Spare a thought for our poor impoverished landlords

Written By: - Date published: 8:17 am, February 25th, 2019 - 225 comments
Categories: capital gains, child abuse, child welfare, class, health, housing, housing insulation, Judith Collins, labour, making shit up, national, phil twyford, Simon Bridges, spin, tax, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

If National’s rhetoric is to be believed the Government is attacking and marginalising some of the poorest people in our community, the owners of private rental properties.

First up was the proposal by the Tax Working Group, note not the Government, to impose a capital gains tax on various assets including private residences that are not the family home.

The response?  We will have to put the rent up.

This came from this guy:

And this guy:

Richardson’s comments show a deep antithesis to the suggestion there should be a wealth realignment from the rich to the poor along with a concerning inability to perform basic maths:

… The AM Show’s sport presenter said he will take [possible tax credits] away from those renting his properties to supplement any losses he makes from the tax changes.

“If they don’t own something, what are they doing, they are renting. Well I will take that $15 a week back,” Richardson said.

He estimated that the $15 a week could add up to $575 a year.

“I’m sorry that might make a small difference to those right down the bottom, that makes diddly-squat difference to the people who will be hurt by this tax, which is the middle class, who are trying desperately to get ahead, not to be a burden on the system when they retire.”

Their rationale is difficult to fathom.  They are saying that because some time in the future they may have to pay tax on an unknown amount to the Government because they have made a large profit they want compensation now?  And here was me thinking that they were only in the market to earn rental and not a capital gain because *checks notes* if they have purchased a rental property with the intent of making a capital gain they should pay tax anyway.

And I bet more than a few of them receive or have received tax benefits or indirectly Government paid accommodation supplements.  And I bet more than a few of them decry government assistance for poor people.  Government assistance for people who can afford multiple properties is apparently fine though.

Then Phil Twyford announced that the Government would require all rental properties to meet basic standards of warmth.

From Jason Walls at the Herald:

New Government rules will require every rental home in New Zealand to have a heater in the living room and an extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom.

The new requirements are part of the Government’s healthy homes standards, announced by Housing Minister Phil Twyford this morning.

The Green Party has welcomed the new rules, but the Green Building Council said they were not quite good enough.

National said the cost of the new rules would ultimately be born by tenants.

The standards set minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture and drainage, as well as rules to stop draughts, in all residential rental properties across the country.

From mid-2021, all rental homes will be required by law to have a heater that can heat a main living area to 18C.

Kitchens and bathrooms will have to have extraction fans or rangehoods and, where rental homes have an enclosed subfloor space, property owners will need to install a ground moisture barrier to stop moisture rising into the home.

The justification is that too many kids are getting sick because of sub standard conditions:

Twyford said the new rules were some of the “most important public health changes the Government could make”.

“Nearly 600,000 households rent in New Zealand, and our rental stock is of poorer quality than owner-occupied homes.”

He said it was estimated about 200,000 families lived in rental homes that did not have ceiling or underfloor insulation.

“The Ministry of Health says 6000 children are admitted each year for ‘housing-sensitive hospitalisations’.”

This did not stop Judith Collins from complaining about the proposal.  Again from the herald:

[Collins] said rents have increased in many parts of the country over the past year and the Government’s new rules would see rents climb even further.

“There will be some landlords who are going to say ‘it’s just not worth it for me to retrofit this property’.”

Instead of renting the property, Collins said many would-be landlords would just sell it on the open market.

One of the scare tactics that opponents have engaged in is the threat that landlords will sell up.

Given that the vast majority of rented properties were bought by them already constructed the net effect should be negligible.  Unless they have found a magical way to make the house disappear.

The debate is depressing.  All this greed and refusal to accept the fairness that people earning a capital gain should pay tax just the same as people earning a wage.  And a complete indifference to how many poor kids are being hospitalised because of inadequate living conditions. 

With National engaging in outrageous rhetoric about the issue I expect this debate will get quite ugly.  Shame on them.

225 comments on “Spare a thought for our poor impoverished landlords ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    25 February 2019 at 8:19 am

    “…Their rationale is difficult to fathom…”

    it’s called class war.

    And what will happen is all the plump, well off shills in the media who are part of the middle class 10% who own rentals will confidently and endlessly predict the demise of the government on this issue, until the next opinion poll which shows the government support has gone up. Because 90% of the population will see some benefit in what Labour are doing.

    • patricia bremner 1.1
      25 February 2019 at 12:34 pm

      Sanctuary and Micky, I was pleased to see Jack Tame declared he thought CGT was fair, and that well to do people like him who own rentals should keep investing to meet current standards, as that also was fair. I don’t always see eye to eye with Mr. Tame, but this shows he has matured and is at heart a decent human, unlike some loud jocks.

  2. Sabine 2
    25 February 2019 at 8:23 am

    greed,

    i have mine and want yours too, so fuck you poor person who also wants to get ahead in th game. i ma gonna raise your cost of living cause i can.

    National, supporting hostage takers since ever.

    • Kat 2.1
      25 February 2019 at 11:55 am

      The interesting point with all this is the framing around fairness. National and its shills are busy trying to show how unfair it is for their supporters. It will come down to which side has the numbers in public support and where abouts in the middle ground the line is drawn on any CGT.

      Polls Polls Polls Polls…….they are all hard at it, its politics.

      In the meantime the govt just needs to get on and build more affordable houses. Reinstate the MOW and get it done.

    • woodart 2.2
      25 February 2019 at 5:29 pm

      national, caring about tenants since twenty minutes ago

  3. Gosman 3
    25 February 2019 at 8:49 am

    It is not the poor impoverished landlords that will be impacted massively by these changes but their poor impoverished tenants. This is simple market economics. Increasing costs for suppliers means both reduced supply and higher prices for consumers. You might like to pretend this reality doesn’t exist but it won’t change the outcome.

    • KJT 3.1
      25 February 2019 at 9:00 am

      You have just given us another reason to build 10 000 state houses. And get away from landlords sucking off the State teat.

      • Gosman 3.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:09 am

        10,000 State houses are a mere drop in the bucket in the rental market. Labour can’t even get 1000 Houses per year built working with private developers how are they meant to build 10,000 State houses? That is why the private sector has always been the cornerstone of the rental market even at the height of the first Labour governments State House build programme.

        • KJT 3.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 9:19 am

          Still an order of magnitude net houses more than National achieved.

          Falling up training and capability in the building industry over time, to build 10 000 State houses a year, is certainly doable.

          Though, this time use a great many small building firms, and QE.
          The big firms cannot be trusted, as Christchurch showed, and why gift more profits to the financial thieves.

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 9:23 am

            I’m no apologist for National on housing. indeed I have been incredibly critical of them in the past on the topic. That doesn’t mean Labour’s solution is any better.

            Btw the Government isn’t even contemplating YOUR solution to this issue. Why do you think that is?

            • KJT 3.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 9:30 am

              Neo-liberals don’t like proven solutions that work.

              Their bribers/funders, are making too much money out of the inefficiencies.

              The money wasted on the accommodation supplement, supporting private landlords, could have built an awful lot of houses.

              • Gosman …
                25 February 2019 at 11:04 am

                You didn’t answer my question why the current government isn’t even contemplating your proposed solutions.

                • UncookedSelachimorpha …
                  25 February 2019 at 4:47 pm

                  My answer would be that the current government is still fairly neoliberal and continues to trust the market to solve problems…which often doesn’t work.

            • Stuart Munro 3.1.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2019 at 11:13 am

              I don’t recall you saying critical thing one about them Gosman.

              Citation required.

              • cleangreen …
                25 February 2019 at 1:30 pm

                Gosman uses more questions to evade responding to his/hers rubbish so best ignore the questions, and it will just go away like last time six months ago.

                • Tamati Tautuhi …
                  25 February 2019 at 4:18 pm

                  She is very wet behind the ears Gossie needs to take the condom off her head before she opens her lips ?

        • Shadrach 3.1.1.2
          25 February 2019 at 9:25 am

          “…how are they meant to build 10,000 State houses?”

          They can’t, and they are either stupid or dishonest to claim otherwise. Meanwhile, the waiting list for state housing has doubled on their watch..,

          • KJT 3.1.1.2.1
            25 February 2019 at 9:32 am

            We did the equivalent in the 50’s and 60’s.

            Are you saying we are less capable now?

            Wondered when the ACT parties, sole representative, was going to show up?

            The waiting list has doubled because they relaxed the criteria to get one. Please keep up.

            • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 11:06 am

              Kind of irrelevant why the waiting list has doubled. The point is whether they can reduce it. At the moment that is seeming quite far fetched.

              • Shadrach …
                25 February 2019 at 12:26 pm

                Kiwibuild is a massive clusterf^&k, and is a huge distraction. The government should focus on building state houses in new subdivisions, and get out of trying to supply ‘affordable’ housing for purchase.

            • Shadrach 3.1.1.2.1.2
              25 February 2019 at 12:22 pm

              No, the state cannot build that many homes. Simple. In the 50’s and 60’s we opened up huge areas of land for new subdivisions; that is seemingly current councils to comprehend.

            • alwyn 3.1.1.2.1.3
              26 February 2019 at 6:07 pm

              “Are you saying we are less capable now”.
              Well yes. But you must remember that between 1949 and 1972, which covers your time period, we had 7 terms with a National Government and only 1 with a Labour lot.
              You surely aren’t going to say that was a coincidence that we did so much better are you?

              • KJT …
                26 February 2019 at 6:40 pm

                I am not a Labour supporter. At least not the Neo-Liberal version.

                But I note, that National continued the level of Government spending and social welfare policies over those years, that were introduced by Labour.

          • Kay 3.1.1.2.2
            25 February 2019 at 9:37 am

            @Shadrach Doubled officially. That need has been there for years, people just knew it was a pointless exercise even asking for help under the last regime because when they did, so many were just thrown back into their cars or under a bridge. Now they’re coming out of the woodwork because even though there’s still not enough housing to go around, at least the process is a tad more user-friendly.

          • alwyn 3.1.1.2.3
            26 February 2019 at 6:02 pm

            “they are either stupid or dishonest”.
            Why do you say either/or?
            In my view, when it is Phil Twyford and others like him involved involved you simply say “AND”
            ie “they are stupid and dishonest”.

            • Shadrach 3.1.1.2.3.1
              26 February 2019 at 7:49 pm

              Yes I see your point. There are some good people in the government. Twyford isn’t one of them.

    • Craig H 3.2
      25 February 2019 at 9:10 am

      If it’s a functioning market, the ability to pass on cost increases is constrained by competition. The fact that a landlord now has increased costs or a diminished return on investment might lead to an equivalent higher increase in rents, or it might not because of that competition. In past times, at some point people refuse to pay more (commonly by sharing properties where otherwise they wouldn’t), so there is always a practical cap on increases.

      Also, as Mickey rightly pointed out, if the capital gain was being factored into the return on investment calculations, then it was taxable income by current definitions, in which case the main complaints are from tax evaders. If the market has been propped up by tax evasion, it needs to be restructured anyway.

    • vto 3.3
      25 February 2019 at 9:14 am

      gosman your neoliberal thinking and ‘logic’ is behind you, high and dry at the high tide mark with its flotsam and jetsam leaky homes, global financial crisis, Pike River et al, lying there rotting and decaying in the sunlight

      wake up man

      • Gosman 3.3.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:24 am

        My thinking is still the default setting for economic development the World over.

        • Stuart Munro 3.3.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 11:23 am

          Only since the only successful model, developmentalism, was abandoned. Countries that want to lift their economies follow Meiji’s model. Countries that wish to stagnate and be parasitized by their elites follow neoliberalism and go backwards, as NZ and the US and UK have done.

          • Gosman 3.3.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 11:29 am

            Why was “Developmentalism” abandoned if it was so successful?

            • Stuart Munro 3.3.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 11:31 am

              Because the elites are lazy, and could make as much or more by predating on other classes.

              Developmentalism requires a degree of competence – neoliberalism could be run by any dairy farming tit like Bill English.

              • Gosman …
                25 February 2019 at 2:52 pm

                Or perhaps Developmentalism didn’t work outside a narrow range of countries (and even these it slowly lead to economic atrophy).

                • Stuart Munro …
                  25 February 2019 at 3:07 pm

                  No – it worked and still works.

                  Neoliberalism is the screaming failure. NZ should be looking at doing what Chile did to the “Chicago Boys” – failed corrupt economists who damaged and impoverished their country. They got long jail terms, and that was getting off lightly for all the misery they caused.

                  Neoliberalism works better for a tiny corrupt elite, in the absence of a mass worker movement who can swiftly hold them accountable for their crimes. But you know this – it’s just that, for reasons best known to yourself, you want to monopolize the discourse on NZ’s leftwing sites.
                  It’s not as if you have either the knowledge or the reasoning skills to make your case.

                • Doogs …
                  26 February 2019 at 9:11 am

                  Don’t know why you’re having an argument between developmentalism vs. neo-liberalism. Neither seem particularly appealing to me. I looked up the former, and it isn’t what it first appears to be when looking at the word in face value.

                  1 Any of various philosophical or theological doctrines or schools of thought concerned with development; especially those which regard the nature of something as a result of gradual development, rather than being innate or predetermined.
                  2 An economic policy concerned with improving the economy, and thus national autonomy, of an underdeveloped country by fostering the development of dynamic internal markets through such means as imposing high tariffs on imported goods.

                  First, we are not an underdeveloped country, bearing in mind that the word ‘underdeveloped’ is quite subjective at least. Second, in relation to the meanings above, I’m quite glad we don’t follow that philosophy, as it appears that a synonym for ‘developmentalism’ could easily be ‘nationalism’ – which is directly out of Trump’s playbook.

                  However, on balance, I would prefer the ‘d’ word over neo-liberalism which is a synonym for free-market capitalism. This system relies on a spectrum of wealth with 5% having 90% of the wealth, 55% having varying amounts of wealth and 40% having bugger all to no wealth at all.

                  Why don’t we stop looking for labels and just admit that under National the 40% continued to have bugger all with no relief, and under Labour (sorry, the Coalition) redistribution of this wealth is happening. It’s slow (Kiwibuild) and difficult (turning around the attitudes of the civil service), but it will serve people better in the end,

                  The squawking we hear currently comes from the top end of the 55%, and from all of the 5% as the door has been opened and the cold blast of reality is getting up the skirts of the obscenely well off.

                  • Gosman …
                    26 February 2019 at 9:13 am

                    I love the fact you think Kiwibuild is about redistribution of wealth and not just middle class welfare.

                    • Sam …
                      26 February 2019 at 9:18 am

                      With the banning of oil exploration the Jacinda government has baked into the system 4% growth year on year. Concede.

                    • Gosman …
                      26 February 2019 at 9:28 am

                      What??? That make’s no sense logically. It is like you just mashed two ideas together.

                    • Doogs …
                      26 February 2019 at 9:34 am

                      Take a broad view Mr Gosman and think of Kiwibuild as a cog in the whole gearbox of society where all things interface and operate smoothly for the good of all. This government is about fairness and a good suck of the sav for all. Trouble with neo-liberalists is they nit pick and excoriate, never standing on the hill and viewing the panorama as a whole. Look – there’s a dead tree over there. Look – there’s a lot of mud in that river. Look there’s a rock fall on that slope. Get the picture?

      • Tamati Tautuhi 3.3.2
        25 February 2019 at 9:48 pm

        Gossie is currently suffering from brain fog IMHO

        • Doogs 3.3.2.1
          26 February 2019 at 9:13 am

          No Tamati, this ain’t fog. He is to be admired for his acuity. What a shame it is so one-directional.

    • mpledger 3.4
      25 February 2019 at 9:17 am

      How can supply reduce? Landlords aren’t going to demolish their rental properties – they are just threatening to sell them. Basically, the same people will be living in them – maybe just more owner-occupiers – which in itself is a good thing.

      • Gosman 3.4.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:32 am

        They will sell their properties instead of renting them. It is likely to help first home buyers but not people who prefer or need to rent.

        • Psycho Milt 3.4.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 12:49 pm

          That’s predicated on the assumption that nobody will want to buy rental properties for the purpose of continuing to rent them out, just because they’d have to pay tax on all the capital gain they’d eventually realise.

          I don’t see any basis for that assumption. For instance, I and a huge number of others keep going to work in the morning even though we know the money we earn will be taxed.

          So there’s no reason to assume that only first-home buyers will be interested in buying rental properties. The more likely outcome of all these landlords fleeing the market would be a decline in the value of rental properties (although, not necessarily a decline in rents, because… well, just look at that weasel in the OP with his 80 properties).

        • Tamati Tautuhi 3.4.1.2
          25 February 2019 at 9:50 pm

          Gossie the property market is a little weak at present as there are less people of Asiatic extraction migrating to NZ ?

        • patricia bremner 3.4.1.3
          26 February 2019 at 9:41 pm

          Where were the new owners previously? in a dog kennel?

      • Shadrach 3.4.2
        25 February 2019 at 9:58 am

        The problem with that is the people in your example are not the ‘same’ people. If renters could afford to buy the house they rent, the likelihood is they would have purchased a property already.

    • Chris 3.5
      25 February 2019 at 11:18 am

      Won’t landlords who don’t want to provide warm and dry houses just sell up and stop being landlords and that rents will increase as a result?

      • Gosman 3.5.1
        25 February 2019 at 11:19 am

        Exactly!

        • Chris 3.5.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 12:19 pm

          Hopefully that’s just half right. Landlords who don’t want to provide warm and dry houses should leave the market. That’s a good thing. But surely it’s only the unscupulous who’ll leave, and that landlords with a modicum of moral fibre are already complying or won’t throw the extra cost on to already through the roof rents. Remove greed from the equation and a number of the so-called problems fall away.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.5.2
        25 February 2019 at 4:51 pm

        …and the sold houses will magically evaporate and no longer be used for housing…..????

      • SHG 3.5.3
        26 February 2019 at 5:44 pm

        Won’t landlords who don’t want to provide warm and dry houses just sell up

        Why would they sell? Property values are still going up. Safer to just kick the tenants out and change the locks.

        • Chris 3.5.3.1
          28 February 2019 at 12:17 am

          That’s the more likely scenario because owning property is still lucrative. My comments are aimed at those who say landlords will sell up and add to the housing shortage and push rents even higher. I’m simply saying that landlords who’re complaining about the costs to them of providing warm and dry housing should simply get out of the market because they’re not wanted.

    • Sabine 3.6
      25 February 2019 at 12:07 pm

      good let them sell the rental properties they bought with the intention to sell. The CGT raised by National – the one that is to be paid if a rental property was bought with the intention of a resell for Capital Gains Tax.

