Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We know what is squeezing the life out of the rental market

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Learning
    replied
    Originally posted by artemis View Post
    And a good part of that gap would be much reduced for households in a stable relationship and those that did not have children until they could house and feed them decently.
    With many businesses giving annual pay rises as high as 2% but more commonly 0%, rents increasing $20-$50/wk every six months, food, transport, energy, etc all going up 2%+ per year. For some that wait will be a never ending one. Yes they could, in some cases, move back in with their parents but not many 30 year olds want to do that for some reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • artemis
    replied
    Originally posted by Learning View Post
    Yes there are a few like this. There are also a few who have nothing left of their income after just covering the essentials. No chance to save anything even if they wanted to. The gap between the haves and have nots is vast.
    And a good part of that gap would be much reduced for households in a stable relationship and those that did not have children until they could house and feed them decently. I remember John Key was heavily criticised (by the usual suspects) for talking about people who made poor decisions. He was right. Not right in all cases of course, but plenty.

    When the media daily had sad first home buyers who couldn't, almost none were DINKs any more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Learning
    replied
    Originally posted by eri View Post
    a surprising number of people live pay packet to pay packet unable to resist the impulse to spend 100% of what they earn they either can't think about the future or refuse to as it upsets them knowing their lack of self control now will cost them in the future they believe in BIG government, HIGH taxation + collective responsibility as that's what gives them the most, with the least expected of them free food, money, housing why wouldn't they vote for that! they don't care if everyone is poor as long as no one has more they prioritise feeling over thinking long term thinkers know that such a system is unsustainable and don't want a sinking future for their children they see "feeling" as something to be managed not something to be glorified over thinking
    Yes there are a few like this. There are also a few who have nothing left of their income after just covering the essentials. No chance to save anything even if they wanted to. The gap between the haves and have nots is vast.

    Leave a comment:


  • eri
    replied
    a surprising number of people

    live pay packet to pay packet

    unable to resist the impulse to spend 100% of what they earn

    they either can't think about the future

    or refuse to

    as it upsets them knowing their lack of self control now will cost them in the future

    they believe in BIG government, HIGH taxation + collective responsibility

    as that's what gives them the most, with the least expected of them

    free food, money, housing

    why wouldn't they vote for that!

    they don't care if everyone is poor

    as long as no one has more

    they prioritise feeling over thinking

    long term thinkers know that such a system is unsustainable

    and don't want a sinking future for their children

    they see "feeling" as something to be managed

    not something to be glorified over thinking
    Last edited by eri; 10-04-2018, 08:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davo36
    replied
    Originally posted by eri View Post
    ^

    depends who you ask

    in the short term price controls make prices manageable for consumers

    ie current renters love that rent rises slow

    but in the long term they accelerate shortages as investment gets diverted to more productive investments

    ie fewer properties get rented out, less money gets spent on maintaining them and fewer get built
    Well this is what I thought too. But many people are convinced they're the solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • eri
    replied
    ^

    depends who you ask

    in the short term price controls make prices manageable for consumers

    ie current renters love that rent rises slow

    but in the long term they accelerate shortages as investment gets diverted to more productive investments

    ie fewer properties get rented out, less money gets spent on maintaining them and fewer get built
    Last edited by eri; 09-04-2018, 05:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davo36
    replied
    Muldoon had all the wage and price increases capped didn't he?

    Don't think rents though.

    Does rent control actually work anywhere?

    Leave a comment:


  • Beano
    replied
    Originally posted by fuzzlevalve View Post
    Came in thanks to the "rentpayers association" in 1916. Don't know when it got repealed but was intact through the depression and the 2nd world war.
    How did you remember that ?
    Even google could not find out those details

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzzlevalve
    replied
    Came in thanks to the "rentpayers association" in 1916. Don't know when it got repealed but was intact through the depression and the 2nd world war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beano
    replied
    Can anyone remember when residential rent control was in NZ ?
    I believe it was around in the 1950s and ended in the 1980s

    Leave a comment:


  • Don't believe the Hype
    replied
    Greens? They're shaping up more red than green.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davo36
    replied
    With all the problems around, they have decided tenants rights are the top priority... God help us.

    Leave a comment:


  • artemis
    replied
    New Greens co-leader - rent controls and tenants rights - her top priority

    So Marama Davidson said on The Nation 10 March.

    So she'll be pushing hard for changes to the RTA, which Mr Twyford has already indicated are coming.

    More landlords selling up?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne
    replied
    I don't get it?
    What part of the bond handling means that people can't claim their bond back?
    What should the Govt be doing to fix this thing that dates back to before 1989 and many Govts?

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    Follow The Money Trail

    Another thing that the gummint is fiducially avoiding.

    Government pockets $37 million in unclaimed tenancy bonds
    19 March 2018
    Originally posted by Stuff
    The Government pocketed more than $37 million in unclaimed tenancy bonds in the past two years, some dating back to before 1989. Minister for Housing Phil Twyford said a review of the Residential Tenancies Act this year aimed to make life better for renters, however there were no plans to look at changing the process around unclaimed bonds.
    Of course not. Because such legislative theft helps pay for ex-PM perks, MP's spouses' subsidised air travel, ex-MP's gold-plated superannuation, Ministerial helicopter joyrides, etc.

    Twenty-three-year-old Wellingtonian Dylan Gray felt the sting of losing her bond during her last year of university, and was only able to afford the next bond with the help of her mother.
    Doubtless Taxcindarella will be lecturing Phil Twitford on the morality of such things.

    Jacinda Ardern calls on Wellington landlords to do what's 'morally right' for students

    Still waiting for the do-gooder brigade to stridently assume the moral high ground on this bit of gummint thievery.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X