Landlord advocates threatening rent increases if Labour wins next election

Written By: - Date published: 8:05 am, March 11th, 2019 - 288 comments
Categories: capital gains, class war, democracy under attack, democratic participation, Media, social media lolz, tax, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Of all of the grossest things I have read lately this one is right up there.  A landlord is advocating that all landlords tell their tenants that if they vote for Labour their rents will go up.  From Dan Satherley at Newshub:

A Hamilton-based landlord took to Facebook earlier this week to encourage fellow property investors to tell their tenants 10 percent rent increases were on the way if Labour wins the next election and introduces a capital gains tax (CGT).

“What if we all said to our tenants across the whole of New Zealand, ‘Look, I need to apologise in advance, but unfortunately you’re looking at a 10 percent increase in rent if Labour gets in and introduces CGT on rentals,” the property owner wrote on the Property Investors Chat Group NZ Facebook page, which has nearly 20,000 members.

“Why should we all do this scaremongering tactic? If 35 percent of houses are rentals in New Zealand and we can get say half of the tenants NOT to give Labour their vote, we might as a collective help change the outcome of the next election and in doing so send the Labour Party a clear message.”

The Government departments think there is nothing wrong …

But the Electoral Commission told Newshub landlords – like anyone else – are “allowed to use social media to express political views”, and the landlord’s post was “insufficient to reach the threshold required to be considered a breach of the Electoral Act”.

And the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said landlords are allowed to increase rents for any reason they like.

“The Residential Tenancies Act does not specify how much landlords can increase rent by, or whether there needs to be a cost-related reason behind a rent increase,” said Jennifer Sykes, Housing and Tenancy Services manager of information and education.

I am not so sure this is right.  There are provisions in the Electoral Act about undue influence which includes where someone:

directly or indirectly … inflicts or threatens to inflict … any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel that person to vote … against a particular … party … “

He or she should reflect on this.  They are probably not at the threatening to inflict stage yet but not by much.

And the Human Rights Commission could look at what has been said to see if it breaches the prohibition of discrimination in connection with the provision of facilities or services on the basis of political opinion.

And IRD should audit their arse.  If they are in the rental market to make a capital gain they should be paying capital gains tax on the sale.

I cannot believe that some people have such a strong sense of entitlement.   Basically they should be rich at someone else’s expense.  And they are willing to trash strongly held notions of individual political independence just so they can get their own way.  I especially cannot believe that they would be so stupid as to go onto social media and say this.

 

288 comments on “Landlord advocates threatening rent increases if Labour wins next election ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rae 1
    11 March 2019 at 8:20 am

    Don’t have to look beyond our shores for electoral manipulation, do you? I hope that group charged with looking into this sort of thing start with this lot.

    • soddenleaf 1.1
      11 March 2019 at 12:13 pm

      How is this any different from dockworkers holding the nation to extortion? Where’s are the National party! oh, yeah, declaring that renting is the kiwi dream! Falling homeownership started when oz introduced a CGT.

      • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 3:22 pm

        Right !!!

        Its time now that corporate tax was raised back to pre 1984 levels and PAYE was lowered. PLUS implementing the CGT.

        F@CK EM.

        3 decades of neo liberal avarice should be enough for anyone. Theyve had their play in the sun.

        Oh , and implementing the LIVING WAGE across the board. Lets see these bitch whining landlords crow about their profiteering then, me hearty’s…

  2. Wensleydale 2
    11 March 2019 at 8:25 am

    “I especially cannot believe that they would be so stupid as to go onto social media and say this.”

    Why? This is social media’s reason for being. I don’t use Facebook, Twitter or Instagram because I know I’ll spend my days facepalming so hard I’ll likely suffer multiple concussions. People have never been shy about expressing their dubious opinions, especially when they receive validation via likes, thumbs up, etc. The internet, despite its utility, remains a roiling vortex of stupid where critical thought and cogent arguments are anathemas.

    Having said that, this landlord is obviously a massively entitled arsehole. People have the right to vote for whoever they please, free of threats or coercion. There’s a measure of self-interest involved of course, and turkeys aren’t likely to vote for Christmas dinner, but essentially saying to your tenants “If you vote Labour we’ll crank your rents!” is fairly borderline stuff. Landlords, as a general rule, will raise rents whenever they feel they can get away with it (within the bounds of the law), so claiming this is all the wicked Labour Party’s fault is disingenuous at best. They were quite happy to increase the rent while National was in power. (Incidentally, mine goes up again in April. Thanks, guys!)

    • WILD KATIPO 2.1
      11 March 2019 at 3:30 pm

      This is not just simply a case of self interest but a form of electoral vote rigging stand over tactics. More cruder places use thugs with guns , this prick – this one in particular – is trying to hide behind the law to incite something ILLEGAL.

  3. BM 3
    11 March 2019 at 8:35 am

    If Labour puts a CGT in place, rents will rise.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12205892

    I don’t see the problem with this landlord pointing that out, don’t you want voters making an informed choice at the ballot box?

    • marty mars 3.1
      11 March 2019 at 8:37 am

      Good you’re honest about being on the side of the exploiters – what a disappointment you haven’t got the gumption to stick up for people other than those you idolize.

      • BM 3.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 8:44 am

        Mate, your average Kiwi is a very simple person, who spends the majority of their lives oblivious to what’s going on around them.

        This landlord is helping in the education process and hopefully, encouraging awareness and interest in what our government is up to.

        An ill-informed population is bad for democracy, so well done this landlord for doing his bit.

        • Wensleydale 3.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:03 am

          Yes. Such a selfless soul. He should really receive some sort of community award in recognition of his service to tenants.

        • OnceWasTim 3.1.1.2
          11 March 2019 at 12:24 pm

          You remind me of Maggie Thatcher @ BM: “There is no such things as society”
          (and even if there was, the likes of Maggie and you will always do their best to destroy it)
          The market the market, greed is good, a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.
          – all preached to the masses for over 30 years by the privileged, the self-entitled, the media, and unfortunately by many in our public services.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      11 March 2019 at 9:09 am

      Why should rents rise BM?

      • BM 3.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 9:26 am

        Rent return in relation to property worth is very low.
        If you’re going to be hit with a CGT you’re going to have to up your ROR otherwise it’s pointless investing in property.

        I reckon 6% after expenses wouldn’t be a bad rate of return in a market with minimum capital gain and a CGT.

        Property worth 550k would need to be returning 40k a year to be worthwhile, so around $800 per week.

        550k house in Auckland would get you very little and $800 a week is a lot of money.

        Looking at these average rents in South Auckland they’ve got a long way to go before they hit 6% return.

        https://www.enz.org/house-rents-auckland-south.html

        I can see a lot of renters struggling.

        • mickysavage 3.2.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:28 am

          If you purchased a property relying on a capital gain you should pay tax on the capital gain. Why should someone who invests in shares pay tax but someone investing in property not pay tax?

          • BM 3.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 9:34 am

            If there’s no capital gain or you’re going to be taxed heavily on any gain you make, then the only way to make owning a rental worthwhile is to up rents.

          • Enough is Enough 3.2.1.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 10:24 am

            “If you purchased a property relying on a capital gain you should pay tax on the capital gain. Why should someone who invests in shares pay tax but someone investing in property not pay tax?”

            That’s an argument for the tax MS. What the landlord is saying is if that tax is introduced then landlords will look for ways to still retain the same returns. The most obvious way to do that would be increase rents.

              • Enough is Enough …
                11 March 2019 at 11:47 am

                Yes because every landlord declares on day 1 that they are in it to make profit…..

                The current test is the problem. It is very difficult for the IRD to show what the intent was. If they can’t get past the first limb of the test then they fail. That is why this is rarely enforced.

                The bright line test has fixed that to a degree. The TWG proposals make it even more clear as the owner’s intentions will be irrelevant.

                None of this however affects what Landlord’s will do in order to pay for the new tax.

                • Kevin …
                  11 March 2019 at 12:19 pm

                  It’s interesting in that the general populace bleats on about corporate tax avoidance when in reality it is those with rentals who are some of the biggest tax avoiders.

                  Maybe the IRD should change the criteria in that if a house is used as a rental, it is up to the owner to prove it is not being used to reap CG further down the road. Now THAT would be interesting…

            • Ankerrawshark 3.2.1.1.2.2
              11 March 2019 at 5:33 pm

              Freeze rents. It’s peoples (renters) lives we are talking about here

              • Michael who failed Civics …
                11 March 2019 at 5:41 pm

                Absolutely. Or cap them at no more than 25 percent of the tenants’ weekly income (as they are meant to be at HNZ but are not in too many cases). If and when landlords sell up, HNZ should have right of first refusal as purchaser – to rent out as social housing with rent capped at same level. If or when the “market” returns to equilibrium, limited sales of HNZ stock could be considered – to first home buyers with state-guaranteed low-interest mortgages.

        • Pat 3.2.1.2
          11 March 2019 at 9:30 am

          your numbers should tell you something BM

        • ankerawshark 3.2.1.3
          11 March 2019 at 11:47 am

          Time for a 5 year rent freeze, hit them with a HUGE capital gain tax and gets these bastards out of renting out property.

          If they are charged a CGT that means they have made a profit. What disgusting individuals.

        • Gabby 3.2.1.4
          11 March 2019 at 1:07 pm

          Great argument for driving down property values BMmer.

        • ankerawshark 3.2.1.5
          11 March 2019 at 2:35 pm

          BM I am glad you are seeing a lot of renters struggling.

          Lets make it so unworthwhile for landlords to be landlords that they sell up and piss off. I don’t rent, but I am sick to death of these cry me a river arseholes who don’t give a dam about their fellow human being, just interested in making a lot of money and then cry like babies when SOME of their “earnings” are threatened.

          They choose to be landlords……….people don’t choose to have a house to live in . Housing is not a luxury item.

    • Gabby 3.3
      11 March 2019 at 9:23 am

      Rents will rise regardless BMmer. Sad but true.

    • Clive Macann 3.4
      11 March 2019 at 9:50 am

      Pretty onesided “informed” isn’t it.
      Where is the truth in all this scaremongering?

    • bwaghorn 3.5
      11 March 2019 at 12:07 pm

      Why? a cgt does not add to costs at all .
      It just gets untaxed income inline with all other incomes.

        • Bewildered 3.5.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 5:23 pm

          Some 1 to 1 finance tuition just for you WK The total return from a property is it’s net rent and capital gain. if the return compared to other asset classes is 6 percent based on current criteria around capital gain and they change the regime impacting CGT negatively holding every thing else constant of course the rents will go up The alternative is the value of the property drops in essence the propety yield goes up but that assumes the property owner is willing to sell at a loss, Much easier to put the rent up and hold the value Likewise a whole lot of other bad unintended consequences if government try to distort the market z( ie rent freezes) in forcing property owners to make a below market return, here think Venezula or Muldoons price and wage freeze or google impact rent control impact on new your York on the 70s

          • Ankerrawshark 3.5.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 5:57 pm

            Bewildered you are not even worth replying to. Houses are for people tp live in. Not for others to profit from

    • soddenleaf 3.6
      11 March 2019 at 12:16 pm

      Honesty. Farmers in oz compete with lazy nz farmers, who aren’t paying CGT, who get rain, who pay less to their employees as any kiwi knows if you want real incomes you jump the ditch. CGT is fairness. Sitting on ones backside counting in the inflated rent is not hard work.

      • WILD KATIPO 3.6.1
        11 March 2019 at 3:36 pm

        And threatening economic hardship to silence people voting for their party is interfering in the electoral process.

        • soddenleaf 3.6.1.1
          13 March 2019 at 4:13 pm

          Any transition will harvest those agile enough, and Carfer off the rest.

          • soddenleaf 3.6.1.1.1
            13 March 2019 at 4:16 pm

            oh, and CGT won’t apply to existing capital gains, just future ones. So unless you are exposed to long contracts and your business relies on a 0% CGT as it’s driver… …can’t feel much sympathy for a free loader,forcing higher income taxes on battlers so they can rent seek.

    • NZJester 3.7
      11 March 2019 at 1:07 pm

      Did you even read the article you linked?

      It also looked at the impacts of similar tax changes on housing markets in other countries like including Canada, Australia and South Africa but did not find significant rent rises.

      “The group has not observed significant increases in rents relative to prices in those countries – to the contrary, rents actually fell relative to prices.

      “While there are only a small number of examples to observe, there is no evidence of a general rise in rents or a fall in prices following the implementation of capital gains taxes.”

      The only ones talking up that rents will rise are National and National voting landlords who are listening to their unsupported by facts CGT talking points.

      Unless they are going to be flipping rental houses regularly they are unlikely to see any capital gains taxes until they have made so much money already off the house it will be a drop in the bucket off the profits they have made from it.

      • WILD KATIPO 3.7.1
        11 March 2019 at 3:39 pm

        The part that is really dodgy is using peoples finances as a big stick to influence an election. Poor form right there from the self entitled little prick who had the lack of foresight to realize that when suggesting it on social media.

    • RedLogix 3.8
      11 March 2019 at 1:31 pm

      I’m not so sure BM. There are three distinct types of landlord; long-term buy and hold, cash flow types who never intend to sell, and short-term speculators who totally depend on capital gain for their profit.

      And then there are many overseas (often Chinese) owners who don’t care about any of this; they just want some cash in a safe haven beyond the reach of their govt.

      I’m not sure what the proportion of each is in the market, but none of them are all that sensitive to a CGT. Even the speculators really won’t turn down a profit just because they have to pay some tax on it. Besides the intelligent ones will have a plan to offset it in some legitimate manner.

      The social media post that’s the focus of the OP seems pretty damned stupid to me, unwise at the least and ill-informed overall.

    • WILD KATIPO 3.9
      11 March 2019 at 3:33 pm

      This landlord is not just benignly ‘ pointing something out ‘ BM , – he /she is threatening the democratic right to vote for whoever one pleases in free elections.

      Don’t try to soften something that is in fact, offensive. And should be looked upon as such by the authority’s.

  4. marty mars 4
    11 March 2019 at 8:35 am

    Dirty landlords should be banned from owning property. Audit these landlords hard and get the shit ones gone. Same for dirty farmers.

  5. Sanctuary 5
    11 March 2019 at 9:03 am

    All this rentier’s statements admit to is the huge class war component in housing. The fat cats like being slum lords, after all there is a lot of money to be made in poverty and housing is a huge symbol of gulf between the supposed deserving and undeserving.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 5.1
      11 March 2019 at 9:34 am

      It’s not that different to advocates for nurses and teachers telling them that if they vote national there wages will go down? it may be true, it may be more virtuous, but at a fundamental level it’s the same information

      • left_forward 5.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:16 pm

        It is true that under the gnats, tax cuts for the wealthy were the priority, and as a consequence funding to health boards and schools remained static, which in turn suppressed wages and worsened working conditions.

        There is no need to advocate to teachers and nurses about this – they will make up their own minds about which party will support them to do their jobs.

        It would only be the same situation if the rentier allowed the tenants to simply make up their own minds without extortion or threat.

    • RedLogix 5.2
      11 March 2019 at 1:05 pm

      All this rentier’s statements admit to is the huge class war component in housing.

      Utter fucking bullshit.

      The vast majority of landlords (>90%) are ordinary working people with 1 or 2 units. When I was in NZ stuck on NZ wages our tenants typically drove better cars than we do, had better furniture and clearly enjoyed a somewhat better lifestyle. We are very unusual in having somewhat more than this; and even then I’ve had to move to Australia six years ago and work fckn hard in order to make a decent dent in my mortgage. Way tougher more demanding work than most people here seem to understand.

      On the hand while I was subsidising my tenants housing costs, I was also saving up equity to access later in my life after I stopped working. Now the govt wants to come for that equity, but fortunately for us I anticipated this years ago and have worked to a very, very conservative ‘hold and buy’ strategy that does not depend on ever selling to release funds. Thus a CGT won’t matter one jot to me.

      All that I’ve done is sacrificed considerable reward for the past 20 years for something in the future. My father was forced into early retirement at 58 and he’s now 90 with no obvious end date in sight. That’s 32 years and running; and I’m not apologising for not wanting to spend all of them subsisting on the National Super.

      • Sanctuary 5.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:51 pm

        Your commentary history here charts a sellout’s ideological journey perfectly, old boy.

        • RedLogix 5.2.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 2:10 pm

          Actually I wondered about that and went and did the Political Compass Test a few weeks back. I’ve done it a few times over the decade and it’s always been consistently left wing. This time to my surprise I’m now rated at -7.0 Right/Left and -3.9 Authoritarian/Liberal.

          Which objectively puts me somewhat to the left of the NZ Greens still.

          What has changed is that I’m no longer willing to buy into the predictable ideological rantings of people who’ve achieved sod all in their lives, while demanding we ‘smash the system’, and having absolutely fuck all idea what might actually replace it.

          Beyond the usual utopian moon-barking that is.

      • Ankerrawshark 5.2.2
        11 March 2019 at 6:03 pm

        Red logic where do you stats come from that 90% are ordinary working people.

        How do you mean you were subsidizing your tenants life style? Were you running your rental property at a loss? If so why did you do that?

        I guess people make their (bad) choices

        • RedLogix 5.2.2.1
          11 March 2019 at 6:26 pm

          If you knew anything at all about the business you would know that’s very common to run at a cash flow loss for the first decade or more.

          Yes many landlords do subsidise their tenants until the mortgage is under control.

          • marty mars 5.2.2.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 6:34 pm

            More poor me-ism. Landlords own the property AND take the inevitable profit. Landlords don’t subsidize renters – that is hopelessly myopic.

          • Ankerrawshark 5.2.2.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 7:14 pm

            Ha ha ha red logix. Ive run my own small business and have done so for 13 years. So I know quite a lot about running a business and also being a land lord.

            • RedLogix 5.2.2.1.2.1
              12 March 2019 at 12:13 am

              No. You just rented one house that was actually your own home for a short period; you know nothing about building and running a business from scratch over a 20 year period, and housed over 80 families in that time.

              The whole reason why LAQC’s and later on LTC’s, were implemented was to deal with the exact problem I outlined above; that typically a rental business takes many years, decades, to turn a profit.

              • marty mars …
                12 March 2019 at 5:51 am

                Rental business? That thinking is the problem – it’s not a business unless you make it one. And with thinking it is a business comes business mentality – max profit, selfishness, and so on. For you just a business but different for all the people trying to have a half decent home to raise their kids.

                • RedLogix …
                  12 March 2019 at 9:20 am

                  My business has given fully decent homes to 80 or more families for a price and convenience significantly less than if they’d had to buy them.

                  In 1998 my assets were literally everything that fitted into the back of the company stationwagon. It took a considerable effort to get it going and has the ongoing risk that about 1 in 10 tenants will cause a problem.

                  Absolutely I’ve always argued the state has an important role in providing social housing for that 10% or so of people who for one of many reasons will never qualify for a home loan or a private sector rental. But if you are going to demand the market be dismantled and the govt provide free homes for everyone … all I can say is your cure is worse than the problem you are trying to solve.

                  Incidentally I lived for about 3 months in a Soviet apartment block. They too provided ‘free homes’ for everyone .. that everyone hated.

                  • solkta …
                    12 March 2019 at 9:29 am

                    It took a considerable effort to get it going

                    What kind of car was it?

                  • marty mars …
                    12 March 2019 at 10:15 am

                    Cool, so a cgt no issue then because as a business you appreciate appreciation.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 March 2019 at 10:39 am

                      No. As I’ve said elsewhere several times as a buy and hold investor a CGT means nothing to me.

                      What I have consistently said is that CGTs are an overcomplex muddle and as overseas experience demonstrates do not have the effect people here are hoping they will.

                      Instead I have pointed to the TOP CCT style asset tax as a far cleaner more potent tool for change. And incidentally one that I would have to pay.

      • Sabine 5.2.3
        11 March 2019 at 6:14 pm

        all that you say is nice and sweet,

        now could you get some outrage up in regards to this wanker? Or does that offend your sensibilities as a ‘good’ landlord.

        Cause this one is a wanker.

        • RedLogix 5.2.3.1
          11 March 2019 at 6:30 pm

          I’ve said it elsewhere, the threat made by the guy the OP is about is unwise, unprofessional and stupid.

          It achieves nothing and can be construed as electoral interference.

          Or in a word, wanker.

          • Sabine 5.2.3.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 6:40 pm

            And still, this is nothing compared to you trying to tell us that you (Mom and Pop investors) are the majority, when all of us renters tell you you are not.

            that is the point.

            and yeah, i guess wanker is the most polite form for this useless fuck.

  6. arkie 6
    11 March 2019 at 9:03 am

    My last landlord told me to “Blame Jacinda” since the new tenancy laws coming in meant she would rather kick me out than spend the money to bring the flat up to standard.

    • Wensleydale 6.1
      11 March 2019 at 9:07 am

      That’s unfortunate. On a positive note, she was probably an awful person and you’re much better off no longer having to deal with her. The more of these shits who are forced to sell because they’re too cheap to bring the rental up to code, the better.

      • arkie 6.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 9:16 am

        Thanks but she also had a point, it was a substandard property and she was just using the law change as a justification. It was the instruction that she wasn’t at fault, Landlords aren’t the problem, blame the Labour government, that I found especially ironic.

        • David Mac 6.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:38 am

          I think her point is valid.

          It should be her decision whether she invests in her property to bring it up to meet the new standards or ceases to let it out as a rental property. I don’t think property owners should be forced to comply and create homes they don’t want to. If so, infrequently used baches become a soft target….maybe they should. I don’t know where this is going to end up but the trend lines are ugly.

          She was happy to rent the property to you, you were happy to rent it. A series of politicians’ decisions have made that arrangement something she no longer wants to do.

          • BM 6.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 9:43 am

            I can imagine it’s going to get really bad for renters out in the smaller provincial areas.

            Lots of money will have to be spent on properties with little chance of getting those costs back unless paid for by the people renting.

            Many will just put it all in the to hard basket and sell or get rid of their tenants.

            • Kevin 6.1.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 10:54 am

              Or just sell these millstones around their necks.

              • BM …
                11 March 2019 at 11:02 am

                Yep, they’ll probably sell up and that’s another rental gone.

                Whoever buys it will have to be an owner-occupier as you won’t be able to rent it out without spending a ton of cash on it first.

                • mauī …
                  11 March 2019 at 11:17 am

                  If you can’t provide one form of heating (i.e. a heatpump) and ensure there’s at least some of the most basic insulation in a house, wtf are you doing providing housing for others?

                • Pat …
                  11 March 2019 at 11:20 am

                  and if theres a flood of ex rentals into the market what do you expect might happen to price (and consequently affordability)?

                  • McFlock …
                    11 March 2019 at 11:34 am

                    but surely if rentiers don’t own them, nobody will live in them… lolz

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2019 at 12:18 pm

                      Make mortgage interest tax deductible for homeowners and level they playing field.

                      It’s that simple. Now if only I could get a govt to pay me for that advice.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 March 2019 at 12:25 pm

                      Why?

                      They’re already getting cheap houses as the landlords look for other businesses.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2019 at 1:11 pm

                      You are expecting that if there is a flood of landlords forced to sell into the market, that prices will drop. Fair enough as far as it goes.

                      But you overlook that this does not necessarily mean that a new home owner will get a chance to buy; quite the opposite. In a falling market banks become more conservative, demanding more equity and better serviceability. And besides who wants to buy a property that may well be worth less in a years time?

                      The people most advantaged in a falling market will be cashed up overseas buyers or existing investors with well established portfolios they can leverage.

                      Also there will be a significant number of existing new home owners whose own homes will now be under water, and when they’ eventually have to sell they will lose all or most of their equity and be unable to buy again … and their only option will be to go renting again. Adding to rental demand.

                      While I accept there will be some first time buyers who get lucky in a falling market, it won’t be nearly as many as you probably imagine.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 March 2019 at 1:40 pm

                      Frankly I don’t think they’ll go down all that much on the basis of WoFs, if at all. But if someone wants to buy a home, a price slump for a couple of years won’t worry them, especially if its a dwelling they’ll DIY add value to by bringing it into a WoFfable state.

                      Banks will be more wary of lending, but then… they should be. House affordability should be based on income, not cheap credit.

                      I suspect that the WoF issue will free up lower-bracket homes to a lower price, but make the comfortable middle class slightly more difficult to step up into from the uncomfortable but non-renting working classes.

                  • BM …
                    11 March 2019 at 11:45 am

                    If it’s out Murapara way or any other small NZ town, probably not a lot.

                    Apart from less rentals.

                    • Pat …
                      11 March 2019 at 12:10 pm

                      I know nothing of Murapara but if theyre needed they will be utilised either by a owner occupier or new investor

                    • solkta …
                      11 March 2019 at 12:14 pm

                      So you are expecting that there will be empty houses?

                      But of course there won’t be as the bank will call in the loan and the house be sold for the balance of the loan or even less if need be.

                    • bwaghorn …
                      11 March 2019 at 12:19 pm

                      @pat murupara was a great slightly rough little town till the 80s came along and fucked it royally it’s down on its luck now days . I grew up near it.

                • solkta …
                  11 March 2019 at 11:30 am

                  That would be great. One more NZ family able to own rather than rent.

                • ankerawshark …
                  11 March 2019 at 11:49 am

                  Time for the State to buy up these houses and rent them out or rent to buy. Don’t care how much that costs. We have to get rid of these disgusting landlords. They are a blight on our community.

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 March 2019 at 1:21 pm

                    Most of these ‘disgusting’ people are ordinary kiwis much like yourself.

                    • ankerawshark …
                      11 March 2019 at 2:41 pm

                      Actually red logix you are wrong. I did own a rental property once. I only owned it cause I was moving city for work and I wanted to make sure if the job didn’t work out, I had a home to go back to.

                      I have posted before about what sort of land lord I was, but anyone, twice insulated house, got a dvs, re-painted inside on tenants request. Rent $100.00 per week below what I could have charged. I was a decent landlord.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2019 at 2:46 pm

                      What makes you think you were so special?

                      I’ve been doing this for 20 years now and have met countless landlords, most of them just like you. A small percentage, as in any business, conform to the negative stereotypes some people hold to here, but the vast majority do not.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      11 March 2019 at 3:42 pm

                      Who think its OK to use financial coercion to try to influence an election , RED LOGIX ?

                    • RedLogix []
                      11 March 2019 at 5:33 pm

                      Not me. I’ve said so elsewhere.

            • Cinny 6.1.1.1.1.2
              11 March 2019 at 6:18 pm

              BM, you said… “Lots of money will have to be spent on properties with little chance of getting those costs back unless paid for by the people renting.’

              FYI… Repairs and maintenance on a rental property ARE tax deductible.

              • BM …
                11 March 2019 at 6:33 pm

                You don’t get the cost back, you just pay a little less tax.

                Many small provincial towns, prices have risen fuck all and you can easily run the risk of over-capitalising your investment.

                What may be negligible in Auckland could be a loss in somewhere like Taihape.

                • Muttonbird …
                  11 March 2019 at 6:36 pm

                  Some rental owners have been getting a free ride by renting out substandard properties and all have been getting a free ride by not being taxed on capital income.

                  Time for that to stop!

                  • BM …
                    11 March 2019 at 6:39 pm

                    As long as people are willing to pay more.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      11 March 2019 at 6:49 pm

                      People will be ok with paying a bit more for a better quality of product. The way I see it the cost should be shared between owner and tenant. The cost to the tenant to be spread over several years, ie the likely lifetime of the improvements.

                      $10/week should do it.

                • Cinny …
                  11 March 2019 at 6:55 pm

                  Paying less tax is rather similar to getting the cost back, it’s just number shuffling when it comes down to it.

                  Why would anyone buy an investment rental in a town that could possibly generate a loss for them? You wouldn’t.

                  What may be negligible in Auckland could be a loss in somewhere like Taihape…

                  Actually in the current market, house prices in smaller provincial towns are increasing while it’s starting to stagnate in Akld. JS

                  https://www.interest.co.nz/property/92485/qv-says-most-property-markets-value-growth-occurring-regions-auckland-remains

                  Many small provincial towns, prices have risen fuck all Just out of interest BM, what are the names of the many small provincial towns are you referring to please?

          • NZJester 6.1.1.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 1:26 pm

            By not having homes up to standard the NZ Taxpayer is subsidizing a lot of those landlords heavily in indirect ways.
            Cold damp homes mean that tenants and thier families are more likely to need to visit the doctor more often or have to get subsidy money to pay to warm the house.
            Badly maintained homes can also be a safety hazard.
            They are profiting off of pushing additional costs on to taxpayers.
            Them saving a few $1000 by not insulating the property is costing taxpayers a lot more money every year.

            • WILD KATIPO 6.1.1.1.2.1
              11 March 2019 at 3:48 pm

              Indeed, for every conscientious landlord there’s one that isn’t. Those are the parasites and leeches. Anyone who wants to find out just how bad these a holes are should simply go flat hunting. Juxtapose that against the minimum wage and see if they’d like to live there. Have a go at that in Auckland.

              They are shitting themselves because of the upgrade thats coming and the CGT on the horizon. Fundamentally they are the same type of bitch wannbe that existed after the Black Plague of England ceased ,- who tried to keep wages down and serfs in their place using the Kings army . The same sort of self entitled pricks who would have the peasants living in mud huts and eating grass if they had their way.

              Just in the year 2019 not the 14th century being the only difference.

              Fuck em.

            • ankerawshark 6.1.1.1.2.2
              11 March 2019 at 4:12 pm

              REd Logic. I didn’t say I was special.

              I was a decent landlord though.

              If you have met countless landlords like yourself who are decent, why are they not speaking up saying “yes its is only right that we pay a capital gains tax like nearly every other country in the world????? Their silence is deafening and drowned out by the absolute whingers who bang on about putting their rents up.

              • RedLogix …
                11 March 2019 at 5:36 pm

                Because like me a CGT doesn’t really impact the immediate plans of conservative buy and hold landlords.

          • Ankerrawshark 6.1.1.1.3
            11 March 2019 at 7:18 pm

            Disagree David mac. Houses are for shelter, for living in. We now have tens of thousands who are homeless.

        • Sabine 6.1.1.2
          11 March 2019 at 6:16 pm

          well its gonna be fun then, she won’t be able to rent her property and she won’t be able to sell it for good money either.

    • Pingau 6.2
      11 March 2019 at 1:42 pm

      The amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act that upgraded the required standards of insulation and smoke alarms and so on was passed in July 2016 … so really it’s John’s fault.

      The new Healthy Homes wotsit should come into effect in 2021 so landlords have a couple of years to upgrade to a fairly basic level.

      Re the basic level – I am a landlord as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes when i was red zoned (I since found somewhere more suitable) and the older house I bought has foil underfloor insulation which will still meet the new criteria in 2021 so long as it is undamaged even though it is a pretty poor product.

  7. Blazer 7
    11 March 2019 at 9:08 am

    Maybe the Govt should be looking at restricting the accomodation subsidy payable to landlords .

    A manifesto of eligibility and compliance would be nice.

    • Shadrach 7.1
      11 March 2019 at 9:52 am

      The Accomodation Supplement is paid to the tenant, and is based on the tenant’s personal circumstances.

      • Blazer 7.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 10:11 am

        Correct,but its also based on the rent and ends up in the landlords pockets.

        Currently around $2.5 billion to help the ‘free market’.

        • Shadrach 7.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 2:20 pm

          It ends up in the tenants pockets. There is no shortage of tenants to pay market rents.

          • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 3:55 pm

            Don’t twist words. You know damn well that most of that acc supplement goes directly into the landlords back pockets. Worse, taxation for large company’s – and small – is way to low to really make an impact on our infrastructure – THAT THEY USE.

            So , – where does the bulk of that taxation come from?- the working people- many of which are already still on minimum wages.And where does the funding for WFF come from? Taxation.

            Stop being a fork tongued snake.

            • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 5:08 pm

              “You know damn well that most of that acc supplement goes directly into the landlords back pockets.”

              No, it doesn’t. It goes to the tenant. It is based on the tenants personal circumstances. It applies irrespective of who the landlord is. In otherwise, the landlord never sees the AS. All the landlord sees is the tenants rent, whether that tenant receives AS. Or not.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                11 March 2019 at 6:13 pm

                Oh how cozily convenient. AS IF these unscrupulous landlord’s DON’T REALIZE ALL OF THAT…. butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.

                Get real.

                You know , I know, the whole damn country knows that in order to maintain the original Ruth Richardson neo liberal low wage economy they had to give a little to A ) stay in power and not have a revolt on their hands and B ) ensure that some kind of taxed subsidy was available to their capitalists , – in this case the landlords the free market produced- hence such mechanisms as the WFF subsidy.

                Paid for by the tax payer ( disproportionately by low income earners ) as a double – barreled subsidy for businesses so they could 1 / maintain that low wage economy and 2 / so that landlords would be guaranteed their rent money.

                Give us a break.

                We all know the real motives behind all of this.

                And both Labour and National have carried on the charade for 3 decades.

                Screw them both.

          • Sabine 7.1.1.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 6:19 pm

            honey, no it ends up in the landlords pocked as you only get the supplement if you can’t afford to pay your rent with your income.

            so like it or not, it is ending up in the landlords pocket, or if you like it this way, after they used all their wages to pay the landlord they now have a hundy per week left over – thanks to the tax payer btw not the government – to pay bills and eat too!

            Fact is there are less and less people that can afford market rate without either accomodation benefit, heck the same people – like that lovely farmer with his silly “she’s a pretty communist’ sign – that need working for families – again courtesy of the tax payer not the government – to afford their darn kids.

            • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.2.1
              11 March 2019 at 7:54 pm

              “… it ends up in the landlords pocked as you only get the supplement if you can’t afford to pay your rent with your income.'”

              Ah, no. If you can’t afford to live in a rental, you move out and make way for another tenant.

          • Pat 7.1.1.1.3
            11 March 2019 at 6:26 pm

            how many available tenants do you think there may be capable of paying ‘market rents’ sans accommodation supplement?

            • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.3.1
              11 March 2019 at 7:56 pm

              Plenty, based on the last time I had a vacant unit.

              • Pat …
                11 March 2019 at 8:01 pm

                lol…and last time you had a vacant unit was 1997 was it?

                • Shadrach …
                  12 March 2019 at 11:13 am

                  Right now, as it happens. And I have multiple tenants applying. And BTW I don’t know how many of them receive an AS. Because they get it, not me.

                  • Pat …
                    12 March 2019 at 6:15 pm

                    then the question remains…how many viable tenants at ‘market rate ‘ do you think there would be sans AS?

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 March 2019 at 9:02 pm

                      There would be the same number of tenants as there are now. They may not all be able to afford to live where they currently do, but that wont impact any landlords I know.

                  • Pat …
                    12 March 2019 at 9:08 pm

                    lol…the same number you reckon?…and a higher default rate

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 March 2019 at 9:24 pm

                      Why? If there was no AS, tenants would simply find other living arrangements. That may mean in other parts of the city they live in, or in another city. But they remain tenants.

                  • Pat …
                    12 March 2019 at 9:34 pm

                    at a greatly reduced rate.

                    • Pat …
                      12 March 2019 at 9:44 pm

                      I just used the WINZ calculator for a sole parent with two children working 32 hours a week on minimum wage in Christchurch…they are entitled to between 120 and 210 per week AS…take that off your rent and see if your mortgage is viable

                    • Shadrach …
                      13 March 2019 at 9:00 am

                      Why would I need to? That is what the tenant receives, not the landlord.

                  • Pat …
                    13 March 2019 at 5:26 pm

                    have you always been a fuckwit?

      • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.2
        11 March 2019 at 10:25 am

        The Accommodation Supplement is a a tax payer funded handout to property investors.

        This government should have announced it’s immediate termination early on a Monday morning along with a rents freeze.

        No accommodation subsidy for those in full time work…

        No working for families tax credits either.

        If we going to allow ‘the market’ to rule…then let it.

        Time for a reset.

        • solkta 7.1.2.1
          11 March 2019 at 10:33 am

          There has been for a very long time cash transfers from the State to families who have children. This seems like a sound recognition that children are a public good as well as a private good. Children have rights re the welfare state as much as any of us.

          • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.2.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 10:51 am

            WFF is a government top up that allows employers to pay workers less than it actually costs to live.

            Of course I’m not saying ‘let the children starve’…don’t be silly, BUT if the welfare of children is why we have wff…then why is it not paid to families not in work???? https://www.cpag.org.nz/campaigns/fix-working-for-families-fwff-campaign/

            As I said….if we are going to let ‘the market’ rule….then let it…. without any government pro ups.

            vive la revolution!!!!

            • solkta 7.1.2.1.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 11:27 am

              WFF families is paid to people not in work. It is only the “In-Work Tax Credit” that they don’t get. I agree that should change. But that is quite a different discussion than stopping the thing all together.

              I note that your link agrees with me.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                11 March 2019 at 12:04 pm

                I’m over tinkering around the edges of wonky policies that are propping up failing systems.

                People on benefits aside (because its a given that benefits are set at a rate that ensures a respectful standard of living), there should be no need for government to supplement wages or rents.

                Not if we are allowing the ‘market’ to rule.

                Which of course we’re not….so why not go the whole hog and remove two of the state interventions that are keeping this economy on doomed life- support?

                Employers would have to pay a living wage and landlords charge only what a family on the living wage can afford.

                There would be some squealing, for a wee while… 🙂

                • solkta …
                  11 March 2019 at 12:08 pm

                  As a lefty i don’t agree with letting the market rule. Children are a public good as well as a private good and there is no reason in leftist thinking to change cash transfers to families that have been happening since the end of WW2.

                  • Gabby …
                    11 March 2019 at 1:13 pm

                    Then you’d be in favour of the state preventing idiot parents renting substandard shitholes solky.

                    • solkta …
                      11 March 2019 at 1:15 pm

                      Yes. There should be a warrant of fitness. No warrant no legally enforceable rental agreement.

                • Kevin …
                  11 March 2019 at 12:24 pm

                  “Employers would have to pay a living wage and landlords charge only what a family on the living wage can afford.”

                  And how exactly are you going to enforce that? Or set a rate?

              • Sabine …
                11 March 2019 at 6:30 pm

                funny this is not what these guys here say.

                “If you have children who live with you, you may be entitled to receive Working for Families Tax Credits.”

                https://www.ird.govt.nz/wff-tax-credits/working-for-families-tax-credits.html

                or here
                https://www.ird.govt.nz/wff-tax-credits/understanding/all-about/

                or here https://www.ird.govt.nz/wff-tax-credits/understanding/all-about/ftc/
                Check if you qualify for family tax credit
                You can get FTC if you have dependent children and your family income is from:

                salary or wages
                self-employment
                a student allowance

                funny how it says nothing about what you are talking about. But maybe IRD is getting it all wrong.
                NZ Superannuation or Veteran’s Pension
                an income tested benefit, or
                another source.

                or here
                https://www.ird.govt.nz/wff-tax-credits/understanding/all-about/iwtc/
                Do I qualify for in-work tax credit?
                To qualify for in-work tax credit you must be in paid work for at least:

                30 hours each week as a couple, eg one person works 5 hours and the other works 25 hours, or
                20 hours each week as a single parent.
                You must receive one of the following types of qualifying income from that work:

                a salary or wage
                a shareholder salary, if you are a shareholder-employee in a close company, or
                business income

                or here https://www.ird.govt.nz/wff-tax-credits/understanding/all-about/min-ftc/
                Check if you qualify for minimum family tax credit
                You can receive MFTC if you earn below the annual income level and work for a salary or wage for at least:

                30 hours each week (for a couple), or
                20 hours each week (for a single parent).

        • Shadrach 7.1.2.2
          11 March 2019 at 2:23 pm

          “The Accommodation Supplement is a a tax payer funded handout to property investors.“
          The AS is not paid to the landlord, so you simply wrong. If the AS is part of the welfare system that helps low income families find suitable housing.

          • RedLogix 7.1.2.2.1
            11 March 2019 at 2:31 pm

            You’ve been splitting this semantic hair for so long it’s frizzled into it’s component atoms by now.

            Yes the AS is paid to beneficiaries, but they don’t get any meaningful discretion about what it is spent on. In effect it does go to the landlord (and in turn usually to the bank) and it does subsidise rental prices.

            In effect govts of the past 20 years have allowed relatively unconstrained credit from the banks and cash from Asia to inflate our property prices, and in order to prevent the system from falling apart at the bottom the AS has been used to prop rental prices up.

            There is far, far more to this story than simplistic, visceral and pointless landlord abuse:

            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-11/global-economy-blew-up-interest-rates-reserve-bank/10887958

            • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.2.2.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 3:13 pm

              “In effect govts of the past 20 years have allowed relatively unconstrained credit from the banks and cash from Asia to inflate our property prices, and in order to prevent the system from falling apart at the bottom the AS has been used to prop rental prices up.”

              Thank you RL.

              Gets a little boring having to explain every time someone insists that the AS is there because of lazy idle poor folk who can’t be bothered working hard enough to pay the rent, rather than unfettered low/no deposit lending on stupidly inflated property means higher mortgage repayments which of course have to be reflected in rent demanded. Folk, even working folk, struggle to pay so successive governments (themselves enslaved by the banks???) have to keep the funds from AS flowing to prevent the biggest mortgagee sale EVER. I hate it that the Accommodation Subsidy is touted as part of the welfare package….

              I have not only heard landlords discussing with prospective tenants how AS works according to their income, and setting the rent according to what can be claimed…. but I have heard buyers of rental properties factoring in the Accommodation Subsidy rules when deciding which particular area to buy in. Its a rort, and it needs to go.

              • Shadrach …
                11 March 2019 at 5:20 pm

                “…that the AS is there because of lazy idle poor folk who can’t be bothered working hard enough to pay the rent…”
                I’ve never argued that. But the AS is based on the tenants circumstances, not the landlords. Removing it won’t reduce rents, at least not in the current market.

                • Sam …
                  11 March 2019 at 5:30 pm

                  It is beyond obvious that less than 10% of the population are not fit to be tenants under any type of rental agreement. Now the government will step in and be the landlord of last resort because it is there duty to provide social and national security.

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  11 March 2019 at 5:38 pm

                  “….at least not in the current market.”

                  Boom!

                  The “market” is on life support….kept going in part by corporate welfare such as AS and WFF.

                  Pull the plug I say. Bury that stinking corpse.

                  • Shadrach …
                    11 March 2019 at 5:51 pm

                    The ‘market’ is doing just fine. It would do even better if organisations like Auckland Council kept out of it’s way, but that’s a different conversation.

                    AS and WFF are simply welfare in drag. Welfare for individual recipients, not corporates. I have no problem taking both away and introducing a generous tax free threshold. Either way, the rents I charge won’t change a dime.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      11 March 2019 at 6:31 pm

                      We could start by raising wages to the LIVING WAGE , and putting a cap on rent increases to prevent scab landlords from making an unearned profit from it.

                      Then a graduated taxation system that raises the ‘ rent’ on corporations and other businesses.

                      Then we can start talking about dismantling WFF.

                    • Shadrach …
                      11 March 2019 at 7:57 pm

                      “We could start by raising wages to the LIVING WAGE …”

                      Who is ‘we’? Does anyone’s wages come out of your pocket?

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      11 March 2019 at 9:04 pm

                      Sure , plenty of peoples wages came out of my pocket , bud, – and I paid em way above and beyond the going rates . The work was hot , hard , dangerous and shitty. Those guys deserved to have a respectable wage.

                      So don’t get all sanctimonious and smarmy with me , mate.

                      I’ve been there and I’ve done it.

                      Unlike you buddy, – I’m an old school Kiwi- not some post neo liberal prick who screws poor bastards down so I can climb on their shoulders.

                      There was a time pre 1984 and the advent of the traitor Douglas that none of these creeps would have been getting away with this shit.

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 March 2019 at 11:14 am

                      All past tense ‘buddy’. No wonder you’re advocating for a living wage for other people to fund.

            • Shadrach 7.1.2.2.1.2
              11 March 2019 at 5:05 pm

              “but they don’t get any meaningful discretion about what it is spent on. “

              Of course they don’t, is for accomodation. Your comment is nonsense.

              “In effect it does go to the landlord (and in turn usually to the bank)”…

              No, it doesn’t. The landlord receives the same rent whether the tenant receives s supplement or not.

              “and it does subsidise rental prices.”
              Wrong again. It subsidised the living expenses of the tenant. You teally have no grasp of how the market works.

              • RedLogix …
                11 March 2019 at 6:22 pm

                If a beneficiary does not rent do they still get the AS?

                • Shadrach …
                  11 March 2019 at 7:55 pm

                  No. Thanks for making my point. It is the tenant’s circumstances that determine whether they get the AS.

  8. gsays 8
    11 March 2019 at 9:44 am

    How surprising, a capitalist wants to socialise ‘losses’ after privatising profits.

    Another irony is that this capitalist wants to act in union with others.

    That can work both ways, howabout leading up to the next election, renters threaten a rent strike unless CGT is introduced?

    • Phil 8.1
      11 March 2019 at 9:53 am

      renters threaten a rent strike unless CGT is introduced?

      Now, I’m not saying we should threaten ALL landlords like this asshole, but maybe if we just erect a couple of guillotines in Aotea square?

      For, you know… performance art.

      • Rosemary McDonald 8.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 11:18 am

        “… performance art.”

        I’ll bring my knitting.

        And cake! Must have the cake!

  9. AB 9
    11 March 2019 at 9:54 am

    Good to see the underlying ugliness exposed. Markets are a terrible way of delivering things that should be a human right.

  10. Kay 10
    11 March 2019 at 9:59 am

    So according to this guy, ALL rental property owner are National voters? Or can we anticipate a follow up announcement of you will be kicked out of our FB group if Labour wins the next election?

  11. RedLogix 11
    11 March 2019 at 10:24 am

    If you think rents are high try buying the place.

    Or is it just free houses you all want?

    • Blazer 11.1
      11 March 2019 at 10:36 am

      People want real,affordable houses.

      NZ has the resources to provide them to its…citizens.

      Housing is just a trading commodity subject to our…’open economy’.

      • BM 11.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 10:38 am

        What do you consider affordable?

      • RedLogix 11.1.2
        11 March 2019 at 10:55 am

        Demand is exceeding supply due to a long running dysfunctional mix of dumb immigration, planning and building industry failures.

        Personally I hate these absurd prices, if you saw my net return last year on my asset base you’d piss yourself laughing. Essentially I’ve been subsidising the housing costs for my tenants for damn nearly 20 years.

        • Blazer 11.1.2.1
          11 March 2019 at 11:06 am

          You forgot to mention overseas buyers ,pouring money into this asset class.

          Millions of new asian millionaires buying multiple properties in western countries that allow them to.Leave them empty,matters not.

          Mind you,maybe you think that only made up 3 % of purchasers.

          • RedLogix 11.1.2.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 11:34 am

            All the anecdata suggested that in Auckland it has been way more than 3%. The lack of any controls until quite recently has been catastrophic.

    • Sabine 11.2
      11 March 2019 at 6:33 pm

      I pay less on two mortgages currently then i paid in rent two years ago.

      You might want to check in with realities. Cause the only ones that i see whinging about having to maintain their business to some sort of standard are landlords and ladies.

      Every other business in NZ is required to have silencing, registration, control plans for OSh and the likes, but landlords nah, they can rent a dog kennel (not spca approved) for 350 a week and the public is supposed to give them some love? Really?

  12. Kay 12
    11 March 2019 at 10:59 am

    I very much like this idea:
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/384420/government-eyeing-build-to-rent-housing

    But as alluded to in the story, not something investors of this guy’s ilk will appreciate, being only modest gains over a long term, so no sale and in the immediate future, and no CGT to have a hissy fit over.

    • alwyn 12.1
      11 March 2019 at 11:23 am

      Are you sure that this story isn’t a joke?
      Wasn’t the Labour Party policy at the last election to help people buy their own homes or to provide State Housing?
      Here we seem to have a policy which is to help private owners build rental houses.
      I thought that Labour regarded such people as evil and wanted to put them out of business.
      I realise that the Government, and Phil Twyford in particular, are in a shambolic state but how does this scheme fit in with the policy they promised when in Opposition?

      • You_Fool 12.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:04 pm

        By that promise and mindset being completely in your head… I don’t know if Labour can be held to account for your private fantasies

        • alwyn 12.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 1:24 pm

          You mean that my thinking they wanted to help people buy affordable homes was a fantasy? KiwiBuild was b*s?
          Well they certainly aren’t doing it so I guess you are right.

          They had no intention of providing state rental housing in large numbers?
          Well they certainly aren’t so I guess it was just a fantasy.

          Hardly surprising when they were being announced by Twyford of course. Everything he proposes seems to simply be figments of his imagination and never turn up in real life.

          • You_Fool 12.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 1:33 pm

            No your fantasy that they are out to get landlords or consider them evil in some way…

    • Cinny 12.2
      11 March 2019 at 6:36 pm

      Kay, there was a story about that on TVNZ news last week.

      It’s a fantastic idea.

      ….skips off to try and find the link….

      Edit.. found it, shared equity housing, the people in the story were so happy, what a good buzz.

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/after-nearly-40-years-living-in-state-housing-kiwi-family-realise-dream-home-ownership-v1

  13. Observer Tokoroa 13
    11 March 2019 at 11:18 am

    What comes around …

    If Landlords want to raise their Fees (as threatened), then immediately the Government will raise the income Tax on all Businesses (payable fortnightly) by high percentages.

    This will enable everyone to be very displeased with the Landlords, who are by definition a rather lousy lot throughout history. There is absolutely no need for the public to keep fattening land Lords.

    Also, the government will put Rental Income on the same basis as the Purchase of Shares in the economy. This will straighten the shoulders of our gorgeous housing twiddlers, fiddlers. and medlers.

    Low IQ Trolls do not understand that sensible people want an equilibrium. Without that he will end up bringing all hell down on themselves and the other National misfits.

    • alwyn 13.1
      11 March 2019 at 11:28 am

      “then immediately the Government will raise the income Tax”.
      “WILL” raise the taxes, our friend from the forests says.
      And just how can you be so sure of that? Have you been getting the word from your foolish friend from Ohope?

  14. Delia 14
    11 March 2019 at 11:37 am

    Kind of sad, isn’t it? Lets screw down the powerless, to get at the govt.

  15. Stuart Munro. 15
    11 March 2019 at 11:47 am

    I guess it’s one way to create a mass movement in opposition to entitled parasites. Bit of a strategic own goal though.

  16. Observer Tokoroa 16
    11 March 2019 at 11:49 am

    oops Move over for the trolls ..

    The grumbling has started –

    Just as your great Sir John Key raised Tax massively on everything (including Food) and just as Sir Billy English sold off the Houses…so needed

    It was your People who raised the crises. But you know that. Ask Mrs Bennett.

    Three cheers for the Trolls Is the Ohope man an invention of your mind?
    Three cheers for Key and English and their loosers.

    • alwyn 16.1
      11 March 2019 at 11:57 am

      Have you really never heard of “Sir” MIchael Cullen? The mind boggles.
      I assume you are replying to me. If so why don’t you learn how to use the “reply” option? It really is very simple and greatly simplifies debate.

      • Wensleydale 16.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:02 pm

        It’s a bit of a stretch to describe what you do here as debate, Alwyn. It’s mostly pretentious condescension. You’re like Michael Bassett after ingesting half a pound of sugar.

        • AB 16.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 7:48 pm

          “pretentious condescension”
          Quite – and it’s sort of interesting how the talentless are the most prone to condescension. A leaden prose style fueled by a cardigan-flapping indignation in this case.

  17. ankerawshark 17
    11 March 2019 at 11:51 am

    Someone needs to get the tenants organised for a massive rent strike.

    And if you believe that if Labour doesn’t bring in a CGT rents want go up you are dreaming. These arseholes of the earth have continued to put rents up and they don’t even need an excuse.

    Let the class war begin

    • RedLogix 17.1
      11 March 2019 at 11:58 am

      A rent strike is fine by me if you don’t mind a mortgage strike at the same time. Oh and no maintenance done for a few years while everyones cash flow recovers.

      • marty mars 17.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:48 pm

        So a threat. This is why landlords get a hard time.

        • RedLogix 17.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 2:02 pm

          ank threatened a ‘rent strike’. Fair enough, but if you think about it for a few moments there are some pretty obvious logical consequences, and probably more than a few unintended ones as well.

          • marty mars 17.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 2:52 pm

            Who has the power? It ain’t renters. Thus the power imbalance once again is the key factor.

            landlords are not powerless victims as you showed with your comment.

            • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 4:38 pm

              L0L ! … Yes , and it wasn’t anyone who coerced these landlords to overextend themselves and go into leveraged debt , either. Nor was it anyone’s fault they chose to indebt themselves to Aussie banks , either.

              They wanted a comfy retirement with little to no effort or expenditure on their assets and a life of ease on the backs of others ?

              Well diddums.

              Welcome to the ‘free market’ , chumps.

              Why is it that these type of wankers crow about the free market when they can make obscene profits then cry and bitch when that market burns them or there is a change of circumstance such as a new govt???

              Why is it that these pricks seem to think they should be entitled to a free lunch and be subsidized by such mechanisms as the WFF, and have a guaranteed comfy lifestyle and an even more comfy retirement on other peoples backs without even having to lift a finger to plow back cash into THEIR OWN ASSETS like every other business does ?

              Why do these people scream and cry and howl once they’ve realized the cash cow days are ending?

              Don’t they even believe in their free market etho’s which they loved to crow about earlier?

              Wow.

              That makes them liars as well as opportunistic thieves using the law as a shield.

              • RedLogix …
                11 March 2019 at 5:41 pm

                Buy your house instead of renting it. Now get back to us on how much power you have over your bank.

                • WILD KATIPO …
                  11 March 2019 at 6:36 pm

                  Mate- I had a property worth half a million back in 2005. That was just the section alone out at Lake Karapiro. Lost it all due to arsewipes overseas – the GCC…. the same sort of arseholes that these scab landlords are trying to emulate over here.

                  I’ve done up houses and onsold em. Now I’m too old for that shit.

                  Now I rent.

                  And I’m broke.

                  No friend of the neo liberal here , buddy.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    11 March 2019 at 7:03 pm

                    Oh, … and along with receiving constant panicky calls from the bank that amounted to hassling , – and losing my painting/decorating business ( because of those same sort of suited fuckers who never worked a real days work in their goddamned criminal lives) , – the same ‘bank’ ( Australian , of course ) sold the property out from under me unbeknownst to me and my real estate agent.

                    Great sense of ethics from the suit wearers, eh?

                    Best of mates when you’ve got deep pockets, – tapeworms when you go under hardship because of a global crisis they and their ilk created in the first place.

                    Remember the phrase – ‘ Too big to fail ‘ ,- and all the billions poured into those corrupt shitters empires?

                    Makes me and many, many others want to piss blood.

                  • BM …
                    11 March 2019 at 7:31 pm

                    Never read his stuff but apparently. he’s been an inspiration to many.
                    He’s was on the bones of his arse, living on the street and came back from it.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og_Mandino

                    https://www.amazon.com/Better-Way-Live-Mandinos-Featuring-ebook/dp/B005EM8NSU

                    Bit busy cooking dinner, if you want I’ll find you a pdf/epub you can download.

                  • Infused …
                    11 March 2019 at 11:59 pm

                    Sounds like someone was over committed when the gfc hit and blamed everyone else but himself

              • Ankerrawshark …
                11 March 2019 at 8:01 pm

                Wild katipo 100+

          • Ankerrawshark 17.1.1.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 5:44 pm

            What are the obvious consequences red logic. ? You want be able to pay your mortgage and then the bank has a mortgagee sale and it gets sold out with no profit for you……..boo hoo! And someone who needs a home dirt cheap buys it to live in……. And your problem is?

            • RedLogix 17.1.1.1.2.1
              11 March 2019 at 6:40 pm

              So now you have a fantasy of all the rentals hitting the market at the same time in a gigantic mortgagee sale. Massive price crash.

              Cool except that all the existing homeowners will lose their equity, and that will have all sorts of shitty outcomes.

              Oh and because of your rent strike you will have a bad credit record. Good luck with that loan.

              • RedLogix …
                11 March 2019 at 7:17 pm

                Shitty outcomes as per WKs experience above.

                • WILD KATIPO …
                  11 March 2019 at 7:32 pm

                  Housing was artificially raised by an excess of loans and the ceilings of those loans. The banks naturally loved all these wannbe landlord ‘ Ma and Pa ‘ investors. Anytime they want they know if it goes pear shaped they can simply recall the loans- sacrificing their usurious interest rates, of course.

                  I find it curious if not hypocritical that economist and political wankers can blithely talk about ‘ market corrections’ that cripple millions and kill tens of thousands more in its aftermath , – YET , – when that same ‘correction’ is applied to cheap vote getting such as fueling a housing bubble like the ChiNational party did under John Key its a no go subject.

                  And thus spawn and justify the same sort of ruthless greedy anti democratic wankers as the landlord in question regards this article.

                  This what it spawns – a generation of self entitled wankers too lazy or too thick to genuinely produce a product that actually benefits greater society or the country as a whole..

                  Far easier for them to fuck over their nearest neighbor who’s on a minimum wage or a benefit already and put the rent higher.. All caused by a cowering chronology of successive govts too afraid to upset their overseas banking masters.

                  • Infused …
                    12 March 2019 at 12:01 am

                    Your so full of it. How many loans were recalled in the gfc? Building and land costs are massive. That’s the real issue

              • Ankerrawshark …
                11 March 2019 at 8:09 pm

                Red logix. If there was a rent strike, rentals may hit the market at the same time. Depends how much money owing on the landlords house. Or conversely landlords could adjust their rents so tenants are happy to pay again. If said landlord can’t cope with some weeks of no rent, they have taken too bigger risk and clearly need to get out of property investing quickly.

                I do realize the idea of a rent strike is serious, but when you have pricks like the guys on FB threatening tenants then all bets are off

                • RedLogix …
                  12 March 2019 at 12:23 am

                  Go ahead with your rent strike; but if you think you’ll be able to get your mitts on a nice cheap distressed mortgagee sale house I have a big disappointment for you.

                  Banks are not stupid; if you have a record of defaulting on your rent, they will assume you are likely to default on your mortgage as well.

    • Alan 17.2
      11 March 2019 at 1:10 pm

      Really?
      Which century are you living in???
      A few silly comments from a few delinquent landlords and you think a class war is called for, spare me

      • RedLogix 17.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 1:19 pm

        Exactly, given that we’re both landlords AND tenants at the same time I’m baffled as to which side I’m supposed to be on.

        The simple fact is that most landlords are ordinary kiwis who decided to not sell their old family home, and rented it out when they moved or upgraded. I’ve met all sorts of people doing it for often quite surprising reasons.

        For instance, someone who bought three homes and when the time was right used them to fund their children into their own homes. Or left a home in a legacy to support a disabled child in institutional care, or many variations thereof.

        • Muttonbird 17.2.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 1:26 pm

          For instance, someone who bought three homes and when the time was right used them to fund their children into their own homes.

          I think this is what the CGT is trying to ‘fix’

          • RedLogix 17.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 1:34 pm

            It won’t.

            • Muttonbird 17.2.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2019 at 1:54 pm

              I think it will go some way to arresting increasing inequality, both across a generation and between generations.

              That’s an important benefit to society.

              • RedLogix …
                11 March 2019 at 1:59 pm

                TOP’s CCT would have been far more effective than this buggers muddle. But everyone hated them because … Sean Plunkett.

                • Sabine …
                  11 March 2019 at 6:36 pm

                  nah, because the wanker who conceived that party out is literally not paying taxes at all. And to boot, he is a bad looser, did not win? Go whine up a tree and take his balls to run home. Cause creating a party and getting is somewhere is harder then investing in his sons idea and make money.

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 March 2019 at 6:43 pm

                    Morgan founded the party in order that he would pay tax.

                    But you are too bitter to see that.

          • indiana 17.2.1.1.2
            11 March 2019 at 1:52 pm

            You make it sound like CGT should be a deterrent for people to buy a second home and as such more houses will be available for sale. Do you think JA or anyone in the Labour party believes this? Remember its being sold as bringing fairness to how we are taxed in general, not a solution to resolving a housing crisis.

            • Muttonbird 17.2.1.1.2.1
              11 March 2019 at 1:58 pm

              I don’t think it’s a deterrent and nor it should be. But I do think the gain should be taxed because the current tax free situation entrenches disproportionate benefit for the haves and disproportionate loss for the have-nots.

              The goal is secure housing for all.

      • ankerawshark 17.2.2
        11 March 2019 at 1:30 pm

        Alan what planet are you living on….

        Its not just a few landlords making this comment……Landlords have continued to up rents without a decent justification (interest rates have continued to fall).

        Housing is a BASIC NEED……….The idea of anyone making a profit out of it is questionable imo. Landlords would only be taxed on the capital gains profit. They will still make a profit

        This century that I am living in has seen housing in NZ become a major issue. I could go into this, but surely you are aware there is a housing crisis????? And this has led to a small group of people exploiting the supply issue to make money out of it and then cry and wail, when they are going to have to pay a pretty pathetic amount of it in tax. The century I live in is one where inequality has increased significantly and its been nowhere more plain to see in housing.

        Re the class war….when landlords start signalling such behaviour as telling tenants their rents will go up if they vote Labour (that sounds like a threat to me) it is signalling the need for direct action……..how dare they.

        • RedLogix 17.2.2.1
          11 March 2019 at 2:43 pm

          when landlords start signalling such behaviour as telling tenants their rents will go up if they vote Labour

          Fckn stupid move. I always keep politics out of business to the maximum extent possible.

          • WILD KATIPO 17.2.2.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 4:41 pm

            Absolute drivel.

            You and everyone else votes for the party that suits them best economically.

            Just like those self interested landlord pricks this article is about.

  18. Al 18
    11 March 2019 at 1:14 pm

    That is as stupid as a tenant saying that all tenants should trash the properties they rent if National win the next election – beyond dumb, but at the level expected by someone who thinks it is unfair to impose a fairness tax – oh, I mean, capital gains tax!

  19. Brutus Iscariot 19
    11 March 2019 at 1:41 pm

    I made the point on a property forum that such behaviour is more likely to end with their lynching.

    TBH i’ve never seen such a bunch of self-entitled pricks as residential landlords – “mum and dad” or otherwise..

    These guys are too unskilled to successfully invest in any other area (shares etc) so demand that a risk free yet high return asset class (that they can leverage up) be maintained for their benefit. If passive residential property ownership is so low risk, it should also be low returning (like a bank deposit). Anything else represents a policy failure.

    • marty mars 19.1
      11 March 2019 at 1:54 pm

      +1 yep so true

    • RedLogix 19.2
      11 March 2019 at 1:58 pm

      If passive residential property ownership is so low risk, it should also be low returning (like a bank deposit).

      If you want to compare like with like in cash flow terms then consider this.

      The national median price of all homes sold in NZ last year was about $500,000. The median rental income was about $525 or $25,000 pa. Once you have factored in costs like management, insurance, rates and maintenance your left with about half of that, or $12,000pa. Or a cash return rate of about 2.4%. (Assuming no mortgage.)

      Which is very similar to your typical low returning bank deposit rate.

      • Brutus Iscariot 19.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 3:05 pm

        But hasn’t baked in another 7.5% p.a. tax free capital gain…

        TBH we should be aiming for a scenario where existing land makes a zero real capital gain, and total return for an investor is limited to what can be supported by cash flow or enhancements to the property.

      • Ankerrawshark 19.2.2
        11 March 2019 at 5:46 pm

        What are the obvious consequences red logic. ? You want be able to pay your mortgage and then the bank has a mortgagee sale and it gets sold out with no profit for you……..boo hoo! And someone who needs a home dirt cheap buys it to live in……. And your problem is?

  20. Compass Rose 20
    11 March 2019 at 1:49 pm

    The attitude of the landlord in the original post – they’re acting like the mafia running a protection racket. Renters, if Labour wins we’re going to come around with the baseball bats and kneecap you. That is raise the rents by 10% and economically injure you. Is this the kiwi way Simon was talking about?

  21. Im right 21
    11 March 2019 at 2:11 pm

    You guys are all dancing on the head of a pin here, there are 3 outcomes here only:
    1: If the introduced CGT is too high or aggressive (as most of you on the left want by reading the posts above) the rental owners will just sell up) good for a young couple/family getting into their first home, but still a couple/family out of their rental property that cannot afford to buy a house.
    2: The increase in homelessness will continue to rise (as it has under this Labour Govt.)…..if you own a pet and the cost of owning that pet increases, what do you do? Take the increase hit and just pay more from a limited personal funding pool, or…
    3: Why do lefties automatically assume all homelessness will be ‘cured’ by introduction of a CGT?, you are all assuming that the buyer of the rental being someone who will rent it out again! NO, the wrong assumption you all make is that all landlords OWN the rental outright, some yes, most do not and require tenants to help pay the bank mortgage on the property. It’s not rocket science guys. Increase the cost, increase the rent! (when a vegetable or fruit has been affected by something like weather or disease we pay more at supermarket for the said fruit or vegetable or do you expect the supermarket to keep the same price and take a loss)

    • RedLogix 21.1
      11 March 2019 at 2:18 pm

      I think you were trying to make a point there, but it got lost in the muddle.

    • Kevin 21.2
      11 March 2019 at 2:49 pm

      This makes no sense at all. If a rental is sold to a new home owner, it doesn’t just disappear. Someone who was renting is now owning. To me that’s a win-win.

    • Al 21.3
      11 March 2019 at 3:16 pm

      The CGT won’t stop rental investment but it will stop rental speculation. Nobody thinks that a CGT will ‘cure’ homelessness, it is about fairness. Why should a land banker not pay tax when all other forms of income are taxed … a FTT along with a CGT would really put the breaks on housing and financial speculation – for the better of first home buyers. Yes there maybe some rental price increases, but in case you haven’t noticed, these are occurring anyway. The couple that previously couldn’t afford to buy into the property market will have much better opportunity that they have now.

      Homelessness may have risen under the current Labour/NZF government – but not to the degree that this was happening under the previous administration. Passing on the cost is the choice of the renter – they may or may not wish to do this. If they do they can expect more regular contact from their tenants around maintenance.

    • McFlock 21.4
      11 March 2019 at 3:24 pm

      1: occupance-neutral, with HNZ to pick up the slack.
      2: did you just use pets as an analogy for homeless people?
      3: who said CGT would “cure” anything by itself? It’s part of a comprehensive treatment, not a miracle shot.

  22. ankerawshark 22
    11 March 2019 at 2:38 pm

    BM I am glad you are seeing a lot of renters struggling.

    Lets make it so unworthwhile for landlords to be landlords that they sell up and piss off. I don’t rent, but I am sick to death of these cry me a river arseholes who don’t give a dam about their fellow human being, just interested in making a lot of money and then cry like babies when SOME of their “earnings” are threatened.

    They choose to be landlords……….people don’t choose to have a house to live in . Housing is not a luxury item.

    • ropata 22.1
      11 March 2019 at 3:16 pm

      Agreed… people should not be getting rich via housing at the expense of a whole generation of poor families. It’s disgusting. A CGT is pathetically ineffective but it’s a step in the right direction. NZ needs Land Value Tax and generalised wealth taxes as suggested by TOP. And to get rid of GST and cut all income taxes. Work should never be penalized. Excessive profits from doing nothing should be taxed mercilessly

  23. patricia bremner 23
    11 March 2019 at 3:11 pm

    Well perhaps Twyford is ahead of that Landlord? He is considering adding a further string to the housing bow by building to lease and rent, as well as Kiwi Build. He also thinks Transport Hubs will help.

    Arguing with trolls and Landlords is a waste of time. All Labour Greens and by now New Zealand First members are aware of the threats and blame games being played.

    Those who have favourable tax positions are being nasty about possibly having to pay a share, and are threatening to charge more for their services, if they are “disadvantaged” in the future by voters.

    I notice some Landlords here are saying we don’t work hard, we are not very bright and we are happy to rent substandard homes, and we shouldn’t be surprised when rents go up. Excuse my sniggers!! When did the rent go down?? Why did these bright Landlords not take up the generous subsidies and schemes previously offered?? Perhaps it is the Landlords who were not very bright??

    As to who their tenant votes for… are Landlords going into the voting booth to check?? Sounds like tenants are damned if they do vote Labour and damned if they don’t. Just an angry Landlord facing the fact that most people agree with the Government and The Tax Working Group about standards and taxes.

    Those who have a great deal are currently making the noise. By doing that they are reminding the rest of us about how unequal our society has become.

    Let us look at the names here. Landlords. Lords who own land and property. Tenants. Non owners who paid a tithe from their produce to the Landlord for the tenancy.( a tenth)
    Land owners could vote, in the past tenants couldn’t vote as they were not land owners. Seems some Landlords long for the old days, and if they can’t take the tenants’ vote away, they will threaten their choice of Government and raise rents.

    Yes Minister Twyford, build decent homes to rent or lease with transport hubs and support others doing the same. Look at limiting rent rises to once a year. Develop a Government Rent or Lease to Buy Scheme. Give tenants choices, then they can give the greed merchants the flick!!

  24. That_guy 24
    11 March 2019 at 3:51 pm

    This might be illegal in more ways than one. Isn’t encouraging a group of unrelated businesses to simultaneously increase their prices the definition of uncompetitive behaviour?

    “It is important that businesses are aware of what they can and cannot do when talking to their competitors. The Commerce Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements between firms such as agreements to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict output.”

    Anyone want to make a complaint to the commerce commission?

    https://comcom.govt.nz

    The reason I’m spewing is because in the event of a CGT, some landlords can opt to include the cost of this future liability in rent, but some will not, because they want to undercut the first group. Yay capitalism. But blatantly coordinating so that all landlords do this is an anticompetitive agreement and therefore illegal.

  25. David Mac 25
    11 March 2019 at 4:32 pm

    I’m sure lots of us know landlords, our siblings, parents and friends.

    I know lots, I’m really struggling to think of one money grabbing greedy bastard that is comfortable letting out a sub-standard home. In the vast majority of cases their story is: ‘It seemed like a good way for us to prepare for our old age.’ A crime some seem to consider worthy of being burnt at the stake.

    95% of the cases heard in the tenancy tribunal relate to unpaid rent and damage. Adjudicators love meeting bastard landlords, 1 in every 20 cases they get to try and deliver a hit for a battler.

    By and large landlords aren’t evil Ebeneezers. They’re our uncles, bloke across the road, the guy that turns the lights on at footy training. They aren’t out to crush those about them.

    • Ankerrawshark 25.1
      11 March 2019 at 5:49 pm

      David Mac if they are so fing great ie landlords why has not one come out and said a capital gains tax is fair and the right thing to do…….

      • David Mac 25.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 7:23 pm

        Few of us welcome “Hello, I’m going to take some of your money off you.”

        The beehive buzzes at the thought of a CGT, they’re in, the lion share of the left are in. I think a smooth transition hinges on focusing on ‘What’s in this for landlords?’

        eg: Those folk that do provide quality housing for long periods of time, make it worth their while to do so. Continually rent out a property for 20 years, get the govt compliance inspector tick every 2 years and the CGT is waived. Stimulate a give a damn landlord culture, make flipping houses a losing plan, tax flippers up the wazoo.

      • patricia bremner 25.1.2
        11 March 2019 at 10:10 pm

        Jack Tame did Good for him.

    • WILD KATIPO 25.2
      11 March 2019 at 7:58 pm

      Ankerrawshark

      David Mac if they are so fing great ie landlords why has not one come out and said a capital gains tax is fair and the right thing to do…….

      ——————————————-

      OR ,… WHY …. Do people seem to have such short memory’s about recent political and editorials about people whose family’s are housed in cars, Salvation Army reports on homelessness, moldy homes that killed small children or even a security guard?

      Or beneficiaries who were housed [ temporarily ] in bloody motels and and never had a shits show in their lives of ever paying the costs back ???

      I mean what the hell ?!!?

      David Mac , I think your comments are self serving and presented with hazy soft hues to justify what is effectively a system embedded in our political / legal system that enables a rort to be perpetuated.

      If the above wasn’t in existence but a few years ago ( and the ChiNational party are chief in insisting it wasn’t except when Labour came to power ) , – that then negates your point of view of the sheer number of arseholes who actually ARE grabastic pricks.

      After all- all those medical articles talking about preventable third world diseases being directly caused by substandard accommodation leading to the deaths of children wouldn’t have existed ,…

      WOULD THEY.

  26. David Mac 26
    11 March 2019 at 4:55 pm

    I think the best way to counter this social media noise that emanates from fathead individuals is with similarly outrageous counter memes. Fight stupid with stupid.

    …..Vote National and watch your beach-front pad go under.

  27. Stuart Munro. 27
    11 March 2019 at 5:04 pm

    For my part I’d be pretty annoyed if my landlord tried to coerce my vote. I think I’d tell him “if you pull that crap you get to watch your slums burn”.

    • BM 27.1
      11 March 2019 at 6:28 pm

      You live in a slum? that sucks, does explain why you’re always so angry though

      • Muttonbird 27.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 6:50 pm

        Why are you so angry?

        • BM 27.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 6:56 pm

          I’m not angry?
          You may be mistaking my forthright comments as anger though, but that’s just the way I operate.

      • Stuart Munro. 27.1.2
        11 March 2019 at 6:52 pm

        I’m angry because instead of making our country better for the last thirty years, successive governments have just been fucking it over. Aided and abetted by morons like you, BM. We’re decades behind where we should be as a country, and being heavily recolonized by undesirable foreigners, mostly Australians. It’s not a satisfactory outcome except for woefully regressive turkeys like yourself.

      • Ankerrawshark 27.1.3
        11 March 2019 at 8:20 pm

        I think if someone lives in a slum, anger is a very appropriate emotion

        • WILD KATIPO 27.1.3.1
          11 March 2019 at 10:09 pm

          Yeah mate, – its time to bulldoze Remuera and Parnell into the ground and make way for state housing. Those oversize slums there are a damn eyesore and don’t fit in with the current New Zealand coterie.

          Perhaps we could give their occupants some cars to sleep in or even perhaps a motel whereby they pay all expenses.

  28. Drowsy M. Kram 28
    11 March 2019 at 6:32 pm

    A money addict attempting to influence pervert democratic processes? Say it isn’t so!

    Wonder what the Taxpayers’ Union has to say about such underhanded lobbying.

    That Hamilton landlord seems like a bit of a scoundrel – potentially giving all the ‘good landlords’ a bad name. But at least it’s out in the open.

    LandLords and serfs. Feudalism: It’s your Count that votes.

  29. Sabine 29
    11 March 2019 at 6:38 pm

    All this post does is show the need for the country to be flooded with state houses, state flats, state pensioneers flats and the likes. So much so, that fuckwit landlords like the one above actually have to be better then the state provided rental accomodation in order to find someone to rent his ‘investment’.

    so, labour, here is your mission should you accept it. Build some fucking state houses.

    • BM 29.1
      11 March 2019 at 6:41 pm

      They won’t, Cinders has been taken under the wing of Clarkula and she’s explained how it all really works.

      Sorry lefties you’re shit out of luck, status quo once again reigns supreme, not like you’re going to vote National are you?.

      • Stuart Munro. 29.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 6:57 pm

        National is even fucking worse.

        But clearly Twyford’s investor driven housing approach, though infinitely better than Nick Smith’s, will achieve little or nothing. Why would it – what do corporations care about a housing crisis.

        • patricia bremner 29.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 10:17 pm

          See the latest news on Twyford. He is listening. BM has an agenda.

          • Stuart Munro. 29.1.1.1.1
            12 March 2019 at 2:17 am

            Look, Twyford might prove me wrong – but he’ll need a miracle.

            Using foreign investors to pursue a housing intervention is simply not credible – it won’t work. He’s already had to go soft on Singaporean purchases of some housing because of it, and at an entry price of $600k or so he’s mostly wasting his time.

            So once again the remedy for a major social deficit is being sacrificed on the altar of neoliberal dogma. You’d think Labour would’ve learned better by now.
            Sure it’s better than Nick Smith, but I shit better things than Nick Smith every morning, it’s not much of a standard.

