Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[miket12]

Are you actually advocating that Mike? Legislation? Regulation? Sure!!! Not sure you are though

I‘m advocating a scheme which would reduce rental while making housing more affordable… exactly what you’ve being saying needs to happen.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I‘m advocating a scheme which would reduce rental while making housing more affordable… exactly what you’ve being saying needs to happen.

Oh, you see I thought you said reduce rents!!!! For housing to become affordable a good 3 brm home should be no more than four times annual income. All for that too.

 

[miket12]

Build new then rent it out - your conscience would be clear and you would have contributed to new housing stock

No need….my conscience is more than clear because of the time and money I’ve donated to charities providing with low cost rentals and social housing.

How much has it cost you?

 

[juju]

And yet we were told it was all about making houses affordable for new home buyers and wasn’t a tax or the additional money the government received. It hasn’t helped new home buyers but is now a tax cut and people are concerned about revenue the government won’t get.

Interesting, if I borrowed money to buy a commercial building, I can claim the interest. If I borrowed money to buy a rental property, I couldn’t.

Let's just have a government who accept massive donations from the real estate sector and do absolutely nothing to address the issues then?

Morally backdating the money is a terrible look when we're told the books are so bad.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Let's just have a government who accept massive donations from the real estate sector and do absolutely nothing to address the issues then?

Morally backdating the money is a terrible look when we're told the books are so bad.

As is a tax cut. As is encouraging smokers again for the big tobacco bribes they received. As is repealing the electric vehicle rebate, because, you know, boohoo some ute owners were crying crocodile tears. etc etc. WORST GOVERNMENT EVER!!

Never could afford a tax cut. Corrupt, Corrupt, Corrupt.

 

[miket12]

Let's just have a government who accept massive donations from the real estate sector and do absolutely nothing to address the issues then?

Morally backdating the money is a terrible look when we're told the books are so bad.

And it’s the fault of the new government that the books look so bad?

Part of the problem with the last three years is that money was seen as the answer but without accountability as too how it was used.

 

[MaybeTop8]

And it’s the fault of the new government that the books look so bad?

Part of the problem with the last three years is that money was seen as the answer but without accountability as too how it was used.

Do the books look bad MIke?

Part of the problem of the last 3 years was Labour's lack of communication and strategy, not to mention delivery.

But there was also A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, which by the way has seen our response hailed as one of the finest. Yes, I know there's lots to be desired, but if the right wing fascists were in power there's a good chance actual people (not antivax fantasies) you know would have died.

And there's been some pretty bad climate events. Which, by the way, are being completely ignored by this extremely regressive government and instead they're tobacco and fossil fuel focussed

Maybe part of the problem is the huge flows of money that ran campaigns antidemocratically to discredit Labour.

Maybe part of the problem is the far right taking advantage of vulnerable people and flooding our environment with screeds of disinformation.

Maybe it's a public service that is entrenched in 40 years of neoliberal thinking, thereby indoctrinated against change.

There's many dimensions here.

 

[Noitall]

And it’s the fault of the new government that the books look so bad?

Part of the problem with the last three years is that money was seen as the answer but without accountability as too how it was used.

I guess alternatively is are the books as bad as being made out? And if they are, when they were opened before the election, was it responsible to run a campaign on tax cuts with the books in such a bad state apparently? And if those tax cuts were to be delivered by changing the smoking regulations proposed, are people justified in being upset being that was never mentioned as a way of achieving the tax cuts?

 

[miket12]

I'd love to know, did the ability for landlords not to be able to claim mortgage interest.....
a) Cause rents fall
b) Help new home buyers into houses
c) Increase the supply of long term rental properties
c) Or just provide more revenue for the government.

If it's only the last, then it didn't perform as the previous government said it would.

 

[marv.]

That's a perspective. Like we all have on here, and out in the real world.

But a "cheap" home now is 800000. With an income of 60000, even 100000 p/a that's impossible.

I do think you're generalising. Times have changed. A lot. Thanks neoliberalism (no I don't get paid for saying this). There is no level playing field, there never was. And it's gotten much, much worse over the last 40 years.

"We all" - might be a good time to go and have some conversations with different groups and interests. It's definitely not all like that

i hear you dude. and yeah generalizing a little to keep it short.
20+ years tattooing and being a landlord has given me a pretty broad cross section of society i think.

if you don’t or can’t work more or work harder or get started with friends or anything else, then all you’ve got i suppose is waiting for life to get fair.

you might be waiting a while.

 

[miket12]

I guess alternatively is are the books as bad as being made out? And if they are, when they were opened before the election, was it responsible to run a campaign on tax cuts with the books in such a bad state apparently? And if those tax cuts were to be delivered by changing the smoking regulations proposed, are people justified in being upset being that was never mentioned as a way of achieving the tax cuts?

Reading some of the details about what was and what wasn't in the fascial update, it seems that some of the "missing money" was left out of it despite advice from the Treasury that it should have been included.

It's also interesting that despite the removal of the smoking regulations, figures today show that the current settings have still led to less people smoking. But as I've already said, I think the new government are totally wrong throwing out the legislation instead of reviewing it. If Luxon was so concerned about the reduction of places able to sell cigarettes, then alter that part of the law. If he was so concerned about 34 year olds being able to buy smokes but 35 year olds could, alter that part of the law.

However, I also hate the hysteria put out by some that removing the smokefree legisalation would cause 5,000 deaths per year. Smokefree is designed not to eliminate smoking all together but to reduce the smoking rate down from the current 6.8% to 5% of adults. Yet the figures released by the Ministry of Health today show that in the last year, 76,000 people stopped smoking or 1.8% of the adult population. If that decline continues, we would reach the SmokeFree in around 15 months without altering the current settings.

And reaching the SmokeFree threshold doesn't make smoking any healthier but the figure of saving 5,000 lives can't be justified when we currently lose 5,000 people PA to smoking or second hand smoke.

It's a pity there can't actually be a non-political debate about this topic.

 

[Noitall]

Reading some of the details about what was and what wasn't in the fascial update, it seems that some of the "missing money" was left out of it despite advice from the Treasury that it should have been included.

It's also interesting that despite the removal of the smoking regulations, figures today show that the current settings have still led to less people smoking. But as I've already said, I think the new government are totally wrong throwing out the legislation instead of reviewing it. If Luxon was so concerned about the reduction of places about to sell cigarettes, then alter that part of the law. If he was so concerned about 34 year olds being able to buy smokes but 35 year olds could, alter that part of the law.

And things like the gradual reduction of nicotine seemed like such pragmatic common sense initiatives. To totally throw the whole thing out with good ideas amongst it at the least seems like they’ve totally pandered to the tobacco industry.

 

[miket12]

And things like the gradual reduction of nicotine seemed like such pragmatic common sense initiatives. To totally throw the whole thing out with good ideas amongst it at the least seems like they’ve totally pandered to the tobacco industry.

Time to put baby (Bishop with his tobacco flavoured dummy) back into the corner and debate the legislation on it's merits!!!

 

[juju]

I'd love to know, did the ability for landlords not to be able to claim mortgage interest.....
a) Cause rents fall
b) Help new home buyers into houses
c) Increase the supply of long term rental properties
c) Or just provide more revenue for the government.

If it's only the last, then it didn't perform as the previous government said it would.

Was it really implemented long enough while other levers will pulled to make the change?

Do you reckon landlords will pass on the backdated amounts to tenets and or will lower rents?

 

[miket12]

Was it really implemented long enough while other levers will pulled to make the change?

Do you reckon landlords will pass on the backdated amounts to tenets and or will lower rents?

Obviously, I can't speak for all landlords but we've just reviewed the rent we charge. It will be going up early next year by around 4% to cover the rises in rates, interest rates (going from 4.6% to over 7%) and insurance but not anywhere as much we would have to if the mortgage interest changes weren't made in which case it would have been closer to a 10% rise.

Even then, we'll still increase the amount each month we put into the mortgage but that's part of our thinking. Each time a mortgage payment is made, our equity increases fractionally and as that benefits us, and not the tenant, we feel that's our obligation to them as their landlord to cover part of the additional expenses ourselves.

TBH, I don't think it will lead to very many landlords lowering their rent, but it hopefully means that rental increases don't have to be as large.

It's one of the primary difficulties landlords have.... unless there's a drop in interest rates (or the reintroduction of mortgage interest deductibility) expenses always increase which unfortunately get passed on to the tenant. Some do defer maintenance but that only costs them more in the long run when they finally get round to it, have a tenant brave enough to take them to the Tenancy Tribunal or sell the property at a reduced value. Landlords with mortgages are required to have insurance as part of their mortgage agreement so although you can probably find cheaper insurance cover, you can't not have cover.... unless you're an idiot.

 

[MaybeTop8]

i hear you dude. and yeah generalizing a little to keep it short.
20+ years tattooing and being a landlord has given me a pretty broad cross section of society i think.

if you don’t or can’t work more or work harder or get started with friends or anything else, then all you’ve got i suppose is waiting for life to get fair.

you might be waiting a while.

Thanks for the considered response Marv. And to be honest, a progressive, inclusive, fair society is really all I'm after

 

[MaybeTop8]

Reading some of the details about what was and what wasn't in the fascial update, it seems that some of the "missing money" was left out of it despite advice from the Treasury that it should have been included.

It's also interesting that despite the removal of the smoking regulations, figures today show that the current settings have still led to less people smoking. But as I've already said, I think the new government are totally wrong throwing out the legislation instead of reviewing it. If Luxon was so concerned about the reduction of places able to sell cigarettes, then alter that part of the law. If he was so concerned about 34 year olds being able to buy smokes but 35 year olds could, alter that part of the law.

However, I also hate the hysteria put out by some that removing the smokefree legisalation would cause 5,000 deaths per year. Smokefree is designed not to eliminate smoking all together but to reduce the smoking rate down from the current 6.8% to 5% of adults. Yet the figures released by the Ministry of Health today show that in the last year, 76,000 people stopped smoking or 1.8% of the adult population. If that decline continues, we would reach the SmokeFree in around 15 months without altering the current settings.

And reaching the SmokeFree threshold doesn't make smoking any healthier but the figure of saving 5,000 lives can't be justified when we currently lose 5,000 people PA to smoking or second hand smoke.

It's a pity there can't actually be a non-political debate about this topic.

It's not hysteria Mike. Smoking is a very pervasive death. Don't make excuses for big tobacco.

 

[miket12]

It's not hysteria Mike. Smoking is a very pervasive death. Don't make excuses for big tobacco.

What I was referring to is the 5000 lives saved per year if this legislation stayed.... one Herald opinion writer even suggested it would be 8000 saved per year. That's a falsehood as we already do lose 5000 people each year. By cutting the number of smokers down from 6.8% to 5% doesn't mean no one will die.... smoking is still going to be just as unhealthy and deadly for those who smoke.

It's not an excuse at all for the tobacco companies (I've lost a non-smoking aunt to lung cancer because her husband smoked throughout their 38 year marriage and a sister who smoked) but I don't like seeing false information spread about.

 

[Noitall]

What I was referring to is the 5000 lives saved per year if this legislation stayed.... one Herald opinion writer even suggested it would be 8000 saved per year. That's a falsehood as we already do lose 5000 people each year. By cutting the number of smokers down from 6.8% to 5% doesn't mean no one will die.... smoking is still going to be just as unhealthy and deadly for those who smoke.

It's not an excuse at all for the tobacco companies (I've lost a non-smoking aunt to lung cancer because her husband smoked throughout their 38 year marriage and a sister who smoked) but I don't like seeing false information spread about.

Hard to put a positive spin on it regardless.

 

[marv.]

Thanks for the considered response Marv. And to be honest, a progressive, inclusive, fair society is really all I'm after

man i think that’s all any of us want. it’s never been that way yet though and i don’t know what will make it that way now, sadly.