On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build houses! "
Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k . Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the basics.. >>Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of 'affordable' houses. >>Average price of land and building around $500,000..
That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the
price or increase the income.
Second it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the "free-market'
Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF, accomodation
supplements) to increase profits . . .
National also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn to
$2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you
saying National is lying?
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build houses! "
Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k?. Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the basics.. >>>Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of 'affordable' houses. >>>Average price of land and building around $500,000..
That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the
price or increase the income.
You mean "increase the take home income". Labour and the Green's want to >increase income tax which would decrease the tax home income. How do they >think that would improve housing affordability?
more pervasive crutch/subsidy to employers under National, andSecond it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the "free-market'
Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF, accomodation
supplements) to increase profits . . .
It's not a free market while there are WFF and accommodation supplements. Exactly. What started as a way to offset low incomes has become a much
I disagree - there are some politicians in both Labour and NationalNational also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn to
$2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you
saying National is lying?
They are politicians, of course they are.
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:12:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build houses! " >>>>> Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k?. Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the basics.. >>>>Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of 'affordable' >>>>houses. Average price of land and building around $500,000..
That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the
price or increase the income.
You mean "increase the take home income". Labour and the Green's want to >>increase income tax which would decrease the tax home income. How do they >>think that would improve housing affordability?
Those seeking to buy a house are only concerned about after tax
incomes, but that does not mean that taxes ae the only way to increase incomes..
Second it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the "free-market'
Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF, accomodation
supplements) to increase profits . . .
It's not a free market while there are WFF and accommodation supplements.
Exactly. What started as a way to offset low incomes has become a much
more pervasive crutch/subsidy to employers under National, and
accomodation suplements have also increased enormously. The problem is
that the government refuses to consider alternatives; they are too
wedded to rentier incomes and crony capitalism.
National also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn to
$2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you
saying National is lying?
They are politicians, of course they are.
I disagree - there are some politicians in both Labour and National
who are honestly doing their best - sadly that is clearly not the case
with John Keys refusal to accept the reality of a housing crisis which
has been exacerbated by their "do nothing" approach to problems that
do not affect their base - National knows that many of their
supporeters in Auckland are very happy at their increasing propoerty
values . . .
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:12:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >>>
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build houses! " >>>>> Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k?. Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the basics.. >>>>Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of 'affordable' >>>>houses. Average price of land and building around $500,000..
That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the
price or increase the income.
You mean "increase the take home income". Labour and the Green's want to >>increase income tax which would decrease the tax home income. How do they >>think that would improve housing affordability?
Those seeking to buy a house are only concerned about after tax
incomes, but that does not mean that taxes ae the only way to increase incomes..
Raising income tax reduces the affordability of housing. Labour and the Green's want to do that.
Second it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the "free-market' >>> Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF, accomodation
supplements) to increase profits . . .
It's not a free market while there are WFF and accommodation supplements.
Exactly. What started as a way to offset low incomes has become a much
more pervasive crutch/subsidy to employers under National, and
accomodation suplements have also increased enormously. The problem is
that the government refuses to consider alternatives; they are too
wedded to rentier incomes and crony capitalism.
These failed policies are from the left. They should be abandoned to reduce the welfare spend so that taxes can be reduced, take home incomes can rise and houses can become more affordable.
National also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn to >>> $2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you
saying National is lying?
They are politicians, of course they are.
I disagree - there are some politicians in both Labour and National
who are honestly doing their best - sadly that is clearly not the case
with John Keys refusal to accept the reality of a housing crisis which
has been exacerbated by their "do nothing" approach to problems that
do not affect their base - National knows that many of their
supporeters in Auckland are very happy at their increasing propoerty
values . . .
What's needed is a massive correction in house prices. The only way houses will become affordable is for house prices to fall considerably. Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 13:45:12 UTC+12, Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:12:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> >>>
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build houses! " >> >>>>> Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k?. Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the basics..
Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of 'affordable'
houses. Average price of land and building around $500,000..
That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the
price or increase the income.
You mean "increase the take home income". Labour and the Green's want to >> >>increase income tax which would decrease the tax home income. How do they >> >>think that would improve housing affordability?
Those seeking to buy a house are only concerned about after tax
incomes, but that does not mean that taxes ae the only way to increase
incomes..
Raising income tax reduces the affordability of housing. Labour and the
Green's want to do that.
One of the effects on incomes for those strugglig to get into the
Exactly. What started as a way to offset low incomes has become a muchSecond it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the "free-market' >> >>> Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF, accomodation
supplements) to increase profits . . .
It's not a free market while there are WFF and accommodation supplements. >>
more pervasive crutch/subsidy to employers under National, and
accomodation suplements have also increased enormously. The problem is
that the government refuses to consider alternatives; they are too
wedded to rentier incomes and crony capitalism.