      Seriously let them sell all their properties, make as much profit from it as they can – pay the tax levied by the No mates party on it, and let us never ever have to discuss these vile people.

      Maybe then a few more people have a chance to buy a house, or maybe get to rent a property from someone who wants to run a good and honest business providing rental accommodation rather then the current lot of No mates Party member and their enablers that literally want to call the person who rents from them a lazy bludger while at the same time pocketing the accommodation benefit.

      Good grief, can this country grow some courage and kick these hostage takers in the curb where they belong.

    • patricia bremner 3.7
      25 February 2019 at 12:46 pm

      At least the high rental will Be for a decent warm place. The Government should pay the rental supplement only when the landlord produces a certificate of compliance with the standards. If inspections find the landlord is letting substandard property, he/she should have to refund 6 weeks rental. Let us get tough on people “Selling” substandard products. No other business would be allowed to do that. Let us put the pain where it should be, and tell Landlords no more hostage situations. Good Landlords don’t need penalties.

    • mikesh 3.8
      25 February 2019 at 2:29 pm

      Retrofitting houses doesn’t increase costs; it increases investment. The landlord should be able to borrow against his equity in the property in return for a small increase in his mortgage. Any landlord who finds this too much of a burden should sell up and exit an industry in which he has no business participating.

    • woodart 3.9
      25 February 2019 at 5:34 pm

      you are so full of excrement gosboy. how can their be reduced supply. are the poor impoverised landlords going to burn their rentals, or roll them up and take them home? if they sell them off, according to you and most other shills, they will dump them in large numbers. according to your supply and demand bullshit, that will drive the prices down….oh no, disaster for your mates…

  4. Red Blooded One 4
    25 February 2019 at 8:56 am

    As the owner of a couple of rentals I welcome the intention of these changes. I am mostly there anyway and while I wouldn’t have thought of putting in a heat pump, I’ll happily meet the requirements. I do hope the argument here doesn’t descend into attacking all landlords or alternatively the idiotic “attack on the kiwi way of life” argument.

    • BM 4.1
      25 February 2019 at 9:09 am

      Depending on how old your house is you may find you have to upgrade the switchboard.

      Any decent sized heat pump needs to be on a separate circuit and you’re not allowed to add extra circuits to older switchboards.

      New switch board will probably also mean new mains cable.

      • William 4.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 11:00 am

        “…and you’re not allowed to add extra circuits to older switchboards.”

        I do hope you’ll provide a cite for that claim.

        • BM 4.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 1:24 pm

          Can’t find the regs, but just going on what our sparky told us when we were thinking of putting in another oven for our kitchen reno.

          Sparkies have to be real sticklers for the rules because they can be audited at any time.

          • woodart 4.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 5:46 pm

            complete bollocks. my house has the old style cables. sparky has checked them and passed them as safe. your sparky probably realised what sort of person you were and ripped you off…good job…

            • BM 4.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 5:49 pm

              Sounds like your sparky is a cowboy.

              What’s his name?

              • William …
                25 February 2019 at 6:14 pm

                Nah, sounds to me like BM is very gullible and should find a better electrician.
                In my experience many electricians have an incomplete understanding of the Regulations and AS/NZS3000, and that leads them to make nonsense claims. I say that as someone who has an electrical registration.
                in 2017 the EWRB pilot audit program found 12% were partially acceptable, 2% were unacceptable !

                • BM …
                  25 February 2019 at 6:38 pm

                  Why am I gullible?
                  I’m not a qualified electrician, if my electrician says that’s the rules why would I doubt what he is saying?

                  • William …
                    25 February 2019 at 7:35 pm

                    From the OED

                    gullible
                    adjective
                    Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
                    ‘an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money’

                    Sums up your interaction with your electrician to a tee.
                    Get a second opinion, look around on the internet, ask questions in forums.

                    • BM …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:00 pm

                      To be honest William I’m getting the feeling you’re probably full of shit and my sparky is correct.

              • woodart …
                25 February 2019 at 7:04 pm

                my sparky is a very qualified electrician in his fifties who is also a landlord, not my landlord, and knows my house as his father lived in it in 1937 when he came from china. he is very contientous and checked out my rented houses entire elctrical layout 4 years ago when he fixed a blown fuse in the oven. you couldnt pronounce or spell his name, but he could probably buy and sell you twice over. a cowboy he is not.

        • Doogs 4.1.1.2
          26 February 2019 at 9:18 am

          It’s a fact. Look it up if you don’t believe BM. Don’t be lazy.

      • Kevin 4.1.2
        25 February 2019 at 12:47 pm

        I had my switchboard upgraded and it has nothing to do with the mains cable.

        • BM 4.1.2.1
          25 February 2019 at 1:21 pm

          If you’ve got one of the old school Indian rubber insulated mains cable, the sparky may say it’s got to be replaced.

          • RedLogix 4.1.2.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 3:39 pm

            BM is right on this. It depends on a case by case basis but replacing an old mains cable is a real possibility.

            I’ve had to do it three times.

            • gsays 4.1.2.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 5:26 pm

              Replacing an antiquated electrical cable seems a reasonable thing to do…

              Mind you some who are anti these initiatives aren’t reasonable, they are busy squealing like stuck greedy pigs.

      • patricia bremner 4.1.3
        25 February 2019 at 12:58 pm

        That did not happen in our 1974 unit. That would be unusual BM.

      • McFlock 4.1.4
        25 February 2019 at 6:44 pm

        Group I’m involved with has a 120 year+ building, with a switchboard going back at least to the early 1970s (because we know the marks of the group there at that time).

        2 heat pumps added to it, no probs. Only caution beforehand was whether the mains wire could take it – fortunately they’d over-engineered back in the day (due to power requirements for previous uses). But we’ll get a second line in sometime.

        Don’t get me wrong, the wiring was a fucking adventure – fuzes labelled wrong both with plug location and wattage. Spent a solid afternoon taking fuzes out and finding what plugs/lights/signage they connected to. But the electrician is experienced in dealing with heritage buildings, and knows what needs to be replaced (fortunately our building is so old and neglected there’s no asbestos lol)

        • BM 4.1.4.1
          25 February 2019 at 7:04 pm

          Yeah, I think the average pole fuse is around 60 amps.
          A stove could be easily be drawing 30 amps when going, a couple of heat pumps doesn’t really leave you a lot to play with, especially when you consider all the other electrical appliances people have.

          • McFlock 4.1.4.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 7:26 pm

            Dunno about the amperages, but rewiring is down to math and condition rather than age or what have you, mostly. Because our building is large and ventilated and heat was needed fast, we went with two fairly grunty heatpumps, 8kw each IIRC. But it’s not constant use, so we can afford to stay in existence lol. And as the building gets done up, they’ll be more “in reserve” rather than “routine”.

            On the flipside of more domestic devices, the ones we do have are usually lower power & duration – microwaves rather than pots & steamers, more efficient fridges, lightbulbs, TVs, and heaters, even computers, etc. And of course more insulation.

          • lprent 4.1.4.1.2
            25 February 2019 at 9:54 pm

            Power poles?

            I was astonished the other day when I was driving to PBTech North Shore in Glenfield to see a whole road of power poles laden with wires. Normally I only ever see them on deserted country roads where they have to run the lines at high voltage or in countries like Thailand where the cost of underground is prohibitive.

            But like most rental properties, underground lines are in most urban and semi-urban areas these days. They are low voltage, typically don’t have a pole type fuse transformer units and don’t have the kinds of power limits that you’re thinking of.

            • Graeme 4.1.4.1.2.1
              25 February 2019 at 10:10 pm

              There’s fuses in the pillar at the street even if it’s all underground, or at the distribution / meter board for a multi unit building. Still called pole fuse even if they aren’t up the pole any more.

            • William 4.1.4.1.2.2
              25 February 2019 at 11:06 pm

              In your inner city area maybe. According to this story

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105799780/aucklanders-face-1100-year-wait-to-scrap-overhead-power-lines

              “Auckland is faring well compared with the rest of the country – with 55 per cent of power lines underground compared to a national average of only 27 per cent”

              so “most” is true for Auckland, but only just.

              Underground supplies to standalone properties still have a fuse, it’s typically in the pillar box that is usually at the property boundary.

    • jcuknz 4.2
      25 February 2019 at 9:14 am

      It is nice that Red Blooded One is happy to install a heat-pump but the problems with them is that unless rarely uese the poor person cannot pay the cost of running them.
      Typical of the the minister to not appreciate the whole cost of buying and running instead of falling into the trap of just considering the capitial cost rather that running costs .

      • KJT 4.2.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:22 am

        A heat pump is the cheapest form of heating.

        However we could stop power companies from using retail customers as a cash cow, to cover the costs of their discounts to large customers.

        • BM 4.2.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 9:24 am

          No, it’s not.
          Give me a wood burner any day.

          • KJT 4.2.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 9:27 am

            Well. We had a direct comparison.
            Much cheaper to run than the wood burner.

            Unless you have a paddock full of pine trees.

            • BM 4.2.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 9:34 am

              Depends how frugal you want to be.

              You can always burn scrap wood, pine cones, pallets, driftwood, garden trimming etc.

              With heat pumps, you’re stuck with the fixed cost of ever increasing in price electricity.

              You can also hook up a wetback and heat your hot water, can’t do that with a heat pump.

              Add a ventilation system and you can heat your whole house.

              • mac1 …
                25 February 2019 at 10:53 am

                BM is mostly right here. I installed a heat pump and have home ventilation which removes a lot of the need for the warming side of the heat pump. I also in the colder months use a small wood burner to heat hot water and do one pot slow cooker meals every second day or so, using scraps, cones, pallets, tree trimmings, and the willows on the other side of the river lose branches which I burn also serving to clean up the river bank and my view.

                However, the wood burning option is to become expensive as my Council has recently pronounced that any wood-burning appliance has to be less than fifteen years old for pollution reasons. A new version to be installed would be more expensive than another heat pump. I have also installed a small solar photon array which could be increased far more usefully and economically than a small wood burner. (Must do the sums on this. $4000 for a new wood-burner would install another 1.4Kw/hr capacity or annually some 2000 units or kw/hrs.)

              • alwyn …
                26 February 2019 at 6:24 pm

                Is it safe to use pallets for firewood?
                I thought that they were generally treated and that it wasn’t safe to burn them.

          • Sabine 4.2.1.1.2
            25 February 2019 at 12:10 pm

            well with the rate we are cutting down trees in this country you might have to grow your own fire wood in the near future.

            No i am not joking.

            I have both a fire place and a heat pump. As you i prefer the fire place, and i do collect scraps and cone and this and that over the year to burn in my place. But frankly when i just want to heat i turn on the heat pump.

            • BM 4.2.1.1.2.1
              25 February 2019 at 1:29 pm

              We’re lucky we’ve got pretty much an endless supply of pallets we can burn.

              I actually prefer burning pallets as it can be a bit hit and miss with buying firewood unless it’s been stored for a couple of years.

          • cleangreen 4.2.1.1.3
            25 February 2019 at 1:35 pm

            BM wants to torch the planet he must be a climate denier.

            Wood heating is still the most carbon emitting heat source so heat pump used either by electric or gas is better..

            • WeTheBleeple 4.2.1.1.3.1
              26 February 2019 at 7:12 am

              If I burn the stuff I grow, and regrow what i burn, that’s carbon neutral. If I add a char chamber and sequester the char, that’s a carbon negative fire.

              It’s all in the design. One size will never fit all.

      • BM 4.2.2
        25 February 2019 at 9:22 am

        The problem is no one knows how to use a heat pump properly.

        If there’s a heat pump in the lounge(and sized correctly) it will only heat the lounge, not the whole house.
        You have to close off the lounge from the rest of the house otherwise it never hits the set temperature and shuts off.
        The heat pump is always going full knackers which is why it costs so much money.

        • William 4.2.2.1
          25 February 2019 at 12:41 pm

          What you describe applies to any heating device, not just heat pumps. If the closed room can be adequately heated by an electric convection heater for example, with the door open it will never switch off and will cost much money, (and more than an equivalent output heat pump).

          The advantage of a heat pump is that you are not buying the heat from the electricity company, it is provided free from the outside environment. You are only paying for the electricity required to transfer that heat into your home via the refrigeration cycle. Typically heat pumps produce 2 to 4.5 the heat that could be produced by an electric heater that used the same amount of electricity.
          Here’s a useful resource

          http://www.level.org.nz/energy/space-heating/heat-pumps/

          To get back to the OP, the new requirements will only require a heating device, not any particular type of device. Given the tardiness of many landlords I predict they’ll nip down to the The Warehouse and buy the cheapest heater available. Low capital cost but high running cost.

      • Sabine 4.2.3
        25 February 2019 at 12:12 pm

        well thanks to the Labour party poor people can now apply for a heating subsidy.

        http://www.superseniors.msd.govt.nz/news-events/news/2017/winter-energy-payment.html

        You don’t need to apply to receive the payment. It will be paid automatically to everyone getting NZ Super, Veteran’s Pension, Jobseeker Support, Jobseeker Support Student Hardship, Emergency Benefit and Emergency Maintenance Allowance, Sole Parent Support, Supported Living Payment or a Youth Service Payment. People can choose to opt out of getting it.

        see how that works when you have people looking at the issues, finding the issues and then go about eliminating them.
        Novel. I know.

      • patricia bremner 4.2.4
        25 February 2019 at 1:01 pm

        Are you forgetting the $700 aprox allowance from 2019 for low income households for the winter warmth payment?

        • alwyn 4.2.4.1
          26 February 2019 at 6:29 pm

          That was the one they introduced to make up for the benefit increase that we were going to get from the cuts that National were making in the tax rates wasn’t it?
          If Labour hadn’t cancelled the tax cuts we would have been just as well off and this payment wouldn’t have been necessary. In fact we would have been better of as they didn’t introduce the heating allowance at the full amount in 2018.

      • gsays 4.2.5
        25 February 2019 at 5:30 pm

        Shhh.. decent living standards is just the start.

        Wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the power supply gets nationalized and profit incentives removed.

    • Gosman 4.3
      25 February 2019 at 9:21 am

      This will increase the costs and also increase the demand for places like yours (as other landlords decide to pull out of the rental market). This will apply pressure on you from two directions to raise the rent. You might be able to resist these pressures but then again you might not be able to. The point being it is not your fault these pressures will increase.

      • KJT 4.3.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:24 am

        So. Landlords having to pay a tax they were legally obliged to pay, anyway, is going to raise rents?

        Is there that many landlords evading taxes?

        • Gosman 4.3.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 9:33 am

          If they were already paying the tax then it will have zero impact on anyone. In which case why bother to make changes to the tax system?

          • KJT 4.3.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 9:53 am

            Obviously. They are not paying taxes.

            Yes. Enforcing the current rules would be good. However IRD seems to have little enthusiasm or funding to do so.

            We do need to redirect the tax system to the better off paying more.

            Our collapsing society makes that obvious.

            • Gosman 4.3.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 11:07 am

              Who controls IRD? I thought it was the government.

              • left_forward …
                25 February 2019 at 3:55 pm

                A smart-arse response Gooseman. This was the appropriate moment to acknolwedge KJT for taking the time explain all of this to you.

            • Shadrach 4.3.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2019 at 4:17 pm

              “We do need to redirect the tax system to the better off paying more.”
              Actually, no, we don’t. These ‘better off’ (let’s be more precise and call them high income earners) already pay a disproportionate share of tax. They also are far less of a drain on the taxpayer, being more likely to utilise private education and healthcare. They are less likely to have been welfare beneficiaries, less likely to have required state supported housing etc etc.

              What we need to do is to change the conversation away from how we raise more tax to how we get the government out of our damn lives.

              • woodart …
                25 February 2019 at 5:53 pm

                ;get the government out of our damn lives’…..until the shit hits the fan and then we cant scream for help quick enough eh shadie. sth canterbury finance ring any bells. farmers quickly changed their tune there. typical flexible morals…..

                • Shadrach …
                  25 February 2019 at 6:24 pm

                  I have no time for company’s who have their hand out. Or ex Politicians who commited benefit fraud.

                  • KJT …
                    25 February 2019 at 7:01 pm

                    What about politicians who fiddle their expenses or use their position to advance their business interests.

                    Oh. That’s fine. They were not young brown women.

                    • Shadrach …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:08 pm

                      How do you know I was talking about a young brown woman?

                    • KJT …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:47 pm

                      Because that are the only people ACTiods think can be criminals.

                    • Shadrach …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:51 pm

                      No seriously, what made you think ‘brown’ and ‘women’?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:59 pm

                      That seriously is a tendency you guys have. In the words of someone I don’t quite remember, “it’s not a good look”.

                    • Shadrach …
                      25 February 2019 at 9:12 pm

                      I just wonder why KJT invoked gender and race to define the person he thought I was referring to.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2019 at 9:28 pm

                      He already told you.

                    • Shadrach …
                      26 February 2019 at 10:54 pm

                      No, he didn’t.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2019 at 11:04 pm

                      Yup he did. Right here.

                    • Shadrach …
                      26 February 2019 at 11:33 pm

                      No, that is a projection of his ignorance. He gave no reason for raising gender or race. For example if I was actually referring to a European make, would he have said “white man”?

                      I doubt it.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2019 at 1:27 am

                      But you wouldn’t refer to them as criminals. You’d suck up to them in corporate boxes.

                      You’d never really think of someone who buys $6mil in “liability insurance” as a criminal. To do so would make you exceptional amongst tory trolls, and you’re just not that exceptional.

                    • Shadrach …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:01 am

                      “But you wouldn’t refer to them as criminals. You’d suck up to them in corporate boxes.”

                      No, I wouldn’t. In fact I’ll share something with you. I was once asked to leave a corporate box at Eden Park because I confronted a very wealthy businessman who had twice put his businesses into receivership to avoid paying creditors, only to immediately set up again the following week under a different name. I grew up without privilege and in a home with very little money. I despise dishonesty and sharp practice wherever I see it.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2019 at 1:08 pm

                      It’s where you choose to see it that’s in question.

                    • KJT …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:39 pm

                      Except not paying taxes. Eh?

                  • patricia bremner …
                    26 February 2019 at 10:05 pm

                    What about Directors trading when the business is broke? They took millions. Not a paltry few thousand…. oh but they are blue Right!! Right!! Turei did it to survive. Why did Shipley and c/o do it? Greed?

                    • Shadrach …
                      26 February 2019 at 10:55 pm

                      No, they’re just as bad. A crime is a crime.

                    • KJT …
                      27 February 2019 at 4:42 am

                      So. You don’t see the moral difference between someone who steals millions from greed, and someone who takes a few hundred, when they are desperate.

                      “A crime is a crime”. Except when it is tax dodging. Eh?

                      “The law treats everyone equally. Neither the rich nor the poor, are allowed to sleep under a bridge”.

                      Though, I would have had a bit of sympathy for Shipley. If she hadn’t left such a trial of destruction in office.
                      I suspect, like so many right wing MP’s, her hubris led her in deep beyound her business competence level, and the sharks ate her.

                    • Shadrach …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:03 am

                      “You don’t see the moral difference between someone who steals millions from greed, and someone who takes a few hundred, when they are desperate.”

                      Your trying to suggest there are degrees of wrong doing. Maybe there are. But it’s all wrong. Whatever their gender or race.

                    • KJT …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:09 am

                      So. What do you think of somebody who supports serial child abuse, with policies that blight the lives of 300 000 children, growing up in poverty.

                      A crime is a crime, right!

                    • Shadrach …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:23 am

                      “What do you think of somebody who supports serial child abuse, with policies that blight the lives of 300 000 children, growing up in poverty.”

                      You’d have to give me an example of where and when this actually happened.

                    • KJT …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:38 pm

                      C’mon. Even you can figure that out.

              • KJT …
                25 February 2019 at 6:59 pm

                A total falsehood Shadrach.

                The wealthy use more of almost all of our tax funded services and infrastructure.

                In recent years, they have passed even more of their costs onto the rest of us.

                Even WFF, and rental subsidies, are taken into their pockets in their entirety. Allowing them to underpay wages and overcharge rents.

                Not to mention all the profit from tax funded ‘help the poor’ schemes.

                I don’t have time to list all the subsidies to the rich, from our society.

                So just a few.

                Protecting them from the poor, police time.
                Farm irrigation schemes.
                Staff training.
                Courts.
                Pollution.
                Roads and services to remote mansions.
                Legislation to make them act like decent human beings.
                Patent and intellectual property protection.
                Immigration costs. So they can have cheap labour.
                Roads for trucking firms. (A 50k donation to National well rewarded).

                Until recently I would have conceded private schools, but they have voted themselves a State subsidy for them, as well.

                • Shadrach …
                  25 February 2019 at 8:06 pm

                  Are you seriously suggesting the rich are the only ones using immigrant labour? Or drive on roads? So no-one other than the rich use Courts? Or call on the Police? But here’s the difference – when the rich do use these services, they have paid for them through their taxes. A large number of lower income families pay ZERO net income tax. It is high income earners who are subsidising them. You should be thankful.

                  • KJT …
                    25 February 2019 at 8:39 pm

                    The really wealthy are not paying their taxes.

                    You should be thankful for all those people who are doing useful and necessary work, for less than a living wage.

                    And no, most of us don’t benefit from immigration, we just get to pay the costs.

                    Again you quote income tax. Because the proportions of total, net tax paid are rather different. Most being paid by middle income wage and salary earners.

                    And, why do you think those of us who benefit the most from our tax funded society, shouldn’t pay the most for it?
                    We do with everything else we buy.

                    • Shadrach …
                      25 February 2019 at 8:56 pm

                      “The really wealthy are not paying their taxes.”
                      And your evidence is?

                      “And no, most of us don’t benefit from immigration, we just get to pay the costs.”
                      Geez, a xenophobe as well.

                      “Again you quote income tax.”
                      Well yes, because everyone pays the same rate of GST, and the wealthy most likely pay more GST in $’s because they have either more wealth or more disposable income.

                      “Because the proportions of total, net tax paid are rather different. Most being paid by middle income wage and salary earners.”
                      Yes so you keep saying. You’ve never provided any evidence, but you keep repeating it.

                      “And, why do you think those of us who benefit the most from our tax funded society, shouldn’t pay the most for it?”
                      I don’t. That would be impossible, because the poorer in society are net beneficiaries of income tax and the array of credits available. They simply cannot also be paying for all the services they use. Think decile funding, public schooling, public healthcare, social welfare, housing…

                      Meanwhile:
                      https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/11/the-rich-do-not-pay-the-most-taxes-they-pay-all-the-taxes.html
                      “…when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent”.

                      https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-tax
                      The top 14% of NZ income earners pay 55% of the total income tax take.

                    • KJT …
                      25 February 2019 at 9:22 pm

                      Again with income tax only.
                      Income tax is not all the tax paid. FFS.

                      If you think 100’s of thousands of extra people immigrating and on student scam visa’s is not a cost on our infrastructure, you really do live in cuckoo land. More people added than Germany, or the UK, per capita in the same time span.

                      In New Zealand middle income wage and salary earners pay 60% of all taxes. From the IRD.

                      As for the rest of it, I have provided references many times on this site.

                      But. From the IRD.

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11392100

                      e than $50 million.

                      “According to IRD’s investigation and advice manager Tracey Lloyd, the unit has identified 200 people who met the criteria.

                      Of these 200 people, 93 declared their personal income in the 2013 financial year as less than $70,000 – the point at which one is required pay the top tax rate of 33 cents in the dollar”.

                      Strange how many millionaires have a taxable income, exactly under where the top rate kicks in.

                    • Shadrach …
                      26 February 2019 at 10:58 pm

                      “In New Zealand middle income wage and salary earners pay 60% of all taxes“
                      Again, where is your evidence? Until you post any actual material evidence, you’re just making shit up.

                      BTW, if your IRD quote actually meant anything, you’d be able to post a record of prosecutions, right?

                    • Sam …
                      26 February 2019 at 11:03 pm

                      Economic necessity says that you benefit from society more than others and therefore you are more in debt to society than someone society shits on day in and day out.

                    • Shadrach …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:07 am

                      “Economic necessity says that you benefit from society more than others and therefore you are more in debt to society than someone society shits on day in and day out.”

                      That depends on how you define ‘benefits’. In terms of direct benefit, those on lower incomes benefit far more from tax paying society than those on higher incomes, because they receive far more money directly from that society in the form of welfare etc. Likewise higher income earners are more likely to pay for their family’s education, their healthcare, etc etc, privately.

                    • KJT …
                      27 February 2019 at 10:43 pm

                      https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/26/survival-richest

                      Talking crap again.

                      The rich benefit from the labour of the underpaid, poor.

                      The rich have obviously benefited the most from our tax funded, functioning society.

                      They are fucking, rich!

      • patricia bremner 4.3.2
        25 February 2019 at 1:03 pm

        So improving living standards deserves “The blame game?” Try harder Gossy.

  5. vto 5
    25 February 2019 at 9:11 am

    greed

    selfish

    if there is to be no capital gains tax then neither should there be an income gains tax

    selfish

    greed

  6. Jimmy 6
    25 February 2019 at 9:13 am

    The cost of installing a heat pump will probably be passed on as a rent increase to the tenant, but often tenants wont switch the thing on due to the electricity cost.

    • patricia bremner 6.1
      25 February 2019 at 1:05 pm

      Winter warmth payment $700 from this year.

    • jcuknz 6.2
      26 February 2019 at 9:16 am

      I think it depends of what you want in heating…. Also if you can afford to run it …. I could but decided it was a waste of money and was happy with personal heating rarely more than 800w and in warmer weather just 400w.
      For a couple of months the bill is or approaches what my experiment month cost me but the rest of the year much less. $169 >$80 That is in Dunedin where air cooling not needed in the summer.

  7. Ad 7
    25 February 2019 at 9:14 am

    Collins just got slammed for her interview on RNZ this morning.

    I cannot believe how easily this government is getting through major legislative change designed to tilt the housing market. Such a weak Opposition, and the MSM appear to be siding with the government.

    Twyford is on to a total winner here.

    • jcuknz 7.1
      25 February 2019 at 9:20 am

      Only those without experience of heat pumps will think it a good idea. Been there and mine sits an idle monument to my falling into the trap of the HP lobby. $2500 wasted 🙁

      • KJT 7.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 9:25 am

        We have one. It is excellent.

        Saves a fortune after our previous heaters.

        • cleangreen 7.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 1:53 pm

          KJT,

          We now have the ultimate thermal insulation in our flat using a new woolen underlay under woolen carpeting meaning we have three times the nominal insulation the regs will require.

          NZ industry needs Government assistance to catch up here for supplying this new ‘woolen underlay’ and ‘wool carpeting’.

          In the 1960’s we used to have a “Feltex” woolen underlay before the disastrous 1980’s ‘Rogernomics’ destroyed our local industries here.

          The woolen carpet industry needs to be restarted again and Government buildings must be among the first to be required to use woolen underlay and woolen carpeting to conserve any heating energy systems.

          Another ‘common sense’ policy NZ First had before the last election – by the way;
          – just saying.

      • BM 7.1.2
        25 February 2019 at 9:26 am

        $2500 is cheap for a heat pump, what size area are you trying to heat?

        • jcuknz 7.1.2.1
          26 February 2019 at 9:23 am

          $2500 was for a 5.5kw which was what the floor area indicated byr consumer advice.
          That is about mid price for such heaters and ridiculous for a 45 square metre cottage.
          Personal heating is ‘much more warmer” if only for its immediate area.

      • Grant 7.1.3
        25 February 2019 at 11:12 am

        Oops! Someone didn’t do their research before making a decision.

        • jcuknz 7.1.3.1
          1 March 2019 at 8:06 am

          I went to two firma before buying and bought from a third.
          How much more investigation does one need to do?
          think they were more interested is selling than advising.

          • Grant 7.1.3.1.1
            1 March 2019 at 9:41 am

            When you are looking to invest in something which uses a technology you are not familiar with it is wise to spend some time bringing yourself up to speed with how it works, what its limitations are and how the cheaper end of the market compares to the top end.

            We moved back to my home town of Christchurch just after the earthquakes (yeah, I know..) and were living in a small, cold, uninsulated flat with a cheap, under spec heat pump during a freakish snow dump that had us living in very cold conditions for over a week. The heat pump was utterly useless, produced a tepid draft for ten minutes then shut down for de-icing and we had to go and buy some cheap radiant heaters to make the place liveable. The power bill for the month was over $500 due entirely to this weather event and the lack of efficient heating and insulation. This experience served to concentrate my mind on the subject of heat-pumps when it came to buying one for our new house which was being built during our first winter in the cold hovel mentioned above.

            The one I eventually chose was a Mitsubishi Electric hyper-core 6kw. The difference was immense. Where the first heat pump simply stopped working in low temperatures the new one was capable of performing to maximum heat output right down to -15 deg C. with no loss of efficiency at all. We had another (lesser) snow storm the following winter and had no problem heating the house in sub-zero temperatures for 3-4 days. The Mitsi wasn’t cheap, but it performs really well in all conditions and hasn’t missed a beat in seven years (touch wood).

            There is a thing called the internet which helps with research and the various manufacturers also have web-sites containing specs and explanations of how their products work. It’s not that hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

      • patricia bremner 7.1.4
        25 February 2019 at 1:08 pm

        Why has it not worked for you.? Not large enough for the space? Temperatures too low in winter? You need to explain, as for most with the correct type installed properly they are efficient cheap heating.

      • lprent 7.1.5
        25 February 2019 at 10:28 pm

        Personally I’m in love with good insulation. Admittably I live in Auckland. But for most of the last 20 years I was in an apartment where I use a smaller oiled filled heater for about 5 days per year even when I was working from home.

        Thought it was because I was ground floor in a three story apartment.

        But when my partner joined the propertied class and dragged me into her third story apartment in the same block. I moved into an apartment with a roof, a 12 ft high interior, and 3 external walls. It is on a ridge line heavily exposed the wind.

        Still the same 5 days per year of using the same heater. Right now it is 24.6C inside, ~14C outside, and the only heating is The Standard idling drawing about 20W. And we have the ranch slider partially open for the kitten to access the balcony.

        Insulation…. If the landlords want to reduce the heating unit, then all they have to do is insulate properly, and maybe run a blog… 😉

  8. Reality 8
    25 February 2019 at 9:25 am

    And of course if these same impoverished landlords get cancer and want the latest drugs they will demand Pharmac’s budget be increased. They will want the new waterfront stadium in Auckland and good roads and transport to get to the yachting. Their greed and selfishness is mind boggling. They should be ashamed that they want high rents for their sub-standard rentals.

  9. Booker 9
    25 February 2019 at 9:30 am

    First of all, genuine question, I don’t get how this different from the insulation requirements coming in on 1 July: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/insulation/

    Basically from 2021 the addition is a heat pump (if not already present) and extraction fans, which are dirt cheap?

    I remember in the first house I owned, a 130 yr old villa (bought with 100% finance via the government Welcome Home loan scheme) when I moved in there was no insulation at all. I eventually got the money together to put R2.6 batts in the ceiling, installing it myself as it’s simple and the cheapest option. That was below the minimum building standard of R3.6 in the ceiling but the difference was huge. Likewise when I ended up ripping the gib off a bedroom and putting insulation in the walls (with consent), again, a noticeable step up. The cost of batts has fallen considerably since then.

    Now my circumstances have changed and last year my partner and I bought a rental property. A few people mentioned to me “ooh things are going to be tougher with new insulation requirements coming in”, so I looked it up and the requirement is just to meet the *minimum* building standard for ceiling and underfloor, and only if it’s reasonable to get access to do it. Hardly onerous and we planned on doing that anyway as we don’t want to be slum landlords. Couldn’t believe people were raising it as an issue. Our insulation standards are also far below that of other OECD countries.

    • Kay 9.1
      25 February 2019 at 9:57 am

      @Booker, I’m trying to see the problem too, unless a rental is really below par to start with, it’s not much more than what’s meant to be in place by July this year anyway?

      The house (converted to 2 flats) I live in is from about 1910, only the ceiling can be insulated, and it’s got a formal exemption from anywhere else because it’s physically impossible to do so, like I imagine a lot of the really old houses around. But I really noticed the difference with even the ceiling insulation added. Better still was the work done to seal up wonky doors and windows as much as possible to minimise drafts, not easy in Wgtn, but the new owners were great about getting it done.

      While the kitchen has an extractor fan the bathroom doesn’t and that’s never been a problem for me (open a window) and my biggest concern is anything that will involve new powerpoints is going to be a massive exercise to rewire the place. There’s bugger all power points here anyway and I’ve had to set up an elaborate system to safely have everything plugged in. A heat pump would also be a nightmare. So what happens in situations like that? I’m on the landlord’s side for being reluctant to do that work. I also see ANY compulsary heating having to be done in tandem with reducing electricity prices or, like others have said, it’s a pointless exercise for many.

      Oh, and in the 3 years since the new owner bought this place (i was lucky enough to keep the tenancy)- they’ve already made $200,000 Capital Gains, tax free of course. That’s Wellington prices for you. Or should I say land prices… But I don’t want them to sell just yet because I don’t want to be homeless.

      • patricia bremner 9.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 1:18 pm

        Kay you will probably get the$700 winter warmth payment over winter. The landlord might have to rewire to up grade. That would be capital outlay which I believe can be claimed as a cost, and would add to the value of the property.
        A heat pump like a stove has to be wired in, so it may not be the difficulty you think. Cheers

        • Kay 9.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 1:34 pm

          Good to know Patricia. I won’t even pretend to know anything about wiring houses and the rest 🙂
          re the winter energy payment- yes I do get it but something that isn’t being talked about is the very real possibility that the next time the government changes- and it will eventually- the very first thing a Natz govt will do is attack beneficiaries and it’s safe to assume that grant will be cut. Not necesesarily for pensioners (too hard politically by then) but their constituents aren’t going to care about the rest of us freezing are they? So that grant has to be enshrined into legislation so it can’t be touched but I can’t see that happening 🙁

        • veutoviper 9.1.1.2
          25 February 2019 at 2:35 pm

          Just a bit of clarification on the winter energy payment, not everyone gets the $700 as there are two levels of payment;

          $31.82 per week for couples with no dependent children on benefits, NZ Super, veteran Pension; and for people (single or couples) with a dependent child/children

          $20.46 per week for singles on benefits, NZ Super, Veteran Pension with no dependent children

          So over the five months it will apply in 2019 (1 May to 30 Sept) this totals:

          — about $689.43 at $31.82

          — about $443.30 at $20.46

      • jcuknz 9.1.2
        26 February 2019 at 9:47 am

        When I built my house I used recycles windows … wooden framed … so it was easy to add 3mm acrylic on simple wooden frames. I first did my main living area and from a gas fire went to a small heater. It was wonderful … so as finance made it possible I double glazed the rest of the small house. Opening windows the plastic screwed onto the working window frames while the 2 inch [40mm in real life] wooden frames were for fixed windows. 3mm acrylic is not cheap but improvement to life style tremendous. 🙂
        Earlier for the family home [ also home built with help from wife] I used double glass and being next to a main road the front ‘gap’ was about 100mm and this also cut down traffic noise to just a murmur.
        Recovering from a quad heart op I luxuriated in the warmth when the sun shone.

        So been there done it and insulation is great …Heat pumps questionable 🙂

        What I did is AOK for a home owner but probably wouldn’t work for a rental property so I see the solution as being for more, many more basic state housing. Not the palaces that some want built. “Need” not desire 🙂

    • Sabine 9.2
      25 February 2019 at 12:19 pm

      That is pretty much where i am.
      One old house with a new roof and insulation, the roof had to be done anyways so the insulation was not an extra hardship, it was an improvement.
      The next step is gas for water as i am really over the line charges we are having to pay with water being one of hte highest users.
      Next will be the bedroom getting done up and like you once the walls are open they will be insulated before closing up. Its kind of a logical thing to do.

      I can’t believe that the supporters of hte NO mates Party insist in not doing anything. Full stop. No future proofing, no energy saving, no investment, no milk the cow until she drops dead. That is literally the only business motto they subscribe too. And they only seem to be able to make money when they have enough desperate people to rent their hovels from them. So they create poverty, misery, illness, homelessness and social unrest. Cause they benefit from it. So they insist in doing nothing to alleviate the problems they created in the first place by refusing to invest in their country, their people, their housing stock, their job market etc.

      • ianmac 9.2.1
        25 February 2019 at 12:53 pm

        “i am really over the line charges we are having to pay with water being one of
        highest users.”
        Having solar water heaters on the roof is a big saving on energy costs. The modern panels are very light and no longer need a consent. Pays for itself pretty quickly.

        • Sabine 9.2.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 1:36 pm

          yep. looking into this also, essentially insulation, double glazing, heat pump/fire place, plumbing befitting the 21st century. One thing at a time.

          the scary bit for me really is that i could rent this property as it is. and i could charge good money for rent. Despite the fact that the house is old, lacking in wall insulation, decent electrics/plumbing and such. But i could rent this place because there is a rental shortage, and if i were to set the rent high enough i too could profit from the accommodation supplement.

          It is actually a very sick system, where those that do the least get the biggest rewards.

    • ianmac 9.3
      25 February 2019 at 12:49 pm

      Well said Booker. Do it yourself. Not hard.
      The presence of downlights I found were a serious curse as the heat generated in a room wafted straight out through the ceiling. And it is a big loss. I replaced every cursed downlight with LEDs which block the heat loss and allow batts over the fittings.

  10. Drowsy M. Kram 10
    25 February 2019 at 9:33 am

    How to increase one’s wealth? Apparently the wealthy/rich don’t see themselves as wealthy/rich for the purposes of a capital gains tax.

    “Because they loved money for than anything in the world.“

  11. Jess NZ 11
    25 February 2019 at 9:52 am

    Has this already been posted??

    ‘”However the supply of housing in New Zealand is very constrained.

    “In a constrained market, where housing supply is unresponsive to changes in demand, theory suggests that extending capital gains taxation will have less impact on rents than would otherwise be the case and more of an effect in moderating prices.”‘

    https://www.interest.co.nz/property/98265/capital-gains-tax-would-alter-rental-property-landscape-pushing-down-prices-and

  12. indiana 12
    25 February 2019 at 10:41 am

    As opposed to increasing rents, I propose that the following conditions be added to new tenancies:
    1. The tenant must provide evidence that extractor fans are being used to ensure they do not create an environment that would allow mold to grow.
    2. The tenant must provide data to prove that they have not allowed the temperature in any occupied room to fall below 18 degrees Celsius on average per day.
    3. The tenant must report damage to any door sensors that are reported as being open for more than acceptable.
    4. Any other draconian conditions as acceptable to remove any liability from the landlord from telling you how to live your life as a responsible citizen.

    • Sabine 12.1
      25 February 2019 at 1:43 pm

      1. is an extractor fan fitted – does it work, is it strong enough to keep the house / flat mold free? Do you have one in bathroom and kitchen? Does it cope with the hygiene needs of a 4 – 5 head family, or the cooking requirements?
      2. is a heating source that is strong enough to keep the temperature in every occupied room at 18 degrees (which at the best is the temperature advised for sleeping, for waking time the temp should be more around 20 degree) provided by the landlord as stipulated by law?
      3. Are all doors fitted with sensor so that the tenant would be able to report on doors open for any more then acceptable. Please provide the amount of time a door can be open at any given time that is deemed acceptable?

      Cause i guess that is the crux of the matter? Innit? If houses / flats etc were properly equipped for the 21st century rather then us building houses that were not even fit for the 18 century we would not have this discussion?

      I mean i have seen houses build in 1700 were the windows are ‘triple glazed’ by superimposing individual frames and thus, voila…..energy savings.

      And this is what this debate should be about. Not about rich white men whinging at their paid job how poor they are and how desperately they would like to go ahead, but about future proofing health and well being by bringing properties up to scratch and at the same time reduce the need for cooling/heating said dwellings. Maybe MR. Richards and the other bloke should be forced to live in the worst rental they own and rent for say 4 month over winter with the wife and kids.

      • RedLogix 12.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 7:10 pm

        Maybe MR. Richards and the other bloke should be forced to live in the worst rental they own

        Funny you should say this; it’s exactly what we did for five years.

        • Sabine 12.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 8:07 pm

          i lived in my house after moving from AKL for a year, and this is why this house is not currently on the rental market.
          I would not want to subject some poor people to the living condition. And as i stated, i could rent it. But frankly its not fit, especially not for small kids. Not at the moment anyways.

          but these guys, maybe they need a wake up call the poor things.

          • RedLogix 12.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2019 at 8:42 pm

            It was in no fit state to rent, so we camped in it for a year while I did it up. One winter’s morning I got up to find a glass of water on the kitchen bench frozen solid. So much for 18C 🙂

            Then we used it as a base to work on the others around it. Over time they all got fully insulated, re-wired, heat pumps and new fireplaces. I’ve met many investor/landlords like ourselves who’ve put a great deal of personal effort into their units over time.

            I guess my point here is that not all landlords are the same. I really don’t have much time for the pure speculator types who’ve worked the system to accumulate portfolio’s of 50 or more units, yet even then we met one who focused on the Panmure area who ran his business to a very high standard in every respect. His properties were in very high demand and his vacancy rate was effectively zero. It was a full-time business for him, looking after maintenance, finance, tenant issues and planning. He was also very pro-active with his tenants, and had little compunction about dealing with people who fell short on their obligations.

            At the same time we’ve encountered some appalling bastard slumlords who really do need to either lift their game or leave the business.

            Overall I’m supportive of these legislative changes, although in some instances there will be unintended consequences. As a few people have already indicated, as the very bottom end of the private market gets closed down … inevitably the ‘low quality’ tenants who typically gravitated to them, will be forced into the public sector.

            • Sabine 12.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2019 at 9:52 pm

              the point is not that all landlords are bad, imho, the point is that a few with many rentals often do a lot of damage. I have had some really good landlords, and i had some really bad ones, funnily enough the bad ones usually were ‘acting landlords’ i.e. rental manager.
              But the fact remains that while i consider my house unrentable it is legally fit to do so. And that is the issue. There are a lot that don’t have the scruples you and I may have. These are the ones that threaten us – society – with rent increases during a housing crisis – should we demand better of us. And that really is an issue.

    • patricia bremner 12.2
      25 February 2019 at 5:21 pm

      Following laws to provide rentals fit to live in is not telling anyone how to live, any more than road rules tell you how you may drive.

      Your tenancy agreement can have a section about use of the heat pump (no unflued gas heaters allowed) and use of the extractor fan when cooking in the kitchen , or showering in the bathroom. Just as you negotiate lawn and garden care, this is part of the agreement both the landlord and tenant sign.

      There is no new liability, except the heating has to warm a room to 18 deg at least.
      The area to be heated should be matched to a good sized heat pump which does not have to strain. Any installer can inspect your place and suggest 2 or 3 types and sizes to suit where it is to be placed and the requirements to be met.

      Ours is large for the space, and is cheap to run as a cooling or heating system. As it was explained to me.. “You do not want a small engine trying to pull a large load”

      We also have a small modern log burner, as temperatures get below 8deg. in Rotorua, and that is used then.. about 30 days a winter. We get thermally dried wood which is brilliant. Clean, can be stored in the sun room in bags, and it gives off hardly any smoke. Best of both worlds.

      Our house sitters said they were snug, and they had returned from Sydney to live near family and aging parents. Our 6 month sit allowed them to buy a “Do-up” which they renovated. They also put in a burner and a heat pump they so enjoyed having the choice.

  13. Siobhan 13
    25 February 2019 at 10:51 am

    Now then, I think we can all spare a thought for ‘Stop the War on Tenancies’ spokesperson Mike Butler on RNZ this morning.
    Mike felt the need to point out there was no ‘legitimate’ scientific, world wide standard for minimum temperature for housing.
    That according to some survey only 2% of renters are cold, and that some people like it cooler.
    In fact he himself likes it cooler, …but, and here’s the rub… that poor old Mike has to endure the heat pumped out by a woodburner some sadist (possibly himself) has imposed upon him in his own house..

    My advise to Mike? Put one of your tenants into your house and move your own family into the unheated rental with its outdated insulation. Problem solved.

  14. Herodotus 14
    25 February 2019 at 11:19 am

    The justification is that too many kids are getting sick because of sub standard conditions:
    Apologies for a slight detour – my partner teachers at a school where during last winter some day the temp on her room did not exceed 8 degrees, I hope that these potential requirements will also be extended to schools, as these same kids spend 6 hours in these class rooms. And from other schools that have been taught at, this is not an isolated case.
    But good to see some requirements, last question why 18degrees ?what is magic with this temp. ? I would have thought about 15 as still a warm comfortable temp.

    • ianmac 14.1
      25 February 2019 at 12:56 pm

      Classrooms were not allowed to fall below 16degrees. Wonder where that rule went?

      • Herodotus 14.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 1:22 pm

        Perhaps not being monitored as like Heath Boards, Schools capital budgets have been under pressure. Local schools here have leaky building that were to be remedied a few years ago- Still there sucking up water. If we cannot have the priority to remedy leaking how would a “cold” class room be on any schedule to be fixed ?? These classrooms are poorly located in cold dark areas of the school and are those 1980’s “clumps of 2 prefabs. Not sure what those 1950-60’s brick and “tons” of glass facing the front that used the old boiler system to heat are like these days.

    • patricia bremner 14.2
      25 February 2019 at 1:28 pm

      Some temporary classrooms are not up to standard “Prefabs”. The usual classroom was 16 deg. The heating was often turned off at 11 am to save money!! Within an hour the temperature could drop on bleak days. Jackets and coats on!! Been there!!

    • BM 14.3
      25 February 2019 at 1:33 pm

      The World Health Organization recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18°C, and ideally 21°C if babies or elderly people live in the house.

      https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/06/18/cold-houses-and-impact-on-health/

      • Herodotus 14.3.1
        25 February 2019 at 3:17 pm

        I see that it is not just the temp. Of 18 degrees but that the temp AND dampness are factors, I wonder if dampness was not a factor if the recommended temp would still be 18 or if a lower temp would then suffice
        This is because cold houses are also usually damp, which can lead to respiratory symptoms.

  15. Peter 15
    25 February 2019 at 11:22 am

    My heart bleeds for Mark Richardson. My image of him “trying desperately to get ahead” has him getting his own head further up his own arse.

