KiwiBuild - Labour's latest spectacularly stupid idea.

[drelly]

Open market purchases.
These purchases are not.

No they're not, but the equity they're gifted is a gateway to more debt, creating a boom, which is how we got here in the first place.

[speights boy]

(read: taxpayer funded) equity that they didn't have to earn or pay for...

Is the accommodation supplement the most efficient use of taxpayer funds in all circumstances?
Do you support the Kiwisaver first home subsidy system?

[flyernzl]

I'm thinking back to years ago when the Government of the day gave long-term state house tenants the option of buying the state house they were living in at some sort of discounted price.
Barely was the ink dry on the S&P agreements when the wide boys were knocking on the doors of these new owners offering to buy the houses from them at a price that gave them a quick 50K or so profit.
Quite a few of them then took up the resale offer.

[drelly]

Is the accommodation supplement the most efficient use of taxpayer funds in all circumstances?

Probably not. It's a gift and therefore is easily given away. It increases the amount of rent that a beneficiary can pay. Great for landlords.

Do you support the Kiwisaver first home subsidy system?

This isn't so bad as it's earned but even so, it will increase house prices.

[speights boy]

No they're not, but the equity they're gifted is a gateway to more debt, creating a boom, which is how we got here in the first place.

As the BNZ CEO was saying did he not?
Even up the real effective tax rates between investment classes then there may be smaller debt fueled booms.
I recall it was all BS to you....where this is only a stupid idea...at least we seem to be making progress.

[speights boy]

It increases the amount of rent that a beneficiary can pay. Great for landlords.

Ah...so using taxpayers funds in this way is good ?
There's a surprise.

Reminds me of the the Seinfeld episodes.
"No equity for you...."
or
"You're not equity worthy...."

[drelly]

As the BNZ CEO was saying did he not?
Even up the real effective tax rates between investment classes then there may be smaller debt fueled booms.

He was talking rubbish. The easy debt created the boom. How will increasing tax rates reduce investment motivated by a way to reduce tax?

Ah...so using taxpayers funds in this way is good ?

No, I actually said "probably not". That doesn't mean landlords don't benefit from it.

[HermanZ]

Govt intervention not all bad

Bought my first house with state advances loan first mortgage at 6%.
A solicitors second mortgage, and a secret 3rd mortgage from mother inlaw.

Was a Walker Henry in Mount Albert, cost approx $27,000, sold after approx 15 years for $120,000, now worth at least $350-400,000. (Wish I'd kept as a rental, but I was younger then)

Walker Henry built down to the state advances loan price, very modest and quite innovative for the time. Don't think they caused a price crash.

I cant see any builder building down to $300,000 by choice!

I appreciated the hand up. Now that I am a fat rich pr*ck landlord, I don't mind my taxes helping others get a foot on the housing ladder.

The devil will be in the detail of course, and no doubt they wont set it up the way I would!!

Cheers
HermanZ

[cube]

Who is going to build them - there aren't many ex-mine workers left - and good luck with getting Auckland Council freeing up land for 66,667 houses.

Mind you, all those 'Development Contributions' would come in handy with keeping the rates down

[speights boy]

How will increasing tax rates reduce investment motivated by a way to reduce tax?

An individual will pay tax exactly the same regardless of the investment type.

Huh?
The call is to reduce the amount of tax that is paid on the ones with a higher effective tax rate.

[speights boy]

Who is going to build them .....

In New Zealand, economic conditions were difficult in the first half of the year but there was an improvement in the second half. In particular, we saw a sustained improvement in new housing consents.
This was driven in part by a strong pick up in residential house building work in Canterbury, and also by increased activity in the Auckland region.

Whilst the increase in housing consents was pleasing, the improvement needs to be seen in a wider context. Housing consents for the year to June were 15,414, a 14 per cent improvement on the prior year, but still down approximately 30 per cent from the long term average.

Quote from the Fletcher Building AGM.
Mr Market seems confident.
Shares up 3.8% today, and up 26% over the last 12 months.

[NovInvestor]

It's a lot of money to buy a few hundred thousand votes today.... with our kids money from tomorrow!

With the latest fiasco from the Labour camp, JK will definitely win next years election, by a big mile!

Back to topic

Socialism doesn't work in a Capitalistic market.

[speights boy]

It's a lot of money to buy a few hundred thousand votes today.... with our kids money from tomorrow!

What have you calculated the cost to be?

Do you think it is of less benefit than an equivalent amount spent on Kiwisaver subsidies, any of our Roads of National Significance?

What do you think is a better plan for increasing supply for first home buyers?

[Maccachic]

What do you think is a better plan for increasing supply for first home buyers?

Its only Auckland its affordable elsewhere. Or even CBD but when was CBD ever a first home owners option.

[NovInvestor]

I just don't see how the government come up with the land... they have to buy it off from private owners (farms/life style blocks etc), or bulldoze HNZ homes and use that land to build.

Roads of NS are actually beneficial to the economy. Kiwisaver? forcing people to save is a good thing. Use tax payers money to build housing? sounds good, but how will it plan out? I don't care really, not like Labour will win the next two elections. Personally I think the chance of JK retiring from being Prime Minister prematurely is higher than Labour winning in the next two elections.

Better plan? Too many things to do to get the price down...

Maybe....:
1) reduce m2 of new homes (100m2 house doesn't cost $300k to build!!!)
2) dense/medium development like terrace housing
3) reduce building material cost somehow, like importing more
4) densify zoning
5) spread urban/rural boundary to make more land available
6) increase deposit % to 20% minimum for buying houses, and government lend the rest 10-15% for 1st home buyers, so effectively 1st home buyers can get 95% loan, while others who already are on the property ladder have to pay 20% deposit (cash deposit, no 100% finance with equity)

A lot of these are very bold moves, and can win or lose votes.