sharetrader
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 187
  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Yep. Materials/build/admin/consent fees (same) vs land (different in price) across the regions.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 07-06-2021 at 05:21 PM.

  2. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    715

    Default

    The crown, the rightful & elected representative of the people (rather than Iwi) should release a bit more but its about expanding out from the city and there should be land in other places which is affordable.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 04-06-2021 at 04:16 PM.

  3. #163
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peetter View Post
    I assumed we're talking about build cost on top of the land.
    Yes. In 2009 build cost on my cousin's house (avg spec here in Chch by large group builder) was $1300/m2. Today it's easily double that cost /m2. Even the recent lumber spike in America, timber still costs more in NZ than over there by a long shot.

    Like everything else in NZ (ie pension plans, taxation), also the building development is entirely different to in America. We use land in the most inefficient way vs in N. America new sub divisions follow a 'grided' pattern where more sections can fit per hectare (and their lot sizes are much larger too - how is this so?). You have in Auckland where older, typically larger sections, do the sub-divide route; you lose land in this way of development because every lot has to have a SIDE DRIVE WAY access to the rear dwelling. Horribly inefficient vs a back alley street access that already exists in early sub divisions in all the major cities in N. America.

    Then there's the issue of funding the subdivision development that differs. Local councils are compelled to charge high rates because at the national level, there's little or not funding in the release of crown land. Likewise to the private land owners that sell and all this cost "Developmental Contribution Fees" is paid to local councils, which all adds to the high price. How is this model sustainable compared to N. American models of releasing land for development? It seems like the gov'ts in NZ have taken a stance of non-action and let the private sector try and sort out the lowest cost way of developing land... leading to all sorts of repetitive red tape. ie. You don't need a fire engineer to certify a building all over again and again if the same conventional building materials are used. But that's what local city councils want. A repetition of the same requirement, testing, book reference, blah blah just to get the rubber stamp.

    On a macro level, new subdivisions should have an acceptable whole base geotech report. But again, local city councils want a "site specific" geo tech report for every section before a house is built on (all adds unnecessary cost to building if they simply use the same rib raft foundation to support TC2 or TC3).

    These issues are systemic in NZ building - every area you look at requires some engineer / specialist. Just like when I talk to NZ financial advisers about taxation - they make no comment on it and say they can gladly refer you to a 'tax accountant' ; pile on more fees... unnecessary.

    As for costs building up in Auckland vs Chch? Without a doubt there is a consolable higher cost to build in Auckland. It always has been back in 2009 when my uncle was practicing architect work and when I built our houses here in Chch in that same year. The key reason is labour costs are higher which is a major component in building anything. Unlike in California, NZ does not have cheap Mexican labour and our labour + OSH safety requirements + scaffolding for the most basic builds like on a single story roof, adds to the much higher cost of building.

  4. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    The crown, the rightful & elected representative of the people (rather than Iwi) should release a bit more but its about expanding out from the city and there should be land in other places which is affordable.
    Lol not without a protest by the respected local Iwi on any crown land. Look what happened up on the North Shore when Jacinda had to pay $40M? to settle a disputed land deal with Fletcher? Not all Iwis think alike. Canada many years ago had similar issues when trying to develop the oil pipeline across to the Pacific Ocean. A unanimous outcome is virtually impossible and what 1 specific group getting paid for that land, sets the same example for the rest.

    Over the road here in Chch is Wigram Skies - (use to be the old Wigram Airforce base). Under agreement, that crown land was awarded to Ngai Tahu and as everyone I speak to; "How can you not lose when the land is given to you?" The gov't loses out on that revenue (both CCC and national level gov't) - so no wonder the DC fees are so high.

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    715

    Default

    If the land is given for free to a first home buyer that will get affordable homes real quick. That's also an option.

    Sadly you're right the brown tape will get in the way to that concept.

  6. #166
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Yes. In 2009 build cost on my cousin's house (avg spec here in Chch by large group builder) was $1300/m2. Today it's easily double that cost /m2. Even the recent lumber spike in America, timber still costs more in NZ than over there by a long shot.

    Like everything else in NZ (ie pension plans, taxation), also the building development is entirely different to in America. We use land in the most inefficient way vs in N. America new sub divisions follow a 'grided' pattern where more sections can fit per hectare (and their lot sizes are much larger too - how is this so?). You have in Auckland where older, typically larger sections, do the sub-divide route; you lose land in this way of development because every lot has to have a SIDE DRIVE WAY access to the rear dwelling. Horribly inefficient vs a back alley street access that already exists in early sub divisions in all the major cities in N. America.

    Then there's the issue of funding the subdivision development that differs. Local councils are compelled to charge high rates because at the national level, there's little or not funding in the release of crown land. Likewise to the private land owners that sell and all this cost "Developmental Contribution Fees" is paid to local councils, which all adds to the high price. How is this model sustainable compared to N. American models of releasing land for development? It seems like the gov'ts in NZ have taken a stance of non-action and let the private sector try and sort out the lowest cost way of developing land... leading to all sorts of repetitive red tape. ie. You don't need a fire engineer to certify a building all over again and again if the same conventional building materials are used. But that's what local city councils want. A repetition of the same requirement, testing, book reference, blah blah just to get the rubber stamp.

    On a macro level, new subdivisions should have an acceptable whole base geotech report. But again, local city councils want a "site specific" geo tech report for every section before a house is built on (all adds unnecessary cost to building if they simply use the same rib raft foundation to support TC2 or TC3).

    These issues are systemic in NZ building - every area you look at requires some engineer / specialist. Just like when I talk to NZ financial advisers about taxation - they make no comment on it and say they can gladly refer you to a 'tax accountant' ; pile on more fees... unnecessary.

    As for costs building up in Auckland vs Chch? Without a doubt there is a consolable higher cost to build in Auckland. It always has been back in 2009 when my uncle was practicing architect work and when I built our houses here in Chch in that same year. The key reason is labour costs are higher which is a major component in building anything. Unlike in California, NZ does not have cheap Mexican labour and our labour + OSH safety requirements + scaffolding for the most basic builds like on a single story roof, adds to the much higher cost of building.

    New bespoke build costs in Auckland have been around 4500- 5000 per sqm (bespoke are always higher than group builds). I've recently heard 2 people being given a rough estimate of $7000 per sqm for renovations!

  7. #167
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nizzy View Post
    New bespoke build costs in Auckland have been around 4500- 5000 per sqm (bespoke are always higher than group builds).
    Not necessarily.

  8. #168
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,855

    Default

    Well it is highly likely

  9. #169
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Posters should include the post, or at least the (snipped) relavent part of the post they are replying to. I have just read a post which says 'it is highly likely'. Brilliant! What is highly likely, or am I supposed to scroll through prior posts and guess which one is being replied to? This thread in particular is hopeless to follow because so many posts are not attributed to anything at all.
    This is not a text or SMS between two parties messaging each other. It is a forum open to the hundreds of members of sharetrader. It shouldn't be difficult to follow the standard practice of such forums.
    While I don't wish to pick on anyone, scroll through and look at Panda's posts as an example. To know what he's on about means reading previous posts and often a bit of guesswork. (Here's an example from another thread he has posted on 'It's easier when the relationship is not formalised though'). That is all it says. What is it about? Those posts are best ignored, and I'd say they often are by many readers.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 07-06-2021 at 11:55 AM.

  10. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nizzy View Post
    New bespoke build costs in Auckland have been around 4500- 5000 per sqm (bespoke are always higher than group builds). I've recently heard 2 people being given a rough estimate of $7000 per sqm for renovations!
    $4500 is not uncommon in Auckland - my issue is... how sustainable can that be? My cousin is in middle of their construction sub-divising a lot. For 2 dwellings (they demolished the old house) his build is minimum $4,500/m2. Since he works for My Food Bag - he's betting on the recent share float to fund his home project. With $2M or $3M build costs, the price of the land might not be too expensive in comparison.

    $7,000m2 is insane but not so in 10 or 15 years time...

  11. #171
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    This govt. is getting sillier by the day.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...-new-tax-rules

  12. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    This govt. is getting sillier by the day. ....
    Not to worry, the consultation document is only 143 pages long and there is a full month to make submissions. Anyone with two or three tax law degrees will be able to understand it easily.

  13. #173
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Not to worry, the consultation document is only 143 pages long and there is a full month to make submissions. Anyone with two or three tax law degrees will be able to understand it easily.
    Yeah, but to tax a new building, or maybe a renovated building on profit, while taxing an existing building on turnover, certainly makes the mind spin - particularly when you consider the unintended and unforeseen consequences. Surely there are enough older members of the Labour party, who will remember Rowling's disastrous spec tax, to warn this current lot of incompetent MPs that they are heading down a dangerous path.

  14. #174
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Yeah, but to tax a new building, or maybe a renovated building on profit, while taxing an existing building on turnover, certainly makes the mind spin - particularly when you consider the unintended and unforeseen consequences. Surely there are enough older members of the Labour party, who will remember Rowling's disastrous spec tax, to warn this current lot of incompetent MPs that they are heading down a dangerous path.
    This new rule does seem ridiculous.

    However 32% increase in the national median price for a home seems over-inflated too. I would suggest that residential housing investors should provide a deposit of more than 50% plus a stamp duty of 5% or more which could be offset against any future brightline taxes payable.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...ute-data-shows

  15. #175
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    This new rule does seem ridiculous.

    However 32% increase in the national median price for a home seems over-inflated too. I would suggest that residential housing investors should provide a deposit of more than 50% plus a stamp duty of 5% or more which could be offset against any future brightline taxes payable.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...ute-data-shows
    You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.

    I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.
    Last edited by peetter; Yesterday at 01:57 PM.

  16. #176
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Closing a tax rort is not a new tax. plus there's still 0% on the capital gain.

    Meanwhile:
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money...quit-jobs.html

    Great place to have wealth, not so much to work for a wage.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; Yesterday at 03:34 PM.

  17. #177
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    81

    Default

    There was no "tax rort". Rather than this abomination of tax on expense, proper inflation adjusted CGT would be better.

    But labour only did this for tax revenue, so they got tax on expense plus CGT reacharound at 39% personal income tax without inflation adjustment...

  18. #178
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peetter View Post
    You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.

    I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.
    If you think it's not the property investors causing the prices to rise so fast, then who do you think is pushing all the prices up so high?

    Just on talk radio after picking kids up at school, there was a man complaining how at a Harcourts auction in their showroom, they wanted to bid on this house. After some fierce bidding, there was as he quoted, "A Chinese a man that informed the auctioneer that he wants to place a 20% HIGHER bid on ALL the listings there on that day". Some months later he was able to get some information on the Chinese bidder and it turned out, he flew in from Australia to buy all the houses to do none other than to rent them out.

    If there are NO OTHER demand controls apart from taxation that the NZ gov't has, then what should you suggest the NZ gov't can do to swell the demand away? Specifically dividing those like that overseas buyer and the 1st home buyer group?

    And if you think taxation is a horrible tool - what taxation is there on houses in NZ? ; consider how other OECD nations address the demand issue, or let me put it in another way, where else in the OECD has no form of capital gains tax on the sale of multiple houses over the long term? It's clear you know the investment landscape is strongly skewed with the top 10% (as a rough figure) of NZ's richest own nothing but real estate while the top 10% in the US or Canada amass their wealth through equity ownership of shares on the stock exchange.

    I'm afraid I strongly disagree - the wealthy in NZ have got away booking huge gains with the excuse that it's their retirement nest egg (at the cost of robbing the next generation when they try to buy their 1st home). There's 1 issue when people make a lot of money in retirement through share ownership in businesses, and another entirely different issue with you turn houses (as an investment asset) into a motive of profiting.

    As I mentioned before.. it doesn't matter who Labour or National was in power. The bottom line is NZ's obsession of using houses as tools to profit that spills over into gov't that these politicians themselves don't want to address the issue with real tools and real action. The way I see it, it comes down to bad gov't policy.