  16. ankerawsharkP 16
    25 February 2019 at 12:16 pm

    Who the hell are these landlords. As I have posted many times on here, I let out my house when I moved cities and it was possible I would want to move back to the city (Auckland) if the move didn’t work out.

    During that time I put in insulation (insulfluff, was badly advised about this, but it did help), installed a dvs to cope with damp and then when it was obvious the insulfluff wasn’t doing the job installed ceiling and flooring insulation. The house was better than when I lived in it, but I saw it as my duty to provide a good product to people who were paying me money to live there. I still made a profit on the rent (I was at one stage told I could have been charging an extra 100.00 when Ak prices started to go through the roof (Key govt). But I didn’t. I felt I was benefiting financially for very little effort on my behalf already.

    All this BS about hard work etc, owning a rental property is just that, ie. BS. It is one of the easiest ways to make money (for me it helped pay off my mortgage).

    If these bleeting pricks can’t make a profit on their rentals, then get out of the fing market. But of course its not about making a profit, its about fleecing the life out of people who need a roof over their heads. I hold people such as Richardson in contempt. Shame on you Mark and all of your elk

    • Red Blooded One 16.1
      25 February 2019 at 1:28 pm

      Hear hear !!

    • Anne 16.2
      25 February 2019 at 8:21 pm

      Have a little story I think you might enjoy ankerawsharkP. (where did the P come from btw? 🙂 )

      A sibling of mine and her spouse invested in a small but very nice apartment back in the 1990s. Not long afterwards they shifted to Australia and I agreed to act as proxy landlady in their absence. It soon became apparent there was a moisture problem so I purchased a dehumidifier for the tenants. It wasn’t enough and they moved out. From thereon tenants came and went at an ever increasing rate and I warned the owners there was a major problem brewing and they had better cough up the dough to rectify it. Sibling and partner had the same attitude as ‘Mr Richardson’ and refused to spend the money. I eventually discovered there was no insulation of any sort and this was the basic problem. Still no effort to rectify the situation.

      Finally, one dark and very stormy night part of the tiled roof caved in – weakened after years of moisture in the ceiling structure. They had to spend many thousands getting the property back up to scratch.

      If they had listened to me and spent a couple of grand on insulation, none of it would have happened. I confess I had no sympathy for them.

  17. cleangreen 17
    25 February 2019 at 2:06 pm

    A word to the wise here;

    Use new woolen underlay and wool carpeting, it gives three times the thermal insulation that the regs request and plastic (nylon 6) carpeting is useless to save heat and dangerous to your health.

    http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/03/22/the-toxic-dangers-of-carpetingare-the-carpets-in-your-home-or-office-a-health-hazard.htm

    Wool will save you heaps in heating costs as we did this and it keeps the flat so warm and uses far less heat to stay warm.

    Please read this; – Government and the Minister of housing Phil Twyford; – as the woolen industry needs a kick start to get the industry back on its feet again to get our ‘healthy homes’ back again.

    • Gosman 17.1
      25 February 2019 at 2:08 pm

      Can’t wait for rents to skyrocket as a result of that idea…

      • ankerawsharkP 17.1.1
        25 February 2019 at 3:20 pm

        Gosman that’ only because your greedy mates aren;t willing to do what it takes to provide a good product…………..Anyway think of the tax saving, if its all about the money. All those hospital and Dr’s visits that will be saved on.

        As for the “they’ll all go to AirBNB” arguement. They will have to spend a lot of money getting their properties up to standard. No one who uses Air BNB will put up with the crap that many tennants have to.

        • Bewildered 17.1.1.1
          25 February 2019 at 7:12 pm

          All good, if big savings as a result of positive externalities the government should pay for your wooly idea not the land lord

    • patricia bremner 17.2
      25 February 2019 at 5:38 pm

      cleangreen, you are so RIGHT about wool. Wool underlay felted and loop piled wool carpet may be dearer than the nylon stuff, but you can’t beat it for warmth and wear. It is reasonably fire resistant, where nylon carpet ignites very easily.
      A bit off topic but…

      Also buying drapes with wool in the cloth is a sure way to keep warmth in. A friend bought some grey wool army blankets from a store and used them to line the drapes for her boys bedrooms. The blankets acted as excellent insulation.

      She also covered their bean bags with removable covers made from wool rugs, and made what she called a sitting sock for the boys. Just a blanket folded and sewn on 2 sides which they hopped into to watch tele or do homework. Snugs I think they are called now. A great gift idea. Cheers.

  18. cleangreen 18
    25 February 2019 at 2:37 pm

    Here is just one location you can find a half inch woolen underlay.

    https://underlay.co.nz/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyc2qjNrV4AIVTo2PCh2Z-gTQEAAYAyAAEgIKB_D_BwE

    I may now consider sending a submission to the Government requesting that the ‘woolen carpets with woollen underlay’ be included in the ‘healthy homes insulation subsidy package’.

    Apparently as of now This new government only gives us subsidy to use nylon/plastic insulation, carpeting, and nylon underfloor insulation companies since 2010 under the last National Government.

    Now that is plain stupid; – as we are now quickly moving to ‘ban use of more plastic, nylon’ in our environment today!!!

    So it makes perfect sense using natural woolen fibre now!!!!

    And also it will support our farmers too, and produce many more jobs. A win-win situation here.

    Jacinda – “Lets do this”

    https://underlay.co.nz/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyc2qjNrV4AIVTo2PCh2Z-gTQEAAYAyAAEgIKB_D_BwE

  19. Booker 19
    25 February 2019 at 3:49 pm

    I see this just out today too: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/383318/poor-housing-conditions-costing-taxpayers-more-than-145m

    I don’t know if the government were involved in the timing of this release, but if they were – well played. It leaves a 24 hr news cycle for the nay-sayers to whine about increased costs etc and then shows the general public are the ones really footing the bill, as well as keeping it in the news. Cue National party saying the research is BS and done by “left wing academics”.

    If only there were an organization that would stand up and protest about this waste of taxpayers money…

  20. David Mac 20
    25 February 2019 at 7:33 pm

    I cross paths with 100’s of rental properties. They are by and large owned by very ordinary couples that chose not to leave their retirement to the machinations of AMP. They own one property, drive 10 year old Camrys, buy their clothes at Farmers and shop at Pak n’ Save.

    My concern is a deepening groundswell of these typical owners arriving at “Geeez, this has all got a bit too hard.” A mass bailing out will be fabulous for first home wannabees, dire for that ever growing group that struggle to get a tenancy bond together.

    I think the list of those that qualify for State Housing has risen because with diminishing rentals available, available rentals in NZ have been trending down for several years, landlords with half of their tenancy applications from non smoking, no pet, employed couples…the tail gets longer.

    • Muttonbird 20.1
      25 February 2019 at 10:10 pm

      And approximately 6000 whole house/apartment Airbnb listings in Auckland alone.

      Thats a lot of families shut out.

      6000 of them in fact.

  21. David Mac 21
    25 February 2019 at 8:54 pm

    I think the coaltion should be looking for ways they can throw landlords a bone whilst losing little.

    A twist on the subsidised insulation initiative.

    How about a politician cuts a deal with a heat pump manufacturer. ‘How much per unit if we take 50,000?’

    Final year students studying air-cond/refrig could be given a leg up into their own businesses installing and servicing them.

    Most of it will be business that the established players aren’t missing out on, the govt initiative prompts the activity.

    Trickle it on down.

    • Muttonbird 21.1
      25 February 2019 at 10:18 pm

      The healthy homes scheme offered landlords 50% funding for low income tenants but some still dragged their feet and now they are up for a $4000 fine as well has having to meet the requirements in an environment where the operators will be increasing the rates.

      https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/property/87596161/sst–fines-grants-for-landlords-approaching-insulation-deadline

      • SHG 21.1.1
        26 February 2019 at 5:41 pm

        So sensible course of action if you’re a landlord: throw your low-income tenants out, lock the door, save the money you’d otherwise have had to spend on healthy-home renovations, avoid the $4000 fine, and watch the value of your property continue to rise.

        That doesn’t help anyone.

    • cleangreen 21.2
      26 February 2019 at 12:19 pm

      David Mac,

      My proposal to throw landlords a bone.

      I would be in favour of a ‘Capital Gains tax’ if it funds this option I propose for saving our planet from Climate change;

      It would be more productive and environmentally sustainable for Government to offer better options for property owners to get these subsidies to make all properties more healthy.

      *For better insulation like using wool underlay and wool carpeting.

      *Double glazing of windows.

      *This would also stimulate more jobs.

      *Also sheep farmer incomes would rise and assist them to cope with lowering ‘climate change emissions’.

      *These improvements would effectively be helping to slow Climate change and will slow the rate of increasing dampness, rain and extreme weather event that cause more dampness and mould in homes.

      “Good laid plans make for far better outcomes”

  22. ScottGN 22
    25 February 2019 at 10:13 pm

    The National Party and their Landlord mates might want to stop with the dramatics and count themselves lucky they’ve only got Twyford and his relatively vanilla solutions to the housing crisis to deal with, things could get much worse for them as evidenced by the public support in Berlin for measures to deal with their developing housing crisis like renationalising the city’s housing stock, imposing a 5 year rent freeze and limiting the number of homes corporate landlord can own.

    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/02/berlin-germany-housing-rent-how-much-price-landlord-policies/582898/

  23. Incognito 23
    25 February 2019 at 10:35 pm

    Mark Richardson’s basic maths may be quite accurate. $15 per week taxed at the company rate for an LTC of 28% leaves a net sum of close to $575 for a whole year.