- Date published:
6:00 am, May 13th, 2023 - 76 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
It's been a fun few days watching the beige brigade loss their minds over a minor party, now the PM has joined them.
Does make one wonder if the labour party will return to its nasty box of tricks and rather loss an election, than give working people a break?
But negotiations are hard, and it might actually involve some politics, who would have thought it under MMP.
nah, it looks like he's signalling that Labour will rely on TPM if they need to (as opposed to other elections where they've taken an anti stance), but is also pointing out the limits within MMP post-election negotiations.
And, signalling to the electorate that there won't be a government that adopts the more radical TPM positions. This is fairly normal election jostling. I thought he was quite mild and handled it well.
I can't see Labour being willing to lose the election. Hipkins is courting the working swing vote imo by pulling back from some of the social issues or radical change policies that don't attract swing voters.
Good summary weka.
Pragmatism is Hipkin's middle name. In that respect he is like John Key. There's room for a pragmatic leader sometimes and given the trials and tribulations we've been through and those we know are coming, then lets give pragmatism another go.
Luxon hasn't got it. He's too wedded to the neoliberal ideology and the notion the market place can sort it all – for himself and his rich cobbers. God forbid he ever had to cope with the type of emergencies that befell Ardern and Hipkins.
It appears to me (and it may be as a result of my own inclinations and the media I consume) that the centre parties are being given the green light to increase taxation on the well heeled.
National to date appear to be unwilling/incapable of hearing the message but will Labour?
The level of concern must be great .
MSM are saying that Labour won't increase taxes this term, but I assume they can still campaign on the 2024 budget and taxation?
I would expect that would be the earliest opportunity…and Im not suggesting the 'approval' is universal, but i get the sense that there is a significant part of the cohort that will not punish any party that proposes such (within reason)
Yes, parties can and should include tax justice as a key policy issue in the election.
Hope it doesn't devolve into a moronic argument about income tax thresholds (which are irrelevant to the truly wealthy). NAct would prefer the argument was just that.
I don't know what tax changes, if any, Labour intends to take to the election, but agree that what Robertson presents at the Budget is not likely to be indicative.
Great to see Te Maaori Party getting on the front foot, a lot of their policies will resonate with the average New Zealander, National and Labour are still Neoliberal Parties pandering to the top 10% percenters and their Cling On’s.
Yes I tend to agree with this Ngungukai.
Also with the idea that MMP envisaged a spread of parties and negotiation to get the best of the ideas that smaller parties might have.
Sadly I think the at heart postion of the Labour party still seems to be a nod to neo lib and slow moving on things like the supermarket duopoly and electricity prices. I know there is much still to undo and poverty is ever present.
And elder poverty is again stalking the halls..
Didn't expect that to be happening/after six years under a labour government…
And there is also the epic fails on the environmental front..
Average pollution output for oecd countries is 18 tonne per year..
In nz our average is 24 tonne..
(Which kinda demolish any clean green claims..eh..?..and speaks volumes to what labour has not done..)
(And as an aside…my annual pollution output is 4.5 tonnes…one sixth of the nz average..
And that's'cos I am an off-grid vegan..
That's how ya do it…the numbers don't lie..)
My husband and I have had the usual increase in our National Superannuation and the winter energy payment has now kicked in as well. OK, we are lucky as we own our property mortgage free, but the Labour Government which you go to great pains to ridicule do look after the less well off than Nact/Act wouldn't have the inclination so to do. ACT have gone as far as saying that they would repeal the WEP straight away – I bet their super aged, well healed followers happily pocket the WEP and don't think to do the decent thing and opt out. I believe that elder poverty has a lot to do with those who are still renting their homes and have to satisfy their rapacious landlords with more and more rent increases.
You are correct that those who have mortgage free houses are doing just fine..
I am talking about the 40% of the retiring baby boomers who aren't in that fortunate position..
Yes..they are prey for parasitic landlords..
And my heart goes out to those still paying off a mortgage..with the pension as their only income…(ok before..but not now)..that must be a new benchmark for being between a rock and a hard place..
I think we all thought we had elder poverty licked..
Have to park that one now..
I understand. If you are so unahappy about your landlord you should apply for a mortgage and build your own house. Problem solved!
