Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to David Hood,
And isn't the word "limited" also of interest in terms of the data? Many properties I imagine are owned by a limited liability company for one reason or other.
-
More support for team Phil (lol);
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11483885
Will he get the sack too, I wonder?
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
So, you don’t win the argument first time so you stop making it?
No. You made a bad argument the first time. So you change your mind, remove it as an objection, go back to the drawing board and get it better next time.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Er, I could be wrong, of course, but wasn’t David Cunliffe as the then the leader of the Labour Party the one on stage at that debate?
Oh, sorry!!! Goes to show how much I pay attention to the person, as opposed to the policies!!!!!
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Jeff Weir,
God forbid we kiwis should admit defeat, leave the foreigners to their bubble on our soil – and invest in something else.
At the moment in Auckland that is indeed what every kiwi should do - invest in something else!
But, no, we should not "admit defeat" and continue to welcome foreign direct investment in our residential housing stock. In the words of Marie Antoinette: Let them buy bonds!!! It's still foreign ownership, granted, but the lesser of economic sovereignty loss evils, I suspect. As has been the case for as long as I've been buying residential houses, foreign direct investment in housing drives up prices - given in real estate the market expectation of sellers is largely dictated by the highest price paid for an equivalent asset. When the pound sterling was strong and the kiwi weak - it was UK buyers, for example.
But the issue of direct foreign investment is even worse now, as its not just an exchange rate issue. A great deal of that investment is leveraged based on QE/ZIRP policies in offshore country-of-origin. Our small little island is like a cork bobbing up and down hopelessly in a sea awash with free money of all colours - aside from our own.
Moral of the story: it's different this time.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Ewan Morris,
I’d like to see some evidence that the CGT was an important factor in the election.
I'm sure the party has that evidence based on polling.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Russell Brown,
They’ve rather cornered themselves by ruling out a CGT.
That's about as useful as saying Key has cornered himself by ruling out means testing of super. This (largely) media preoccupation of "cornering" politicians by suggesting "back downs", "flip flops", "broken promises" etc. are always some sign of weakness - actually does not serve any useful or progressive objective.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Presentation of the CGT policy by Phil Goff (Christchurch Town Hall) was likely a major factor in swinging the swing voters away from Labour in the election last year. Execution in that debate on that subject could not have been worse. In an attempt to recover with a more coherent understanding of the detail of Labour's policy post-Town Hall, holes and cracks kept appearing - in what was a 'keynote' policy.
Fact: the public voted and said no.
Those who represent Andrew Little's rejection of that CGT policy as a "corner" with no ability to exit - ever - with any type of policy regarding taxation on capital gains, are the ones now stifling the party from its potential further consideration of the matter. There are many variations on CGT policies.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Ewan Morris,
Is property speculation OK if done by New Zealand residents?
Yes, it is okay!
Because the country-of-origin of the capital and borrowings is local - same risk profile on residential lending, same tax regime, same currency value, same interest rate paid on borrowings as that of every other local New Zealander.
That the local tax regime does provide non-owner occupiers (some of which might be speculators) certain incentives/deductions not available to owner-occupiers was/is a problem, and that capital gains were not taxed was/is a problem. But we as a society can address these imbalances internally through our political system.
Foreign direct investment (the key word being direct) in our residential housing stock comes in under completely different country-of-origin conditions - hence not a level playing field - unfair competition - locally earned/sourced money cannot compete.
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes problem. Dotcom was not allowed to buy his mansion and continues to rent it from the owners.
No matter what his and his family’s housing situation, he was vilified based on his nationality/country-of-origin. Vilified based on his size and weight. Vilified based on his accent. Vilified based on his lifestyle and wealth. Vilified based on the perceived mismatch between his appearance and the appearance of his wife.
As permanent residents of New Zealand, no one looked past his and his family’s ethnicity and appearance and said, but they are one of us now. "The Big German" says it all.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to David Hood,
Agreed - sounds like a coincidence. Just a note, any questions you have about RBNZ data will (normally) be responded to quite promptly by RBNZ in any email request. Every written inquiry is treated as if it were a request for official information under the OIA - even if you don't stipulate that it is a request under the Act.