Really.... you mentioned NZ should follow South-East Asian countries (and you used South Korea and then Singapore as examples) to be supercharged economies because they investments aren't in property speculation, and you don't like it when you're shown to be wrong. But they're supercharged economies has been at the expense creating more properties leading to their housing being significantly less affordable than NZ.
I linked your post because it shows when you introduced random SE-A countries (highlighting South Kerea) into the conversation. Then later, you moved the conservation on to Singapore. The reason I used them wasn't to randomly pick them but to respond to you using the countries you introduced.
Because their underinvestment in housing to supercharge their economies has led to their housing becoming much more unaffordable than NZ. There needs to be a balance in providing all the needs of a population including housing.
Because their underinvestment in housing to supercharge their economies has led to their housing becoming much more unaffordable than NZ. There needs to be a balance in providing all the needs of a population including housing.
Sorry, but you started replying to me when I offered a solution "outside of the status quo" which wouldn't benefit landlords but renters.
You haven't provided anything for us to consider... only to offer up other countries as examples of where NZ should look at and then get upset when you're shown that their housing situations are worse than ours.
The problem you people like yourself is you don't see the need for balance.... which is why you refuse to answer one very simple question..... if the private sector doesn't provide the housing, who will? Kāinga Ora? Their current debt level is set to peak in 2033 at just under $30 billion and is due to be repaid by 2081..... except they won't have been able to repay it all and will still owe $9 billion.... and that's without committing to building more houses if NZ stopped it's "dependance of property speculation" as you love to say. That $30 billion debt is only covering the less than 15% of rental properties in NZ.... the rest is owned by the private sector. Even if a further 15% of the private sector was to leave housing to invest their money into "productive sectors" and that vaccum was taken up by Kāinga Ora, that would increase their debt to over $60 billion. Anyone want to guess how much of that will still not be repaid within the next 60 years.
Again, you remove the private sector, who provides that accommodation?
Auckland currently has a net migration of approximately 80,000 people in the year to September 2023 yet AC issued less than 8,000 CCC's (including apartments) over the same period. We're already not building enough dwellings and people think the solution is not to invest in the sector and to build less.... that thinking has led to the crisis in housing in SE-A as shown in the two countries you brought into the conversation.
The lack of rental properties is one of the reasons medium rents have risen by of $70 per week (11%) in Auckland. BOP, rents are up 10% because landlords reduced the amount of rental accommodation by changing them to Air BnB's as Air BnB owners can still claim the mortgage interest deductions. Recent articles are suggesting that rents will rise up even further because of the lack of supply to meet the migration numbers.