Hahaha no it doesn’t, unless your talking about an overinflated sense of self importance.
The only remotely interesting about NZ is the geography.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
Yeah good one Bayley's & Barfoot and Thomas have been the biggest long term donors to that side of the polictical spectrum for years and years..
You're absolutely deluded if you think the Government reversed the policy because of a ground swell political movement by voters.
Are you trying to say NZ could infinitely borrow to pay public services without penalties?
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
I am looking at it from a perspective of someone running a business, generating and income and claiming deductions with a nexus to revenue. (Ie aligning the principles of deductions with other activities)
I like the element of the interest limitation rules rewarding new dwellings. But I don’t think limiting interest deductions is the best tool to achieve it as it drives an unequal tax system
I’d prefer a loosening up of residential zoning and RC rules to achieve the housing availability and stability
Funny you should mention an over inflated sense of self importance Frank.
Given our population & location we must certainly
overachieve in Sport.
We overachieve in Art, Music, Film.
We overachieve in Business and Innovation.
No, you temper borrowing/spending/investment to capacity or capacity expansion to avoid inflation (penalty). But our risk of defaulting on the debt is effectively zero. Which is why govt bonds are so sought after by the private sector.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Again, is property investment a business activity we want to promote in NZ, given our current housing supply problem? It's investment in an unproductive asset and is doing little to help our economic situation.
It is an activity that provides an essential service. Other govt policy could better achieve affordability and supply
We are a large country with a tiny population. We build houses expensively and slowly. Drive past the suburbs and it is wide green space. The lack of infrastructure out there means we are creating scarcity of land that has services (and we are therefore pumping the valuations of land within the old suburbs)
Is property investment a good thing? It’s not good nor bad. It has its place. Should it be discouraged? No
When it's the sole driver of the economy it's bad. When fertile food producing land is being sold off to build housing, it's bad.
The lack of infrastructure is decades and decades of under investment. All underpinned by neoliberalism, the dominant economic system of the last 45 years here, and in other countries.
Wealth extraction over investment in New Zealand - people, infrastructure, community, health and much much more underfunded deliberately.
Your taxes have been extracted into private wealth.
That's worth being outraged about.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Sigh. Nope. We want social equity Frank. We want the takers to actually pay their fair share so we can invest and grow in New Zealand, not offshore wealth and the oligarchs.
The trimming exercise has supercharged this recession needlessly and callously.
So, instead both this and the previous governments, encouraged by Urban Planners, decided intensification was the answer where most of our planning rules have removed minimum section sizes leading to large developments of terraced housing. Because developers have tried to squeeze as many dwellings on as they can per site, they instructed the designers to drop things like removing eaves to get around the height in relation to boundary regulations and daylighting restrictions.
Problem is eaves don't only protect houses from water egress, they also protect the occupants from having too much heat enter the building. Add to that the issue that most terraced houses in the middle will only have windows on one or two faces.... meaning there's little chance of air movement for cooling the house when the wind is coming from the wrong direction.
Air conditioning only has to be provided under the Healthy Homes Regs for heating Living areas.... not for cooling them (so many current rental properties Living areas won't be properly cooled) and certainly not for cooling bedrooms so that is no help.
The planning regulations meant to make houses cheaper have in fact made some unlivable.... unless you want everyone to sleep in the Living Room.
And the worse bit is, I joined a number of designers pointing at this at both local and national levels and the authorities didn't give a toss and, since most of these terraced houses are aimed at the poorer who can't afford anything else or at investors, it's the poorest that suffer.
The Greens answer is to increase the wall insulation... but this heat is coming in through windows... increasing the wall insulation will only mean houses will retain even more heat.... making the problem even worse!!! The real answer is to rewrite the building code and town planning rules to ensure EVERY window has either an eave or a projection above it of at least 300mm to EVERY habitable room.
The next housing crisis won't be about affordability or lack of social housing but about unlivable dwellings.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Lack of regulation - another hallmark of neoliberalism (slash all red tape! big government bad!) is a major factor in allowing bad developments to occur. I agree Mike, and you're far more qualified to talk to this than I'll probably ever be. I can only look at the $50 billion disaster of leaky homes, and that we seem doomed to repeat it, particularly if ACT continue on the path they are within this current government.
And accelerated climate change now results in a far greater set of needs and challenges. We have retro fit double glazing and ducted heat pump, it's amazing, but not everyone can afford this.
Also, this isn't a left/right thing, not really, although I 100% don't agree with neoliberalism of course. By this I mean, the management of regulation - there's probably been many failures there, through incompetence, not fit for purpose, and no doubt corruption. If something isn't fit for purpose it should be revisited.
It doesn't mean that regulation and authority is bad. Unfortunately, it's another factor in this soup of discontent that authorities and regulations can be poorly executed and managed.
Agree with your post wholeheartedly.
We've had regulation on the maximum width of eaves before an engineer needs to get involved but never on the minimum width of them. One of the main reasons why is because to many of my colleagues don't like "restrictions" being put on their "monuments to themselves" (as the Ole Man used to say) than they are at actually looking at what might be best for those living in their monuments.
What's even worse though, is the total lack of understanding from some designers when it comes to intertenancy walls.... if you think leaky homes was bad before, you'll be astonished at how many claims will be made due to leaks in tenancy housing.
Its wild how divergent our political views can be yet a lot of us can agree on this fact.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
National and Act are neoliberalism incarnate - they will sell New Zealand off to the lowest bidder. There is no benefit to any of this apart from enriching the already wealthy and sending profits offshore.
This is the third attempt by parties on the right to sell off New Zealand. To run the government down. To manufacture crises on multiple fronts.
www.rnz.co.nz
chomsky.info
"
But if you can defund it, it won’t be in good shape. And there is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to defund the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them and then they get worse. In that case the government had to step in and rescue it.
That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital. That’s the Social Security scam. If they can succeed in defunding it — they’ve been trying for decades, it’s too popular to do much about, and very efficient incidentally, miniscule administrative costs. Nothing like the privatized health care system. So it’s kind of hard to get rid of. But if you can defund it, it might work out. That’s the point of this decision in the lame duck session. That’s kind of important. First of all, if it can be privatized it’s a huge bonanza for investors. There’s a ton of money in the Social Security system. It’s kept in a trust fund or invested in government bonds and goes back to working people. But if that can get into the hands of financial institutions, they can make a ton of money by using those funds to enrich themselves. And as usual when the system crashes, going back to the taxpayer to bail them out.
"
This is the third attempt by parties on the right to sell off New Zealand. To run the government down. To manufacture crises on multiple fronts.
Greens accuse Prime Minister of softening language on privatisation
The Green Party wants clarity from the Prime Minister on the government's plans for privatisation, accusing him of "publicly entertaining" the privatisation of public services and asset sales.
www.rnz.co.nz
The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival
The Noam Chomsky Website.
"
But if you can defund it, it won’t be in good shape. And there is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to defund the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them and then they get worse. In that case the government had to step in and rescue it.
That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital. That’s the Social Security scam. If they can succeed in defunding it — they’ve been trying for decades, it’s too popular to do much about, and very efficient incidentally, miniscule administrative costs. Nothing like the privatized health care system. So it’s kind of hard to get rid of. But if you can defund it, it might work out. That’s the point of this decision in the lame duck session. That’s kind of important. First of all, if it can be privatized it’s a huge bonanza for investors. There’s a ton of money in the Social Security system. It’s kept in a trust fund or invested in government bonds and goes back to working people. But if that can get into the hands of financial institutions, they can make a ton of money by using those funds to enrich themselves. And as usual when the system crashes, going back to the taxpayer to bail them out.
"
Act want to destroy us with the treaty bill and the regulatory standards bill. Both pave the way for mass privatisation, destruction of the economy, destruction of our natural environment and deterioration of relations within new zealand
www.rnz.co.nz
Regulatory Standards Bill slammed as 'dangerous' call for 'alarm bells'
But proponents of the proposal say it is about better regulation and more transparent lawmaking.
www.rnz.co.nz
Seems Kiwis will get to vote on it. Thats fair isnt it?National and Act are neoliberalism incarnate - they will sell New Zealand off to the lowest bidder. There is no benefit to any of this apart from enriching the already wealthy and sending profits offshore.
This is the third attempt by parties on the right to sell off New Zealand. To run the government down. To manufacture crises on multiple fronts.
Greens accuse Prime Minister of softening language on privatisation
The Green Party wants clarity from the Prime Minister on the government's plans for privatisation, accusing him of "publicly entertaining" the privatisation of public services and asset sales.
The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival
The Noam Chomsky Website.
"
But if you can defund it, it won’t be in good shape. And there is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to defund the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them and then they get worse. In that case the government had to step in and rescue it.
That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital. That’s the Social Security scam. If they can succeed in defunding it — they’ve been trying for decades, it’s too popular to do much about, and very efficient incidentally, miniscule administrative costs. Nothing like the privatized health care system. So it’s kind of hard to get rid of. But if you can defund it, it might work out. That’s the point of this decision in the lame duck session. That’s kind of important. First of all, if it can be privatized it’s a huge bonanza for investors. There’s a ton of money in the Social Security system. It’s kept in a trust fund or invested in government bonds and goes back to working people. But if that can get into the hands of financial institutions, they can make a ton of money by using those funds to enrich themselves. And as usual when the system crashes, going back to the taxpayer to bail them out.
"
Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election
The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.
www.rnz.co.nz
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
More fundamentally is what's behind it Frank. And the motivation is greed and wealth extraction at a scale we've never seen before.Seems Kiwis will get to vote on it. Thats fair isnt it?
Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election
The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.
Given this has happened at least three times here, where is the collective institutional memory on this?
The American health system is the worst in the developed world, if not one of the worst for those who need to rely on public health, in the world.
If only journalism hadn't been destroyed by private industry, someone might be able to take the data from the last 45 years along with a cost benefit analysis of all privatised assets and infrastructure and come up with some kind of well researched conclusions.
You ignore the disinformation that will accompany the next 25+ years.Seems Kiwis will get to vote on it. Thats fair isnt it?
Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election
The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