    Also if you ask any person in the residential investment game, they will say, "It's still the best game in town". Better than any working class person stuck in Kiwi Saver. So for as long as we have this unlevel playing field in terms of taxation, you're never going to fix the house problem in NZ.

    If my rants come too strong, my apologies. All I want is to hit it where it hurts to those that are in illusion to the problem.

  19. #179
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    If you think it's not the property investors causing the prices to rise so fast, then who do you think is pushing all the prices up so high?

    Just on talk radio after picking kids up at school, there was a man complaining how at a Harcourts auction in their showroom, they wanted to bid on this house. After some fierce bidding, there was as he quoted, "A Chinese a man that informed the auctioneer that he wants to place a 20% HIGHER bid on ALL the listings there on that day". Some months later he was able to get some information on the Chinese bidder and it turned out, he flew in from Australia to buy all the houses to do none other than to rent them out.

    If there are NO OTHER demand controls apart from taxation that the NZ gov't has, then what should you suggest the NZ gov't can do to swell the demand away? Specifically dividing those like that overseas buyer and the 1st home buyer group?

    And if you think taxation is a horrible tool - what taxation is there on houses in NZ? ; consider how other OECD nations address the demand issue, or let me put it in another way, where else in the OECD has no form of capital gains tax on the sale of multiple houses over the long term? It's clear you know the investment landscape is strongly skewed with the top 10% (as a rough figure) of NZ's richest own nothing but real estate while the top 10% in the US or Canada amass their wealth through equity ownership of shares on the stock exchange.

    I'm afraid I strongly disagree - the wealthy in NZ have got away booking huge gains with the excuse that it's their retirement nest egg (at the cost of robbing the next generation when they try to buy their 1st home). There's 1 issue when people make a lot of money in retirement through share ownership in businesses, and another entirely different issue with you turn houses (as an investment asset) into a motive of profiting.

    As I mentioned before.. it doesn't matter who Labour or National was in power. The bottom line is NZ's obsession of using houses as tools to profit that spills over into gov't that these politicians themselves don't want to address the issue with real tools and real action. The way I see it, it comes down to bad gov't policy.

    Also if you ask any person in the residential investment game, they will say, "It's still the best game in town". Better than any working class person stuck in Kiwi Saver. So for as long as we have this unlevel playing field in terms of taxation, you're never going to fix the house problem in NZ.

    If my rants come too strong, my apologies. All I want is to hit it where it hurts to those that are in illusion to the problem.
    I have no problem with proper CGT adjusted to inflation.

    As for what government should do, there's plenty of better ways to deal with the issue than taxation. And if they were started 4 years ago, the rise in prices would now probably be much lower.

    Rich vs poor debate - you'll never make poor rich by taking money of the rich. It has been tried many times, never worked and never will.

  20. #180
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peetter View Post
    You know taxation is not an answer to everything right? How far do you think the taxation can go? Everything Labour government did so far included increasing taxes or creating new ones. But not one of the policies actually introduced any possibility of a solution to the problem.


    I certainly agree with you the property prices went overboard this year. But you need to remember that current government was voted in 4 years ago on promise of fixing property crisis and did nothing about it until now... and all they did now is blame property investors for raising prices.

    Tax is not the answer to everything - although an increase in tax revenue would help to boost government revenue and help repay Covid expenses and debt.


    I do not think the government is blaming property investors. However they may be trying to rectify some of the imbalances in the NZ investment environment. Real estate Property investors have been acting rationally by seeking out the best investment in the NZ tax and investment environment that will provide the best after-tax returns for their risk tolerance.


    Many property investors, who have been investing in residential real estate, may well have received handsome leveraged capital gains on the equity they invested. That is why I am also suggesting the non-tax rule that investors should be expected to provide a deposit of over 50% of the purchase price of their investment real estate purchases.


    It would be unrealistic to expect this government to fix NZ's chronic property market malaise within a few years during a Covid pandemic. This crisis has been building up for generations and had been ignored by previous governments of red, blue and purple shades!
    Last edited by Bjauck; Yesterday at 05:59 PM.

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
  •