Auckland without workers

73 comments on “Auckland without workers ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Richard Christie 1

   19 July 2016 at 11:25 am

   This demographic outcome has been obviously coming, I’m amazed that there has been so little public discussion about it.
   We will soon witness a demographic shift as significant as the urbanisation of Maori in the mid 20th century. But with far greater economic impact.
   • Robertina 1.1

     19 July 2016 at 7:42 pm

     It is remarkable how little analysis there is considering it is starting to reshape the country (and has been a long time coming).
     There’s a little considered factor shaping up – older people are admitted to rest-homes much less these days. They are increasingly waiting and heading straight to hospital-level care. The baby boomer bubble will have a big impact on supply in that respect.
     It must be keeping women in toxic relationships, too, and for that reason some of the family values brigade are celebrating rising property values.
     I remember back in the 90s reading Jane Austin and marveling at the compromises made by female characters, notably Charlotte Lucas’s reluctant choice of the slimy Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice. Yet less than 20 years on, without wishing to over-egg it, we are closer to that world.
2. Keith 2

   19 July 2016 at 11:26 am

   This was always going to happen. Firstly with first hand knowledge this situation is real and teaching is not well paid. Secondly the Ministry of Education is proposing overseas teachers. How incomprehensibly stupid is that, more migrants coming to a city plagued by over population, that by international standards is so expensive few can afford to move here. Thirdly teaching is not alone with this problem.

   Quite simply you cannot operate a Ponzi scheme in property and not have severe collateral damage when the things that balance the community ecosystem are abandoned. Operating a business in Auckland is similarly fraught.

   Either the skyrocketing property prices are matched by wage rises or the whole system will collapse. And given Nationals cleverness with its cheap labour migration policy and given income levels are near frozen Aucklands in the shit, big time!
   • Muttonbird 2.1

     19 July 2016 at 11:30 am

     Secondly the Ministry of Education is proposing overseas teachers. How incomprehensibly stupid is that, more migrants coming to a city plagued by over population.

     That is disgraceful. We have all the talent and skills right here in NZ. Our past record has shown that.
     • Sabine 2.1.1

       19 July 2016 at 1:08 pm

       but our economy needs the money migrants bring.

       after all once WE have paid rent and mortgage on our million dollar cold, leaky, fire hazard dumps we have no money left to keep the economy stimulated.

       So more people to warehouse in dumps, but then i guess our dumps are still better then the dumps of Jakarta.
   • Sebbie 2.2

     21 July 2016 at 2:59 am

     Vote NZfirst?
3. Muttonbird 3

   19 July 2016 at 11:28 am

   Plenty of young teachers at my kids’ school have left to the regions. The turnover has been quite high in the last three years. Also, it’s the young teachers you want in order to reinvigorate a school and provide much needed energy and enthusiasm.
4. Sabine 4

   19 July 2016 at 11:47 am

   How are they gonna cope?

   the housewifes of Auckland will become homeschoolers?

   or maybe they import the future slaves on a student visa from indonesia?
5. dv 5

   19 July 2016 at 12:01 pm

   Nurses too
   • Sabine 5.1

     19 July 2016 at 1:05 pm

     fire fighters, especially the 2/3 of our fire fighters that are volunteers. Consider that there are now more and more crews that can’t go out and attend a fire or emergency because they don’t have a’ full crew’ together.
     There are not enough full time paid fire fighters and the volunteers are like anyone else who does not own a house literally living as transients a 2 weeks notice from moving elsewhere every 6 – 12 month.

     There is on thing National excells at and that is employing people that are truly fucking brain dead. But maybe its John Key’s house that needs to burn cause no one shows up to put the fire out before something happens.
6. Sabine 6

   19 July 2016 at 1:01 pm

   NZ vs Germany rentals

   http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/social-issues-current-affairs/tenants-in-our-own-land/

   ahh well, nothing can be done here, it’s all the councils fault or sumsuchthing…
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     19 July 2016 at 1:15 pm

     Nah, the Council has heaps of sections waiting to go. It must be the Resource Management Act that’s at fault. No, wait, this just in: Labour did it.
     • alwyn 6.1.1

       19 July 2016 at 1:46 pm

       “No, wait, this just in: Labour did it”.
       If you look at the graph in the article Sabine has linked to that is a perfectly reasonable complaint.
       Have a look at the price/average income graph. That rose enormously (from about 3.7 to 6.7 between about 2002 and 2008. That was when Labour were in office wasn’t it? After that it dropped.
       Seems quite fair to blame Labour for the mess, going on that link.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1

         19 July 2016 at 1:50 pm

         No, blame is useless and a sure sign that you don’t have a tool in your box to fix the problem.

         Get out of the way.
       • Sabine 6.1.1.2

         19 July 2016 at 1:56 pm

         mate we are in the year of 2016. What ever happened after the year 2008 is on Nationals watch.

         so go have a cuppa, make it a good one add a bit of sugar and milk to taste and read that whole article again and again until you fucking understand why i posted it here.
         Fuck can the National Party please employ some stooges that can actually engage their brain before reading.
         • alwyn 6.1.1.2.1

           19 July 2016 at 2:06 pm

           Just what do you want National to do Sabine?
           If we want to get house prices down again to an “affordable” level we will have to do what Arthur Grimes and Don Brash are proposing. We will have to build a huge number of properties and crash the current prices being asked, and paid, for existing houses in Auckland.
           No current politician is willing to do that. NONE of them.
           Try and get out of Little, or Key, Twyford or Smith an admission that that is what must happen. You don’t have a hope. None of them is willing to admit that it is the only way to get affordable housing in Auckland.

           Then while you are thinking about that please tell me what is wrong with my interpretation of the graph? 2002 to 2008 is when it went all pear-shaped. Well it happened and if you want affordable housing it has to be reversed.
           HOW do we do that?
           • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.2.1.1

             19 July 2016 at 2:16 pm

             The number of homeless working families is increasing and your most pressing concern is that house prices mustn’t fall.

             Get out of the way.
             • alwyn …

               19 July 2016 at 2:30 pm

               “your most pressing concern is that house prices mustn’t fall”.

               Wherever did you get that idea about me? Where did I ever say that? I am on Grimes and Brash’s side.
               If we want to get back to affordable housing a major drop in house prices is essential. I can say it of course. I am not trying to get elected to anything.

               The real problem is getting any active politicians to come out and say so.
               Key won’t. Little won’t. Twyford won’t. Smith won’t. Shaw won’t. Turei won’t. Peters won’t. Flavell won’t. Dunne won’t.
               I can’t say what Seymour would say. I haven’t seen anything for or against the idea from him.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 19 July 2016 at 5:03 pm

                 I’ll rephrase:

                 We know what the Greens and Labour (and NZ 1st for all I know or care) would do to house the homeless: build houses. I’m not convinced the affect that will have on your precious market is their primary concern.
           • Sabine 6.1.1.2.1.2

             19 July 2016 at 2:19 pm

             Read the article again Alwyn, that would be a good start. Then address the issues in the article raised. Then we can have a discussion.

             As for the Graph that you want to talk about it, i have posted below the post by the Standard referring to John Keys speech from 2007. He got voted in to make it better.
             Now you tell me if he made it better for New Zealanders and how. Cause it has been 8+ fucking years that he and his merry band of of government tit sucklers have been the fucking government of this country.

             So again, Labour is not in government. Labour is not calling the shots and has not called the shots for the last 8 years. Get used to the fact that like a tool you voted for someone who would have absolutely no problem taking you, your parents, your great parents and your children to the market for the highest bidder to buy as a commodity.

             Again, read the article.
             • alwyn …

               19 July 2016 at 2:43 pm

               I am not, and never have been, a member of any Political Party. I am the true swinging voter who has, since 1981 voted 5 times for Labour, 6 times for National and once abstained.

               Of course National are in a state of third term tiredness. The problem is that there is no alternative party even remotely capable of forming and running a coherent Government.
               THAT is the problem New Zealand has. We have the same useless drones in the Labour Party as we had 8 years ago. The thought of any of the idiots from the Green Party in a Government is even more scary.

               Tell me. What is the Labour Party proposing as an alternative? If they want me to vote for them they must have an option. Little rabbits on about building 100,000 new homes of which 50,000 are going to be affordable. Who will get them on the cheap? How will they be allocated?
               When asked he has no answer, or at least not one he is willing to tell us about.

               Perhaps he is going to do it in the time honoured lefty way. Give them cheap to his mates.
               Member of the party?. Go straight to the front of the line comrade.
               • Sabine …

                 19 July 2016 at 2:54 pm

                 Have you read the article?

                 This article is not about National/Labour or humpty dumpty. You are.

                 Read the darn thing.
                 • alwyn …

                   19 July 2016 at 4:18 pm

                   Ok, I have read it again and nothing has changed.
                   Are you in favour of people being able to afford to buy a home, which seems to be the general theme here, or are you quite happy that they rent forever and you want to make that easier and more stable. They are quite different things of course.
                   If you are quite happy with long term renting why are you waving a 2007 speech by key around?

                   Incidentally, it is possible to make laws that are so much in favour of the lessee that nobody will lease at all.
                   I knew, and worked with people who were posted to New Zealand to work for a couple of years in the early 1970’s. English law at the time was apparently such that it was impossible to force a tenant to move out if they didn’t want to, even if a fixed term lease had expired.
                   They owned houses in the UK and had refused to lease them to anyone except US Air Force personnel. They simply wouldn’t lease to English people as they might not be able to regain use of their own house. The Air Force, not wanting to upset British people, would ensure that they moved out at the end of the lease period. A suggestion that their next posting would be to a base in the far north of Greenland would introduce a ready agreement to getting out of the property.
       • Sabine 6.1.1.3

         19 July 2016 at 2:07 pm

         http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-powerful-speech-on-the-urgent-housing-crisis/

         maybe you want to read this again 🙂 Your bested dear Leader speaking ab out the dread full Labour party and how he is making sure that we are not becoming tenants in our country..

         but then you might want to add that the people sleeping in cars are not tenants as they own their cars?
       • dv 6.1.1.4

         19 July 2016 at 7:47 pm

         BUT Key was going to fix it!!!
     • adam 6.1.2

       19 July 2016 at 2:48 pm

       Actually One Anonymous Bloke, labour did bugger all except more of the same half baked neo-liberalism.

       The reason the argument of labour did it too sticks is simple, they did. But you are right, we should be looking for solutions. But I worry, and I think I’m not alone, when the labour party has not divested from neo-liberalism what sort of solutions are going to be put on the table.

       As for alwyn, you have been caught out not reading a link properly before commenting on it again. Sad man, just sad.
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1

         19 July 2016 at 3:02 pm

         The continuous deliberate blindness from otherwise intellectually bright Labour loyalists is quite impressive.
         • adam 6.1.2.1.1

           19 July 2016 at 3:57 pm

           Not blindness Colonial Viper, I think they hope and believe they are beyond it. However they should be reminded they have not divested. That said – banging them over the head with it, does not work either – As I’m going to assume you have realised by now?

           .
           • Sabine 6.1.2.1.1.1

             19 July 2016 at 9:01 pm

             nah he has not.

             give the man some matches so he can light the world and all those that don’t do as he says can just burn.

             We have the political system we have. We can change within that system, or we can go russian revolution. Or french revolution. Or any other revolution.

             You trell me how that did any good to the hungry, homeless, jobless and so on.

             ahh ..yes, it did not change a thing, the only thing that changed is that some geezer who burned the world got to be caliph at the place of the caliph.

             The thing about our wingers and colonial viper is that they actually don’t have any answers. All they have is the mantra that what ever Labour or to some extend even the Green Party does will not be enough because….pokemon, or fudge, or something. So lets burn the world. Only then will people learn.

             Waiting for the messiah is like waiting for Godot. That messiah geezer never shows up. and the one time he did show up he got killed in the name of the friggin father and holy ghost. Cause reason.
             • adam …

               19 July 2016 at 10:13 pm

               Jesh Sabine don’t hold back.

               And give Colonial Viper some room, it’s not nice learning what you put your life into, is a lie.

               As for your comparison of him to ISIS, odd man, just odd.

               If you are having an existential crisis, I find the Gospel of Matthew helps.
   • Muttonbird 6.2

     19 July 2016 at 2:11 pm

     So we are now at 1951 levels of home ownership. All that work done to make stable, better communities un-done by two successive national governments.
     • adam 6.2.1

       19 July 2016 at 2:40 pm

       Four successive neo-liberal governments, including two of which were labour.

       Neo-liberalism lesson 101, forget the party political brand, its actions which speak louder than words.
       • Muttonbird 6.2.1.1

         19 July 2016 at 2:54 pm

         Fair enough. I was just looking at the two major drops in home ownership in the graph. One sharp drop occurring in the mid-90s and an equally severe decline since 2008 bringing us back to the 1951 level.

         Also, I can’t see the current steep drop in home ownership being slowed anytime soon. Even the minister of finance is warning people not to buy a house right now.
       • alwyn 6.2.1.2

         19 July 2016 at 4:33 pm

         “two of which were labour”.
         There have, of course, been four rather than two Labour Governments since 1951. Which two do you regard as “neo-liberal” and what would you call the other ones?
         • ropata 6.2.1.2.1

           19 July 2016 at 5:01 pm

           Lange ’84 presided over the worst betrayal of Labour principles, NZ was facing an economic crisis, Rogernomics was a shock and awe campaign and Lange was too weak to stop it.
           Clark ’99 wasn’t much better, failing to reverse Shipley’s attacks on welfare in her quest to be business friendly.

           These 2 caused levels of inequality not seen for a generation and the NZ myth of a classless society was truly shattered. Clark in particular can be reasonably blamed for her governments part in encouraging a housing bubble, which I am personally quite sour about because my wages have never kept pace with the mad property market. Even now that I am on quite a high income I don’t rate my chances of getting anything in Auckland below $1 million. I don’t need that millstone, thanks

           Ultimately the most business friendly society is a healthy one with a strong middle class. Good wages and conditions, fair markets, strong ethical regulators, and proactive management of resources and the environment.

           Instead we get Key’s supply side economic theory which is trickling into his mates pockets and away from the people of NZ
           • Richard Christie 6.2.1.2.1.1

             19 July 2016 at 7:32 pm

             well said
         • adam 6.2.1.2.2

           19 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

           I’m going to recommend two books alwyn. One is New Zealand government and politics edited by Raymond Miller. They other is Politics in New Zealand by Richard Mulgan (get the third edition). Both do a good job with our collective political history.

           The two labour governments are the fourth and the fifth. The first, second and third were committed to an inclusive social democracy. And a mixed model economy.
7. RedLogix 7

   19 July 2016 at 1:15 pm

   Auckland will be fine. All it needs is plenty of “overseas investors” with suitcases full of cash to keep it rolling on.
8. AmaKiwi 8

   19 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

   It’s poverty. It’s not an income gap.

   Working full-time and “not being able to make ends meet” is a euphemism for poverty.

   Cut the crap. We are becoming an impoverished third world country.

   Thanks neo-liberals. Enjoy the Second Great Depression you caused.
   • Sabine 8.1

     19 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

     and thanks all those that since 1979 have voted for these clowns again and again and again, for cheap shit to buy, for overseas holidays and being better then joneses from next door, for increased house values, for cheap labour and so on and so on.

     there were an awfull lot of people that vote for that shit, heck they voted for the last 8 years of National. Put a bit of blame on them too while you are at.
9. Colonial Viper 9

   19 July 2016 at 1:38 pm

   Why is anyone still working in Auckland when you can make $2K per week tax free on a house?
   • Stuart Munro 9.1

     19 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

     And they used to think taking in each other’s laundry was a lousy basis for an economy.
   • ropata 9.2

     19 July 2016 at 10:45 pm

     We are following the Celtic Tiger model — bidding up property prices while the bankers sit on the sidelines throwing money into the fray —

     At least potatoes grow quite well in Pukekohe… (until the urban boundary is removed and all that world class soil is concreted over)
10. Siobhan 10

    19 July 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Just a matter of time before National see’s the benefit of rail; super high speed cattle wagons bringing in workers from Hamilton.
    Meantime teachers have always been a thorn in the side of National, so maybe, under the guise of The High Tech Economy, just replace them with a computer feed from some compliant Neo Con Education Think Tank.
    I hope I haven’t just contributed to the Nation Parties Manifesto.
11. alwyn 11

    19 July 2016 at 1:57 pm

    ” Three years ago, schools were getting 50 applicants per job. Now many are lucky if they get five – and often for multiple positions.”.

    I can remember this blog having long rants at the Government because there were far more people looking for jobs in a new “big-box” store than there were jobs available.
    Can somebody please explain to me why having 50 people applying for a single teaching job is supposed to be a good thing? That is 49 people who were going to be out in the cold. Even 5 people for a single job seems to be a lot.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      19 July 2016 at 2:13 pm

      Can someone please explain to me why wingnuts think twisting and turning and rhetoric can ever disguise the fact that they’re enabling a shit government that can’t house its citizens.
      • Sabine 11.1.1

        19 July 2016 at 2:26 pm

        because they would have to admit that they too are nothing in the eyes of this government and that their precious life is just as precarious as that of anyone else. And then they would run out of people to blame, cause they can’t really blame themselves for voting for such a band of ‘lords’ cause then they too would have to carry some responsibility and this is the one thing these Bart Simpson Tories can’t do. Admit responsibility ? Oh no sir, t’was not me, was him/her or him/her or him/her anyone but me.
        • Reddelusion 11.1.1.1

          19 July 2016 at 4:24 pm

          Phew take a pill and nap Sabine, highly strung today 😀
        • Chuck 11.1.1.2

          19 July 2016 at 4:57 pm

          Interesting rant Sabine…

          Alwyn makes a interesting point, and all OAB and you can do is deflect.

          Sad.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.2.1

            19 July 2016 at 5:08 pm

            If Alwyn’s “point” is the best answer to the massive issue we have with housing affordability that he or you can come up with, that explains why you need to get out of the way.

            AR’s source is quite clear about the nature of the problem you and Alwyn cannot grasp, despite the fact that the link is made clear in small words. Do you need a picture Chuckie?
            • Chuck 11.1.1.2.1.1

              19 July 2016 at 5:41 pm

              Still avoiding answering the question…In the article AR referenced having 50 applicants applying for a single job is somehow a good thing??

              An easy fix to kept / attract teachers to Auckland, would be to pay an housing allowance over and above his/her salary. If indeed the situation is as dire as the APPA say.

              I somehow think though the various teachers unions would not support the proposal…it would need to be nationwide or not at all.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                19 July 2016 at 5:52 pm

                Let’s for a moment imagine that AR didn’t mean any of the things you’re projecting. Let’s imagine that the source was saying something instead.

                Off the top of my head, I can imagine that a position at a school in Auckland – and potentially a foot on the attendant property ladder, might once have looked like an attractive proposition.

                However, your point of view depends upon you rejecting the experience and information contained in the article. Attack Ms. Plowright somehow, as a perfect embodiment of National Party values.

                I expect she’s a teacher, or something. Probably a union member. The best way to rebut her message is to smash her. Go on.
              • Sabine …

                19 July 2016 at 9:05 pm

                you know what, maybe if we stopped importing people like they were cattle to prop up our dead economy we would not have 50 or two hundred people show up for one job.

                As for a housing allowance, we already have that. It is called the Accommodation Benefit/Supplement, any teacher can apply if they are happy to totally and utterly lay bare their financials to a drone at the WINZ department.

                So you need another benefit. I thougth that the National Party wants to get people of the benefit, lest they get used to the largess of the government generosity.
      • Reddelusion 11.1.2

        19 July 2016 at 4:29 pm

        What proportion of NZ citizens are housed vs not housed, and what proportion who are not houses can individual responsibility vs lack of morale state intervention be blamed
        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.2.1

          19 July 2016 at 4:57 pm

          Blame is useless, a clear admission of failure, and where a government is concerned, abdication of responsibility.

          The “personal responsibility” lie is a lie, and even were it not so, you’d have no excuse because there are more homeless people and unemployed under National: why do so many more people make bad choices whenever they form a government? Oops.

          The fact is, inequality and poverty respond to other influences than blame and right wing myths. You deny those influences, fuck knows why, and get out of the way.
    • AmaKiwi 11.2

      19 July 2016 at 2:14 pm

      @ alwyn

      You make an interesting point.

      50 applicants could indicate a depression with 30% unemployment. But in this case it is because Auckland house prices and rents have become bizarrely over priced due to tax breaks for property investors.

      Teachers in Beverly Hills, California, can afford to live in the area because their salaries are so much higher than salaries in Podunk, Iowa.

      An Auckland teacher I know well would move to Australia “in a heartbeat” except for a personal situation which makes that impossible at present.
      • alwyn 11.2.1

        19 July 2016 at 4:27 pm

        ” would move to Australia “in a heartbeat””.
        I am sure such people still exist. Not nearly as many as there were ten years ago though. Part of the housing problem we have in Auckland is the enormous number of people who did move to Australia and who are now returning because conditions here in many industries are now vastly better than they are on the other side of the ditch.
12. Sabine 12

    19 July 2016 at 2:04 pm

    oh the temerity of people for wanting to be well educated workers? Or would you rather that Kiwis are gonna be grocery bag packers and our dear teachers are being imported on slave wages.
    Well i guess that is the plan of our dear National Party led Government.

    You could always ask dear Leader and his stooges where are the jobs! Oh yeah, free market not creating any?
    • AmaKiwi 12.1

      19 July 2016 at 2:16 pm

      The jobs are NOT in Vietnam, which is why we need TPPA so those underpaid Vietnamese can work here. (sarc)
      • Sabine 12.1.1

        19 July 2016 at 2:21 pm

        nah, we just give them a student visa 🙂

        after all they have no issues with untrained teachers working at charter schools.
13. AsleepWhileWalking 13

    19 July 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Predictable, and has been going on behind the scenes for at least a couple of years now. MSM didn’t think it was important.
14. adam 14

    19 July 2016 at 4:01 pm

    I wonder when the middle class are going to wake up to the fact that one driver in their so called growth in wealth, through their houses, is being driven by their own taxes via the accommodation supplement?

    Best con ever? Or just another example of the poor money management skills of a national government bereft of ideas?
    • Siobhan 14.1

      19 July 2016 at 4:08 pm

      Housing propped up by the accommodation allowance AND subsidies to make their investment fit for purpose…and crap wages subsidized by ‘Working for Families’.

      Maybe if Labour get in they can introduce Food Stamps.

      It seems to be the so called Lefts job to bring in policies that soften the blow of our slow descent and allow National to maintain their otherwise intolerable agenda.
      • Sabine 14.1.1

        19 July 2016 at 9:07 pm

        and here we have a winner.
      • AB 14.1.2

        19 July 2016 at 10:41 pm

        Neatly put Siobhan – it’s no use temporarily muzzling the pit bull if the next owner is going to take the muzzle off again. Perhaps you have to shoot it?
15. whateva next? 15

    19 July 2016 at 4:59 pm

    They will have to teach their own children, nurse their own sick and serve their own lattes, and it serves them right if they don’t care that those serving them don’t have a roof over their heads.
16. save nz 16

    19 July 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Don’t worry it is part of the master plan to rid Auckland of Kiwis (for starters) so that it is a rich person outpost for other trade countries. It has the added advantage of lowering the standard and cultural capital for kids in our country (similar to TVNZ using cheap USA kids programs so they don’t have to bother to use local content) by having foreign teachers teaching them and destroying the teachers unions. Interesting article on this http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/18/rust-never-sleeps-and-the-business-roundtable-always-wants-more-unearned-wealth-from-the-rest-of-us/
17. Paul 17

    19 July 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Auckland will become like London.
    Unaffordable for its citizens.
    • ropata 17.1

      19 July 2016 at 7:17 pm

      Queenstown is following the Aspen model of an “empty town” of unoccupied “billionaire holiday homes”.

      San Francisco is the model for Auckland’s future: essential workers cannot afford to live there, and forced into ridiculous 2 hour commutes, would leave in a heartbeat if they didn’t have family commitments keeping them anchored. Even highly paid professionals are sharing apartments and paying higher rents than anyone would expect a mortgage to cost.
      • Paul 17.1.1

        19 July 2016 at 7:28 pm

        Why do we ape the US?
        It is a failed state.
        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1

          19 July 2016 at 10:59 pm

          Well, I would describe it as a work in progress
18. Craig H 18

    19 July 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Here’s my theory:

    0.5% land tax on land above $250,000.
    1% land tax on land above $500,000.
    1% land tax on unimproved privately-owned urban land regardless of value.
    1% capital value tax on unoccupied urban houses – defined as unoccupied for 6+ months in a year. Can be detected by (lack of) water/electricity use. Can be legislated for by requiring power companies, for example, to notify authorities of empty houses or number of days in a year with power use below a particular threshold. People genuinely off the grid or mostly reliant on solar can get an exemption for their own residence.

    (these figures are flexible – the concept is more important than the specific details)

    Land tax is collected by councils with rates and a reasonable amount is paid to them as administration costs.

    Carbon tax of some reasonable amount and increasing over time.

    Money raised is used to pay for state housing and infrastructure. Good quality rail counts as infrastructure, including commuter rail (which might be light rail). Building new commuter towns is fine by me. Houses would be eco-friendly with solar panels and power storage where feasible (those Musk batteries look good but people might have better ideas).

    State house rental is 25% of family income with no maximum figure. People will not be moved on, but there is no cap on rent, so they may choose to move on if the rent is higher than market rent, or the houses will be sold to them and replaced. State houses are allocated on need first, but will be sold to occupants over time and replaced with new stock using the funds raised.

    When sold to occupants, state houses are sold for 3.5 x household income. For the median household income, that would be ~$240,000.

    Those land tax figures should raise a decent amount, so there should be some cash to splash out on the deliberately redistributive plans.
19. Nigel Cameron 19

    22 July 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Fair enough a house price crash would cause too much of a downturn. So obviously lower and middle incomes need to rise a lot. Checkout staff should be on $30 an hour. Teachers , Nurses etc should be on $120K per year. There is enough money currently being squandered on Executives in the private sector and just general wastage in local and central Govt to pay for the increases. At the same time surely only NZ citizens should be allowed to own NZ property of any sort. Residential property should be for be primarily for owner occupiers so a cap on residential landholdings should be in place . If investors want to gamble on property they can do that with commercial property . It might even get some of these lazy ass investors thinking about investing in businesses .

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS