sharetrader
Page 143 of 697 FirstFirst ... 4393133139140141142143144145146147153193243643 ... LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,430 of 6963
  1. #1421
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Agree. A countries home ownership rate is not a measure of its success or of the benefits of living there.

    Switzerland has a home ownership rate of 43.4%
    Germany 51.9%
    New Zealand 64.8%
    India 86.6%
    China 90%
    Romania has a home ownership rate of 96.4%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ownership_rate

    In what countries would you rather live?
    https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/housing.html
    https://www.dw.com/en/homeless-in-ge...o-pay-41848829

    Quoting a few figures from Wikipedia doesn't really give a true picture of the situation in any country.
    On the face of the above Germany may not be a very desirable place to reside. Singapore also has a very high rate of home ownership but like Germany is highly regulated.
    Auckland with it's harbour and other attractions is obviously considered by many as a good place to live. To get people to move to the more colder less populated areas would be difficult.
    With modern communications it would be relatively easy to spread Government Depts. around the regions which would boost the local economies and may create a flow on effect.
    Cannot see it happening though.

    westerly
    Last edited by westerly; 16-08-2018 at 07:10 PM. Reason: url

  2. #1422
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Those from a command and control background think (because that is their life experience) that everything they say is real, true and noble, because they once had authority to over-rule any dissension, and that those who disagree with them can be dismissed by rank or wilful ignorance expressed as absolute facts. The ever diminishing circle of inane dialogue only ends up with at best, reluctant agreement to disagree, but more commonly incessant repetitive argument supported by dubious sources, eventually culminating in ghosting.
    All of which is a distraction form the original proposition: DOES WFF aid or hinder productivity. I have yet to see an argument supporting WFF as a positive productivity lever.

    What WFF has achieved is turning even more people into Government Beneficiaries.

    And while on the subject of Beneficiaries, seems 0.02% of oldies (and Bennies) have declined the opportunity to suck further on the teat by opting out of their free $700 Do Whatever You Like With It govt hand out. I wonder If Winston has opted out - I suspect he hasn't a clue he is even getting it. You cant expect sensible discussions on productivity when the Govt has no idea how it is biffing out our hard earned cash

  3. #1423
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Those from a command and control background think (because that is their life experience) that everything they say is real, true and noble, because they once had authority to over-rule any dissension, and that those who disagree with them can be dismissed by rank or wilful ignorance expressed as absolute facts. The ever diminishing circle of inane dialogue only ends up with at best, reluctant agreement to disagree, but more commonly incessant repetitive argument supported by dubious sources, eventually culminating in ghosting.

    Also occupies people short of ideas to fill their with the time.

    Lets have a kitkat and look at this innovative partnerships program with the NZ govt, a logical next step in transportation a self driven all electric plane/helicopter/Drone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeFxjRMv5U8

  4. #1424
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    Also occupies people short of ideas to fill their with the time.

    Lets have a kitkat and look at this innovative partnerships program with the NZ govt, a logical next step in transportation a self driven all electric plane/helicopter/Drone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeFxjRMv5U8
    Granted its cool. So was Martins JetPAck.

    But I cant quite see if its home country wouldn't provide funding support why would the NZ taxpayer?

  5. #1425
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,698

    Default

    We are shifting away from a inflated price housing mkt and immigration dependence to innovation and new ideas to export with our commodities.

    ps i thought the martin jetpack was a grotesque joke promoted by a full blown narcissist but thats just my opinion.
    Last edited by Joshuatree; 16-08-2018 at 07:43 PM.

  6. #1426
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    We are shifting away from a inflated price housing mkt
    At present that seems to be simple market forces. Lets put aside the suppression of our ability to find innovative sales solutions to our private property sales by banning foreign buyers
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    and immigration dependence
    To get work these foreigners need to show there are no skilled or trainable NZ'ers. Other than the ones on Student Visas - coming from one of our largest export industries.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    to innovation and new ideas to export with our commodities.
    I might have missed them but where are the R&D tax breaks are innovative incubator grants - other than to US companies

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshuatree View Post
    ps i thought the martin jetpack was a grotesque joke promoted by a full blown narcissist but thats just my opinion.
    No disagreement from me there

  7. #1427
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    I just said that high home ownership rate is not necessarily something desirable and the provided stats does support this.
    The policies and environment in each country do vary. In Germany I believe the banks require large deposits so that means there has been less leveraged capital gains for owners. German banks presumably have therefore lent a greater percentage of their loan book to business.

    In NZ owner occupation and private investment in rental housing has been tax effective and beneficial providing a greater leveraged tax-free capital gains for those who can afford to be owners.

    Re tax - efficiency: I don't know the Swiss tax rules, but your first owner occupied home in Germany (with a lower home ownership - rate than NZ) is much more tax efficient than a house in NZ ever will be - in Germany you can even write off parts of your purchase price from your other income.
    I believe property tax is based on value and can be 2% or more of the house value in big cities. Is that correct?

    ... On the other hand - most of the tenants in Germany or Switzerland would look anyway much better after their rental property than they would do here.

    Some things go both ways - and I don't think its all about laws, this is about culture and respect for other peoples property.
    Post-war I think there was a big push to quickly replace and provide housing. Both private and public housing was built with help from the German government. There was not the same stigma as in NZ attached to renting. With rent control and other tenancy protections and rights many people were happy to continue to remain as renters. In NZ those who could afford to buy could access the leveraged capital gains and greater security and not be beholden to unregulated rents and a looser rental market.

  8. #1428
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    The policies and environment in each country do vary. In Germany I believe the banks require large deposits so that means there has been less leveraged capital gains for owners. German banks presumably have therefore lent a greater percentage of their loan book to business.

    In NZ owner occupation and private investment in rental housing has been tax effective and beneficial providing a greater leveraged tax-free capital gains for those who can afford to be owners.

    I believe property tax is based on value and can be 2% or more of the house value in big cities. Is that correct?

    Post-war I think there was a big push to quickly replace and provide housing. Both private and public housing was built with help from the German government. There was not the same stigma as in NZ attached to renting. With rent control and other tenancy protections and rights many people were happy to continue to remain as renters. In NZ those who could afford to buy could access the leveraged capital gains and greater security and not be beholden to unregulated rents and a looser rental market.
    Not sure where this is supposed to lead ... absolutely - things are different in different countries. Still does not mean that a high home ownership rate is good or desirable in itself.

    Your information re "property tax" in Germany is wrong. First - it is no "property tax", but a tax on real estate (comparable to the NZ rates). The way it is calculated is admittedly quite complicated and not fair to home owners depending on where they live. It is calculated based on the value of the property in 1964 (if the property is in the Western parts of Germany or 1935 if its in the East) and this number is multiplied by a factor defined by the district / town and another defined by the country. However - even in one example where this tax is considered as very high (check attached link, just brush up your German) would it be an annual rate of Euro 456 for a property which in 1964 would have had a value of Euro 40.000 (and which now might be worth Euro 200.000 or more).

    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtscha...land-1.3942988

    I.e. even if people live in areas where the rate is considered to be really expensive it is unlikely to be much more than 0.2% of the current property value per year (or one percent of the 1964 value) - not two percent of present value.

    But we better talk about the performance of the current NZ government and New Zealand (as per thread title) ... and lets face it - they promised to build plenty of houses and solve the housing crisis they talked up, but so far I don't see them delivering. Killing the construction industry, increasing everybody's wages (significant part of building costs) and diverting with all their xenophobic measures suitable construction workers as well as investors to other countries is hardly a constructive contribution to solve the problem. Most immigrants got by now that NZ under this government is not the right choice for them and vote with their feet, even if immigration service might still stamp that phrase "NZ the right choice" onto their more and more expensive visas.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  9. #1429
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Not sure where this is supposed to lead ... absolutely - things are different in different countries. Still does not mean that a high home ownership rate is good or desirable in itself....
    I agree it is not in itself desirable. However in NZ Home ownership is desirable as for many decades it has been the de facto retirement plan for those who have been able to afford to own real estate. The poorer have been increasingly shut out of home ownership. Until the modest pension scheme that is kiwisaver there was little to match the tax effective returns as could be earned from leveraged home ownership and investment property ownership. So to make home ownership less desirable would necessitate policy changes in several areas.

    It takes a while to tackle the problem of a failing housing and accommodation market (especially in Auckland) that is the result of inaction by previous National and Labour governments. With a housing market open to overseas investors and with Auckland's population suging, there have been winners and losers. There are landowners who have had windfall capital gains as a result; younger and poorer Aucklanders have increasingly been shut out of home ownership - resulting in many having to remain tied to Aucklands rental market with NZ rental conditions.

    The non-resident foreign buyer ban is a first step. When the housing and accommodation markets have been sorted out for residents, the ban on purchasing existing housing stock could be lifted by a future goernment. Australia has restrictions on non-resident purchases of existing residences. British Columbia currently has a non-resident purchase tax I believe. Some Asian countries have non-resident restrictions too.

    The Housing market, international comparisons and the current government's approach I think are pertinent to this thread.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 18-08-2018 at 06:22 PM.

  10. #1430
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    ..... Until the modest pension scheme that is kiwisaver there was little to match the tax effective returns as could be earned from leveraged home ownership and investment property ownership. So to make home ownership less desirable would necessitate policy changes in several areas.....
    You may like to mention this to IRD as they seem to think that property investment does not have a tax advantage over other investments. Well so they have said numerous times.

    In fact residential rental property is actually disadvantaged compared to other investments, including commercial property, since building depreciation was removed as an expense.

    And no good saying, well, leveraged. Plenty of leveraged investments around that are not property based.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •