Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rental law aims for closer bond

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by McDuck
    So if the banks are lending money to people to
    buy houses… Aren’t we just the labour?
    I.e. the suckers.
    Yes.

    Depending on whether or not you're with the "they" or with the "me."

    Banks lend money to PI house-buyers, too. The PI is "adding value"
    to the asset purchased by that loan and making a profit on it,
    just as the financier is.
    Last edited by Perry; 01-02-2006, 12:05 AM. Reason: Added reference quote

    Comment


    • #17
      To be honest,
      I think that totally a unregulated free market etc is not workable. it would result in disaster.

      and conversely, heavy meddling into the affairs of merchants landlords etc are to be avoided.. as that results in disaster also.

      Some people use the Socialist ideal as an excuse to be lazy and directionless, while others use the Capitalist ideal as an excuse to be Greedy and cruel.

      Adam smith who came up with the idea of "Free hand" economics in the first place did it with the view of increasing the wealth of a nation. (He did works on ethics also).

      look at the amount our nation owes, and what we have spent the money on.

      we are not a wealthier nation by that standard..

      Comment


      • #18
        One landlord friend who has been in the business for about 50 years in a big way has a comment on this.
        No matter what governments do to change the rules it ends up stuffing it up for the tenants and tips the balance in our favour in the long term. Do you remember first the HNZ getting into market rents, then they were going to force the rents down by making HNZ income related to flood the market and force us down. All that did was empty out all the over filled HNZ houses and make a greater demand for our homes.
        Dr Chivargo ( not too sure it is spelt that way) had a comment. As various factions and power blocks come and go it seems that the same people end up being the real power behind the scenes.
        So do not worry my fellow landlords. Hang in there.
        I had a tenant two weeks ago leave a low grade HNZ house where she paid $80 per week and moved into my large multifacitied home for $390 per week. That tenant was very happy to be getting a better landlord with better maintenance and the total dollars in her hand were not that much different.

        Comment


        • #19
          I suspect you may be right, Glenn. But it still pi**es me
          off to see the results. All the talk about the poverty
          line/trap and so on is just so much social-worker claptrap.
          When they're dealing with the boozing, betting, baccy
          and banging set, changing their outlook on life is not
          achieved through hand-outs. Including directly giving
          them the accommodation supplement to spend on such
          things.

          But from $80 to $390!! Does WINZ cover it? (Well
          done!)

          A totally unregulated anything market is a recipe for
          disaster, McDuck, I concur. It's the scope, nature and
          equality of the regulations that's important. We generally
          agree that speed limits on roads are a good safety measure
          for everyone. But we wouldn't accept 120k for tenants
          and 75k for landlords.

          While 'the nation owes,' some individuals don't, so the
          statistics can be deceptive. I suspect many here would be
          similar in that they have long-term debt only on revenue-
          generating assets.

          Comment


          • #20
            I thought I would chip in here.

            All this talk of poverty puzzles me at times. What is poverty? The goal posts keep changing. The vast majority of today’s ‘poor’ in NZ are far better off in a monetary and material way than the poor of 19C England, or the poor of current day Calcutta, or even the poor of NZ ninety years ago. Poor is a misleading term. Poorly educated might be closer to the mark. Or perhaps the people in the bottom 10% of money coming in each week. Does anybody know what the official definition of poverty is?

            From my experience, I never listen to people who say, “I can’t afford $300 per week because I have a low income. I could possibly pay $280”. These people often have no real understanding of money. (Just go to your local supermarket and see what different people put into their trolleys). If they need to get an extra $20 per week they will (and WINZ in its wisdom will give it to them, thus acting as poor state educators by sending them the wrong message.)

            As an aside, I get quite cross at Examination Hearings when I see an order made for $5 per week based on what the debtor earns minus what he spends each week. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a standard order of $50 or $100 per week will have little effect on the day to day lives of most debtors. But it would help everybody, including the debtor, because the debt would be cleared quickly and everybody could move on.

            Anyway I could go on, but I’ll stop here.

            xris



            Comment


            • #21
              Does anybody know what the official definition of poverty is?
              ....a bit of learning later.....

              The 'standard' international measure of poverty is having a household income at 50% of the median.

              But of course, there is debate about that. Having a median based measure means that, no mater how much incomes rise, there are always people in poverty.

              Other measure include purchasing power (debate about pruchasing of what) and absolute measures (but US$1 in NZ buys less than US$ in Sudan)

              The AVERAGE houshold income in 2003/2004 was NZ$60,433. IF that was the median (which it may well not be, its likely to be lower, I think), then poverty in NZ would be defined as a household income of $30,216 - what I'm not sure is how many people are supposed to be in that household.
              DFTBA

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Perry

                While 'the nation owes,' some individuals don't, so the
                statistics can be deceptive. I suspect many here would be
                similar in that they have long-term debt only on revenue-
                generating assets.


                Yup...I'm well in the black...so someone else must owe 66 k internationally.

                Trouble is ...it makes no difference if you are riding first class or third class on the Titanic.
                The fate is shared.

                .
                Last edited by McDuck; 01-02-2006, 01:45 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by xris
                  As an aside, I get quite cross at Examination Hearings when I see an order made for $5 per week based on what the debtor earns minus what he spends each week. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a standard order of $50 or $100 per week will have little effect on the day to day lives of most debtors. But it would help everybody, including the debtor, because the debt would be cleared quickly and everybody could move on.

                  Anyway I could go on, but I’ll stop here.

                  xris


                  So you get upset at the Order for examination.
                  Here is a small preview cut from my next newsletter.
                  I suppose I should put it on the blogs also.
                  What do you think.

                  AN UNBELEIVABLE STORY
                  I recently had an interesting OE (order for examination) hearing at the court. The debt had originated from a tenancy I had been asked to sort out. The debt was $2500 of rent arrears. The tenant was evicted and the bailiff missed serving the tenant with the OE summons at that stage. I set up a monitor on Baycorp and waited. Suddenly after 12 months of patient waiting I got a monitor hit that advised me of his address. This time the bailiff was able to serve the summons and the OE hearing proceeded. At the hearing the debtor offered $5 per week on the basis that they did not have a high income and their living expenses took all of their income. However the examination proceeded and it transpired that he had purchased $30,000 worth of goods on hire purchase one month before the hearing. That’s right the same month that they would have received the summons. They had purchased things like a $15000 vehicle, $5000 bedroom suite, $700 microwave, and so on. The court staff unusually let fly about all these debts and asked why they had splashed out in December when they knew they owed me $2500. Oh the tenant says I get no benefit from paying Glenn. I need a vehicle to get to work and our bed was no good. My response to this was, “well, the new creditors would have seen the debt I had loaded onto his credit file. The creditors have taken a chance and the debtors now needed to default on paying the HP and start paying me because my debt has precedence. If the new creditors want their money they will have to instigate their own action like repossessing the goods” Well this comment unleashed a loud outcry and a slightly ominous movement towards me that the court staff handled professionally. The ruling was that the debtor should pay me $30 per week by way of an attachment order against his wages. So perhaps justice has been served in favour of the landlord. The system has many detractors but I have found if you persist you will
                  bring home the debt in most cases.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thanks Glenn

                    Thanks Glenn, the posting on Baycorp is handy info.
                    We have one tenant who seems to think paying rent, keeping the house reasonable, and mowing the lawns is optional.
                    Currently she is 4 weeks behind in rent, and we are going thru mediation (waste of time)!
                    May need to keep that option open.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Dojnt panic

                      the govt cannot change the RTA without it going through the proper process through parliament. Which will also require a period of public consultation...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Public submissions were taken last year. Draft amendments go before Cabinet in May.
                        Last edited by leapy; 10-02-2006, 04:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yes.
                          Murrial Newman warned about this sort of thing.
                          If I understood her correctly.
                          What they can do is go through the consultation process, like calling for submissions, have the first reading, then dramaticly change the whole thrust of the act by slipping in some way out untried for the left field clauses.
                          Things like mum and pop not being allowed to manage their own rental in the attached flat.
                          Like never being able to terminate a tenancy if the tenant was paying ok.
                          Like not being permitted to sell a grandmas house if it was rented out whilst she is in hospital and dies.

                          What all this suggested (not by me) brain dead stuff will do is lots of houses will be withdrawn from the market. Those of us who are hardened by it all will make an absolute killing because the rents will go through the roof due to the shortage of housing pushing the market rents up.
                          We might also be able to pick up a heap of cheap housing where amatuer landlords find it all too hard and bail out in a fire sale.
                          Bring it all on Brain dead "yes Minister".
                          I just love you.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            you might find that the govt may look at capping rents as well....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Yes sure. Capping rents has been tried many times over the centuries by successive well meaning Governments. The National Govt was the last one to try that trick. I can still remember visiting an Aunty housed in emergency housing when I was a kid. Old Army barracks were being used. Scary place.
                              If you think privately provided housing can be bad just try the Government provided housing when there is a sever shortage of housing. Governments (and their little cousins the local bodies) are not constrained by laws and compassion. I can beat hands down any Unthinking civil servant in quality of service and compassion.
                              Of course if there are too many problems Uncle Stalin had some good answers.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X