Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
My community is my address book anyway, I don’t lose them by moving house.
Talk to Emma Hart about this re closing of community schools in Christchurch…
Which is to say yes, *I* am not particularly wedded to New Windsor, but a family who actually have spent long enough in a suburb to bond with it, whose children have formed friendships and schools etc, who are suddenly “rich” because of some realty hyper-inflation, won’t be “stoked”.
But anyway, we're arguing about a PAS posters' hypothetical which isn't on the table, so....
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
Demand’s ultimate source is “people who want to live in property”. Restricting who can own them doesn’t really much change who wants to live in them.
No, demand's source in this case is "people who want to buy property" regardless of whether they want to live in it. Removing foreign buyers would reduce the number of people in the market to buy a house - given that there'd still be a shortage, the number of houses being sold wouldn't change, but the price would (assuming the basic economic supply/demand model).
It *would possibly* reduce the size of the rental supply and therefore increase the cost of rental housing.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
Perhaps a better way of putting that is that if I had 800K, I would not be grizzling about it, I’d be really stoked, because I could buy the property I live in now and be freehold with about 300K to spare.
If you had a family and bought a modest 3 bedroom place in Sandringham in 2000, say, that was now worth $1m, and you were forced to pay a tax which required you to sell, and resettle somewhere far enough out and/or considerably smaller, moving your children out of schools, leaving behind your community, making sure that your new house/assets never reached $1m again... well I don't think "stoked" would describe it.
-
I'm disappointed. While I'd normally be a bit careful about shitting where I eat, I think this is pretty short-sighted. TVNZ U was more than a youth channel; it had done a pretty good job of cracking that rather difficult (for the MSM at least) nut - meaningful engagement via social media. The TVNZ U online community was large and active, and they've effectively just thrown the switch on that.
I wonder if they'll sell me their facebook page? I know a certain youth-oriented website that could do with 60,000 automatic likes... and that never backfires...
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I’ve read elsewhere that the policy would not be consistent with our existing FTA with China. Is anyone able to confirm or refute this?
If that's the case then it would be a non-reciprocated requirement (this may be common in FTAs, I don't know). Hadn't heard about it elsewhere, you'd *think* someone in Labour would've looked that up first...
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Anyway, I think there’s a simple, non-racist, solution here, a wealth tax on any NZ tax resident with assets over a million.
Which, if the asset is a rental property, is a form of Capital Gains Tax. And you'd want to exempt the family home, or see plenty of Aucklanders, young and old alike, who live in fairly unremarkable homes now worth a million bucks, being forced to forfeit them, because they're still on the same unremarkable income that saw them scraping to buy the house for $200k not so many years ago.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
Local investors with the money to buy want to make profits just the same as foreign ones.
Yeah, but assuming even a little bit of the problem is supply/demand – and we’re constantly told we don’t have the amount of housing stock we need, reducing demand, even by a few percent, is going to have some impact. And as I said, its not a magic bullet, just one in a number of tools that can be brought in, tried out, without collapsing the entire house of cards.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
My take is that “cheap” money readily available is the driver on prices, turn the tap off or increase the interest rates and the market will change.
I think over-leveraged investors as well as first home buyers suffer from increased interest rates, but only one loses their (actual) home. Likewise though, what makes sense as a home purchase mightn't make sense as a rental investment, especially if we can stem the massive inflation - or create a disincentive that only applies to the latter, such as targeted CGT.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to B Jones,
What I can’t tell from the policy reportage is whether this applies to Kiwi non-residents
I think you'd still be a citizen though, right? And if you already own the home, I don't think you are forced to sell it...
-
Hard News: A different kind of country, in reply to Yamis,
Completion date is 2017 right? I doubt this National Party will have much say in what is and isn’t allowed to book the venue at that time.
Yeah I noted this yesterday on Twitter, the fact that Denise Roche seemed to take it as read that the National Government would still be pulling the strings in 2017. I think the veto power is weird and/or unnecessary, but it says “The Crown” not “The National Party” and really should be considered on that basis. I do wonder if they were able to prevent a major chemical weapons symposium or somesuch (said booking apparently being happily taken by Sky City) the power might seem a bit more ‘righteous’.
Still a weird thing for the Govt to want or feel they need, and underlines a fundamental lack of faith in Sky City being able to exercise its judgement not to turn down a booking the Federation of Nuclear Arms Dealers of the Ku Klux Klan, as long as they’ve got the deposit.