Home ownership rate at lowest level in almost 70 years

Property

Home ownership levels continue declining, especially for younger people

8th Dec 20, 11:50am by Greg Ninness

Home ownership rates have fallen to their lowest level in almost 70 years and it is becoming much less common for younger people to own their homes.

A new report by Statistics NZ, Housing in Aotearoa: 2020, shows home ownership peaked at 74% in the 1990s, but by 2018 had dropped to 65%.

The decline was particularly apparent for younger people, with home ownership rates for people aged 25-29 dropping from almost two-thirds to less than half since the early nineties.

In 1991, 61% of people aged 25-29 owned their own home, but by 2018 this had dropped to 44%.

Ownership rates have also fallen for people in their 30s, dropping from 79% in 1991 to 59% in 2018.

The decline in home ownership means a corresponding rise in households that are renting, with just under a third (32%) of households renting the home they live in, at the time of the 2018 Census.

This created pressures on incomes in main centres like Auckland and Wellington, where demand for housing was particularly strong.

"Price indexes show that rents have risen in line with incomes nationally, but have outstripped income growth in centres like Wellington and Auckland where markets are particularly competitive," Statistics NZ said.

"Households that rent spend, on average, a higher proportion of their income on housing costs than people living in owner-occupied homes."

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

156 Comments

by Bugger | 9th Dec 20, 9:10am 1607458240

Not a good look for NZ.

by tothepoint | 8th Dec 20, 12:02pm 1607382129

If you're young, it helps to have rich parents.

TTP

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 12:25pm 1607383553

Great advice TTP, you're a crack-up at times :)

by buyandhodl | 8th Dec 20, 1:02pm 1607385745

I am young.

I have rich parents. They own multiple properties.

Somehow I earn in the top 6% of wage earners in this country.

I have a masters degree in a well paying field.

I have net wealth 50% greater than the average in my age bracket.

Yet I can't buy a house in a decent area in this city. I have tried very hard and studied for longer than most to put myself in a position where I can fend for myself.

To then go and ask my parents for help when they've paid for private school tuition fees and are nearing retirement and should be in a position where their kids are self-reliant just because I've chosen to live in this overpriced city is something I consider to be a moral failing.

For our society to set the rules of the game in the way that it has so that people like me have to.... that is just... so dysfunctional and broken beyond belief.

I'm (and a decent chunk of the other young highly skilled people) just going to leave, earn more elsewhere and pay less for the house at the same time.

Nice. What a shitshow.

by Chinaman1 | 8th Dec 20, 1:23pm 1607386994

Diddums.

Try living in a big city in china where tiny apartments cost more than the ave akl house.

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 1:27pm 1607387279

Why would someone try that?

by ilikewalnuts | 8th Dec 20, 1:51pm 1607388701

You know we have reached an all time low when we have to compare ourselves to China to cheer us up!

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 2:57pm 1607392660

Yet when it comes to rates rises the story is completely different, and there's an expectation of affordability. Surely the consistent response should be "Diddums".

by karl seastrand | 9th Dec 20, 12:35pm 1607470501

Chinaman1.. Living in China is not an option for 99%+ kiwis. China has sensible regulations which prevent NZers living in China and no way can we buy a house there. I wouldn't mind spending a few months a year in Macau but am not even allowed to do that. China places the interests of their own citizens before migrants, which unfortunately is not the case in NZ.

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 3:04pm 1607393084

A very articulate comment, which I appreciate. Now, where would you realistically go .. Australia .. the UK?

Australia is great, if you're an Australian. Otherwise, you're dependent on good fortune OR being bankrolled. Though Australians are the richest people in the Western World, their economic fortunes MIGHT be turning [4th turning lol]. Also, the UK is overrated.

Perhaps occupy yourself learning about our Jesuit Banking System. I recommend reading Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy - you can download the PDF. The Creature from Jekyll Island is good too, but it's a huge book .. at times a force read. Rulers of Evil is much better and truer.

by buyandhodl | 8th Dec 20, 1:47pm 1607388424

To be fair, although I'll probably stay in the Anglosphere - comfort zone and language limitations and all that - everywhere else is cheaper relative to incomes.

Probably Aus, maybe the UK. My partner has a thing for Scotland... she's also a US citizen so that's an option if they're able to sort their politics out.

With regards to Aus it kinda boggles my mind that Sydney and Melbourne are cheaper than Auckland, both in nominal terms and before incomes are considered... bizarre...

by unaha-closp | 8th Dec 20, 4:28pm 1607398115

Sort of, but Auckland delayed its housing boom during 2012-16 with super strict council restrictions and was only building housing about 30-50% (per capita) as fast as the Aussie cities. Then at end of 2016 Auckland doubled its land supply and freed up regulations around brown field - from then on our building rate took off. We are now hitting building rates similar to where Sydney was just before it stalled.

So it might just be that we are in the exact same cycle as Sydney/Melbourne, but with a delayed peak. A bog standard completely normal housing bubble, like Aussie was 2-3 years ago.

by Skepz | 9th Dec 20, 12:12am 1607425956

"Australia is great, if you're an Australian."

Australia is great for 600k+ kiwis too, even with the whole COVID-19 stuff happening there wasn't the boatload of expats returning home as one might think.

Most of us here are very well looked after, with medicare, family tax credits and 9% super. There's a lot that you will get in Aussie you won't get as a kiwi in NZ, the unfair treatment of kiwis here is highly exaggerated!

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 2:43pm 1607391803

by Zachary Smith | 8th Dec 20, 3:39pm 1607395146

What do you mean by, "buy a house in a decent area"? Most of us had to buy our first houses in cheap parts of the city.

by Nifty1 | 8th Dec 20, 3:41pm 1607395302

Where's a cheap part of Auckland?

by sharetrader | 8th Dec 20, 3:59pm 1607396356

christchurch

by Nifty1 | 8th Dec 20, 3:59pm 1607396396

Commute not that bad from Auckland I guess

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 4:50pm 1607399428

Stop it, I want to buy in ChCh next year .. stop sending them my way lol

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:31pm 1607398302

If you have an exceptional income, then it's not an unreasonable expectation.
His point is that prices have become detached from such earthly concerns. No one pays for a house with income anymore -- just leverage from all your other properties.

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:36pm 1607398581

(dp)

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:34pm 1607398454

(dp)

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:32pm 1607398350

(tp)

by Calaverite | 8th Dec 20, 4:31pm 1607398279

You could start by asking your parents why they need to own multiple properties...then convince them/their generation to stop voting for parties/policies that perpetuate the problem.

by ex agent | 8th Dec 20, 6:06pm 1607404017

If my wife and I were your parents we would help you into a first home. We have helped both our children. One of them is only 31 and debt free on a second home worth $800k. The other will be debt free when she upgrades to her second home. We see no point in us having more capital and income than we need to live on now and have our children waiting for their inheritances. If we can help them now and see them and their children have an easier life with our help we get the pleasure of seeing that happen. Why would we have more than we need to live on and our children have large repayments on their houses. A win win all around. Our two children are both university qualified professionals and both work hard at their careers.

by Flying high | 8th Dec 20, 9:16pm 1607415419

Buy and Hold

How come people who earn only the median wage which is far less than you, the top 6 percent, can buy homes for themselves and you can't. And you claim to have more wealth than others your age. You must have a bad credit rating or low net income after expenses or something weird.

by buyandhodl | 9th Dec 20, 10:11am 1607461916

When I say home I mean a stand alone home on a big enough section to have a herb garden. Apartments are not for me (I play the drums and I'd rather not annoy all my neighbours). Credit is fine. Net income is fine. Banks will lend me 600 - 700k which is you know, just not quite enough.

Here's a link to net worth by a bunch of different measures. Median net worth for 25 - 34 year olds is 26k...
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/household-net-worth-stat….

by karl seastrand | 9th Dec 20, 12:52pm 1607471523

buyandhodl. look for a big 4 or 5 bedroom house and get a few flatmates. Bank will allow you to factor 80% of flatmate income which will increase the amount banks will lend you. Some monthly costs like power, wi fi, water etc are quartered as well. With the right flatmates you can socialise at home and save money there too. I'm guessing your parents can and will lend/give you sthg like 50K to $100K to get the deposit side of things up to bank requirements. It can even be a lot of fun. It was for me.

by Carlos67 | 9th Dec 20, 10:12am 1607461947

Buyandhodl ? Are you serious ? You need to get some budgeting advice. I was on average wage and managed to pay off a house, even when I was unemployed I managed to keep paying the mortgage. Bottom line is the house needs to be your number 1 priority, clearly if what you say is true then its simply not in your case. I'm really not feeling sorry for you. Its about compromise, you start with a shit house and get a couple of flatmates and move up from there. According to a TV item a couple of weeks back you need an individual net wealth of over $860K to be in the top 10% of New Zealanders. If someone who has never earned more than $60K in his life can get there then you can to.

by Dale Smith | 9th Dec 20, 12:47pm 1607471263

Good on you for what you have done, but it's a false equivalence you are making, and is not the point to be agrued. It only worked for you because others didn't do it. If everyone did what you did, then the opportunity would not have existed to buy a shit house and get a couple of flatmates. If you didn't have that opportunity, could you have afforded to buy?

Just change the names out if there was a shortage of healthy food, and people complained about that. The argument is why is there not enough to begin with, and the efficiency of what is supplied.

There is a genuine shortage of good quality affordable homes. In fact, by definition, we have no affordable housing in NZ. If it wasn't for the fact the homeowners can, at the moment, find a greater fool to sell the property onto at a higher price than what they paid, there would be outrage at having to pay 100% more than you need to to buy a house.

You have over 1/2 the value of your house is made up of non-valued costs due to the rentier monopoly speculative system we operate under. The mortgage that you have been paying off over the years, could have been half the term if you had been able to buy it in a truly free market. Just think of what you could have done with all that extra money.

You now find yourself in the great position of owning a house, after a lot of sacrifices, it sounds like.. How would you feel now if the system was corrected and the waste is taken out of it, and your property reverted to its true valued-added price, ie half the price it is now? You, unfortunately, have little option but to agree to retain the status quo.

by Bugger | 8th Dec 20, 1:29pm 1607387363

It's a dangerous game they play.....
The more that young people are sidelined on property ownership, the more there will be a gargantuan change to laws on property investment when their generation represents their views in parliament.
I expect FHB grants to be rolled out next year to try and keep some sort of equilibrium and votes..(for the ones that do vote, Ref Zack)

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 1:03pm 1607385833

Labour are polling at 53% .. ALSO my generation doesn't vote .. you're imaginings are fantasies.

FHB grants are just a subsidy that will increase house prices .. in the medium to long term.

by Bugger | 8th Dec 20, 1:38pm 1607387884

Well, having policy that effects your long term wellbeing would be a motivation to vote..
Grants will probably be on new builds only, get developers to fight for the sales. Could be a good thing for FHB's.

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 3:00pm 1607392823

It'll likely just need the right mix of anger and motivation to get young people out to vote (or worse).

(Yes, FHB Grants are just more subisdising of investment property.)

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 12:03pm 1607382202

Yes . . . Something need to be done.
Homeownership rates for 25 to 35 year olds fallen from 65% to 35% in past 30 years especially needs to be addressed.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 12:11pm 1607382664

No but house prices have to keep going up or we we have a severe recession or depression- Orr said so. You can’t have it both ways.

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 12:28pm 1607383697

Wrong, house prices have to keep rising because according to Jacinda, that's what people "expect".

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 3:37pm 1607395048

She's identified an entitlement mentality and young Kiwi workers and savers just need to respect that their wealth must be transferred to fill that entitlement.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 1:18pm 1607386736

IO
You know my position; current rate of rise is both unsustainable and poses a risk of significant correction and wider economic instability.
For the past five weeks or so I have been consistent on calling a flattish market for next year which is not only likely but also required. Don’t think RBNZ is going to ignore Robertson’s letter - Orr’s response is as expected to show an appearance of maintaining resemblance of RBNZ independence. However I expect RBNZ will look to some cooling of the market for stability reasons and LVRs is an example of that (and there is good logical reason as to why they are holding off to March).
I expect a fairly prolonged period of flattish increases (some minor correction possible) as seen in Auckland 2017-19 so affordability for FHB will improve.
The price rises over the past decade are not likely to be repeated for some time and will be a bit of folklore for the next few years.
The market will see will improving affordability for FHB but if the government is committed to addressing homeownership rates then additional support programmes are required. This could take the form of an assistance package such as a grant of $40 to $50,000 or a long term deferred but repayable (on eventually selling) no interest grant of a greater amount. Such action would need to be balanced with actions such as high LVRs on investors to prevent the market heating again.
Not necessarily wedded to these being the only options but they are examples.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 1:31pm 1607387473

So how are we going to address home affordability for those in that age bracket? Given that wages are stagnant but house prices just went up 20%. On an entry level house at $500,000, that's another $100,000 they're going to have to take on with a mortgage, if they can get a deposit together.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 2:05pm 1607389550

IO
I have no problem with up to $100,000 - was the figure I had in mind - loan which would be at 0% interest while the FHB was living in the home and repayable only when the property was sold. The $100k or whatever would count towards deposit requirements and - with conditions set on the first mortgage - it would be registered as a second mortgage.
It would be much like a student loan (but more secure) and the conditions would be much the same - such as overseas travel triggering interest.
Can the government afford it? Well we have just seen the government come up with truckloads to support businesses and employment. It would appear in the government books as an asset rather than liability.
I am not arguing that this is THE solution - rather one of possible solutions.
I’ve never been anti the issues facing FHB.I have been consistent in my view for the morality of a CGT on housing investors.
What I can’t stand is these whining blame shifting wild-guessing ridiculous posters who add nothing and achieve absolutely nothing (I have a fault which I have been unable to address in my advancing years - that is suffering fools gladly)
I really hope that those posting on this site can look to constructive discussions as to how the reality of affordability can be addressed rather than these pathetic blame-shifting lame arguments of boomers fault and born at the wrong time. Pathetic.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 2:16pm 1607390192

#okboomer (jokes :-p)

How do you have a constructive discussion when there is no political appetite for intelligent regulation to restore this distorted market? Its pointless (see Adern's comments last night).

Nobody wants to experience a loss or pain, but everyone wants a gain, but for somebody else to pay for it. Its a recipe for social disorder.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 2:26pm 1607390767

IO
If you consider my post and suggestion there is no need for loss or pain by anyone. It seems you are the only one keen on a bubble burst/pain scenario - try to break free.
Pretty simple really. :)

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 2:39pm 1607391551

Yes I considered your post and realised that it made very little sense! Something about turning $100,000 into a student loan then bitching about other people bitching. Then telling me to stop worrying about a bursting bubble after you said we're at risk of a significant correction!

by Flying high | 8th Dec 20, 7:48pm 1607410088

Saved for later i have to go and mow the patch of dirt I call a lawn

by Flying high | 8th Dec 20, 9:27pm 1607416030

Lawn looks heaps better now... it makes me feel good. However IO I doubt you will be feeling good after your bruising exchange above. You're always on the losing side of the argument.

by Independent_Observer | 9th Dec 20, 10:33am 1607463199

And you always end up being a troll with no argument (the previous two points were just that).

Look at the upticks and decide who 'lost' the argument or whatever that means - who cares about 'winning' and 'losing' an argument on a forum like this. Do you?

Its a bit sad that there are grown men, well who never actually grew up....(I'm assuming you're a grown man, but one who comes onto forums to tell people they're losers?)

by gnx | 8th Dec 20, 3:10pm 1607393403

Here is a constructive suggestion... ban interest only loans

https://fb.watch/243unN6S8D/

by blobbles | 8th Dec 20, 4:16pm 1607397362

This suggestion makes no sense. The 100k subsidy from the govt for FHB's will be directly absorbed by those selling. Essentially you will be putting prices up by 100k. Need proof? See when the govt upped the accommodation subsidy and landlords from every corner of the country just happened to increase rents by the same amount as the accommodation supplement. Those same people would be setting house prices when selling to FHBs (or the RE agents would), they will be acutely aware of the 100k subsidy. It would do exactly as every other subsidy (Kiwisaver withdrawals for instance), it would simply pump up the market higher.

Unsurprisingly the answer isn't to add in yet another distortion into the market and hope for the best.

by Calaverite | 8th Dec 20, 4:41pm 1607398903

It's actually worse than that. Research in Aus showed the $7k first home buyer grant increased house prices by $57k https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/dpibe/article/download/52/59

by Dale Smith | 8th Dec 20, 8:21pm 1607412109

Yes exactly, because any subsidy/grant can be leveraged, as property allows you to do. The grant is the 'deposit.'

And most of the increase went to the land.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 6:39pm 1607405948

bblobes
No - it is your comment that really makes no sense at all.
FHB currently account for only around 11% of new mortgages - investors around 17% and owner occupiers being the most dominant being 70%.
"The 100k subsidy from the govt for FHB's will be directly absorbed by those selling" is rubbish . . . and I am strongly supportive of a high LVR for investors so increased FHB activity is not going to add $100K to houses.
But great - at least we are having a constructive discussion as to possible solutions rather than this blame game and the pity me lame reason comments.

by karl seastrand | 8th Dec 20, 12:26pm 1607383567

If things continue in the same way ownership for 25 to 35 year olds will be under 25% by 2030

by Rob Reid | 8th Dec 20, 6:29pm 1607405377

Statistical problems like that are easily fixed - just start measuring garage, caravan and tent occupancy, and we will have plenty to celebrate.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 6:39pm 1607405993

karl
Agreed . . . so what is required???

by karl seastrand | 9th Dec 20, 1:41pm 1607474511

printer8... as I have said before we need to reduce the demand by about 300K people over the next five years by slashing immigration. Removing demand from any market has very predictable results. Economics 101.
But new hard-line immigration policy does not fit the narrative and agenda of somebody (who rumour has it) is already angling for some special international role in the future. So to maintain our ideals and image of total inclusivity, and for NZ to maybe have the first female UN Sec General, the less fortunate half of our population seem destined to forever pay over 50% of their wages in rent and be excluded from the possibility of ever owning their own home. I'm not sure renters and potential FHBs feel that is a good trade off. We simply need to put our own people first.

by Bugger | 8th Dec 20, 12:29pm 1607383766

The more that young people are sidelined on property ownership, the more there will be a gargantuan change to laws on property investment when their generation represents their views in parliament. Expect FHB grants next year to try and keep equilibrium.

by RickStrauss | 9th Dec 20, 9:45am 1607460333

Indeed. More subsidies for NZ's biggest social welfare scheme are bound to be incoming. Ardern has identified that property owners feel entitled to constant gains, and that entitlement must be catered to.

by RCD | 8th Dec 20, 2:33pm 1607391206

With reduced own-home ownership comes increased investor-owned numbers, to such an extent that it will disturb the balance or stability (RBNZ listening.?) of the economy in a very real way. because when you own a home you stay in it until it doesn't suit your needs any more and will protect your ownership come hell or high water, usually for a minimum of 5 and possibly 30 years as in my case.
But when you are an investor you can change tack with the wind and should some adverse event occur like say rising inflation and alongside it rising interest rates then home owners will suck it up, but investors will cut and run.
So when we get to 80% of all homes being owned by investors and the wind changes slightly the rush to the exit will be overwhelming.

by xingmowang | 8th Dec 20, 12:03pm 1607382194

redefine young as people who is not over 50 yrs old then problem solved.

by buyandhodl | 8th Dec 20, 1:03pm 1607385830

lol. Uncharacteristically funny and somehow doesn't insult democracy while promoting communism. Thank you

by kiwimm | 8th Dec 20, 12:08pm 1607382524

So they did have it easier in their day

by JohnfromtheTron | 8th Dec 20, 12:10pm 1607382642

No, just the generation of savers not spenders.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 12:12pm 1607382731

Not sure if this is sarcasm but thought there was data showing that millennials being big spenders compared to boomers was a false narrative

by JohnfromtheTron | 8th Dec 20, 1:14pm 1607386487

Does the data show what the money was spent on? Mortgagee repayments or...and please don't forget Generation X

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 1:29pm 1607387345

Just did a google search and yes all the data is there if you're willing to look. Boomers were most probably bigger spending than younger generations at the same age. But they like to throw stones from glass houses.

by Ezy | 8th Dec 20, 2:51pm 1607392306

Easier to make things up in your own brain to suit your own narrative in this post truth world right John?

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 4:00pm 1607396455

It's a popular false narrative because it enables dodging of responsibility for creating / voting endlessly for policy that transfers wealth upwards to themselves.

by Fritz | 8th Dec 20, 2:58pm 1607392737

Totally false.
Remember boomers spent a lot on fags, booze, cars.
Millenials much less.
Although millenials travel more.
Boomers weren't saddled with large student loan debt at the start of their careers.

by JohnfromtheTron | 8th Dec 20, 4:02pm 1607396567

Some chose to spend a lot on fags,booze and cars.
Getting a student loan is choosing what you want to spend your money on, a degree. Plenty of electricians,plumbers, builders out there making more than someone with a degree and no student loan.

by Fritz | 8th Dec 20, 4:28pm 1607398080

So you have answered your own false question.
Some boomers wasted money and didn't save, some didn't waste money and did save.
Same with millenials.
But to blame low home ownership on the irresponsible financial behaviour of millennials is total bullshit.
Also fine, we need plumbers, electricians etc. We also need doctors, teachers, nurses etc etc.

by al123 | 8th Dec 20, 4:48pm 1607399290

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:48pm 1607399336

Course not. Just tradies. All wealth is ultimately generated by houses. It's PHYSICS

by kiwimm | 8th Dec 20, 12:31pm 1607383907

Average household savings rate
1990-1999: 1.0% (during highest home ownership)
2010-2019: 1.0% (during lowest home ownership)

Source: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/m6

by sadr001 | 9th Dec 20, 7:47am 1607453253

Savings rate once home ownership is already at the peak is largely irrelevant you need to allow some time for that savings to convert into home ownership. Your linked data suggests that the average savings rate pre 1993 looks to be 5.1% whilst from 2003-2012 it is -2.3%. Assuming it takes 7!or 8 years to build a deposit and that home ownership rates build up and don’t change overnight that implies a 7.4% per year difference between Gen X and Gen Y !

by loveyourwork | 8th Dec 20, 12:44pm 1607384663

Nice one John.... Do some homework instead of your false narrative.

by CourtJester | 8th Dec 20, 1:03pm 1607385809

Just gotta take control of your own life and hop on the ladder! While I keep pulling up the ladder at an accelerating rate... Don't worry, I'll only put up the rent by 10% this year. What's that? Nah, my employees won't get a salary increase this year, you know, because of covid and all that.
No, sorry, can't fix that leak, I've got to buy a new Land Rover - you have no idea how much that massager seat option costs!
Trust me, it was just as difficult when I was young. I had to save for YEARS to buy my first house at 21 on a single income! Times were really tough back then, we didn't have iPhones and SkyTV and avocado toast every morning!
Yeah, we can't let house prices to fall. What about my retirement? My boat ain't gonna pay for itself you know.

by printer8 | 8th Dec 20, 5:50pm 1607403020

CourtJester
You proudly posted that you could afford to buy a $1.5m home if you so chose but foresaw a bubble burst. You were wrong so no basis for this moaning - wear it.
Cheers

by KH | 8th Dec 20, 12:10pm 1607382647

Governments of all parties have forgotten their purpose. Which is to benefit Citizens.

by tothepoint | 8th Dec 20, 12:18pm 1607383087

Indeed, KH, and that's exactly what Jacinda did in managing COVID-19........

The benefits to citizens were immense.

TTP

by Fritz | 8th Dec 20, 4:29pm 1607398163

But benefit which citizens?
The benefits need to be distributed as evenly as possible.
They aren't right now.

by Crazy Horse | 8th Dec 20, 12:17pm 1607383079

Easily solved ...tax all empty houses in urban areas, capital gains tax on a second or subsequent properties - including the beach house, land tax on undeveloped land near urban areas, except land that is farmed/growing food etc.

Use these taxes to build houses ....then watch prices go down.

Now watch all the PI's squeal ! .....no need to worry though, you astute property investors, nothing like this will ever happen .....too many VESTED INTERESTS .......what a %^^%$^ !!! the NZ property market is right now, with no one with any balls to go in and do something .....all because of their personal agendas in the political "space"......why should Jacinda's aspirations to be the next Helen Clark, hold this country's economy to ransom !

by Dale Smith | 8th Dec 20, 8:30pm 1607412601

Don't forget to tax empty rooms, why should a couple have a three-bedroom home when a one-bedroom apartment will do. or tax empty beds or like hot bunking, tax a bed that isn't used 24/7.

This is what certain Govts. do, create a problem and then try to solve it by adding another cost (tax) into the system.

And notice, no one asks what the tax money is going to be used for.

by Ocelot | 8th Dec 20, 12:19pm 1607383167

I think using the household stat is very deceptive. I live in an owner occupied house as a boarder, so I'm included in the owner occupier stat. I think this article from 2014 shines a light on the true situation.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/69025/census-figures-show-home-owne…

Home ownership by adults fell below 50% in 2013, and for under 40's fell to 22%.

by Uh Oh | 8th Dec 20, 12:19pm 1607383191

Com'on seriously?
This is just media sensationalising issues that have been written about already today

Pretty easy to find evidence to support a perspective when it's a hot topic

by mikekirk29 | 8th Dec 20, 12:20pm 1607383231

I presume they did break it down for Auckland??
It is not 65% ownership in Auckland

by Ocelot | 8th Dec 20, 12:23pm 1607383419

It's far lower than that. They use the household stat which only show people living in owner occupied houses. Which includes adult children forced to live with parents, people boarding, and people flatting with owner occupiers. The true stat is likely closer to 40% of adults being owner occupiers by now. https://www.interest.co.nz/property/69025/census-figures-show-home-owne…

by buyandhodl | 8th Dec 20, 1:10pm 1607386237

Auckland for individual home ownership from 2018 census:

Rodney Local Board Area 61%
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area 57%
Upper Harbour Local Board Area 49%
Kaipatiki Local Board Area 46%
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Area 50%
Henderson-Massey Local Board Area 43%
Waitakere Ranges Local Board Area 57%
Great Barrier Local Board Area 64%
Waiheke Local Board Area 59%
Waitemata Local Board Area 31%
Whau Local Board Area 41%
Albert-Eden Local Board Area 40%
Puketapapa Local Board Area 39%
Orakei Local Board Area 53%
Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area 34%
Howick Local Board Area 48%
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Area 29%
Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area 30%
Manurewa Local Board Area 37%
Papakura Local Board Area 45%
Franklin Local Board Area 58%
Auckland Region 45%

by Ocelot | 8th Dec 20, 2:21pm 1607390463

That's households that are owner occupied. A very misleading stat. Under 40's are likely to have less than 20% as owner occupiers. The percentage of adults that are owner occupiers have been below 50% since the 2013 census, and are likely to have fallen a lot further in the last 7 years.

by Flying high | 8th Dec 20, 9:57pm 1607417845

Did you notice that the cheapest places to buy in Auckland
otara otahuhu, manurewa also have the lowest home ownership... very ironical butt not surprising.

by PocketAces | 9th Dec 20, 7:09am 1607450987

That is because for the people who tend to live in these areas, prices are still unaffordable

by Nzdan | 9th Dec 20, 9:28am 1607459316

I assume partly due to investors crowding the lower quartile market?

by Audaxes | 8th Dec 20, 12:23pm 1607383436

Is this responsible RBNZ regulatory oversight?:
Banks extending 60 % of their lending to one third of already wealthy households to speculate in the residential property market because the RBNZ offers them an RWA capital reduction incentive, to do so.

Or this:
RBNZ cutting OCR in half five times since July 2008, causing the rich to capitalise rising discounted present values of future asset cash flows.
Hmmmm....

Wealth effect or wealth illusion? The other therapeutic effect of lower-for-longer interest rates is the wealth effect. By driving up the value of future cash flows with lower rates of interest, all manner of assets – stock, bonds, and houses – increase in value and, thereby, can stimulate our marginal propensity to consume. More simply put, the imperative was to make rich people richer so as to encourage their consumption. It is not so hard to imagine negative side effects.

There are the obvious distributional effects between those who have assets and those who do not. Returning house prices in California to their 2005 levels may be good for those who own them, but what of those who don’t?

There are also harder-to-observe distributional consequences that flow from the impact of lower-for-longer interest rates on the value of our liabilities. This is most easily observed in pension funds.

Consider two pension funds, one with a positive funding ratio and one with a negative funding ratio. When we create a wealth effect on the asset side of their balance sheets we also drive up the value of their liabilities. Lower long-term interest rates increase the value of all future cash flows – both positive and negative. Other things being equal, each pension fund will end up approximately where they started, only more so.

The same is true for households but is much more ominous, given the inequality of wealth with which we began the experiment. Consider two households: one with savings and one without savings. Consider also not just their legally-defined liabilities, like mortgages and auto-loans, but also their future consumption expenditures, their liability to feed and clothe themselves in the future.

When the Fed engineered its experiment to promote the wealth effect, the family with savings experienced an increase in the present value of their assets and also an increase in the present value of their liabilities. Because our financial assets are traded in markets and because we receive mutual fund and retirement account statements, we promptly saw the change in the value of our assets. We are much slower to appreciate the change in the present value of our liabilities, particularly the value of our future consumption expenditures.

But just because we don’t trade our future consumption expenditures on the stock exchange does not mean that the conventions of finance do not apply. The family with savings likely ends up where they started, once we consider the necessity of revaluing their liabilities. They may more readily perceive a wealth effect but, ultimately, there is only a wealth illusion.

But what happened to the family without savings? There were no assets to go up in the value, so there is no wealth effect – real or perceived. But the value of their future consumption expenditures did go up in value. The present value of their current and expected standard of living went up but without a corresponding and offsetting increase in assets, because they don’t have any. There was no wealth effect, not even a wealth illusion, just a cruel hoax.
https://www.grantspub.com/files/presentations/FISHERGRANTSREMARKS15MAR1…

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 12:36pm 1607384169

Responsible behaviour was something respected in the past. Popularity is now a more important virtue than responsibility

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 4:04pm 1607396657

Wonder what all the folk who made these policy decisions are invested in?

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 12:22pm 1607383333

Just got back from the Palms Shopping Centre .. the poverty in New Zealand is extreme!

Lots of broke-ass people walking and begging everywhere. Lots of people with no subcutaneous fat due to clearly being on meth.

New Zealand is really an unpleasant place .. on the way back home all I could think about was renewing my passport - it's good to have an escape plan.

by Te Kooti | 8th Dec 20, 12:51pm 1607385112

But not broke-ass enough not to be able to afford $50-$100 of meth a day.

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 12:57pm 1607385431

They don't have to. They just steal from those that can

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 4:07pm 1607396861

Why wouldn't they?

We're busy using policy to steal wealth from younger Kiwi workers and savers. Inflating away wealth ends up having moral consequences. It did in Europe in the early 20th century.

The free money scramble we're handing over to asset holders is not free. It is taken from others and with it comes consequences for society.

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 1:05pm 1607385950

They steal, just ask my neighbors .. they had to installing security cameras a few weeks back.

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 1:15pm 1607386517

My ute got stolen from the work depot a year ago. Months later, we found out they'd also been siphoning the work utes and cars.

by Te Kooti | 8th Dec 20, 1:27pm 1607387237

Meth is such a stain on society, I hate it. You know it's bad when the gangs won't let members and family take it.

Not just us though, it's ripped apart rural Australia as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/ice-scourge-giving-nsw-towns-an-…

by Fritz | 8th Dec 20, 4:33pm 1607398382

The country is going in a really bad direction.
If you have a conscience you will feel bad about that.

Sadly, in reasing numbers don't have a conscience, it's about 'ME, ME, ME!!!'

by Carlos67 | 9th Dec 20, 11:42am 1607467357

Your a bit slow to finally realise that Fritz, however the next thing you will realise is that everyone is the same. Its a dog eat dog world and I concluded years ago that basically nobody give a shit about anyone else, they will walk right over you to get to the top.

by Brock Landers | 8th Dec 20, 12:26pm 1607383573

These people who can't afford houses won't be having many kids. It's the great kiwi genocide by stealth.

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 12:36pm 1607384199

Many have kids and receive a state house for life. It doesn't pay to be too responsible in NZ.

by hemihua | 12th Dec 20, 8:30am 1607715003

We don't need kids anymore, immigration will ramp back up as soon as the borders open.

by Uh Oh | 8th Dec 20, 12:27pm 1607383623

Would not be surprising to see young workers who have little hope of getting a house without help basically packing their bags and moving to AU or further abroad as soon as the COVID debacle settles down...

where
a) wages are higher...
b) living costs are lower...
c) there is more affordable housing in and around key cities
d) there are more opportunities
e) workers possibly get student loans and degrees but use them in another economy giving little benefit to NZ

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 12:29pm 1607383796

Well maybe young people should stop buying smashed avo and there wouldn't be such an issue

by Just a farmer | 8th Dec 20, 1:02pm 1607385720

Agreed, I don’t like avocado and consequently I own my own home. Easy!

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 1:13pm 1607386438

I'm an outlier. I confess to eating avocado once a month-ish and have a house. You could even say I'm the "1%"

by npc | 8th Dec 20, 4:05pm 1607396708

At $20 a go, you only need to skip 10,000 smashed avo' brunches and there's your deposit. Quit complaining.

In my day we ate mud on toast and liked it.

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 4:17pm 1607397473

You had toast in your day ? We ate real estate fliers instead

by GV 27 | 8th Dec 20, 4:20pm 1607397601

Toast? That would require the opulence and extravagance of a toaster. For Christmasses, sometimes we would get a cigarette lighter to start a small fire, although in the years we got that there were no sovs left over for bread. So we just ate the lighter instead.

by JohnfromtheTron | 8th Dec 20, 8:41pm 1607413287

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE

by Flying high | 8th Dec 20, 10:19pm 1607419189

Perfect john

by Carlos67 | 9th Dec 20, 11:44am 1607467473

That was Marmite mate, if you were rich you got potato chips with it.

by murray86 | 8th Dec 20, 12:36pm 1607384198

RNZ have been talking about rates across the country from a report by the Tax Payers Union? How about an article Interest?

by Calaverite | 8th Dec 20, 4:53pm 1607399628

Pretty superficial IMO. They're basically implying high rates = poor cost control when there is no way of disaggregating what the various councils are spending the money on. E.g. Auckland rates look far too low relative to house prices and the underinvestment in growth infrastructure while Carterton is skewed given it's one of the fastest growing districts in the country.

by BigDaddy | 8th Dec 20, 12:44pm 1607384670

You whinging lot should get out more often and stop interviewing your key pads.
The shops are full of people, stock is in short supply, the number of big ticket items being sold is at an all time high, cars clog the streets, building and renovating is flat out. All signs that the majority of people are getting on with it and money is plentiful. There will always be those who miss out, and the poor and bludging class will with us forever. That’s the system. Many of the less well off have brought it on themselves through drugs, drink or having babies when they can’t afford them. The whingers and whiners just want “the Government” to provide helicopter money free. Witness the disgraceful carry on by the bludging class when scrabbling in the dirt for free $5 vouchers. There are those who can and do. The rest want everything free.

by rastus1 | 8th Dec 20, 12:58pm 1607385497

" The whingers and whiners just want “the Government” to provide helicopter money free"

Big D............that exactly where the current spend boom is coming from. Govt free money.

I thought you were smarter than that comment.

by youngdumbandbroke | 8th Dec 20, 1:11pm 1607386318

Why would you think that?

by kiwimm | 8th Dec 20, 1:30pm 1607387454

You gloating lot should get out more and stop interviewing your latest CV values.
The shops are closing in record numbers, COVID has caused supply shortages, the number of big ticket items being sold to property investors is at an all time high, cars pollute the streets, building and renovating for free capital gains is flat out. All signs that the majority of investors and politicians are getting on with it and equity is plentiful. There will always be those to want basic shelter, and the rich property cartel will be with us forever. That's the system. Many of the well off have brought it on themselves by being born at the right time, voting for politician's who pump the system or free money from a complicit central bank. The gloaters just want "the Government" to provide free capital gains. Witness the disgraceful carry on by the property class when scrabbling in the dirt for lower quartile brick and tile units. These are those that can leverage their equity into multiple investments. The rest want to pay ever-increasing rents.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 1:27pm 1607387240

Yip the bludging is being done by property owners, not the poor (the average landlord received hundreds of thousnds this year via the states actions - what did the poor get?....nothing). So BigD is throwing stones from a glass house.

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 1:25pm 1607387122

Its funny how the 'helicopter money' has just flowed into higher property prices making the likes of BigDaddy (Ollie Newland?) richer - yet they have the audacity to throw stones at those who received nothing via the massive stimulus this year!

Who is actually bludging off the state - landlords who own assets and don't do much but receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in their assets for doing, well, pretty much nothing other than having ownership rights.

Pull the other one BigD - I think you're rapidly becoming out of touch.

by Fritz | 8th Dec 20, 4:35pm 1607398557

He's long been irrelevant.

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 4:11pm 1607397068

^^ This comment said completely without irony by one of New Zealand's biggest welfare recipients who has mistaken that welfare for his own merit. What a complete lack of self awareness.

by Squishy | 8th Dec 20, 12:51pm 1607385063

Same people in power, same policies, same outcomes. Repeat every election cycle.

by Averageman | 8th Dec 20, 2:21pm 1607390511

Yep. National Lite.

by Uninformed Hillbilly | 8th Dec 20, 8:17pm 1607411841

No , all of them . We are at the mercy of Central Banks and they own all of 'them'

by Kate | 8th Dec 20, 1:11pm 1607386286

All the more reason we need #rentcontrolnow.

by Plutocracy | 8th Dec 20, 3:45pm 1607395532

That might help working class people. Why would Labour (as a political party) want to do that?

by npc | 8th Dec 20, 4:02pm 1607396549

Yes, let's disincentivize all investment in property. That should help increase supply.

by PocketAces | 9th Dec 20, 7:13am 1607451215

Absolutely. We need to build a huge number of state houses and work from the bottom up, get the worst affected affordably housed, get as many of the out of the clutches of the people farmers (you might call them investors) and into a settled and secure HOME, something people farmers do not provide.
Eventually, we should be able to convince those seeking to profit from insecure housing go find something more productive to put their money into.

by mikekirk29 | 8th Dec 20, 1:18pm 1607386698

A pretty basic question one might have thought:

2 million people increase in pop since 1981 says the report.
How many houses built since 1981? V difficult to find the answer, if it is there.
Report does say some v interesting things, buried in mid report of course:

parcel of land average in Auckland for built in 2010-19: 492m squared
2020: 388m square.

Getting LESS land for more cost. This measure of inflation of prices is never mentioned.
Houses in Millwater for example have 20% more land per house than those in Red Beach recent development
But are same price. 4 years separating the builds.

Another nugget: prop of 25-34 year olds in own house: 65% in 1988. Now 33%
Affordability eh?
A lot of that is probably due to decline in wages of that group, relative to other age groups
But mostly it is because they cannot save deposits

by kiwimm | 8th Dec 20, 1:41pm 1607388092

For the 25-34 age groups. 12% of their gross income goes to repaying student loans. Another cost added in recent decades that makes saving a deposit harder.

by Nifty1 | 8th Dec 20, 3:04pm 1607393080

It's the young peoples fault, clearly they're still buying smashed avo on toast & buying luxurious items... Boomers had is so much harder with affordable housing, stable employment & govt support schemes! Boomers deserve multiple properties, guaranteed untaxed capital gains & their pension paid for by the young.

by Zack Brando | 8th Dec 20, 3:29pm 1607394546

They're good at voting.

by RickStrauss | 8th Dec 20, 4:14pm 1607397263

And very keen to transfer others' wealth to themselves rather than standing on their own two feet.

by Averageman | 8th Dec 20, 2:32pm 1607391158

Im really amazed that the PM and her crew are building up to a new Labour housing policy of .......do nothing.

by BigDaddy | 8th Dec 20, 3:10pm 1607393453

First it was the speculators that were putting up house prices. Then it was the foreign buyers. Then it was the a Chinese who were the culprits. All were dealt to. Result even higher prices. Now it’s investors who are to blame. Society, backed by the Government, always wants to find a minority to blame for Society’s ills. This is the oldest trick in the book and has been used since the beginning of time. This sort of “blame a group” has caused the persecution and murder of millions of minorities in Australia, North America, Europe, indeed everywhere. Who comes after Investors”?
Maybe you?

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 3:19pm 1607393978

Humility when you have more than you need is always a good option instead of throwing stones from your glass house. Generally speaking, it means less heads get cut off (see history).

by PocketAces | 8th Dec 20, 3:26pm 1607394373

Yeah, sorry, but overseas buyers WERE a factor when they were, and yeah they were mainly Chinese, getting their capital out of China and away from authorities there, that was why numerous houses were bought by one person at a time, often sight unseen. It is why OTT money was paid at the time, it did not bother them if they lost of bit of it. And when we did what we could to put the mockers on it and the Chinese govt decided to stem capital flight, it did cool the market for a while. But we keep importing people and we maintain laws that make it so easy for "investors" to get into the housing market and then simply "farm people" until such times as capital gain rewarded them. Then came Covid, a situation where much of what we have done was seat of the pants stuff, including moves by the RBNZ to keep things going, such as throwing interest rates down a very deep well. Lots of people returning, cheap loans and hello, counter to what we thought would happen, up go house prices.
Yes, it is investors fault, always has been in one shape or other, either overseas money hiders, or local people farmers, everything has been set in this country to encourage such garbage.
I desire to see much regulatory change to reset things and improve society, so that the citizens have a stake in our society, mainly, in the first instance, in being able to have somewhere to call home, something that a rented house in this country can never, ever be.

by Dale Smith | 8th Dec 20, 8:43pm 1607413382

It has always been a system that allows rentier behavior, the main culprit is landbanking. Always.

by npc | 8th Dec 20, 4:15pm 1607397340

Why would they fix it? The current arrangement creates more poverty (more labour voters!) and keeps the rich happy (the salmon eating socialist / virtue signalling / chattering classes set - more voters!)

The only people that suffer are the rest of us!

by brisket | 8th Dec 20, 4:42pm 1607398961

the 'salmon eating socialists' are the landlords?
I don't think so (outside the Labour cabinet).
Landlords are a) Kiwi-as Mum'n'Dad DIY nearly-retired tradie types who somehow found themselves with a portfolio of property, by gum, and while they're very humble they don't mind telling you quietly how much it's gone up this year and also how they earned every cent of it... or b) names on a council document that you only ever contact via an agent, and if you ever meet the 'owner' it's a 19-year-old student...

by npc | 8th Dec 20, 3:57pm 1607396243

Young people need to:
1) Stop upgrading their avocado every year.
2) Cut down on the smashed iphone on toast.
3) Acknowledge that in my day interest rates were 9000% and we paid off our mortgages in 5 years by working 15 jobs.

by blobbles | 8th Dec 20, 4:27pm 1607398040

Also the snow was much higher (global warming, less snow).

by FCM | 8th Dec 20, 4:42pm 1607398921

yes and only drink Double Brown...

by Nifty1 | 8th Dec 20, 4:53pm 1607399609

Its hard to resist a good smashed iphone on toast!

by Old China Hand | 8th Dec 20, 7:30pm 1607409055

Lowest ownership level in 70 years? must be a mistake! Spoke with my old uni mate Stevo last week, he has 12 of them NZ houses, just ticked up another one. Stevo lives in OZ, has since he left uni 20 years ago. I asked why he don't buy some of them Oz houses? "Don't be stupid mate, they got that capital gains tax here".

Stevo wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and still isn't, he got a nice inheritance 5 or 6 years ago and has a very average paying job. In 5 years he's accumulated 12 NZ houses, most of which he's never even seen. How can we have such low rates when me old munter mate Stevo owns 12?

BTW Steve is moving back to NZ soon to lock in his super at 65 ;)

by Independent_Observer | 8th Dec 20, 7:51pm 1607410276

Haha pretty much sums up our problems in one example.

by Carlos67 | 9th Dec 20, 11:51am 1607467881

Doesn't highlight any problems to me, rather you have to ask the question, if the "Not the sharpest tool in the shed" Stevo can do it, why can't you ?

Why do we have people here on 6 figure incomes with University education complaining that they cannot buy a house ?

by Independent_Observer | 9th Dec 20, 12:06pm 1607468799

Because Stevo already owns them and doesn't want to sell.

by K.W. | 9th Dec 20, 11:45am 1607467533

How much is the percentage figure warped by the fact that we have imported one million low wage, low skill immigrants, and granted residency visas to tens of thousands of young foreign students? Excluding immigrants, the percentage of actual New Zealanders owning homes would probably be higher.

by lekkerbydiesee | 10th Dec 20, 1:06pm 1607558783

I have a year 10 and year 8 kid and I can see no future in NZ for them. My plan is to move to Australia as soon as they are finished school. They also have a property bubble, but its not as bad as NZ and the wages are higher.

Both Labour and National have failed there voters by filling councils with bureaucrats and making the consenting process so difficult. This is the result - a dysfunctional society of baby boomer's that just don't care. Who cares about the youth and tomorrow? All that is important to baby boomers is that they still have the audi, the batch and boat, the 6 rentals and their home in Mission Bay. Disgusting really. . . .