These failed policies are from the left. They should be abandoned to reduce >> the welfare spend so that taxes can be reduced, take home incomes can rise >> and houses can become more affordable.
Which probably makes you think he is a raving leftie. All he wants is
National also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn to >> >>> $2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you
saying National is lying?
They are politicians, of course they are.
I disagree - there are some politicians in both Labour and National
who are honestly doing their best - sadly that is clearly not the case
with John Keys refusal to accept the reality of a housing crisis which
has been exacerbated by their "do nothing" approach to problems that
do not affect their base - National knows that many of their
supporeters in Auckland are very happy at their increasing propoerty
values . . .
What's needed is a massive correction in house prices. The only way houses >> will become affordable is for house prices to fall considerably.
Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy.
Indeed. It seems that the likes of Grimes and co. would like to instigate a local version of the GFC.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
there
seems to be agreement that such an increase is desirable but may no
What's needed is a massive correction in house prices. The only way houses >will become affordable is for house prices to fall considerably. >Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy.:Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy"
It will only be disastrous for those who paid too much.
And the banks who lent on an over inflated house.
The warning bells have been sounding for years.
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
:Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy"
What's needed is a massive correction in house prices. The only way houses >>will become affordable is for house prices to fall considerably. >>Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy.
It will only be disastrous for those who paid too much.
And the banks who lent on an over inflated house.
The warning bells have been sounding for years.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:36:07 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 13:45:12 UTC+12, Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:12:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:17:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net>
wrote:
On 7/13/2016 7:06 PM, Liberty wrote:
"back to the topic of the thread - political plans to build
houses! " Rich you are posting twaddle.
The topic was
"Labour can build a house for $20k?. Labour maths"
Rich only adds to the merriment with his solid denial of the
basics.. Liebor have claimed that they will build thousands of
'affordable' houses. Average price of land and building around
$500,000.. That is NOT affordable but it's what the market is...
First there are two ways of making something afofordable - lower the >>> >>> price or increase the income.
You mean "increase the take home income". Labour and the Green's want
to increase income tax which would decrease the tax home income. How
do they think that would improve housing affordability?
Those seeking to buy a house are only concerned about after tax
incomes, but that does not mean that taxes ae the only way to increase >>> > incomes..
Raising income tax reduces the affordability of housing. Labour and the
Green's want to do that.
Raising GST had more impact.
Labour/Green have posken more of getting
companies and high wealth individuals to pay a fairer level of tax.
The problem is not so much the rates of income tax as the ability to
reduce taxable income. National made a presumption that some
propoerties sold within 2 ears of purchase should be liable for tax on capital gains - Labour wants to increse that to five years, and there
seems to be agreement that such an increase is desirable but may not
go far enough. Limiting the ability to offset losses on propoerty
investments to offset other income has also been welcomed in concept.
Neither will affect those trying to purchase a home to live in.
Second it appears that you do not accept that the market would be
influenced by building a lot of houses - strange how the
"free-market' Nats rely on government handouts to landlords (WFF,
accomodation supplements) to increase profits . . .
It's not a free market while there are WFF and accommodation
supplements.
Exactly. What started as a way to offset low incomes has become a much >>> > more pervasive crutch/subsidy to employers under National, and
accomodation suplements have also increased enormously. The problem is >>> > that the government refuses to consider alternatives; they are too
wedded to rentier incomes and crony capitalism.
These failed policies are from the left. They should be abandoned to
reduce the welfare spend so that taxes can be reduced, take home incomes >>> can rise and houses can become more affordable.
One of the effects on incomes for those strugglig to get into the
housing market was the increase in GST - do you want that reversed?
National also claim that they plan exactly the same as Labour
(although their number for capital varies from $1 billion to $1.9bn
to
$2 billion depending on which Minister you talk to), . . . Are you >>> >>> saying National is lying?
They are politicians, of course they are.
I disagree - there are some politicians in both Labour and National
who are honestly doing their best - sadly that is clearly not the case >>> > with John Keys refusal to accept the reality of a housing crisis which >>> > has been exacerbated by their "do nothing" approach to problems that
do not affect their base - National knows that many of their
supporeters in Auckland are very happy at their increasing propoerty
values . . .
What's needed is a massive correction in house prices. The only way
houses will become affordable is for house prices to fall considerably.
Unfortunately doing that would be disastrous for the economy.
Indeed. It seems that the likes of Grimes and co. would like to instigate
a local version of the GFC.
Which probably makes you think he is a raving leftie. All he wants is
to let market forces work without the biasses in the current system
lovingly retained by National
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 55:04:02 |
| Calls: | 2,096 |
| Files: | 11,143 |
| Messages: | 950,131 |