negative feedback to such a scheme. Some Vancouver property owners split their time between that city and other places. Renting out their Vancouver accommodation is not viable because they want to use it themselves for several months each year. Some homeowners with expensive property will be paying out tens of thousands in the vacancy tax all while their strata bylaws actually prevents them from letting out the property to others.
While the stated aim of the tax is to increase the renting pool, the leftish academics and politicians cannot resist the envy statements. When second-home owners cry poor, these ‘experts’ can never resist pointing to the large capital gains such properties have enjoyed recently, and suggest that the city offer the option of deferring their vacancy tax payments by means of a lien over the property which is then paid when they die or sell. Quite how this is meant to achieve an increase in the renting pool is unclear, it sounds more like an envy tax to me.
So no, despite what some may claim, the punitive Canadian response is not the answer to ‘unaffordable’ housing process and rental shortages. Maybe just getting rid of all the bureaucratic restrictions and (German style) letting people who happen to own a piece of land actually build on it without having to ask some desk-bound pen-pusher for permission might work instead?Last edited by flyernzl; 01-08-2017, 12:10 PM.Comment
-
Vancouver city's low end assessment of revenue from vacant properties - $C2 million.
And there will be lots of exemptions. And a whole new industry will arise. Maybe it will be called AirBnB.Comment
-
The bureaucrats created this situation in the first place. By restricting where youcould build, what you could build etc. etc. Now they're trying to fix it by introducing all these new measures.Maybe just getting rid of all the bureaucratic restrictions and (German style) letting people who happen to own a piece of land actually build on it without having to ask some desk-bound pen-pusher for permission might work instead?
They can never just allow it to run as an unfettered market.Squadly dinky do!Comment
-
Do you honestly think allowing people to build anything anywhere would work?Originally posted by Davo36 View PostComment
-
Works in Fiji Wayne. Not too many deaths per year through bad wiring, houses collapsing, unhealthy living environments etc. Could work :-).Comment
-
No water, sewerage or roading issues?Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle View Post
I can imagine it now.Comment
-
works in germany too
…this “means that everyone is entitled to a permission to build on his or her property as long as there is no explicit legal rule against it.
…if the proposed building fits into the plan, permission has to be granted and if the local authorities deny it then a court will enforce it…
............
japan has hardly any zoning laws compared to english speaking democracies
In addition, residential means residential without discrimination as to the type or form of resident: …In Japan…residential is residential. ... In short, as the author concludes, Japan's zoning laws are more rational, more efficient and fairer than those used in the United States.
restrictions always drive up costs
trying to lower building costs while at the same time increasing building restrictions is pointlessLast edited by eri; 02-08-2017, 11:30 AM.have you defeated them?
your demonsComment
Comment