Home ownership matters (and about those mouldy rentals)

Property

Home owners vs renters: Life satisfaction, living conditions, health and financial position differences laid bare by Stats NZ survey

21st Jul 17, 5:02am by Alex Tarrant

By Alex Tarrant

Every so often it's fun to play a game of State-the-Obvious:

Home ownership matters for well-being.
Nearly half our rental stock is so shoddy that it has dampness and mould problems, leading to renters having poorer health outcomes than owner-occupiers.
And those renting are less likely to have a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood, region, the company they work for, and even New Zealand as a whole than those who own their own homes.

Stats NZ yesterday released its latest General Social Survey (GSS) of well-being. Almost 9,000 Kiwis were asked how comfortable they were with their lives, and for views on issues like the importance of farming to the country, the natural landscape, and sense of belonging to family, religious groups and neighbourhoods.

You can read the full results here, and they show Kiwis are generally satisfied with their lot. But one section particularly fits with one of the central themes this election year: Home ownership and the (poor) state of the nation’s rental housing stock.

What isn’t answered by the GSS is whether home ownership is causal regarding well-being. That’s likely to be dealt with more by Stats NZ’s next survey focusing on home ownership specifically, although the results are due in two years’ time.

But just Google “causation home ownership well-being” and you’ll get the idea. A recent local study by Motu included this line in its intro: “The results confirm that home ownership exerts considerable positive impact in the formation of social capital in New Zealand communities.”

Stats NZ’s experts did point out there is a ‘life curve’ that shows through in the results. Older people are generally more satisfied with life, and the older you are, the more likely you are to own a home. But as the debate about home affordability heats up, the divergence in well-being readings between owner-occupiers and renters are important to keep in mind.

Even more so with the near-daily stories now about our hospitals being clogged up with people being admitted with preventable respiratory diseases – people who generally rent their accommodation or who are in social housing.

Face-to-face interviewers asked respondents to rank some answers on a scale of one to ten (ten being most satisfied) for a series of statements. Other questions were along multi-choice lines. When divided down home ownership lines, two-thirds of those interviewed owned their own home, and a third did not (for ease, I’m call these people ‘renters’).

The results

The highest-level question – how would you rate overall life satisfaction – was dominated at the top end by owner-occupiers. Just under 70% of owner-occupiers responded with scores of eight, nine or ten, versus 56% of renters. ‘Is your life worthwhile’ came in at 75% to 65%.

On financial well-being, just 7.4% of owner-occupiers said they did not have enough income to meet everyday needs, against 17.9% of renters. Renters also outweighed owners in ‘only just enough money’. Then it switched – 50.5% of owners had ‘enough money’ (versus 38.7%), and 22% had ‘more than enough money’ (versus 11.3%).

Now to the state of our housing stock. It makes you wonder why the government dropped its home insulation scheme. (As an aside, this was a policy developed by National with the Green Party, and showed that they could work together. It may even have been the most successful single policy in terms of health outcomes under the Fifth National Government).

Regarding the general condition of a respondent’s housing or flat, the results were surprisingly even between owners and renters. ‘No repairs or maintenance needed’ came in at 36% (owners) to 35% (renters) of respective respondents. ‘Minor/some repairs and maintenance needed’ at 57.6% to 58%, and ‘Immediate/extensive repairs and maintenance needed’ at 6.5% to 7%.

Answers to the next question were more telling though. ‘No problem’ with dampness or mould drew 75.3% of owners versus 54.8% of renters. ‘Minor problem’ drew 22.2% versus 34.3% and ‘major problem’ 2.5% to 10.9%.

How about warmth? A good 59.3% of owners said their house or flat was fine in terms of how warm they would like it against 36.4% of renters. ‘Sometimes’ colder than you’d like was 27% to 28.7%. But ‘always or often’ colder came in at 13.7% to 35.9%.

That means 45% of renters had some sort of dampness or mould problem in their house/flat versus 24.7% of owner-occupiers (that seems like a bad result too). And 65% of renters live in a place that is either sometimes or always colder than they’d like (vs 31% of owners).

What does that mean? Health problems. Giving self-rated health statuses, 13% of owners said they had fair or poor health, against 17.2% of renters. Perhaps not as large a gap as expected, but it certainly fits the trend.

Some other results divided by way of housing tenure:

Sense of belonging to family: An average score of 9.2 out of 10 for owner-occupiers versus 9/10 for renters

Sense of belonging to neighbourhood: 6.7 vs 6.0

Sense of belonging to company/organisation: 8.1 vs 7.8

Sense of belonging to religious/spiritual group: 8.5 vs 8.7

Sense of belonging to region: 7.7 vs 7.2

Sense of belonging to New Zealand: 8.7 vs 8.4

Sense of belonging to another country: 6.9 vs 7.7

Importance of natural scenery and environment in defining New Zealand: 9.2 vs 9.1

Importance of agriculture and farming in defining New Zealand: 8.2 vs 8.3

Importance of New Zealand's history in defining New Zealand: 8.0 vs 8.2

Importance of New Zealand symbols and icons in defining New Zealand: 7.6 vs 7.8

Importance of sports and sporting achievements in defining New Zealand: 7.8 vs 7.9

Importance of art and artistic achievements in defining New Zealand: 6.8 vs 7.0

Importance of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity in defining New Zealand: 7.4 vs 7.4

Importance of the people in New Zealand in defining New Zealand: 8.4 vs 8.6

Importance of freedom, rights and peace in defining New Zealand: 9.1 vs 9.1

These results are obviously just one aspect of the well-being survey - by way of housing tenure. You can see different outcomes by way of age group, ethnicity, household income, and more in the full results.

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.

204 Comments

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 7:27am 1500578856

Doesn't that just reflect that renters are poorer and as such less likely to heat / dehumidify? Also correlation does not imply causation

by Muter | 21st Jul 17, 8:38am 1500583128

Hah! If only that were the case.

Renter here.

We run a de-humidifer in our bedroom 18 hours a day. (Turned off when we sleep) We empty it every second day. We no longer use our ensuite bathroom because there is no extractor fan and damp air pours into our bedroom. We dry our clothes outside (when it's dry) and in a spare bedroom (when it's raining) and close the door to the rest of the house so we can leave the back window open. Over the weekend we open up the doors and windows even when it's 10 degrees outside to try and air out the house to stop mould.

Over winter we scrub the walls once a month, a dirty job that's time consuming but necessary.

Yet we still wake up to windows like this: https://imgur.com/a/v3W5j

Note the stained carpets. Note the pooling of water under the condensation.

We do everything we can to keep our house dry. It is completely impossible over winter as the house gets all of 30 minutes of sun during the day.

Our property agency doesn't seem to care. We've raised it with them several times. Yet we are expecting them to charge us for ruined carpets when we move out.

I am pretty sure that this is a fairly common occurance amongst renters. A home owner would never let their house get into this sort of situation. I would have put double glazing in, or an HRV system. Or even latches on the damn windows so we can air it during the day while we are at work as soon as we moved in if it was my own property. Instead we end up living in a mould infested house that passes it's inspection with flying colours every single time ...

Tell me again how this is the renters doing?

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 8:53am 1500584014

Live there for as long as you can, build up the evidence, then sue them for a refund of all rent paid due to providing a product that is not safe and not fit for purpose. You probably need to ask the landlord for the problems to be sorted every so often (knowing that he will laugh in your face).

by frazz | 21st Jul 17, 8:57am 1500584229

Yes ..exactly the same situation here. We had perspex over all our windows as "kiwi double glazing". Landlord took it off and sold it..no replacement yet. I love my dehumidify artodetoo ..works 24/7 and never argues. Just need to empty it every 2 days>

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:07am 1500584863

Looks like your dehumidifier isn't up to the task. Putting in a $2,000 - $4,000 PPV system only to have Tennant's block the vents with rags sucks. It gets worse when if you tell them not stuff rags in there so they helpfully fill it with insulating foam somehow getting some into the fan itself. Given how little liability Tennant's bear for destroying very expensive systems, it makes sense that landlords have to cap how much we can spend on such systems.

Additionally based on your comments your house would've mouldy regardless if you or a homeowner lived there. You are allowed to install the latches on the windows yourself and remove them when you leave of the landlord doesn't want them. I am both a landlord and a tennant and I've found my landlord substantially easier to deal with than most of my Tennants. I don't expect my landlord to provide everything for me, when I wanted to install a dishwasher I asked if I could have the plubmbing put in at my expense and he said go for it. Generally if I want to make an inmprovent to the property that I live in at my own expense the landlord never objects. Why would he? I'm improving his property's value whilst acquiring the luxuries that I want ( with the dishwasher example the $500ish to install plumbing is worth less to me then having to do the dishes for a year, if I stay at this place for longer than a year my cost/ benefit equation skews even further in my favour ). I know for a fact that I usually forgoe rent increases in order to keep better quality tennant's whenever I find them.

by fat pat | 21st Jul 17, 7:24pm 1500621854

are you serious - your tenants blocked the vents

by Uninterested | 21st Jul 17, 9:16am 1500585366

It sounds like you are doing everything right. So in this case, the place that you are renting is at fault, primarily the short duration of sunlight. Opening some windows during the day every day should be the ideal: how about a few "window stays" on two sides of the house (incl bathroom) so that the wind can blow the condensation away?
Personally I doubt that double glazing helps all that much. It may be warmer by a degree or two but the humidity inside will be higher given that it has not condensed onto the windows (and then able to be wiped off in the morning).

by mfd | 21st Jul 17, 9:45am 1500587132

If your house is properly insulated, the temperature remains more steady and there is no cold surface in contact with the warm internal air. Both factors will reduce condensation. Double glazing should be standard purely for the comfort + energy efficiency benefits, the reduction in condensation is secondary.

by NZXY | 21st Jul 17, 10:06am 1500588391

Yes but where has the condensation gone? It's just hanging there in the air and moisture laden air is very hard to heat. Insulated and airtight house need to have a Ventilation system and these suck as much power as a demuhumidifier if not more. So you fix one problem and you create another as is the way in all aspects of housing.

by mfd | 21st Jul 17, 10:26am 1500589601

Technically moist air is harder to heat, but not to any significant degree

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45349/how-air-humidity-affe…

Dehumidifiers are great though, and when I've had one in a well insulated house it's so easy to keep it comfortable. Of course any energy you put into the dehumidifier ends up as heat in the end anyway.

by Uninterested | 21st Jul 17, 12:26pm 1500596766

Probably true, but it costs more to 1/ Install double glazing and 2/ Buy and use a dehumidifier.
The old fashioned way is to wear a jersey indoors, wipe/squeegee the windows down each morning, open some up every day and save X thousand dollars.

by mfd | 21st Jul 17, 12:31pm 1500597095

My dehumidifier was under $100 on trademe and worked just fine, not a budget buster. Double glazing will obviously be more, but there will be a return on the investment in lower heating costs, before accounting for the increased comfort and noise insulation. Not sure exactly what the maths are like over here, but in the UK you're hard pressed to find a house that isn't double glazed.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 12:40pm 1500597614

Retrofitting double glazing on an old 3 bedroom statehouse costs approximately $40,000. That is a lot of heating. Comfort is a luxury, luxuries cost more...

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 1:29pm 1500600599

comfort is a luxury now is it?

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 1:56pm 1500602211

Leather seats are more comfortable, they aren't a right that car buyers expect.

by mfd | 21st Jul 17, 2:00pm 1500602422

There's also no health impact from having a non-leather car seat. There is a health impact from people having uncomfortable housing, and the health system has to address this using tax payers money.

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 3:18pm 1500607133

the operative word in your sentence there is "more". Normal seats are perfectly comfortable, as houses should be, especially if you're charging people money to live in them.

by scarfie | 22nd Jul 17, 10:32pm 1500719568

Relative humidity is called that for a reason.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 23rd Jul 17, 7:30am 1500751805

... I recall the horror when as a kid ... a certain very aged great-aunty would breathe a steam of stale elderly moisture on us nephews whenever she visited and she gave each of us a kiss with her overly lip-sticked luridly pink lips ...

I used to think that was the ultimate definition of relative humidity ... bbbbbrrrrrrrrrrr ......

by Fritz | 21st Jul 17, 2:17pm 1500603428

what if everyone in the house is working during the day?
Our housing stock is a laughing stock for a 'First World' nation

by printer8 | 21st Jul 17, 11:29am 1500593344

From all accounts it is unacceptable.
However the solution is simple; lodge a fourteen day notice to you landlord to fix. Failure to do so means that you can take him/her/them to the Tenancy Tribunal.
If your case is justified then the landlord is bound to fix or face financial penalty.
If you lose (i.e. the Tribunal thinks that you don't have a case), and you still feel that it is unacceptable then simply take your time and look around for something a little better. At least you will take a little more care and not sign up for what you would consider a lemon.
There are a couple of points here.
Firstly, isn't it great just being a tenant and simply issuing a fourteen day letter to your landlord to fix is a hell of lot less expensive fixing it if you were a home owner having mistakenly bought a damp house.
Secondly, accept that you have made a mistake in in renting an unacceptable property, but also accept that it is a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker to find something else as a tenant than if you are a homeowner.
Me thinks you protest too much.

by Eco Bird | 21st Jul 17, 1:48pm 1500601723

Very well put ... it is much easier and more flexible to be a tenant ... tenants have many more options if they choose to correct dampness issues .... and the easiest is to move to a better property!!

Why would someone accept to live in such a house and then complain is beyond me

The tenancy tribunal is very strict on H&S issues and will hold any landlord to account ( and fines) if they cannot provide adequate accommodation - Tenancy Services have powers to inspect and and take landlords to the tribunal even if the tenant does not want to ....just call them on 0800 836 262

So this Article is another typical way to stir the Pot and the author made a great effort to portray 45% of rentals as damp and unlivable by adding up numbers ... I dont think that is true and his conclusions are just his own opinions wrapped in the Stat NZ report.

NZers have a choice and they vote with their feet in everything.
No one is forced to live in a damp house affecting his health just like no one is forced to eat rotten food ... !! there is no shortage of rentals in the market and disgruntled tenants can find alternatives. As to housing NZ homes, then then most are a disaster and hence they are demolished and rebuilt.

there is no logic in renting a cheap place and spending $50 more a week on heating / dehumidifying or cleaning it ...

I have had more than 50 tenants - and I can tell from my own stats that overtime more than 50% of them created problems for themselves because of their lifestyle, untidiness, cooking, washing or lack of basic knowledge about humidity / ventilation and cleanliness ...

Some landlords are guilty of running down their properties ( which is really stupid) but it is the tenant who actually lives there and they owe it to themselves and their kids to be in a healthy place and move out from a hopeless damp property - eventually these places will be forced to be cleaned out or discarded from the rental stock.

I encourage every unsatisfied tenant to talk to his landlord and complain .... if they did not fix their issues then take it further up the chain - otherwise leave, he /she will lose big time.

by Muter | 21st Jul 17, 4:43pm 1500612180

Haha a typical response from a responsible landlord.

"Not my problem, it's your lifestyle that doesn't work"

Get off it.

PS - I am leaving the rental, we've just purchased a house so we don't need to deal with the crummy rental situation anymore. That point wasn't irrelevant to the rental situation though... I've had good rentals and bad rentals since turning 19 and leaving home.. and funnily enough it's about 50/50 good for bad.

So you're essentially flipping a coin with rentals these days. It's not good enough.

by fat pat | 21st Jul 17, 6:54pm 1500620099

If I had to guess I'd say that's a 1970's era house perhaps with hardiplank exterior and decramastic tiles on the roof. I lived in one for most of my life. Forget the dehumidifier - you're just wasting your money. Opening the windows and doors every day to get a draft through the house, regardless of the outside temperature, will go a long way towards expelling the humid air. The problem is that those houses are quite air tight and the windows themselves are acting as the dehumidifier. Unless the water is scrupulously wiped from the glass every day you'll end up with sever mould problems, unfortunately, with both parents working, nobody has time to do that. If the roof space is in good condition then a DVS system would make a huge difference. You can make a strong argument to the owner that installing one would only cost $3000, it's tax depreciable, and would prevent damage to the carpet and wooden window sills. Your idea about the window latches is good, they only cost $15 from bunnings or Mitre10 but wouldnt be sufficient in themselves to solve the problem.

by skudiv | 21st Jul 17, 9:35pm 1500629725

Not sure who's fault it is that your house house only gets 30min of sun, maybe your own for living there¿
HRV is a scam for the weak minded, LOL yeah the roof space is nice and warm on a sunny day, but on a cold rainy day, it's the last place you want to be sucking air out of! Ever wonder why ceilings are the first place to insulate, and the think about the stupidity of making ventilation holes in your insulation and even worse pumping that cold air into your house because you are stupid enough to think it is helping with the heating. I just moved out of a house that had HRV.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:56pm 1500630969

A HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) system draws air from outside the house transfers the heat from air leaving the house into that air and then pumps it into the house. A PPV (Positive Presure Ventilation) system hasn't got anything to do with heating (directly). A PPV system draws dry air from the roof space and pumps it into the house to expel the humid air that is already in the house. What we need is to make tenants liable for all damage they cause regardless if they intended to cause the damage. With that kind of security I would feel better about putting expensive systems that tenants don't always understand into rental houses.

by fat pat | 22nd Jul 17, 10:48am 1500677310

if you or your tenants are incapable of ventilating the house then the DVS/HRV/PPV will do it for them at a cost of about $300 per year in electricity. Any heat transfer is incidental. The viability depends on the house construction. One has to do some research on the topic before installing.

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:07am 1500847622

@renter , this is appalling , do you really run a dehumidifier 18 hours a day ?

Your power bill must be horrific

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 8:46am 1500583614

You realised that your comment "poorer therefore less likely to heat/dehumidify" goes against your "correlation does not imply causation" argument.

Do you think we need to take a large sample of random people and shove them into poverty to properly test if they will chose food over heat in order to test your hypothesis.

You're funny.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:16am 1500585378

That is simply another plausible explaination as to why poorer people have poorer health outcomes, as opposed to it being because they are tennants. The house is the same regardless if an owner lives in it or a tennant. The difference is in the amount of effort that each will put into maintaining their living environment.

by Plutocracy | 21st Jul 17, 9:29am 1500586145

That's facetious - the houses are not the same. Owner occupied houses are generally maintained at a higher standard then rental properties. Read the most recent BRANZ survey which highlights this point.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:32am 1500586365

Exactly, because Tennant's neglect the day to day maintaince of the property. Landlords have to by law pick up all the big ticket items and it is in our interest to maintain the property to resolve minor issues ranther than remedy big expensive ones later.

by NickBOP | 21st Jul 17, 9:44am 1500587059

That's a stereotype. I don't neglect the daily maintenance on our rental property. But we are not allowed to change anything on it or make improvements. We are fortunate that our term of renting is now at an end and we will be back in our own new home next month. So sick of the tenant bashing that goes on everywhere though.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 10:24am 1500589471

What landlord wouldn't allow you to make improvements to their property which they effectively gain the benefit of for free?

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:30am 1500849008

Correct , tenants seldom if ever spend a cent on their properties, many dont even mow the lawn

by skudiv | 21st Jul 17, 9:38pm 1500629915

Poorer people are stupider, which is why they are poor and also why they make many stupid decisions, some of which lead to poorer health, others which lead to a life of renting and poverty. Smart people aren't poor, because they make smart decisions, which is also why they are healthier.

by john wheeler | 21st Jul 17, 9:15am 1500585305

Toronto House Prices Crash 192k since April.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGL0ysImPCo

Auckland Albany House Prices Dive 13.5%
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94154549/house-prices-dive-in…

The Crash Is Coming.

by propertyminx | 21st Jul 17, 9:15am 1500585355

FFS

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:30am 1500586209

You have to admire his tenacity, even I would be bored of that by now.

by propertyminx | 21st Jul 17, 9:35am 1500586553

Lol :)

by Eco Bird | 21st Jul 17, 1:53pm 1500601984

Ditto

by Double-GZ | 21st Jul 17, 9:27am 1500586039

I know, right. It's the one trick pony again *yawn*

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:30am 1500586235

But what a trick!

by rastus1 | 21st Jul 17, 9:36am 1500586590

To be fair Double GZ you sprout the same old thing day in day out...except you just swap the words around a bit... :)

by Houses Overpriced | 21st Jul 17, 9:50am 1500587451

Similar to your tricks? With all those links you send time and again. ..

by Double-GZ | 21st Jul 17, 10:05am 1500588337

You need to get off your butt and start looking for a job instead of bad-mouthing me. No hand-out should be given to lazy people.

by NZXY | 21st Jul 17, 10:09am 1500588590

Yeah nah - lazy is good. We all need to slow down.

by Houses Overpriced | 21st Jul 17, 10:20am 1500589202

Hahaha ... you are obviously talking about yourself.. you jobless creature.. check the last 10 articles to see how many times you have commented compared to I... shameless guy

If memory serves you right, you were the first to bad mouth me yesterday... I would never said anything if you had better sense

by MisterB | 21st Jul 17, 12:56pm 1500598568

Queue 1 trick pony DGZ posting QV values by suburb... in 3.....2......1......

by Ex Expat | 21st Jul 17, 4:33pm 1500611601

Welcome to yet another new member.

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:33am 1500849224

@John Wheeler

Crash ?

I doubt it , a hard landing maybe , a soft landing is desirable .

The reality is that we have 21,000 homeless due to a housing shortage and a new 6,000 arrivals each month , and they will NOT be homeless , so someone else is going to be homeless , and that will be the lowest end of our socio-economic spectrum

by Carlos67 | 21st Jul 17, 3:49pm 1500608988

In Auckland the humidity is a nightmare. Was indoor rowing yesterday with the window open and a fan in it directing the air into the room and the humidity hit 95%. I have to keep the house closed up at night and run two dehumidifiers flat out to try and get it down to 50%. This I find however stops all the mould on the curtains and the windows are no longer crying. You simply must have dehumidifiers running in Auckland, the problem is they do increase your power bill.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 7:30am 1500579020

This could imply that renters are less likely to heat/ dehumidify because they value ciggies or booze more than health.

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 7:43am 1500579819

It could imply that investors are nothing but tight-fisted shitehawks, who can't even look after their own investments properly by insulating them.

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:08am 1500847686

Imagine if we did not have investors to supply housing stock

by steven | 24th Jul 17, 10:12am 1500847933

I do, then home owners would get a better deal.

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:36am 1500849405

@Steven , how so ?

If there were no investors supplying the market with housing stock who would supply houses to those who cannot afford to buy one ?

Housing New Zealand have shown they cant , so who can ?

by two otherguys | 24th Jul 17, 10:15am 1500848101

Ten Acre Man from Greenhithe Shoots from the lip again

Do you really believe investors supply housing stock?
What you really mean is investors add to rental inventory by converting owner-housing to rental-stock

by Bobster | 24th Jul 17, 10:18am 1500848322

Investors do not add to housing in any greater proportion than owner occupiers. Investor activity predominantly decreases the relative portion of owner occupier owned housing by competing with potential owner occupiers for EXISTING housing stock.

by Zachary Smith | 21st Jul 17, 8:22am 1500582155

A relative of mine has had to recently evict some tenants for repeated non payment of rent. In one bedroom the carpet was peppered with cigarette burns.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 8:51am 1500583899

My tenants pay on time and are perfectly lovely, so do both of these anecdotes cancel each other out?

Does you're friend need to stop being a slumlord?

Who knows...

by Zachary Smith | 21st Jul 17, 8:57am 1500584239

No. Some tenants do value ciggies over health and even a roof over their heads. I'm just backing up sadr001 with an anecdote. It's perfectly possible to have lovely tenants.
My friend supplied a lovely place at a reasonable price and had to finally give up on being tolerant about repeated late payment of rent.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:08am 1500584885

My point still stands. Your anecdote doesn't "back up" anything and goes against his very first comment that correlations does not equal causation.

Also by "tenants" value ciggies over health and even a roof over their heads you mean PEOPLE.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:13am 1500585218

Correlation between poor health and being a tennant does not imply that because you have poor health you will be a tennant or vice versa.

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:12am 1500585130

Thank you. I do agree that good tenants do exist, I simply contend that they are few and far between. The majority of tennant's simply don't want to do what they can to improve their own situation. If you asked your landlord if you could put in a PPV system, odds are he won't object. He might even offer to pay for half of it.

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 9:21am 1500585660

I assume you "own" rentals, if most of us are so bad, why do you keep doing it? Surely less hassle to not "own" them.

Why on earth would a tenant pay for half of a permanent fixture in someone else's house? Are you going to refund them the half when they move out?

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 10:21am 1500589271

I do it because it allows me to leverage my money easily. The capital appreciation on the properties has been a nice bonus. The ownership model that I use also allows me to shift income from me to my wife who is still studying and has no income of her own, allowing a portion of my income as well as all the rental income to be taxed at less than my marginal tax rate. ( complicated stuff to do with losses being allocated against my income via an LTC or some such)

I pay for 100% of the improvements that I want in the place that I rent (where I live) because the improvements improve my quality of life enough or reduce my costs ( lower power & water bills, etc ) enough for my ROI to be about a year. The landlord couldn't be happier and I get a better living environment. I had contemplated having a HRV put in but on a cost benefit analysis decided instead to run a dehumidifier in just the master bedroom while I sleep.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:36am 1500586605

Because they are cold, wet, tired forced into a corner.

I have to say however. Its not renting that's the real problem. Our whole housing market is broken, solve that and a lot of this should resolve itself.

by meh | 21st Jul 17, 2:23pm 1500603785

Ha. Our entire economic/capital/money system is broken. Solve that and the housing "market" and everything else should resolve itself.

Or, maybe humanity is broken and there is no hope. Of course, the construct and ethics we live by could be a major cause.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 4:21pm 1500610861

Can we start with housing though. Please.

by rmnz | 21st Jul 17, 9:57am 1500587837

Then maybe you're either not doing your homework on your tenants (i.e. you don't really care) or your rentals aren't attractive to good tenants (i.e. you don't really care).

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 10:15am 1500588942

I am still relatively new to the game (5 years since my first property purchase) and relied too much on the fundamental humanity of people. The first tennants I had we a down on their luck family that just wanted to get their kids into a good school zone. Never paid a weeks rent after the bond, made holes as big as dinner plates in a couple of walls & a door. Took me 3 months to evict. Didn't learn my lesson, picked another low income Tennant, this one destroyed stuff and paid partial rent, stayed for a year. I now have the out of Auckland portfolio managed by a rental company and select the best tennants for my Auckland houses instead of choosing the ones most in need.

by MisterB | 21st Jul 17, 1:00pm 1500598824

** please start spelling tenant correctly, it's driving me baty ** ;)

by Fritz | 21st Jul 17, 2:30pm 1500604247

Neil Tennant

by sadr001 | 21st Jul 17, 9:49pm 1500630542

Youth these days can't spell.... ;p Usually chrome picks up my spelling mistakes and corrects them automatically. Linguistics and the associated arts were never my strong suite.

by RickStrauss | 21st Jul 17, 9:45am 1500587141

I keep the place tidy, do basic maintenance myself, and coincidentally always seem to be wearing a suit when I meet the landlord face to face. Rent is on an AP.

He recently bought some new furniture for the place, and overall seems quite keen to keep us around.

I guess my anecdote is more of a bromance one.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:59am 1500587945

Haha! That's a good anecdote!

by Yvil | 22nd Jul 17, 1:43pm 1500687814

Great to hear a good Tenant - Landlord post RS.
I don't like the mutual tenant vs landlord bashing, the simple truth is the landlord doesn't have income without a tenant and the tenant doesn't have a place to live without a landlord.

by RickStrauss | 24th Jul 17, 11:08am 1500851283

I have one confession to make. I wasn't quite up front. Most of the maintenance is done by my girlfriend, who's a much more practical sort than I. She's pretty good at basic plumbing etc.

by frazz | 21st Jul 17, 8:28am 1500582486

Or it could imply that most rental homes in NZ are substandard and poorly maintained by tight fisted landlords

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 8:49am 1500583796

You shouldn't have to dehumidify a house!
As a renter you also shouldn't have to supply a heater, a cost efficient heating system should be provided (e.g. heat pump).

by Nzxonz | 21st Jul 17, 7:54am 1500580477

House ownership matters =Vote for change

by Ex Expat | 21st Jul 17, 4:37pm 1500611833

Who should we vote for and why?

by abnz1 | 21st Jul 17, 4:47pm 1500612428

Anyone but .................Lol.......what a question

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:14am 1500848078

@ Nzxonz you suggest we VOTE FOR CHANGE .......... but who ?

Labour offer nothing new , their immigration and housing policies are identical to National with the only difference being a plan to actually build houses ( which wont happen simply because it cannot be done without either massive tax hikes or massive debt ).

The Greens are only interested in welfare recipients, with clean rivers as an aside.

Winston is not to be trusted and Gareth Morgan , well what can I say ?

by sharetrader | 21st Jul 17, 8:10am 1500581417

for a calm relatively balanced society high rates of home ownership matter, 70% +
once you go the other way you create an us and them society with all the problems associated.
and like it or not NZ is a socialist country where most expect the state to step in when the need arises, whether it be shelter, food, health.
don't get me wrong I hate our benefit system which gives money for no return, but I accept we must look after those that have fallen on hard times

by Zachary Smith | 21st Jul 17, 8:37am 1500583065

Sharetrader if you look at this list of countries by home ownership rates you can see that high rates of home ownership don't seem to mean a lot:
List of countries by home ownership rate

by Plutocracy | 21st Jul 17, 8:42am 1500583326

Countries like Switzerland may have a low home ownership rate but I'm going to go out and a limb and guess that they have much better rental standards and increased tenancy rights.

by MisterB | 21st Jul 17, 1:06pm 1500599199

European rental laws are way better than NZ. The tenor of many of the comments by investors on this forum attest to the fact that renters are seen as second class citizens.

The fact is while many choose to rent, there is a likely much more substantial portion who would choose to purchase, were the house prices not so out of kilter with wages! It's really a self perpetuating problem too, because of the way landlords often treat tenants (I've had 2 great landlords out of 10). This treatment as second class citizens perpetuates the cycle of tenants mistreating the property. The landlords get richer - as maintenance gets deferred in the interests of capital gains - and the tenant gets sicker. Tenants may get booted regularly by "investors" who are flippers, vs holders, and out of pocket expenses can be thousands each time.

Nuts really .

by Yvil | 22nd Jul 17, 1:51pm 1500688283

I am from Switzerland Plutocracy and you are absolutely right. I grew up in an apartment on the 5th floor until I moved out from home (to live in another apartment) and I loved it. Yes the quality of the rentals is very good and the laws are very, very tenant favorable (i.e. you can never ask a tenant to leave unless the tenant is behind in rent or has caused blatant damage to the place). This is rarely an issue as Swiss people are generally very law-abiding and tidy

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 8:53am 1500584028

Hey Zach, do you rent?

by Zachary Smith | 21st Jul 17, 9:00am 1500584456

I have rented and I do remember being a bit slack about things. I understand renters. I'm a Darklord now.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:09am 1500584988

Sounds like home ownership means a lot to you i.e. having it for yourself and taking from others?

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 8:46am 1500583571

It really annoys me that being a property investor is a business when it suits, but when it comes to providing a product that is up to modern health standards, they feel they don't need to bother or they ask for a government handout. What other business gets away with that?

by Sluggy | 21st Jul 17, 12:50pm 1500598251

I agree. Its amazing how whiney the landlord comments are above. No one likes a whiner.

by Kakapo | 21st Jul 17, 12:53pm 1500598401

It's that bloated sense of entitlement the skiving layabouts have developed.

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 4:25pm 1500611104

I think that is probably the most eloquent argument I've seen for not being a slumlord.

by Eco Bird | 21st Jul 17, 7:24pm 1500621862

that is utterly false Jimbo ...
H&S is governed by law and it applies to rental properties just like any workplace - the ones who chose not to comply will either lose business or be fined heavily ... the Government is heavy handed on that ... ( as much as they can !! almost like chasing weed growers)... but the Tenancy Services has started some serious work and inspections after being awarded new powers....

No one asked for or can get any Government handout and there is No such thing, so let's skip the BS and comment responsibly - if you were referring to the Insulation contribution , then that was not a hand out to the Landlord, the Nat/Green initiative was to contribute to insulating homes which only accommodated Beneficiaries and low income families ... not any other tenant .. the max was $2000 as an incentive for the landlords to complete the job. that program was stopped last year after doing 3000 houses, Insulation is becoming compulsory in 2 years and every new tenancy agreements should state clearly the state of house insulation....

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 8:46am 1500583582

I don't get why renters don't sue. Surely if you have paid lots of money for a damp house that is not up to international standards, you would have the right to a refund.

by Muter | 21st Jul 17, 8:51am 1500583864

I think it's because what other choices do we have to live? I can't move houses every few months just because the quality of house is sub par.

A house that is damp is better than no house at all. A landlord would simply have the attitude of "I can get someone else in if you don't like it".

There absolutely needs to be a minimum standard set for a rental. Right now we fall well short of that in many (not all) cases.

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 8:57am 1500584260

Live there as long as you can, build up the evidence, occasionally ask the landlord to fix it knowing that he wont.
I can't see any reason why you wouldn't be eligible for a 100% refund of your rent for the time you lived there. If that was say 5 years, that's a good deposit for a house.

by Zachary Smith | 21st Jul 17, 9:02am 1500584531

All houses in Auckland are damp due to Auckland being a damp place.

by Muter | 21st Jul 17, 9:05am 1500584749

That's a poor excuse. My parents and grandparents both live in a dry house that doesn't have waterfalls off their windows in the mornings. Why is my rental so vastly different?

by NZXY | 21st Jul 17, 10:14am 1500588877

It is a damp place and the best thing you can do is to lay a vapor barrier on top of the dirt under your house.
It's dirty work but inexpensive and the difference is amazing.

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 10:34am 1500590046

Our new double glazed fully insulated house is not damp. It is a huge step up from the standard NZ house.
We get a little bit of condensation on windows...

by MisterB | 21st Jul 17, 1:08pm 1500599335

I agree. Our house is 3 years old and zip on the damp side. It's about quality, not Auckland conditions alone.

by propertyminx | 21st Jul 17, 9:08am 1500584910

@ Muter; that is horrific, agree sadly loads of rentals are of this 'standard' (I use that word loosly). As a landlord I am appauled at what other landlords provide as 'housing'- yours included. The government is bringing in minimum requirements for insullation, 2019 (in my opinion too long drawn out). My rentals all have ceiling & floor insullation and HRV systems- a minimum requirement in my view, should be made law today. To insulate ceiling and floors is somewhere between $5-$7k (average sized house) and less if you do it yourself, and an HRV system is $4k. If you can afford to buy a house to provide as lodging for people, you can afford the $10k to make it dry and warm- just my view.

by Conrad | 21st Jul 17, 9:13am 1500585225

I suspect many slumlords are leveraged to the hilt and couldn't possibly afford to pay $10k per shack even if they wanted to.

by David George | 21st Jul 17, 9:38am 1500586692

Good for you Propertyminx, unfortunately the Auckland (and elsewhere) rental market has adapted to demand pressure with some very dodgy "dwellings"; garden sheds, garages and basements that were never intended to be habitable. These slumlords seem to get away with it for the most part. Just the other day a young couple had their favela blow up from a faulty gas pipe bloody near killing them in the process. That building was consented as a sleepout so no sink, stove, shower or toilet allowed. This sort of thing is common and becoming more so. The overseas based landlords were unavailable for comment.
Auckland is becoming a very unequal place with housing factors a major contributor to that inequality.

by Doris | 21st Jul 17, 10:24am 1500589489

Perfectly logical outcome of inviting 45,000 people every year to come and live in the city, without constructing extra accommodation for them.

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 11:11am 1500592290

Again - if any other business owner did this...

by Grendel | 21st Jul 17, 9:50am 1500587451

Totally agree. I also believe that providing decent accommodation goes a long way to getting decent tents who like where they are staying even if they don't own it.

I'm young enough to know a lot of people who are still renting (something which is going on longer now) and they all just want a nice place to call home until they can get enough money together for a deposit.

by MisterB | 21st Jul 17, 1:11pm 1500599464

good on you @propertyminx

Good landlords who run a proper business have nothing to worry about for minimum standards in the same way rental car companies don't complain their cars need a WOF to be on the road.

by RickStrauss | 21st Jul 17, 10:40am 1500590457

There are other things you can do, too. E.g. campaign for higher standards of transparency and measurement in the PTE sector (see how the volume of incoming applications has dropped since some robustness has been added around fake qualifications). Having the PTE sector actually having to provide a quality service rather than being simply a back door migration scheme would see volumes coming into Auckland drop, IMO, and rents would likely follow - at least in central Auckland.

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 9:09am 1500584942

Cheap housing is the answer , everyone should have plenty of money in the pockets, very happy, governments and RBNZ and immigration and overseas investors can easily be sorted in a way for all of nz to have cheap housing, even sections would come down in the end, I'd rather get a loan of $200k at 10% than a loan of $600k at 5% , this stupid idea that high housing cost are a good idea is madness, people would have more money to spend on other stuff hopefully that we make, and why have 1 rental at 1 million when u could have 3, of course u probably wouldn't need so many rental for retirement because u wouldn't b spending most of you life paying interest, and there'll alway b a need for a certain % of rental houses so good, use your head, think about it, ok owe houses are worth 1 to 2 million but if u weren't lucky to have that house from house rises when could u have ever been able to afford your own home u r in or deposit and the stress, we need change badly this can't end well

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 9:19am 1500585552

We need to realize that things have changed forever and we cant all own a 3 bed home in Auckland and that renting is the new normal for many folk

If anything the Government should be incentivising large investors ( such as listed Property Companies ) to build simple but good quality apartment blocks for renters on a big scale , simply because the Government cannot do this effectively or efficiently without it becoming a drain on the State and a burden on the taxpayer.

This is common in Germany for example where a huge % of the population never ever own their own property but rent from large Companies who own apartment blocks

We also need to recognise that in the future there will be people who will never afford or may not want to own their own home but need the security of long -term tenure .

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 9:25am 1500585959

You can realise that all you like, I'd rather push for change thanks.

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 9:53am 1500587603

@solidaname you need to be pragmatic , you can push for whatever change you want but things are changing right under your nose and you may not like it or want it , but the old way of doing things has regrettably gone forever .

Back in the day when we had just 2,0 million people and huge numbers were Government employees in the armed forces , Navy , Railroad , The Government printer , Power stations , mines , roadworks and all manner of now-privatised enterprises , we could embark on housing schemes . Land was plentiful and cheap and builders earned low wages so costs were contained .

Local Councils charged just 5 Pounds for consent for a wooden workers house , now its pushing $100,000 in levies, charges, submission fees and connection fees for the simplest dwelling on a new section . A water meter along costs $15,000

Its gone , never to return , and Labour is being delusional by suggesting it can be done

We now have a massive surge in migration running into what may be 100,000 people a year in the next few years , we simply cannot rely on the State to housing anyone but the most vulnerable ( and that will be in apartments mostly)

Quite simply we need small Government that lets the free market sort out the situation because :-

The State cannot house everyone except those too poor to even rent.
There are now too many people in New Zealand for the State us to embark on schemes to build mass quality homes
The State simply cannot become a builder -of-last -resort and build three bed houses for my children as I would like , because it has neither the money nor the resources nor the capacity

Some parties election campaigns are creating false hope and unrealistic expectations.

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 10:00am 1500588041

We need ... you need ...

At some point in the near soon you will look back and say WE should have acted sooner and stopped the excess migration and the monied people and the foxes and bolt-holers and the ants building ant-nests

Mind you, you were told 3 years ago it was too late - did you listen

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:18am 1500589120

Listen , mate dont get annoyed I am just telling it as I see it , dont shoot the messenger .

I also dont like whats happened but its done , things have changed and this is the new normal

by Ocelot | 21st Jul 17, 10:05am 1500588324

Land tax.

by RickStrauss | 21st Jul 17, 10:42am 1500590560

Agree - it's not that difficult to use policy to remove purely speculative demand from the market by removing the incentives for it. Or to change policy to aggressively chase money laundering rather than turn a blind eye to it.

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 10:09am 1500588552

Completely disagree with your free market approach, the free market doesn't self-regulate, it looks to maximise profits - the leaky building fiasco is a prime example of where free markets lead us to, the 2008 GFC is another example of loose regulations. Very few areas of business would I trust to be self-regulating.

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:40am 1500590441

If the free market approach does not work , then what do you suggest ?

Its totally impractical for Government to become the provider or builder of accommodation of last resort to everyone except the most vulnerable .

It simply cannot be done by a Government today , money does not grow on trees and skilled workers dont appear from thin air.

Intervention in the market simply causes distortions in the long -run which makes things worse .

by RickStrauss | 21st Jul 17, 10:43am 1500590638

We have no reason to assume policies that did work in the past (e.g. in New Zealand, and in other places such as Germany) won't work today, and can't be used effectively - especially in combination with measures such as rebalancing land tax and income tax, and aggressively targeting money laundering.

by rastus1 | 21st Jul 17, 9:29am 1500586185

That might suit the landlords. How about remove the tax breaks and subsidys, introduce a wof and tip ownership in favour of owner occupier. Seems that would be far better for society in general. Leave the tax breaks for new builds.

by Bobster | 21st Jul 17, 9:35am 1500586501

Sorry, what is the reason things have changed forever to have this effect? I suppose the question is, what are the stuctural changes to the housing market that mean prices are stuck at a permanent level of unaffordability? What event has occurs that now means that house prices are at a permanent higher multiple of incomes?

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 9:56am 1500587785

@Bobster Try importing 1,000 new migrant people every 120 hours ( which we do right now ) into a tiny country like ours and see what long term structural changes come with this stupidity.

We simply cannot cope , and something has to give

by Bobster | 21st Jul 17, 10:06am 1500588379

Immigration is cyclical, and anyway we are coping if you look at house as an accomodation asset (what a quaint idea). Rents in Auckland have gone nowhere, so the balance of supply and demand for housing as an accomodation asset seems relatively balanced. These current stupid prices have not been caused by owner occupier demand, so immmigration as an excuse for a permanent material reduction in affordability is not compelling.

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:11am 1500588673

Have you tried to rent a house recently ?

Sure rents have been stable , thats because the yields are good if you are a migrant investor , you get 1% for your money in China and 2 % from a rental in Auckland .

Its a no -brainer

If you have raised Capital at 1% in Hong Kong against an apartment there , and invested in a house in Auckland yielding 2% , you dont need to increase the rent , you a cash -positive from day 1

by Tom Joad | 21st Jul 17, 10:39am 1500590352

1% margin - all sweet!

Apart from the exchange rate risk, interest rate risk, regulatory risk, single asset class risk, p-lab risk....

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:43am 1500590607

@ Tom Joad ......they dont care about the risks you list , we are seen as a stable well run democracy with strong property rights and no onerous regulation or barriers to entry

And of course there is Capital Gain which the Chinese see as the icing on the cake

by Bobster | 21st Jul 17, 10:56am 1500591393

Yes I have rented. Anecdotal evidence about how easy or hard it is to rent is pretty useless. But the numbers are very important, as they reflect demand across the whole of a region. And no shortfall of rental accomodation is indicated by the numbers, this is shown by increases in rentals in Auckland over a number of years at or very slightly above the rate of inflation. So the proposition that house price increases are caused by increased occupier demand it's doesn't stack up. It's total BS.

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 10:55am 1500591359

Allow 1000 migrants into Auckland every 120 hours ... then try renting a house in Auckland ... last weeks news item ... a single mother aged 35 with 9 children hot-bedding it with another single mother in a 2 bedroom state house ... all up 15 people in a 2 bedroom house ...

Ever wondered where are all these migrants are going ... where they are staying
You know where they are going

Trawled through the NZ 2013 census to see how they make up their average 3.1 occupants in houses in Auckland with their average 2.5 children and it turns out their is a lot of doubling up and crowding and over-crowding (in descending order) by Pacifica, Asian, Maori with up to 20 people in a house ... try competing with that renter-purchase-power

Now put yourself in their shoes, and next time a census comes around do you think the heads of those households are going to answer their census questionnaire fulsomely and honestly and say 3 families are resident there - you can guarantee they do not, and will not

by nymad | 21st Jul 17, 10:52am 1500591130

Isn't that new regulation proposed by all wise Nick Smith going to mitigate this, though?
i.e. the landlord can't rent out to greater than maximum occupancy standards?

If my interpretation of it is correct, and your numbers are correct... Auckland is going to lose it's key low wage workforce incredibly fast.

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 9:40am 1500586837

No things haven't changed forever and prices even now could easily go down 30% could even be 50% in the more higher priced areas, I take it u ether payed high for housing or used property like a ATM machine like many on here the support high prices and I guess national, but thing will change and are because simply we have stuff up fundamentals, affordability, really big barriers, ok keep banging at high immigrant that have no access to overseas money anymore so are under the same rules of banking in nz as the rest of the locals that can't afford it, ok appartments forever or leave Auckland, well sunshine look what's happening prices are coming down and every month that goes by the reads will get worse, for years

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:06am 1500588386

@O4 normal , you may not like this but I can assure you that things have changed forever , the good old days of everyone in Auckland having a comfortably affordable free standing house with enough space to play in the back yard ...........are gone forever .

We are simply bringing in too many people we have run out of space and now need to go up .

And unless wages in the construction sector go DOWN (God forbid ) then prices are likely to stay right up there .

And dont worry , because the Asian migrants who are able to get in here are the cream , the seriously wealthy, and they can afford these prices , which compared to Hong Kong , Shanghai , Taipei , Tokyo and Seoul are a cheap as chips for them

by Solidname | 21st Jul 17, 10:29am 1500589783

Again I tend to disagree with that statement, because someone has money it doesn't make them the cream, some people's money comes from nefarious deeds, some comes from exploitative practices. I think we need to take a closer look at how that money was generated as opposed to a simple equation of money = good.

by KH | 21st Jul 17, 10:06am 1500588397

Some things to think of. 1. There are many places in New Zealand that are dry and don't do mold and damp. Auckland is not all of New Zealand and that place is moldy and damp - others are not. 2. We have inherited many houses that not fit for purpose and the climate. Site, aspect and design. 3. You can have a warmer dryer house by opening your windows for air and opening curtains for the sun. Many people don't, and it they don't care too they should not winge. Bad decisions. Pick yourself who you want to put in this category.

by JimboJones | 21st Jul 17, 11:17am 1500592633

All of NZ is either cold or damp in winter.
Some people go to a place called work during the day and don't want their windows open.
I think if you are paying $500 per week for a house you have every right to whinge.

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 9:57am 1500587860

Bobster u know this lot , they bang on on because they were apart of these high housing prices but can't belief it can't go back with just overwhelming proof, and national will save the day and endless appartments for FHBers , they'll keep leaving, the big money's gone, there are other better places to live, even appartments in Auckland are overpriced for what u get, so there u have it prices are coming down, not rocket science, ps national (bill English) isn't like key at all as far housing, u wait and c if they get in 6 months after, housing will keep going down , let's hope interest rates don't go up to much when they normally would b going down

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:07am 1500588446

Yeah boatman Aucklanders will push back , not the greedy home owners I guess, they love high immigration, but there NO MONEY , but everyone has high house prices now, now what, how can it stay that way, even if people sell high and buy high, how can it climb, it's over, it couldn't even go down 5% then back up 5, there's no future in that

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:15am 1500588905

This argument is going round in circles , Aucklanders can push back all they want , the housing fundamentals have changed forever, there is a new dynamic in play , we are full to the gunnels with new immigrants who are desperate to get somewhere to live , so secondhand house prices are just tracking behind building costs of new houses .

by Bobster | 21st Jul 17, 10:17am 1500589063

Apart from your point about immigration, which I don't agree with, what other fundamentals have changed? I can see what has changed, the banks have lent money like there's no tomorrow, but that's definitely not a permanent shift. Anything else?

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:28am 1500589727

@Bobster , the whole dynamic has changed here's the evidence :-

-I could not afford to buy my home today as I dont earn enough money ( its changed that much)
-Tradesmen building houses in Auckland are charged out at rates that are similar to what your GP charges
-Interest rates are the lowest in our lifetime
-Land supply has been constrained by both bureacracy and speculation ( land banking )
-Subdividing a section costs more than may people can afford due to all the costs , levies , fees etc
-The population of Auckland has exploded

Auckland is no longer the peaceful slow little backwater it was 20 years ago

by propertyminx | 21st Jul 17, 10:44am 1500590670

Don’t forget the fundamental shift of our government over the last 15 years to push AKL as an 'international' city, in an effort to bring more money into the country, which has a halo effect on the rest of the country's major cities and slowly to the regions. The more AKL is held up as a city that can dance with the big guys, the more interest you get from the international community who want to visit here, live here, invest here- it's a globalized world now, probably that is one of the biggest macro changes which will continue affect this country into the future.

by Bobster | 21st Jul 17, 11:23am 1500592997

Fundamentals could be increased demand for owner occupier housing via immigration (foreigners who become residents and buy using domestically sourced capital) or foreigners who aren't residents but who buy property here (ie imported capital). The factors you note aren't in themselves "fundamentals", but they could cause a change in the fundamentals (demand and available capital).

The first category, we just talked about. There has been no corresponding movement in rents to reflect a significant change in the balance of occupier demand vs supply. Doesn't stack up as an argument to support current prices.

For the second category, available evidence is that this level of purchasing is extremely low. Govt data indicates this, although many here don't believe it because they think their anecdotal evidence carries more weight ("everyone at the auction looked Chinese"). It's probably focused in a couple of regions. In the context of nz as a whole, and even Auckland as a whole, the numbers are tiny. Maybe it's a major factor in Queenstown, don't know. Again, this doesn't stack up as a cause of prices which are 10x in Auckland and 5x across nz. And this "foreign investor" money will be the first money to exit the money when capital gains go into reverse.

So it seems to me nothing you have noted constitutes a change in fundamentals. The causes of this ridiculous bubble are very impermanent and quite reversible, mainly increases in domestic bank mortgage credit, not foreign money. Even if "foreign investors" were a major factor, they are likely to be the quickest to the exit when the cycle goes into reverse.

by two otherguys | 31st Jul 17, 11:00am 1501455619

Try explaining some of this

Boatman - quite right - exactly - however you are dealing with a subject that the "average" person does not understand - you need to take some time and rephrase so the average joe can relate to it - so it resonates

Some good examples are

1. Metriria Turei becomes the topic of the day over welfare fraud because everyone understands that
2. Money Laundering by the bolt-holers and foxes gets no attention because people dont understand it
3. Multi-Nationals tax avoidance and Base-Erosion-Profit-Shifting gets no attention because people dont understand it

You job is to explain

1. Why is the National Party reluctant to implement Phase 2 AML rules
2. Why is the National Party reluctant to implement BEPS in concert with AU,AK,CA

3. How one Fox arriving in NZ and paying $4 million for a 250 sqm house on 650 sqm land in your street automatically increases the value of all the adjacent houses in that street. Just one single transaction has wider domino effect

4. How come supposedly ordinary migrants can afford to rock in to Auckland and not think twice about paying the going price where locals cant afford it on their wages, or cant arrange enough finance

5. How come there has never been an investigation into the huge amounts of overseas funds arriving into NZ property when China has always had an annual limit of $50,000 - it would be simple to go and audit every property transaction exceeding $1 million that has never had a mortgage registered against it

Think about that lot

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:20am 1500589224

Boatman u r so wrong, we are only 5million people, there's plenty of 65 million places the same size as us and they do better, they aren't storming to nz in a big way, china is, Auckland isn't the only place in nz in fact even with the really large amounts going to Hamilton and tga the prices are still ok, Auckland has the problems and they are paying for it now for not looking after it low to middle income earners for housing, so fix it or it just keep getting worse, although the figures show its fixing itself so end of story

by Boatman | 21st Jul 17, 10:33am 1500590034

Been to the UK recently ?

You reckon 65 million people would be good for us ?

The UK is a mess , massive social problems , unemployment or under-employment , road congestion that leaves you speechless , unaffordable housing, run down infrastructure and social services that cannot cope .

The NHS ( a relative of mine works for the NHS ) and says it is overwhelmed and under strain.

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 11:34am 1500593687

Acid attacks, Jihadist bombings, beheadings, low-flying truck-missiles

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 11:36am 1500593814

The question is why O4normal came to New Zealand - give us your rationale

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 11:41am 1500594102

O4normal says "we are ONLY 5 million people" and boatie is so wrong

A challenge
Go down to your nearest local marae and see if you can find anyone who shares your view

by Eco Bird | 21st Jul 17, 7:53pm 1500623624

lol, so true ...

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:31am 1500589916

Ps so Auckland alone though high new home cost and appartments with high immigration can keep super high prices in the future with lowest wages by itself, good luck with that, it have commercial and house rentals and I think Auckland is out prices itself of the planet

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:35am 1500590112

And heap like it there

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:36am 1500590199

And once again it's the main city with the problems, people have choices

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 10:42am 1500590523

Auckland needs to change not have the 20 suburbs at 2 million and the rest at 1 million, but the people have spoken, at the auction rooms

by two otherguys | 21st Jul 17, 11:41am 1500594071

How long have you been in New Zealand?

by Robt. | 21st Jul 17, 11:48am 1500594480

My bedroom was an unlined garage for 3 years. It was cold and hot at times, sure, but it was spacious and the air was always wonderfully fresh - better than any house I've ever lived in.

by keywest | 21st Jul 17, 12:33pm 1500597225

Your first sentence Alex sets up the entire article as BS, I have never owned a home I have lived in and am doing just fine. Fairly emotive house bashing 101, here go again!

by keywest | 21st Jul 17, 12:38pm 1500597508

How about this for an interest.co.nz headline: "Tireless landlords helping kiwis have a home for their family fully maintained including rates, insurance and all the while balancing a mortgage with interest rate risk and the occasional rat bag tenant."

by propertyminx | 21st Jul 17, 1:02pm 1500598938

Eloquently put- but that wouldn't be news worthy :)

by mfd | 21st Jul 17, 1:17pm 1500599862

This is a news site, not a back-patting service. It's pushing it to claim that property investment is driven by anything other than self interest.

by keywest | 22nd Jul 17, 5:00pm 1500699627

Then why can't they report on the positive aspects of property investors helping New Zealand families have a home to use. Or would they rather Mother Helen outlaw private ownership and instead you can rent off the government.

by keywest | 22nd Jul 17, 5:02pm 1500699720

It's not like the banks give a crap if you don't have a house to live in!

by keywest | 22nd Jul 17, 5:04pm 1500699875

In fact I'd just be as happy they outlaw tenants all together and if you can't afford a house well you can go camping instead. Imagine the negative gearing I could achieve.

by keywest | 22nd Jul 17, 5:07pm 1500700044

I'll sell you one once you can afford the deposit.

by Independent_Observer | 21st Jul 17, 2:33pm 1500604391

They generally try to stick to the facts on this website Keywest, but you might have more luck with NZ Herald?

But I'm sure the governor general is lining you and your darklord mates up for some type of commendation for your services to society. As a renter, all I can say is thank you very much for pushing house prices out of reach of the average kiwi and putting the entire economy at risk through excessive debt that's been credited to our housing market. Well done! Keep up the great work!

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:25am 1500848715

LOL Keywest thats why I dont own and have never had a residential investment property . Its not worth the hassle or the risk .

My best investment ever was 3 parking bays I bought and sold in 2007 after 10 years , no doors, windows stoves washers or hot water cylinders , no damage by tenants .

It just spewed cash at me every day

The initial return was poor , but after just 24 months the return was spectacular after a series of charge increases following massive development in the CBD and the capital gain was even better

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 1:36pm 1500601011

Born in Huntly 1960, did my apprenticeship in Carr rd mt rosikill , owned over 20 buildings, and the best thing for Auckland would be a new government, housing correction of at least 30% and lower immigration to 10000 for at least 5 years , Auckland is setting the wrong records, most expensive city, unaffordable, heavily in dept , homelessness, people stacked in cars sheds houses, dairys being robbed by the second, etc etc, vote for change

by ngakonui gold | 21st Jul 17, 1:52pm 1500601961

Hamilton is ready to take over from Auckland as the holder of all the wrong records.
Liqour stores been robbed,people stacked in sheds,rents enormous,homeless people living in main street,police sirens wailing all night,quarter acre section going quickly and a council who have yet to show authority.
We are ready to step up,

by O4 normal | 21st Jul 17, 1:54pm 1500602057

My point by the way about 5 million people to 65 million was nz had plenty of land and should b able to grow without property prices going through the roof, Hamilton and tga hasn't that much, Auckland is just passing things far to far, and its mainly immigration, change something, what does Ozzie do , can't buy in certain city, buy only new, drop it a little, but the one sided view high immigration and house prices doesn't help Auckland and the people there in the long term, vote for winny

by fat pat | 21st Jul 17, 7:02pm 1500620575

Congratulations to the author - now can someone please send this to someone in the National party!

*************************************************************
***** Home ownership matters for well-being. ****** !!!!!
*************************************************************

* Nearly half our rental stock is so shoddy that it has dampness and mould problems, leading to renters having poorer health outcomes than owner-occupiers.
* And those renting are less likely to have a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood, region, the company they work for, and even New Zealand as a whole than those who own their own homes.

by Yvil | 22nd Jul 17, 1:55pm 1500688539

Why don't you send it to the National party yourself ?

by fat pat | 22nd Jul 17, 6:15pm 1500704116

Seems futile. They're not listening to the public dismay regarding our excessively high immigration rate, or the public outrage at the enormous number of homes and farms being sold to foreigners, or to the public anger at the TPPA agreement or GCSB bill. Why would they listen to little old me?

by Eco Bird | 22nd Jul 17, 3:50am 1500652247

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-americans-are-renters-now-than-at…

by Property Leader | 22nd Jul 17, 9:13am 1500671618

Given that there ar 10 times the number of private rentals than there are social houses it would be good to have some meaningful stats on the different outcomes. From what my tenants tell me they prefer the better quality that private landlords NORMALLY provide.

by Yvil | 22nd Jul 17, 2:35pm 1500690925

No one should live in damp or cold sub-standard houses, jeopardising our health is totally unacceptable.
If you rent a house that you think is sub-standard, don't accept it, do something about it !
1) Take some photos of the problems you see
2) Email or write to the landlord about it (politely), telling him/her what the exact problem is and what outcome you expect
3) If the Landlord does not reply within 3 weeks or fails to fix the issue, make an application to the tenancy tribunal (you can do it online). The tenancy tribunal is very cheap and quite fast and it is also slightly skewed in the tenant's favour. Make sure you take your photos & letters/emails in triplicate to the Tenancy tribunal. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Don't be scared, the tenancy tribunal is not scary and not expensive

by fat pat | 22nd Jul 17, 6:26pm 1500704814

THe vast majority of the commentary on this topic has been about substandard housing, and not the plummeting home ownership rate. If I may, as the author has done, state the obvious.

1. Rented houses, in general, are less well cared for than owner occupier houses.
2. Rented houses, in general, will receive less infrastructure investment than owner occupied houses.

with that in mind then surely increasing home ownership rates should be a priority, not just to improve the financial well being of all New Zealanders, but to improve the infrastructure of the housing stock.

by Eco Bird | 22nd Jul 17, 8:19pm 1500711544

So do you want to shave 50% of current house prices and the Gov to legislate a 25% pay rise or tax cut so that you Might be able to afford that $1M house you are dreaming of next to your workplace ?? Is that what you are calling for and trying to gather all the other mindless cheerleaders behind you ??

Would that be fair to everyone else or you are just getting blinded by either jealousy and foolishness or both to see or feel that things have changed ??..

You have been bashing immigration and landlords for pushing house prices UP... did you hear today that 1/3 of Auckland construction efforts has some sort of Chinese money or effort in it ...helping out the government to catch up with building ... watch it on One News at 6:00 ... I suggest that you research this subject instead of repeating slogans .. are you aware that any property owner dreaming of subdividing a section to build a new house needs to spend a good $100k before the title is issued ?? who pays for that? how about more than 40% of the cost of building a house/ building etc goes as TAXES to the government ( in various forms and multiple times, GSt, etc)??
or that council approvals and inspections and CCC cost another 50 -100K until the bloody thing is completed ? Or are you aware that H&S requirements have added a good 20-30K to building costs ??/ It is all user paid services --- so If the Government / council stop charging private home building all these exuberant fees, taxes and contributions then you will have your $1M house for $500k and $650pw rent for $400... Now, if you expect ANY Gov to do that no matter what their color is , then you are dreaming!! ... so go figure

Want a home!?, there are tons of brand new high quality Units and Town Houses under 450K in Hamilton - and loads of 3 beddies in reasonable shape and areas for under 350K ... if you want a house that desperately NOW move out of Auckland and fulfil your wet dream ... be prepared to pay twice your weekly rent in covering your mortgage, rates, insurance and maintenance ( and there will be NO Landlord to complain about or take to the tribunal)... Otherwise wait until the cows come home !! - Dont expect the rest of NZers to wreck the country for you !!

I hope you are NOT one of those who are waiting for Mr Little and Co. to give them a FREE state house and make them a proud owner !! I am assuming your are much smarter than those.

by fat pat | 23rd Jul 17, 2:24am 1500733470

Hmm council costs are high therefore foreign money good and home ownership is bad – that’s one heck of a straw man argument.

What do you want for NZ? Do you want it to be a rich person’s paradise with islands of opulence in a sea of misery, and a police state to govern the disenfranchised many? Or do you want a high tech economy. One where engineers and scientists punch above their weight innovating and creating cool stuff that the rest of the world wants to buy - like this for example http://www.powerhousewind.co.nz. Do you want to improve the housing stock with infrastructure investment. You want to increase the well being on Kiwis and the GDP/capita?

I can only describe to you what I see and leave it to you to read between the lines. Many of the houses on Kohimarama Road where I used to live have been purchased by Chinese foreign nationals at prices well above what the 90th percentile NZ high income earner can afford. Once majestic homes like 102 Kohimarama Road purchased purely for capital gain have been left derelict with flaking paint, and cow parsley growing knee high during summer. One friend of mine a teacher left for Tauranga in 2015. Other friends of mine all highly educated with PhD’s and good jobs cant compete with foreign buyers and are pissed off at having 850p/w extracted from them. They’re looking at leaving too, before they become too old for the bank to lend them money.

Does our current neoliberal government have the correct policy settings and priorities? I would argue not by a long shot.

by Double-GZ | 23rd Jul 17, 6:12am 1500747143

All I can see are jealousy and foolishness from you fat pat. Get off your bum and start getting yourself a job!

by Ex Expat | 23rd Jul 17, 6:42am 1500748948

In 2013, the meshblock containing 102 Kohimarama Road had 186 people of which 171 identified as European and 6 as Asian. It sold last year and has an estimated current sale value of $2.95m. I'm not sure why the average person would get worried about a 99th percentile property being sold to Asian investors (if that's the case) as they are hardly overrunning the evidently European enclave.

by Eco Bird | 23rd Jul 17, 3:03am 1500735811

Thank you Pat, but that is Not a strawman argument at all ... it is a fact that started pushing house prices well before the last wave of immigration began !...

Immigrants are not only Chinese ( or Asian) there are all sorts including our own expats and cousins coming home .... so everyone has added to the excessive demand on RE ...
You might not like the kohi properties bought and left to age gracefully, I have seen few on the Shore where I live too which are in a similar price range ....
Look, I can feel and fully understand your frustration but Do not condone it ... Just like yourself, I have colleagues, workmates and friends in the same educational and high intellectual categories with great jobs and very good income etc ... I do belong to that class , but few of us saw the light early in the piece and understood that our future is doomed without owning real assets to fall on in old age - so our professional lives was our income and means to build an asset portfolio and a business to enable us to get out of the rat race if we wanted to or made redundant ( that happened by very hard saving while raising kids).... Everytime we meet our friends I hear your same argument from the ones who missed the train and did not want to admit that the world was changing! Cursing and Blaming everyone and anyone (obviously starting by the chinese) ....only few admit that they should have done the same 15 years ago ....but missed the boat.
The sooner you get your head around this "International" Issue and the big money windmill ( or vacuum cleaner) the easier it is to understand that this is not about neoliberalism and periodic policies ( which are hugely influenced one way or the other by our place in the world and trade relationships with others - and the Social lot will not be any better in changing that) ... Social and Financial engineering started decades ago and we are seeing some of its results now - the middle class is decimating ...

There is no difference between what is happening now and what happened in 2003 -2007 or 1994 - 2000 - lots of people thought they can never buy a house at such prices and interest rates !! -- same issues but the numbers were smaller than today - same immigration floodgates opened - same cycles, same parties taking turns at the wheel .. same WP, same results, same blame game, same emotional blackmailing and same people who do not want to believe that the world is changing and stuck in the past -

Any anecdotal example will remain just that - anecdotal - Question is what are you going to do in 5 - 10 years ....when most of your neighbours will be chinese or indians? these are people who either have the money transferred and invested or working their butts in all sorts of jobs to build assets and family - why do you think indians love Gold so much?? it is their Culture (assets) - however, Tauranga's prices have also been pushed up - getting close to Auckland now !! not sure if they will be affordable in few years.

Luckily we are a bit different and more civilised than other countries and that's what makes NZ different and Auckland up there in the top of the list - Alas, there is a tax and levy to be paid for being Great and Popular. We have to move faster and work smarter to catch up - yes we all want to see that and be where you described and I agree but fantasy and exaggerations aside, it will not happen by keeping our same laid back habits and culture and expect handouts to be created when we throw our toys out of the cot. For these things to happen we need income and wealth to invest and distribute - encourage the providers instead of taxing them more .. look at what is happening when we are generated few billions extra this year ,, every man and his party is fighting how to spend it ..Labour like to please their TU mates -Tax and splash, Greens want to dish it away left and right and its not enough because they want to Tax the hell out of Your Friends too (even if they live in Tauranga), TOP wants us to live in the bohemian happy go lucky world with a drink and a joint and tax anything whether it moves or not , WP is still in coocoo land and is just playing on people's emotions by promising what he knows very well that he cannot achieve - , at least Nat (good or bad) has some reasonable plans and a team and progressing slowly ... Based on who you claim to be, I am certain that you do not believe that progress and dreams happen by wishful thinking and slogans , it needs firm feet on the ground , realistic approach and Money ( it is a real chicken and egg case here) . Al lot of us may not agree with the status quo and are voicing out concerns , strongly at times - I guess we have to work out things as they progress both here and in the world to achieve the same NZ you were portraying above.

by fat pat | 23rd Jul 17, 10:59am 1500764342

That’s a thoughtful response eco bird but we’ll have to agree to disagree on some things. You’ making out like the government is powerless to stop any form of capital freeflow, almost as if we’re a rose petal blowing in the breeze of international finance. The truth is there are any number of things the government could have done but would never do, because it contravenes the mistaken neoliberal belief that all investment is good investment. They could have, for instance, put foreign buyer restrictions in place, as all the other OECD countries have done. They could have used the proceeds from the tax to fund an Australian style first home buyers grant. Something! anything to prevent the catastrophic collapse in home ownership rates that we’ve seen. The sad thing is that all that foreign money would have come here anyway, and we could have had the capital injection without the social damage. What’s happened in the last 7 years is so very different to previous booms of 2003-2007 or 1994-2000. You only have to look at it in nominal terms, or percentage terms, or wage/income terms, or admit that that when a house goes from 900K to 2.5 million in 7 years that is actually hyperinflation. I’ve no doubt that Jim Rickards was right when he claimed in his book the death of money that we saw / are seeing the greatest episode of capital flight in human history emanating from China. You know I feel sorry for your friends and mine who are hitting 40 without houses. And they’ve got a legitimate right to be annoyed – perhaps not with the Chinese who are buying all the houses but with a government that turned a blind eye to what’s obviously become a titanic social issue, and a danger to the banking sector.

How is it that Germany has a fully-fledged socialist system with high taxes, special rich taxes, no family trusts, inheritance taxes. They have a fantastic health and education system and a booming economy and thriving middle class. I just don’t buy the simplistic arguments criticizing labour and the greens on the basis that governments accounts should be run like household accounts. I think Steve Keen has done a reasonable job ad dispelling that myth. What I’m sure of is that the direction NZ has taken in the last 8 years is not desirable or sustainable.

by keywest | 23rd Jul 17, 12:04pm 1500768254

Have you ever met a happy German?

by MortgageBelt | 23rd Jul 17, 12:14pm 1500768893

Having been working there recently - they have a great sense of humour, underneath the serious orderliness.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 23rd Jul 17, 4:55pm 1500785751

.. if you're chopping up cabbage for pickling ... be careful not to get any on a German friend ... lest you make a sour kraut ...

by MortgageBelt | 23rd Jul 17, 7:00am 1500750011

Renting advocate relents, & buys house.
Shamubeel buys a house.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/94966044/shamubeel-ea…

by Double-GZ | 23rd Jul 17, 7:17am 1500751066

LOL so good to see ;-)
The fact is, we don't hate home ownership at all...

by Eco Bird | 23rd Jul 17, 11:00am 1500764402

Yep, some emperors indeed do not have cloths ... eventually even Shamubeel saw the light at the end of the tunnel ....and admit that theory is not the only truth and reality in life, clever dude!!

Wonder if he will withdraw his book from circulation and give the buyers a refund ? also wonder if he will be invited again to bark on TV programs about the economy and housing ??

by Zachary Smith | 23rd Jul 17, 4:51pm 1500785473

I'd love to know how much influence Shamubeel's wife had on the decision. Was he given an ultimatum?

by Ex Expat | 23rd Jul 17, 7:57am 1500753452

Don Brash spouted the same views decades back and ended up having to justify an eventual purchase. I'm openly wondering why he bought a house and not some Gen Zero endorsed pigeon coop? To me it just shows that you can theorise all you like but when life events mean changed needs then you'll likely make the same decisions as others.

by MortgageBelt | 23rd Jul 17, 8:44am 1500756278

Yes, Economists are always forced to admit eventually that human behaviour is not solely based on financial 'data'.
How many renters have been waiting for the property crash since 2009?

by Bobster | 23rd Jul 17, 8:48am 1500756483

He said he wanted to effectively give his family security of tenure, which I can understand. But he he still thinks it's a bad financial decision right now, but he feels needs to do it anyway.

by PocketAces | 23rd Jul 17, 8:55am 1500756929

Security is the prime reason why most buy a house. This whole business of using housing like a casino did not start till the 80s. It is sad that for many people now it is all they have ever known, and we will probably have to force a change of mind about what housing is and should be.

by Eco Bird | 23rd Jul 17, 4:26pm 1500783969

Good Luck ...

by PocketAces | 23rd Jul 17, 8:30pm 1500798642

Sorry, but it's got to go

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:27am 1500848850

After all is said and done , the reality is that renting is the new normal for almost half of all Aucklanders .

That aint going to change anytime soon , not with all the will in the world

by RickStrauss | 24th Jul 17, 10:31am 1500849115

Just goes to show how important voices such as TOP are. As the percentage of people renting increases, they'll absolutely be better off to vote for a rebalancing of tax between land and income, rather than having it all foisted on income.

by Boatman | 24th Jul 17, 10:41am 1500849689

I agree Rick Strauss the TOP is a bit off- the -wall , but it has some good ideas , maybe its time to tax assets more and reduce income tax

by RickStrauss | 24th Jul 17, 11:09am 1500851392

Agree - I think it will become ever more important as incomes potentially head down.

With National importing as many people they can as fast as possible, and the likely onset of robotics and automation, there simply may not be enough revenue available from lowly workers anyway. And all you're going to end up creating if you continue to put the burden all on them is a third-world-like lifestyle in Auckland.

by Bobster | 24th Jul 17, 10:33am 1500849191

No, when prices return to their long term average ratios (yield, income) the level of ownership will rise