      • Sabine 29.1.2
        11 March 2019 at 7:02 pm

        why on earth would i vote for National, the party that killed all its mates, raised GST, created the housing crisis, sold sheep for millions to the desert in Saudi arabia, build no NOT ONE fucking bridge in Northland. A party that is ok with its leader physically harasing a young women at her work place and who is filmed creepily fondling the hair of little girls. A party that elevates a housing welfare fraud to ‘leader’ when ‘creepy leader one ‘ gives a one week notice on the job and then fucks off to somewhere. A party where a member of parliament can out the private details of citizens and state i do it again to applause. A party that stands by and fiddles while a city destroyed by an earthquakes has to use port a loos for month on end cause nothing really gets done. A party whose previous leader of the Nation helped bankrupt a huge company by simply being incompetent or lazy or fuck it its just a no show job money grift who cares if people loose their livelihood, i made money and so yeah, fuck Jenny Shipley.

        No seriously why on earth would anyone vote for that current lot. Nick Smith? the man can’t find crown land in Auckland if you mark it in hot pink on a map. Mrs. Benefit? Did she actually achieve anything in any of her positions other then funneling millions of taxpayers dollars to run down motels in form of emergency housing by the homeless created by the hair pulling fuckwit who called himself PM? Judith oravida who crushed one car? Did she do anything better then that or is that her claim to fame and of course Oravida?.

        I mean i get it, if this were ‘my’ party i would be fucking bitter as well. It must suck to be member of such a glorious assembly of self centered pricks that would milk you for your last penny and then blame you for living in a ditch and demand that you pull yourself up with the bootstraps on your gumboots.

        Nah, if ever they actually get people that have a resemblance to humans i might consider looking at them. Until then, you are on your own.

        • WILD KATIPO 29.1.2.1
          11 March 2019 at 7:10 pm

          Grrrrrr , yes , – time to rid ourselves of these disgusting intestinal worms. Because that’s what they are – parasites and enablers of more parasitism.

          The anti sovereign ChiNational party.

          Sell outs.

          The haters of their own countrymen and women.

          The right wing political whores for the mere crumbs under the table. And their self entitled hangers on.

          • Observer Tokoroa 29.1.2.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 7:55 pm

            The Landlord Dork

            If he threatens to raise his usually rotten rental Fees, he will be stormed and trampled by his fellow Nationals. Why ?

            Because, the Government will enforce high Taxes on every Business in the Land. Payable Fortnightly. EVERY BUSINESS DORK. Have you understood !

            If you Punish low wage people you idiot, you will get punished back. All your Business mates will scour you out. Not just because your Land Lords are borderline nitwits. But because you will have attacked every Business. In the Land.

            All and every Business will be Punished by High Taxes. Congratulations Dork!

            Mrs Bennett will be shredded. Hooten will cry on Miss Ryan’s Lap. Simon will call on the Gods – if he remembers them. Mrs China Star Collins will fire her forbidden Weapons. The Silly Girl.

            If you had a brain Dork – you could think things through. But that does not seem likely – does it.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 29.1.3
        11 March 2019 at 9:31 pm

        “Cinders“? “Clarkula” !?

        What next; ‘Cindula‘?

        BM, is seething denial behind your on-going impotent attempts to belittle recent successful NZ Labour party PMs? Or are you simply ‘challenged’?

        Perhaps other readers can divine a pattern in BM‘s juvenile taunts.

        • patricia bremner 29.1.3.1
          11 March 2019 at 10:22 pm

          He thinks his opinions matter to us lol lol

        • WILD KATIPO 29.1.3.2
          11 March 2019 at 10:56 pm

          At risk of going against the tide I actually preferred Robert Muldoon’s crass and blunt style than I did Aunty Helen. Probably because Muldoon was in the pre neo liberal era. Norman Kirk was a good leader … the common denominator was pre neo liberalism.

          And if it wasn’t for Bob Jones and his NZ party which was designed solely to split the National party vote to get Muldoon out and enable Roger Douglas to treasonously wreck the country with his free market Thatcher come Reagan babbling’s , chances are by now this country would have been phenomenally wealthy per capita.

          Aderns great though, one of the better ones we’ve had in decades despite various go slows and what not’s and she is a source of pride for us all as New Zealanders, – unlike shady John ‘the tax haven ‘ Key or Bill ‘ the Double Dipper from Dipton ‘ English … the crowning glory of this govt coalition is however , – and of course , – the tempering , commonsense and truly great presence of Sir Winston Peters.

          Whats that you say?

          He’s not a Sir?… no worry’s, … if , – and when, – he ever retires, – he most certainly will be.

          Mark my very words.

  30. CHCoff 30
    11 March 2019 at 7:09 pm

    This is the great problem with the socialism of neo-liberalism : too much societal wealth and privilege falls into uncreative hands.

    What matters here is an approach that creates entrepreneurship in the lowest bands of income – the culture that it is not the band of income that matters but the shared entrepreneurship of society.

    Where there’s a will there’s a way, like ancient Rome.

    A capital gains tax may therefore be superfluous in kicking financialization out of the housing market when it is ownership that breeds entrepreneurship – a house is a home (your home, not someone elses house). So the housing and property market needs to be deflated, and the economics of low cost flat/houses/shacks with abit of additional land if possible for further embellishment needs to be developed in the creation of a thriving Home economy of the lowest income bands in particular.

    • WILD KATIPO 30.1
      11 March 2019 at 7:20 pm

      Indeed.

      This bit;

      [ ” kicking financialization out of the housing market when it is ownership that breeds entrepreneurship – a house is a home ” ]

      The lazy mans way to riches. Being a landowner. A lazy govts way of placating the desperate. Instead of developing creative added value industry’s they don’t. Instead of having the balls to increase tax on corporate’s to fund those developments they don’t.

      They just piss arse round with taxing the shit out of working people and lowering company tax and spinning a lie about WFF not being a subsidy for employers and landlords , – end result?- no cash in the coffers for real development. Too scared of overseas money lenders to change from neo liberalism to a moderate socialism aka Scandinavian style , – they’d rather feather their own nest for the short term and let Rome burn.

      So long as they don’t have to live a in a leaking , cramped moldy shit hole on a punitive govt benefit or work for an obscenely low wage in a land of plenty.

      Arseholes.

  31. RuralGuy 31
    11 March 2019 at 7:44 pm

    Meh, my wife and I own a rental as an off farm investment. We’ve passed on all costs thus far, and will pass on a value to reflect a CGT as well. Fortunately interest rates are low at the moment, so haven’t had to pass through any increase in capital costs in a while.

    The family renting our investment property understand that as my consumer that they ultimately incur all costs in a user pays society.

    Personally I don’t think this is a big deal. It’s all supply and demand after all. If I price myself out of the market, then I’ll lose my tenant (and revenue) and they’ll lose their housing; so there is still a strong incentive for both parties to reach an agreement. Obviously, given the lack of supply, the market is loaded in my favour – but no one is being forced to be my tenant.

    • WILD KATIPO 31.1
      11 March 2019 at 8:03 pm

      That’s right, and if you keep putting that rent up you wont be a landlord, either.

      Time for govt to put a ceiling on rent increases – and by that a very very modest annual increase and leave the wannbe investor at the mercy of his / her object of sweet desire – the FREE MARKET.

      Where they can kiss their banks arse repeatedly until such time as they have foreclosure.

      Its called turning the other cheek, mate.

      • RuralGuy 31.1.1
        11 March 2019 at 8:27 pm

        We both know that a rent freeze won’t happen, and I don’t think Rabobank are really all that interested in 29k per annum in rent. For context, 29k is about 2 days worth of milk at the current Fonterra milk price from our farms.

        Bottom line is that the revenue from my off farm investment should keep pace with the costs involved with maintaining the investment. Common sense really I would’ve thought.

        • Sabine 31.1.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:49 pm

          29000 ? It will be about a third to half of the annual income of your tenant. But maybe they are as generous as is Rabobank with the value of that. I mean 550$ + a week be petty cash to some, a full wage after tax for others.

          Are you really going to compare the weekly payments of a single/couple to pay rent to your investment to a corporate?

          • WILD KATIPO 31.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2019 at 10:15 pm

            Yes,… the man is so secure he can laconically drawl on about his industrial security’s being shielded then feels compelled to bang on about the small change and the ability to raise rents just ‘ because he can’…

    • CHCoff 31.2
      11 March 2019 at 8:12 pm

      And you are not, my friend, being forced to sell your product via prices determined by international stock rates with concurrent inflationary costs, nor service bank debt via interest rates either…

      • RuralGuy 31.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 8:35 pm

        I agree, I’m selling my product via an agreed price between a buyer and a seller.

        • CHCoff 31.2.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:24 pm

          Good luck in beating the odds in the medium to long term in that structural approach, overseas trends would indicate it would need a good slice of it.

          That you are dabbling in external renting property is perhaps abit of a clue.

    • Ankerrawshark 31.3
      11 March 2019 at 8:27 pm

      Rural guy……do you accept that it is fair and right to pay a cgt on any profit you make on your rental?

      • RuralGuy 31.3.1
        11 March 2019 at 8:43 pm

        I’ve got no issue with a CGT on rentals. I’ll have a defined point in the future where my asset will be valued, and I’ll take an informed annual guess on increases and build it into the revenue if the market can sustain the increase.

        I’m not convinced that a CGT is suitable for productive assets such as farms and small businesses. I’ll be interested in the arguments as they’re made.

        • Pat 31.3.1.1
          11 March 2019 at 9:12 pm

          it would be nothing more than a guess…a dart would be as much use for anything more than a couple of years

  32. Observer Tokoroa 32
    11 March 2019 at 9:17 pm

    @ Rural Guy

    1 ) Do you endorse that Share Holders who purchase into various Productive items should be Taxed ?

    2 Whilst you do endorse Rural Purchasers irrespective of gain should not have to pay any Tax.

    It is difficult for people to understand why Rural Owners are seemingly exempt from taxes. You are in a Beautiful Wonderland Rural Guy !

  33. WILD KATIPO 33
    11 March 2019 at 9:24 pm

    The neo liberals tiny brain is dimly enlightened on how to fuck over his fellow apes by an enigmatic presence….

    2001 A Space Odyssey – Ape and Bones – YouTube

  34. Kat 34
    11 March 2019 at 9:34 pm

    Just build more affordable state houses, that will shut the whinging “land-lords” down.

    • WILD KATIPO 34.1
      11 March 2019 at 9:42 pm

      Indeed.

      What this country needs RIGHT NOW is a good hefty dose of Micky Joseph Savage.

      That’ll clean all the opportunists out and create our own form of ‘ correction’ of the economy. New Zealand style.

    • CHCoff 34.2
      11 March 2019 at 9:55 pm

      That’s unfair Kat, too much mainstream political media is unreflective of NZ society to draw such conclusions.

      • WILD KATIPO 34.2.1
        11 March 2019 at 10:22 pm

        What , … sort of like this , you mean?

        Darren Watson – Planet Key https://youtu.be/RDscbVWRBCw

        You reckon that the news-media weally weally don’t tell the truth? You sayin’ that they lick politicians bottoms a lot too?

      • Kat 34.2.2
        11 March 2019 at 10:31 pm

        I am surprised they are still referred to as land “lords” in 2019….. free loader, squire, landed gentry, master, laird, lord of the manor, slum lord……….jeez, talk about a wheel on the track and a wheel in the ditch.