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

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

It is inevitable because the same conditions which have previously favoured residential landlords are now coming back to bite them in the butt. Many a member here has bragged about making huge tax-free capital gains and what a great life it is.

On the other hand I have met IRL a couple of the regular posters here and you seem like decent sorts. lol.

One of my top-10 rules for business is avoid industries where supply is subject to restrictions, especially when said restrictions could become politically untennable to the 'powers that be'. Far better the free wheeling world of pure capitalism.

So where do we draw the line? Maybe Gary can enlighten us with his opinion as he has many times before, seeing he is back here now.

[Perry]

That's all pretty cynical. True in some places I'm sure, but there are plenty of young stars who are fast tracked to the top.

I've see that and the opposite, David, so it's not as rare as it may seem.

The opposite being trying to find (and groom) a successor for the top job.

My guess is what makes it hard is fear of failing to measure up, when the current incumbent in the top job is very good.

[Davo36]

That's all pretty cynical. True in some places I'm sure, but there are plenty of young stars who are fast tracked to the top.

[flyernzl]

Well actually it applies to any and all hierarchies, and is based on the book "The Peter Principle" by Laurence J Peter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

I have extended the theory to apply to other competitive hierarchies, and to individuals that are perceived to compete with a hierarchy.

"Rather than seeking to promote a talented "super-competent" junior employee, Peter suggested that an incompetent manager may set them up to fail or dismiss them because they are likely to "violate the first commandment of hierarchical life with incompetent leadership: the hierarchy must be preserved"

He cites the example of a talented young teacher who obtained her first (probationary) job at a school that catered for low achieving pupils.
Given a class of non-performing students, instead of occupying their time with finger-painting and other such undemanding activities that were deemed suitable for the unintelligent, she worked hard, enthused her students, and inspired them to achieve.
Because of this, at the end of her probationary period, she was judged to have disrupted the school, made little use of the resources provided, and upset the other teachers, so her employment was terminated.

So rather than seeking to improve the performance of HNZ/social housing providers, it is politically expedient to remove any of the measures by which their current (low) performance can be judged.

Hence we have the current drive to discredit, vilify and hopefully eliminate private landlords.

[Perry]

Putting aside for the moment, the conspiracy theory possibility, that's quite a thought-provoking observation, Peter.

Would you apply that to any NZ gummint, no matter what 'hue' they are?

[flyernzl]

The problem they perceive with private landlords is that we provide a comparison.

I rent out my properties and make a (taxable) profit.
They rent out theirs and make a loss.
Therefore people can look at their operation and say 'You are inefficient'.

If I no longer exist in the market, then they can say 'this is the best that can be done' and no-one can argue otherwise - because there is no comparison.

Greshams Law - the bad drives out the good.

[Bob Kane]

What they are really angling for is the elimination of all private landlords.

The mantra is that all residential rentals should be owned by social housing providers and/or the Government.

Having achieved that, they can then take political action to have all rents reduced to 'what tenants can afford', with the balance of the cost then being extorted from the taxpayer/ratepayer.

Surely not.
Wouldn't they only be concerned about the lowest quartile?
They're not worried about expensive houses being rented at $1200 pw are they?
I would expect they are focused on people renting at $300pw and want to reduce that to $200pw?
In which case - they can have that market to themselves.
They can build 1 bedroom places for $200k and rent them for $200pw and good luck.
Perhaps we have to remind them to focus on the lower quartile and apply their rules, brightlines and taxes to that part of the market.

[eri]

we live in interesting times

can nz wag the dog .....as we've done occasionally in politics

or will the dog wag us? .....the usual

2 recent articles

1 . the world is shifting right

what explains; brexit, trump and the rise of the far right

https://www.newscientist.com/article...the-far-right/

2. the world left is watching nz

can stardust make a difference?

Jacinda Ardern's New Zealand a social laboratory for the world

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-for-the-world

[Davo36]

How much of it was worth reading, really?
Almost a total lack of balance.
I gave up at this point:

Oh yeah, I wasn't saying it was a good thing. Just linking to it as you know more examples of the landlord bashing thing going on now.

[Perry]

You guys seen The Spinoff's Rent Week?

How much of it was worth reading, really?
Almost a total lack of balance.
I gave up at this point:

renting in New Zealand is one of the most lightly regulated activities in this country.

[flyernzl]

They want to make it an offence to let at a rent above that at which the property is advertised (when there are lots of tenants and rentals are hard to find).

So therefore it should also be made an offence to let at a rent below that at which the property is adverised (when there are lots of rentals and tenants are hard to find).

Yeah, right!

[Davo36]

You guys seen The Spinoff's Rent Week?

A whole week of landlord bashing. A couple of articles from Andrew King tho.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/tag/rent-week/

[Perry]

Utopia, Here We Come.

And - of course and has been wryly observed hereinbefore - we then need the following supplier businesses to be socially inclined and not just in it for a buck.

• Food
• Liquor
• Clothing
• Transport
• Electricity
• Internet
• Telecomms
• Entertainment
• Gummint to waive all taxation

A fair dinkum cargo cult!

But now I must return to my Sunday morning labours: bottling home-grown peaches.

[artemis]

A wonderful quote from Salvation Army Waitākere operations team manager Naomi Layzell .
How do we get more landlords who are socially inclined?
Do we encourage them to be socially inclined?
Is there a magic wand to be waved and, poof, landlords are now socially inclined?
Do we pass a law to achieve this?
Or is it a naive comment from someone lacking commercial experience?
It seems that this opinion is quite common and shapes a lot of media coverage.
Is she expecting landlords to under-rent their properties for the greater good?
How can we respond to it and show that landlords are not the cause of the housing problem?

There are many folk out there who think landlords are greedy at best and evil at worst. I would like to see this government set up a structure like Snowball Effect of GiveALittle to allow such folk to contribute to the purchase and running of private but socially acceptable housing. And of course share in any capital gain. Then they can put the dollars where their mouth is.

Or maybe Naomi Layzell and the Salvation Army could set this up with like minded investors. They have most of the infrastructure in place already including government funding.

Once that is up and running, the next structure to be set in place is for businesses paying the living wage and properly diversified. Fantastic opportunity for all those who are critical of businesses that don't meet their standards.

[Don't believe the Hype]

What they are really angling for is the elimination of all private landlords.

The mantra is that all residential rentals should be owned by social housing providers and/or the Government.

Having achieved that, they can then take political action to have all rents reduced to 'what tenants can afford', with the balance of the cost then being extorted from the taxpayer/ratepayer.

If that is the case, and their objective is ultimately for the govt via tax payers to fund the cost of rent then isn't an easier/faster way to push for increased rent assistance.

The ownership shouldn't be the defining factor.