Also de-incentivise landlords keeping rental properties empty intentionally . 2018 census there were 9000 properties sitting vacant for this reason (of 95 000 empty properties total)
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #302
I agree in principal but if a third of houses are rentals and only the 9k out of 95k (10%) vacant houses are rentals then that indicates rentals are on average vacant a lot less than other housing.
Also, there must be a percentage that is between tenants or empty awaiting redevelopment.
I had a house sit empty for 18 months while waiting for resource consent. I 100% would have preferred to have it tenanted for that time but the cost to bring up to rentable standards along with the issues of removing the tenants when needed made it not worth while.
Answers - make resource consent 10x faster! Make it easier to allow short stay tenancies with quick exit (weeks not 3 months if both in agreement); allow substandard properties short term as long as it’s clearly stated and rent is reduced accordingly.
- Thread starter
- #303
2024 1.3% growth yet our population is increasing by 100,000 or 2%.
Growth is below population growth so effectively a recession on a pp basis.
Fun times next year with a stagnant economy and rising unemployment. A lot of businesses are already fubard after several years of covid and a recession, as evidenced by the amount of company receiverships and lowered company tax take.
NZWarriors.com
The definition of a landlord is....
If a property is not rented or intended to be rented, the owner of that property is not a landlord.
A property isn't just empty on census night because it's being landbanked. It can also be for a number of other reason such as a holiday home, a rental property between tenancies, an Air BnB without an occupier, a house undergoing renovations and the owners have shifted out, a property waiting for consents to be granted be demolition or development of the land, a "red sticked" property after a disaster, a house subject to an estate being settled, occupiers away on holiday or dozens of other reasons.
Melbourne is currently facing a huge rental crisis after law changes were made aimed at landlords and landbankers. There's now a huge shortage of rental properties available for rent and rents have increased hugely. The law changes have had quite the opposite affect than what the government was saying they would. A bit like the unseen consequences here from some of the changes brought in to help FHB's and renters.
The problem with policy designed to restrict or reduce the number of landlords is that it can also have consequences for tenants when landlord increase their rents to cover costs.
Our problem in NZ is we swing too easily from one thing to the other. We actually need policies which provide better homes (healthy homes is the right start) to renters at good prices without being punitive to landlords who are then forced to increase rents. We need to find a way to encourage landlords to offer incentives to good tenants while still having an easier way than what currently exists to remove bad tenants.
I fear National will go too far back in the other direction by re-instating "no fault" evictions for flimsy reasons. Renters deserve much more than that!!!
- Thread starter
- #305
Do you think supply will increase if prices go down?
When prices are below build cost, as it currently is, supply will stop and prices must rise. Simple supply and demand.
If you want cheaper house prices you MUST lower the input costs into new builds. Everything flows from there.
I know it’s tempting to blame landlords; or foreign buyers; or no capital gains tax; etc but they are symptoms not the cause.
There was a very interesting economist, Dr Robert MacCulloch, a professor at Auckland Uni. on Newstalk ZB this morning talking about the economic information released yesterday.
He used to work for the RBNZ then travelled to Oxford to study for his PhD in Economics. He's studied and worked for organisations such as London School of Economics, Princeton University and joined Imperial College London Business School as Director of their PhD Program, where he was awarded Best Teacher Prizes and the Rector’s Award for Distinguished Research Excellence.
MacCulloch then returned to his alma mater in NZ. He has published in journals including American Economic Review, Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Economic Perspectives and Brookings Papers in Economic Activity.
He talked about how a number of the things Robertson said yesterday and released in the press releases were wrong when compared to the data within the Treasury report yesterday. He was particularly upset that Robertson portraited that "the worst was over" for New Zealand households and that Robertson used two indicates for that. MacCulloch said there were a large number of other figures in the Treasury report beyond the headline figures showing the worst is yet to come. One of the main figures Robertson used was the growth in the GDP, but, when migration figures of 2% are applied to 1% forecasted GDP growth, households are going backwards. Robertson also ignored the reduction in consumer spending, high inflation and low wage growth.... all indicators that households aren't recovering.
MacCulloch also said that the Key was wrong saying that we had "Rock Star" economy as it was only built on three main factors.... tourism, immigration and the construction industry. It wasn't built on investment and increased productivity what a true "Rock Star" economy should be built on. He then said, Labour had tried to change that by appealing to high spending tourists, increasing job training, reducing immigration and engineering a fall in house prices.
If you want to listen to what Dr MacCulloch had to say, it's from around 9:10 this morning:
Week on Demand - NewstalkZB
Catch up with the last 7 days of every show on Newstalk ZB
www.newstalkzb.co.nz
Here's my thoughts on it, which relate to your post....
Since the changes Labour implemented haven't worked, Hipkins has changed the priorities to increased tourism (extra moeny budgeted in the May 2023 Budget for tourism), increased immigration (altered immigration settings) and bolstering the construction and rental property market by turning his back on a CPT or Wealth Tax and changes to the RMA which will allow development to occur faster. Increased immigration and the construction changes implemented will lead to house prices going up as demand for more housing increases.
Key got it wrong.... and now Labour are heading down the same path in an attempt to "win over the public". It's a quick fix but it doesn't build a resilient economy.... that's why it's taking us longer to recover economically than other countries. Higher wages, more productivity, better working conditions, larger investment, better infrastructure.... these will build a resilient economy.... not the path Key, and now Robertson/Hipkins, took and are taking the country down.
NZWarriors.com
There was a very interesting economist, Dr Robert MacCulloch, a professor at Auckland Uni. on Newstalk ZB this morning talking about the economic information released yesterday.
He used to work for the RBNZ then travelled to Oxford to study for his PhD in Economics. He's studied and worked for organisations such as London School of Economics, Princeton University and joined Imperial College London Business School as Director of their PhD Program, where he was awarded Best Teacher Prizes and the Rector’s Award for Distinguished Research Excellence.
MacCulloch then returned to his alma mater in NZ. He has published in journals including American Economic Review, Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Economic Perspectives and Brookings Papers in Economic Activity.
He talked about how a number of the things Robertson said yesterday and released in the press releases were wrong when compared to the data within the Treasury report yesterday. He was particularly upset that Robertson portraited that "the worst was over" for New Zealand households and that Robertson used two indicates for that. MacCulloch said there were a large number of other figures in the Treasury report beyond the headline figures showing the worst is yet to come. One of the main figures Robertson used was the growth in the GDP, but, when migration figures of 2% are applied to 1% forecasted GDP growth, households are going backwards. Robertson also ignored the reduction in consumer spending, high inflation and low wage growth.... all indicators that households aren't recovering.
MacCulloch also said that the Key was wrong saying that we had "Rock Star" economy as it was only built on three main factors.... tourism, immigration and the construction industry. It wasn't built on investment and increased productivity what a true "Rock Star" economy should be built on. He then said, Labour had tried to change that by appealing to high spending tourists, increasing job training, reducing immigration and engineering a fall in house prices.
If you want to listen to what Dr MacCulloch had to say, it's from around 9:10 this morning:
Week on Demand - NewstalkZB
Catch up with the last 7 days of every show on Newstalk ZB
Here's my thoughts on it, which relate to your post....
Since the changes Labour implemented haven't worked, Hipkins has changed the priorities to increased tourism (extra moeny budgeted in the May 2023 Budget for tourism), increased immigration (altered immigration settings) and bolstering the construction and rental property market by turning his back on a CPT or Wealth Tax and changes to the RMA which will allow development to occur faster. Increased immigration and the construction changes implemented will lead to house prices going up as demand for more housing increases.
Key got it wrong.... and now Labour are heading down the same path in an attempt to "win over the public". It's a quick fix but it doesn't build a resilient economy.... that's why it's taking us longer to recover economically than other countries. Higher wages, more productivity, better working conditions, larger investment, better infrastructure.... these will build a resilient economy.... not the path Key, and now Robertson/Hipkins, took and are taking the country down.
Robert MacCulloch: NZ's Big News Story should be "Treasury Pre-Election Update shows plummeting consumption per capita"
I can't make sense of the Finance Minister's statements today regards the "Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update" by the NZ Treasury. He claims the country is in better shape than expected and that the "forecasts showed New Zealand would avoid recession, with wages keeping ahead of inflation".So here's my question - GDP growth up to June 2024 is forecast to be just over 1% (the forecast has been raised slightly from 1.0 to 1.3%). On the other hand, it is also stated immigration is now running at 100,000 a year, corresponding to an increase in 2% of our entire population. But if total GDP is only growing at a bit over 1% and the population is growing at 2%, then GDP per capita must be declining (since GDP per capita equals total GDP over population size).
In other words, from an individual perspective, we are entering a deep recession. But the Finance Minister says Kiwis are getting better off since our inflation-adjusted incomes are rising. Can a journalist please ask Robertson how GDP per capita, which measures the average income of a Kiwi, is falling based on his own Pre-Election Economic Update whilst at the same time tells 5 million Kiwis that we're getting better off?
Click image to view
If you don't believe me, then take a look at the graph of GDP per capita on page 7 of the Treasury's Pre-election report (see link below). What really blows my mind is the following figure - in particular the black line that shows the amount Kiwis are consuming on a per capita basis, after adjusting for cost-of-living changes:
It's set to plummet at a rate not far off from what occurred during the first lock-down in 2020. And consumption is a good measure of living standards. According to former Chair of the Reserve Bank Board, Arthur Grimes, consumption is the best predictor of well-being and we are meant to have a "well-being" government. Kiwis are going backwards.
Simple question for all you forumers
With all these experts putting in their 2 bobs worth. HTF do we get to have unqualified Finance Ministers.
From my understanding neither Robertson or Willis have much financial experience or qualifications.
Maybe I got this wrong but..
With all these experts putting in their 2 bobs worth. HTF do we get to have unqualified Finance Ministers.
From my understanding neither Robertson or Willis have much financial experience or qualifications.
Maybe I got this wrong but..
You would expect being the Finance Minister would be a desirable role. You get to budget or pull the purse strings for the entire economy.
Some of the salary figures you see for the top ministers is still up there. Not sure how it compares to the public sector for the larger companies. It might not be worth it in both a financial or even a work balance point of view.
Even then you still need to get elected or be high enough on the list. Then get the role.
To me some of the other areas are similar. The government has been criticized for delivery. I work in IT delivering projects. To me these are large scale projects. The minister could either be seen as the project manager or the project owner.
Twyford or some of the other ministers for example have been more like project managers or working in delivery trying to plan how the policy will be deployed. This was obviously too hard.
The other way they could have done it is to find a company to implement the policy. The minister as the project owner would then be one getting the progress reported to them and they would be the person asking questions on where are we at, why are we behind.
The minister would still need to have the policies fleshed out.
Again it might be a case of being a minster isn't desirable. Over the next month we see all of the people putting themselves up to be elected.
What were they doing before they put themselves up for election?
We will see a lot of new ministers announced. What is their background?
NZWarriors.com
Robertson saying the worst is over or comments that don't match the figures isn't surprising. He is trying to get re-elected.
Sure he could say it looks bad, but I'm the best person to turn it around. That is too much of a risk as voters will hear that and decide to vote for someone else.
He will be putting his best spin on it.
Now what you need to decide as voters has he reached this point yet with the economy.
Sure he could say it looks bad, but I'm the best person to turn it around. That is too much of a risk as voters will hear that and decide to vote for someone else.
He will be putting his best spin on it.
Now what you need to decide as voters has he reached this point yet with the economy.
Of the six main parties, the Maori Party and NZ First haven’t got on the websites who their finance spokespeople are. I think Winnie, a former teacher and lawyer is NZ First’s finance spokesperson.
Of the other four parties, none of their finance spokespeople have financial qualifications: Robertson (Labour) Fine Arts, Nicola Willis (National) English Lit and Journalism, David Seymour (ACT) electrical engineering and philosophy, and Julie Anne (Greens) BA from UC Berkeley, post graduate in international political studies and a Masters in Planning Practice.
Pretty much none of the potential finance ministers have financial qualifications.
Then again, only one of the two finance ministers I think have been the best ones this century, Cullen and English had financial qualifications… Cullen had a BA and Master of Arts, while English had a commerce degree.
Last edited:
So are you saying that the system is fucked.
Vote Labour and get Robertson.
Vote National and get Willis.
Neither are highly qualified and surely we should be getting the best possible for such a highly important position.
IMO the most important position in the country.
Why do we have to put up with such pitiful options
NZWarriors.com
Bill English IMO was probably the best we have had for a long time. Cullen was good but had the benefit of being in probably the best economic times in our history - did pay off debt and introduced some really good things like Kiwi Saver, perhaps should have invested more in infrastructure then while times were very good and we had little debt.
Grant has probably learnt a lot about spending other people's money from his dad
His books are probably just as much a reflection on Labours haphazard throw money at everything policies as it is on his ability.Nicola has spent time as an advisor to Bill English and John Key and has some real world business experience with Fonterra and Export NZ. Will be interesting to see how she goes with keeping the books. I'm sure she can call on Bill English for guidance if needed.
Winston Peters might be an interesting option
I think the policies and spending practices are just as important as who the actual Finance Minister is. Labour seem to be coming up short on both counts currently
- Thread starter
- #314
I was once on a school board of trustees. They asked who wanted to be the treasurer.
Most people voted onto the board put their name forward for the kids and they had time - none had any business experience. So I ended up volunteered for the role.
It’s probably the same in parliament. Everyone with actual business experience is out busy making money and has no interest in the ‘art’ of politics.
- Thread starter
- #315
Robertson has a conflict of interest and everything coming out of his mouth will be what’s best for Labour, rather than the truth.
It’s been obvious for a long time that next year is the worst, when the majority of people finally flow through onto higher mortgage interest rates as fixed terms expire.
It’s been engineered by the reserve bank as a planned slowdown and Robertson knows all this. The stats and forecasts support 2024 as the low point - peak unemployment, lowest growth.
Robertson has no credibility, yet the media lap it up.
NZWarriors.com
I thought it was interesting at the press conference wIth Luxon and Willis, the media asked her a couple of time about the tax policy and funding for it being out potentially by a few 100 million dollars. When she responded with something like I understand you might have concerns around this but why are you asking me about a few hundred million in our policies when there is a $20billion plus hole in the current governments numbers and you arent asking any questions. There was some silence followed by what do you mean? When she explained there was more silence... and then more questions on Nationals tax cuts...
I don't think many in the media are very astute when it comes to actually understanding what they have been presented with. Grant said its ok and trust him so it must be all good. To be fair National aren't exactly any better but scrutinise what is actually happening currently, not what an opposition party who arent even in power might do.
- Thread starter
- #317
To be fair, a finance minister could rely on expert advice to guide them and do an ok job.
But Labour has appointed people to the treasury with non finance backgrounds (but meeting Labours ideology). Robertson had surrounded himself with clueless people, focusing on well-being budgets and incorporating Maori principles of finance and then is it any surprise that the blind lead the blind and we get wildly inaccurate predictions from treasury that the finance minister screws us up based on?
You probably remember, before the 2017 election, Robertson saying he wanted to be “fiscally responsible“ but when he was questioned about what he meant, never defined how he was going to achieve this. Did he mean he would always run a surplus? Did this mean he would reign in government spending? Did this mean he had a maximum government debt level?
I wish I could find it but around the time Robinson was avoiding telling us what he meant, I read an article from an economics professor from Christchurch who offered up his opinions on what a fiscally responsible minister would do.
He said that since households and businesses need to stick to a budget, governments should learn to as well. He said that government spending should be capped at the previous year plus the rate of inflation and the current revenue not taken into account. Government‘s should only borrow money to get up to that level. The rest of the surplus should be split four equal ways: repaying debt principle, future infrastructure, investing for future superannuation and providing money to fund future disasters (ie. earthquake and flooding recovery and pandemics).
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #319
Robertson: ‘No new taxes….’
Government spending tied to inflation? Try 9% increase per annum
Luxon wasn't even astute enough to articulate his tax plan which has been criticised by a long list of economists.
Election 23: Christopher Luxon rules out rethink on tax policy in response to PREFU
The National leader is rubbishing any suggestion the party's tax cuts will be inflationary or are fiscally irresponsible.
www.rnz.co.nz
How is our international credit rating remaining so steady and forecast to stay that way if the teeth gnashing here is true
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