Happy to help.
A pensioner living on the pension can get a mortgage..?
What planet are you on..?
Now I am confused. If your landlord is providing a house you could not otherwise afford to live in – exactly who is the parasite here?
The landlord. They have inserted themselves in between a person needing a home and an otherwise vacant house and from exploiting that need they extract an income that they didn't labour for.
Landlords 'provide' housing exactly like scalpers 'provide' tickets.
If you decide you want to go to a concert the night before – when all the tickets were sold out two months earlier – then maybe paying a scalper a premium is your only choice.
But a landlord charges you less than what it would cost for you to buy that ‘vacant’ house. How does that work?
Landlords/the rentier class..
are exploitive parasites…
screwing the poorest as much as they can..
Greed on their part is what has caused rents to rise so much..
Wot arkie said..
Landlords don't charge less than a mortgage, they charge as much as the 'market' can support. They have the asset and an income stream as well as a surplus, a renter pays more than an owner-occupier and earns no equity, their labour produces the landlords surplus. Parasites.
Wonderful!. So as I said above – pop down to your local friendly bank and explain this to them. Let us know how you get on.
How does a renter save for a deposit when the growth in house prices is outpacing inflation, wage increases don't meet inflation and 30+% of their weekly income is spent on rent alone?
As you have said before, there are ongoing costs in maintaining the asset of an investment property, in addition to any mortgage servicing. In the current market renters are expected to pay enough premium to the owners of their home, to cover all the landlords costs, pay down their asset, and provide a surplus on top; all for the luxury of having somewhere to live. No equity, no stability. It’s exploitative.
Now you are asking the right question. Why is property so expensive in New Zealand? And this holds true regardless of whether you are buying an existing property or building new.
As long as your anger is misdirected at your landlord – who is effectively just giving you access to capital and equity you do not have access to – then the problem will remain unsolved.
When I first married in the 80's I had an income of $13kpa and a rent of $1560 pa. I had nothing but a new wife and zero assets. That rent was eminently affordable and I was happy to pay rent just to have a roof over our heads. (Although it has to be said in a stiff southerly the wallpaper did tend to flap a bit.)
So what changed?
So your rent was ten % of your income?
Average rents are north of $25 000 now Average wages are $70000 about 40%(these are rough ballpark figures)
As long as your anger is misdirected at your landlord
Why do you insist on mischaracterising the statements of others?
Now you are asking the right question
I was explaining how landlordism is parasitical, as you professed some confusion. Glad to have added to your understanding.
Why is property so expensive in New Zealand?
Because we incentivised property investment, privatised social housing, stacked the rental 'market' in favour of profit-seeking landlords and then acted shocked when housing became increasingly unaffordable to all those without generational wealth.
Again I have good news for you. If you don't want to compete with everyone else in the property market – as I suggested at the outset you might want to consider building a new house.
On which side of the table are landLords most likely to be seated? Presumably most involuntary renters are seated on the opposite side.
And which direction best describes the net 'flow' of wealth (food) on this table – trickling 'down' (to the right), or flowing 'up' (to the left.)
Some believe this wealth distribution is sustainable, nice and natural – maybe it depends on where you're sitting.
As of 2 December 2021, five Labour MPs , three Green MPs and one ACT MP don’t own a property.
The most important factor not captured by that cartoon is – time.
The most important factor not captured very well is collateral. This is usually a mix of existing assets and (future) earning potential. This, in turn, determines the risk to the mortgage lender. It is not really different to commercial lending and the same (economic) principles apply. Mortgage lenders can call in the mortgage any time.
Yes – and both collateral and future earning potential are typically a function of time. And both change as the years pass by.
A 20yr old may well have a modest personal collateral – and a highly variable future earning potential.
A 60yr old is likely to have much greater collateral simply because of the passage of time – but a far more truncated future earning potential.
And this is before we factor in the highly complex aspect of intergenerational collateral, which varies widely by culture and historic circumstance.
But in every case time is the underlying factor that a single snapshot cannot express.
Knowing how to interpret the snapshot means we have a fairly good inkling of what the next snapshot will look like, don’t you agree?
If we want to change the pattern, there are two main approaches: 1) redistribute what’s on the table, or 2) redistribute what’s at the table.
Yes and no. From what we know across all creative domains, that over time the Pareto Principle seems to inexorably apply. That no matter whether it is landlords, scientific and technological innovation, or doing business of any kind – the table tends to always end up looking like this at any given moment. (Athough the occupants of the chairs do change over time.)
The trivial path to making everyone equal is to burn the table down and make everyone dirt poor. All historic attempts at addressing this have pretty much ended up at this catastrophic end point. The key to unlocking this puzzle is to understand how to maintain the incentives for creative endeavour, while managing a healthy balance between the extremes of wealth and poverty. That is a whole other topic deserving of many other threads.
In terms of housing it is however important that some rental housing must be available. Young people will naturally lack collateral, or some may choose to invest what they have elsewhere. Many are simply not ready to commit to a fixed dwelling place, others will never qualify for a mortgage at any price on any terms – all of these are perfectly legitimate reasons to rent.
The real cause of the anguish and resentment being expressed here is not renting or landlords per se – but that so many people no longer have access to the collateral and credit necessary to have a choice. They find themselves compelled to rent long after it makes personal sense for them to do so.
That is the nub of the problem.
And what is the most important factor that is captured by that cartoon?
If instead this cartoon was addressing say – the ranking of academic paper cites, or income earned from the arts, or sporting achievement – would it look much different?
And what is the most important factor that is captured by that cartoon?
Don't know. I do know the cartoon depicts a wealth distribution that means roughly 50% of NZers have a less than decent quality of life. Is that distribution sustainable, nice and natural? Can't help wondering if the answer depends on where one sits at the table – keep ’em hungry!
And I don't have time for intellectual dishonesty.
And I don't have any more time for someone who answers a question:
with a question:
and then levels an accusation of "intellectual dishonesty."
Each country has adopted a range of responses to wealth inequality.
Aotearoa NZ's responses have been sub-optimal, imho.
And some wealthy Kiwis agree – change is needed. Those opposed to changes that would increase redistribution of wealth in Aotearoa NZ should be honest about the reason(s) for their resistance.
In other words you know perfectly well the point I was making – but you choose to pretend otherwise.
As for the rest of your quote wall – yeah we knew all of this here at TS over a decade ago. Over time I've seen variations on this same conversation that go nowhere useful so often I care not to even start counting.
Here's the thing – nobody sane or serious thinks poverty is a good thing. In the western world most people will go a step further and agree that the extremes of wealth and poverty is not a good thing either. And it doesn't take much insight to realise they are not one and the same problem – the creation of human development and prosperity can be reliably measured by material dollar value measures. The impact of inequality by contrast shows up in measures of psychological and social dysfunction – a different domain.
But even assuming wealth and income are the sole criteria here – if the desired goal is to both progress human development, and reduce inequality at the same time, this implies a massive increase in total human prosperity across the board. In crude terms, do you want to solve inequality by making the rich poorer, or the poor richer? This is an important distinction, they are not the same thing at all.
The first solution is what the communists attempted with catastrophic outcomes. The latter solution is something altogether different – lifting everyone out of poverty and dysfunction implies something far more ambitious and complex.
Note carefully – I am not saying that progressive tax policies and redistribution schemes do not have their place. But I argue they are in of themselves far from sufficient. If the left is ever to escape the seemingly endless cycles of Karpman Drama games this is the kind of question we must learn how to discuss honestly.
If both approaches reduce inequality, then why not do both? The cost of living ain't getting any cheaper, and it's no mystery which end of the table is doing (and always has done) it tough.
RL, I still don't know if the distribution of 'food' would "look much different" at any of those tables – maybe inequality would be much more pronounced at a 'sporting achievement table', but I genuinely don't know. Might a Google search provide some real analysis? What is your answer to your question?
Is your the point of your question that Pareto-optimality describes (explains?) all inequality? Some have even been so bold as to suggest that it justifies inequality – can you believe it?! Whereas most politicians can understand that sustained optimal redistribution has a part to play in easing the burden of wealth inequality that influences the prospects of most Kiwis from cradle to grave.
Excellent – in addition to more robust and progressive tax policies (un-dodgeable CGT, wealth tax, inheritance tax, higher tax rates for high net wealth individuals and lower tax rates for the poor), other progressive (generational?) policies couldn't hurt.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" will be increasingly important (imho) as civilisation continues to grow, and CC, food scarcity, war, pandemics, environmental and economic crises et al. chip away at the feasibility of continuing the human experiment on spaceship Earth.
Straight from the marxist canon, and like so many bad ideas it has a seductively simplicity to it. If only the world was a rainbow hue utopia the condition it aspires to might spontaneously arise – but instead every attempt to deliver on this has resulted in a catastrophic destruction of all the social, economic and political norms that make life worth living.
Because therein lies a big fat clue – this infamous aphorism is not a useful expression of any economic or even political virtue – but a moral one. A virtue that cannot be imposed by the state, or any bureaucratic device – rather it can only come the same place where good and evil is decided – the human heart.
Absolutely. Also….predates Marx,
And even !…..
I certainly believe Jesus was real. Just not the son of a sky myth…
Certainly a good guy, who wouldnt have had any common ground with neolibs..or fatcat landlords : )
"Greed on their part is what has caused rents to rise so much.."
No. What has caused rents to rise so much is a government with the stupidity to lift the costs of being a landlord in a market where said landlords have the ability to lift rents.
Taxpayer subsidised parasites, no less.
I've tried looking up the annual cost of the Accomadation Supplement on Aotearoa but can't find it. Along with greed another regretable aspect and cost of landlording.
Good news, go to this website: https://qv.co.nz/
Type in the address of the home you are living in and this will give you an idea of the market value.
If as you believe your landlord is nothing but a tax-payer subsidised parasite, you should have no trouble being able to undercut him or her – and buying a house for yourself.
Thanks, but no.
Despite the positives, I'm not interested in joining the landlord class.
I meant that if you think owning your own home is cheaper than renting – then you have every chance to undercut your landlord.
The landlord has collateral, the tenant has not. That’s a huge difference when trying to get a home loan.
It may be worth noting….fewer and fewer landlords have collateral in the current market.
The family home is collateral.
and that collateral is declining in value in a tight credit market…family home or not.
Even in the cooling-down housing market many people do still have significant collateral, especially compared to those who don’t own property. The last couple of years they have enjoyed (!) steep increases and the average home value is still 22% higher compared to before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020.
Arguably, houses are still grossly overvalued in NZ.
Spare a thought for the landlords who face steeply rising costs and have the ability the raise rents once a year but can’t.
I can’t see the pain easing any time soon although NACT will make it magically go away, of course, at least for landlords – one way of ‘buying’ votes.
Excepting those with existing property have potentially lost their equity whereas those yet to enter the market have not.
That’s correct, but we were talking about landlords, not new entrants into the housing market (aka first-home buyers), weren’t we? I don’t get the point you’re trying to make about those who had no property as collateral and who have not lost value of something that they didn’t own!?
Home owners became much richer, on paper, over the last couple of years, and now they have become a little less richer (aka you gain a lot and lose a little). They are still heaps better off than someone who owns no home, and they have collateral.
"The landlord has collateral, the tenant has not. "
The point is the landlord does not necessarily have collateral, whereas a tenant may.
Generalisations are even more fraught when asset values are in decline.
Baby boomers were born 1945 to 1964.
Where is the evidence that 40% of them are retiring without 100% equity in their homes?
Home ownership among those 50-65 is 75%. This is part baby boomer (above that rate) and part Gen X (below it).
Some may have unpaid mortgages now, that will be paid off by the time they are 65 (or by age 70).
So that 40% rate seems high.
The percentage of people aged 65+ with no mortgage has also dropped from 78% in 2007 to 72% in 2017. Given the lower interest rates c 2017 that is no surprise as people would have borrowed money for repairs and maintenance given it was low cost.
For mine the problem of low levels of home ownership really impacts post boomers from the 2030's. And around the same time there will also hit an aged boomer care crisis.
That's not a recent problem that just appeared, that's a problem that was essentially 35 years in the making. NZ Super rates have always been based on the superannuitant either owning their own house outright or living in social housing. Home ownership has slowly become less common over time, not just recently, and social housing for superannuitants used to be mostly provided by Councils, but that has also become less common over time.
Phillip, some reasons…
Food disruption caused by supply lines storms and supermarket greed.
Rental rises pushing people into hardship.
A bigger contributor is our longevity, (though there is no relief for groups who don't have a good lifespan.)
I don't think it is Labour or the Greens causing these situations imo. They have put aids in place, winter warmth, rises etc…but
As McMillan said" Events dear boy events" Covid Cyclones and War.
Yes patricia..I think it was lbj who said 'shit happens'
But I don't think inaction on what has been promised in 2017 by j.ardern..ie poverty and the environment..can be excused because of these other events you cite..
Labour has quite a bit of that unable to walk and chew gum at the same time..
An example is that I am currently in a rural area on the outskirts of Auckland…
It used to be 100 k per hour…on roads not built for that..and was dropped to 80..
It is bloody brilliant…no longer do you have arseholes in suv trying to bully you into going faster..
And it makes for much more pleasant driving..
A total success..so what do labour do..?..they can the program for the rest of the country..
Why..?..I ask…surely it is just a matter of consulting with local council/police to identify the dangerous roads…and you change a few signs..
How/why was that so hard for labour to do..?
That example is symptomatic of what ails this gummint..
A majority labour government has been hobbled by its inbuilt incrementalism..
It's kinda sad.. really…and we are all the losers
I still haven't forgiven John Tamihere referring to women as 'front bums' – and most of their policies don't resonate with this average Aotearoan.
Does NZ have a precedent for a minority, two party coalition government, using confidence and supply from a third party on the cross benches, to form government?
For instance, if we end up with L/G unable to form government, but could with C/S from TPM who sit completely outside of government, would that even work? Has it been done before?
The Governor General would more likely prefer the much more stable National-Act coalition.
It's similar to the UK election a while back when there was talk of a Red-Green-Orange or "traffic light" arrangement, but in the end they just weren't close enough to put it up as a workable arrangement.
Yes, Labour-Alliance with confidence and supply from Greens 1999-2002
Yes, Labour-Progressives confidence and supply from United 2002-2005
Yes, Labour-(Jim Anderton)-NZF, confidence and supply from United and co-operation agreement with Greens
And a National minority government with confidence and supply from ACT and TPM and United 2008-2017
Yes Labour-NZF with confidence and supply from Greens 2017.
google Cabinet governance in New Zealand under MMP:
multi-party government and condoned dissent – Dean R Knight – open access pdf (to see the graphic).
"And a National minority government with confidence and supply from ACT and TPM and United 2008-2017".
How do you come to your conclusion that this was a minority Government but the others weren't? After all they did have Ministers from all of the other parties in their coalition. They were in fact no different from the Governments led by Helen Clark who could be described in exactly the same way.
This was the question.
Of those National is the only one party minority government requiring confidence and supply to govern, the others are two party coalition minority governments requiring this (note I included the 2008 government as Labour+ 1 -NZF, as per Anderton).
Sue grey and Brian tamaki have joined at the hip..in a new political party ..
Should be good for a few laffs…
The thought that amuses me is Hannah Tamaki as an MP. She will have to go along to work. The bishop won't. My thoughts on who will be running that ship?
And the thought that on the occasion we will be blessed with freedom and democracy.
"She will have to go along to work. "
Why? She has the precedent of the The Maori Party to follow. How often do you see them in the House?
I think basing how much MPs do and how effective they are being based on how often you see them in the house is simplistic and silly.
All the current mischief makes me laugh, after all it's all happened before.
What a pathetic bunch the current lot of politicians are ….same as it ever was.
Isn’t that a Talking Heads hit?
I have just seen a story about the Tamakis I wasn't aware of when I posted earlier.
1st tamaki laff in link…
Tamaki claimed cyclone gabrielle was visited upon nz 'cos of 'porn abortion and gay rights'.
And the good bishop has clearly walked on the dark side..so we don't have to…
He has been rummaging in the pornhub stats…
And he tells us that those places hit worst by cyclone had the highest number of viewers of pornhub..
He really is as funny as fuck..
Yuk yuk yuk.
Hopefully wastes a few NAct votes, but probably not many.
more likely to waste a few labour votes