Header Ad Module



No announcement yet.

Granny Herald Editorial Way Off Beam

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Granny Herald Editorial Way Off Beam

    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:


    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.

  • #2
    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.


    • #3
      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?



      • #4
        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!
        have you defeated them?
        your demons


        • #5
          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.


          • #6
            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.
            Squadly dinky do!


            • #7
              Originally posted by flyernzl View Post

              (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.


              • #8
                If it's so inaffordable, what investors in their right mind would be buying? The returns are dismal.


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLiberalLeft View Post
                  The returns are dismal.
                  Compared to what ?


                  • #10
                    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.
                    Facebook Page


                    • #11
                      The lack of housing has nothing to do with property investors - there is a shortage of rentals - how does Garth explain that? The problem with us is we haven't had equal representation in the media so it looks like Andrew King needs more air time I say.


                      SEARCH PropertyTalk, About PropertyTalk

                      BusinessBlogs - the best business articles are found here


                      • #12
                        Compared to the risk associated with other investments that return similar %'s.

                        I know why investors invest, Keys. I'm making the point that it can't be both - investors buying up large AND massive inaffordability. In other words, it's not the investors causing the issue (if indeed there is an issue).


                        • #13
                          One of the comments on that article is mine. Their claims about tax are factually wrong... I asked them to retract them but no change so far!
                          My Profile


                          • #14
                            One of the articles I read stated that 65% of the population (not sure how they defined it) owns their own home.

                            Also have these people who can't afford a house got a suffient deposit to buy one if prices fall? I highly doubt it.


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by flyernzl View Post

                              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.

                              I HATE the Capital Gains Tax idea.
                              I do like the idea of levelling out the playing field between different “money storage destinations”.. a little.

                              Possibly having some way to claim back tax on the depreciation of money in a bank account??
                              Note: Even simple unavoidable investments, like putting your wages into a bank account, are taxed.
                              Note: With simple bank deposits, since inflation means that no gain has been made on the money, why is it taxed?

                              Whatever the justification, this is a great point (in the money loop) to adjust the direction of the debt flow.
                              Renting as a temporary situation on the way to ownership would be more in line with the Kiwi way of life
                              . There are going to be many that want to rent forever, and we should support that choice also.
                              Last edited by McDuck; 31-10-2012, 09:38 AM.