Daily review 25/10/2019

20 comments on “Daily review 25/10/2019 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   25 October 2019 at 6:05 pm

   There has been the suggestion of allowing people to take money out of Kiwi Saver to buy an investment property as their first home.

   Those renting a family home, but unable to afford owning one, could then withdraw money for a deposit for a one bedroom apartment/flat and use the tenant to pay down the mortgage. This would allow them to own a property they could retire to. The alternative is sleepwalking into a crisis where tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people were unable to retire because they could not afford to pay rent out of super income (even with some supplementary investment income from their Kiwi Saver savings).

   I support this.

   Of course I also support older couples post family downsizing and younger pre family upsizing (from one bedroom flats and apartments) to be able to buy Kiwi Build homes – to maximise the number of buyers and thus number of builds … but the government seems trapped by its own affordable first homes rhetoric and thus stuck in a low volume business cul de sac.
   • McFlock 1.1

     25 October 2019 at 6:20 pm

     I reckon the last thing the property market needs is more money freed up for speculative purchasing.
     • SPC 1.1.1

       25 October 2019 at 7:13 pm

       1. It is no more speculative investment than anyone who buys a home to have somewhere to live.

       2. And ffs , the alternative is someone leveraging their untaxed CG on their existing investment portfolio to buy up another rental. Or someone who already owns a home adding an investment property.

       3. This way results in more owning property by the time they retire and thus lower AS costs covering the rent payments of those who are over 65 (do you realise what a huge rising cost AS for those over 65 are on current trends?).
       • McFlock 1.1.1.1

         25 October 2019 at 7:18 pm

         Well, by definition, yeah it is additional to that, as buying a home to live in isn't as speculative as buying a home explicitly to rent out at a profit, and currently locked-in funds aren't permitted for that function.

         A better option is to use those kiwisaver funds to build new state houses. It bypasses the majority of the property market, but lowers the demand for private-sector rental homes.

         But then the moderately middle class miss out on pretending to be landed gentry.
         • SPC 1.1.1.1.1

           25 October 2019 at 7:30 pm

           We allow those who have enough savings (and income for repayments) to buy a family home to do so, so why lock in funds for those who cannot afford a family sized home. It's actually discrimination against the those on lower incomes and its blocking them from ever owning property.

           I have no idea how Kiwi Saver funds could be used to fund the building of state houses – they would have be sellable assets to interest the Funds.
           • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1

             25 October 2019 at 8:10 pm

             Funds are locked in until retirement because it's a retirement savings scheme.

             As for how the funds invest, there are many ways to skin that cat. I'd be happy to just leave it and have the govt buold the houses directly.

             More houses = more homes affordable for the moderately middle class.
             • SPC …

               26 October 2019 at 1:34 pm

               They are not locked in for those who can afford family homes, so why are they locked in for those who can only afford a smaller property?
               • McFlock …

                 26 October 2019 at 4:00 pm

                 Because family homes aren't just speculative investments. Why not unlock them for sharemarket day trading, too? Or corn futures? Or antique dildos?

                 As soon as you unlock them purely for investments, then basically the entire idea of a minimum locked-in backstop for lifetime savings becomes farcical.

                 At which point, the discussion isn't so much about what things should enable an early release of funds, more about whether kiwisaver should exist at all.
     • mpledger 1.1.2

       26 October 2019 at 8:23 am

       Agree – it would just inflate apartment prices. If there are a certain number of apartments but suddenly more buyers come on to the market then prices will go up. The people who pay for that increase are the ones servicing the mortgage and the ones who have no choice but to rent them. Rather than increase demand, increase supply.
       • SPC 1.1.2.1

         26 October 2019 at 1:31 pm

         So what.

         Allowing people to take money out of Kiwi Saver to buy family homes also inflates the value of family homes, yet we still allow this.

         The objection to those who cannot afford to own a family sized home – taking money out to buy a smaller property so they one day afford to retire is just plain mean and nasty. And also dumb given the future cost to taxpayers of the AS to those still renting when over 65.

         One way to reduce the value of small one bedroom apartments and flats would be to end the practice of investors with multiple properties from leveraging of CG to borrow to buy more of them – require these people to invest only in new builds of this type.

         That would provide a better market for the low income earners supporting families to buy a property in.
2. Anne 2

   25 October 2019 at 7:23 pm

   Oh look… a bully complains about being bullied by the Speaker:

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12279685

   Fortunately we don't see her on the current affairs panels any more, but my recollection is that Claire Robinson spent years on TV negatively responding to every mortal thing Labour and Green politicians did or said. Her bias was so blatant that she became a laughing stock at least among the informed.

   I also recall a former commenter at TS who worked with her at Massey University describing her as a bully. He left Massey because of her bullying behaviour.
   • ianmac 2.1

     25 October 2019 at 8:51 pm

     I think Robinson was on a Q&A panel a few weeks ago with an obvious Right Wing bloke to discuss what the Minster had just been interviewed on.

     Hard to tell which panelist was more right. Robinson's strident criticism of Labour-Greens saved the Right bloke the trouble of speaking.
     • Anne 2.1.1

       25 October 2019 at 9:11 pm

       In the link provided Mallard is reported as saying:

       "I'm not making any further comment other than the fact that I regret directing that she be invited as an expert, because it became clear during her submission that she did not understand parliamentary process."

       Claire Robinson strikes me as a narcissistic type who believes she's always right when most of the time she’s wrong. Given Mallard is known to be an expert on parliamentary processes, I'm quite sure he is correct and she is -once again – wrong.
3. Ad 3

   25 October 2019 at 10:13 pm

   Be Christlike.

   Alter empires.

   Form the strongest movement in the world.

   Revolutionise world thinking.

   Love.
   • The Al1en 3.1

     26 October 2019 at 10:58 am

     In other fairy tale news – Jack chops giant down beanstalk.
     • Incognito 3.1.1

       26 October 2019 at 11:33 am

       That’s a ripper. I hope he had Council permission.
       • The Al1en 3.1.1.1

         26 October 2019 at 11:47 am

         Sleeping beauty is applying for it retrospectively when she wakes up
         • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1

           26 October 2019 at 12:11 pm

           Some transposons stay silent forever.
           • The Al1en 3.1.1.1.1.1

             26 October 2019 at 12:33 pm

             Unlike the Gene Genie, who screams and he bawls, but he's such a retrotransposon
     • Ad 3.1.2

       26 October 2019 at 11:38 am

       Whole lot more powerful and effective than any political party we've had here.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS