If National wins ...

[artemis]

Couple of Australian companies have set up locations for retirement communities in great locations, like beaches. People rent a plot and this includes access to amenities and utilities. They own their own home, usually a trailer or caravan. And when they move on it is either removed or sold on.

Could happen here, but the retirement village companies are making bigger bucks with their current model so are unlikely to go for a cheaper model. Local associations here could get together and do it.

[justakiwi]

There are several viable scenarios for my tiny housing village concept.

1. Social housing for singles or couples ( govt/local Council initiative)
2. Tiny village “parks” set up for people living full time in their motorhomes, caravans, tiny houses. Similar to Council run/owned holiday parks but specifically for these people. Purpose built individual park up sites with water, power and possibly individual black/grey water drain. Sites levelled and shingled for parking on without having to worry about how to mow the grass underneath the vehicle/tiny house. With the usual shower/toilet/kitchen facilities and green and communal areas for BBQs etc. Police check everyone who comes in a long term/permanent resident. Not as difficult as it sounds. The holiday park I am currently living in does just that and it is one of the reasons I came here (as a woman on her own).
3. Tiny house only villages, set up as above but for tiny houses only. Similar to some of the retirement villages we have now but not operating under the same money hungry exploitative principles. There is plenty of opportunity to make this idea profitable without taking advantage of/ripping people off.

I am probably speaking to the wrong demographic here as no doubt plenty of you hold shares in the likes of Ryman etc, but what I’m suggesting is not for private enterprise to make bucketloads of money. Mostly its about proposing a possible solution to some of our current housing/homelessness/rising elderly populations. Building high rise apartment blocks for some of our most vulnerable people is a recipe for disaster and has the potential (as someone else alluded to earlier) of creating more problems of physical and emotional isolation. People need homes they enjoy being in where they can grow a few veggies or have a pet if they want.

Better go go buy a lotto ticket

[elZorro]

Paradise Papers leak: this will set of another round of fact-finding on tax avoidance, the IRD are already getting interested.
John Key mentioned by an Appleby employee as a leading proponent of NZ being a tax-dodging hub in the Pacific.

https://www.interest.co.nz/news/9074...+November+2017

[elZorro]

The economy is predicted to grow some more under the impact of Labour's policies, in particular raising of the minimum wage, and KiwiBuild.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/987...very-uncertain

[minimoke]

The economy is predicted to grow some more under the impact of Labour's policies, in particular raising of the minimum wage, and KiwiBuild.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/987...very-uncertain

First thing to understand that raising the minimum wage is not new government spending. It is the private sector that will be bearing this increase cost. In reality it lessens government spending as there is less coming out of the Working for Families vote. Remember some local bodies and some of government have already moved to this ridiculous "Living Wage" thing which has already driven up costs with no increase in productivity.

Secondly a higher minimum wage pushes companies closer to that "new technology" break even point or the "going bust" tipping point. Neither is good for workers as they (particular the low skilled) will be the first to be be made redundant. Which does increase government spending as there are now more beneficiaries.

Relying on kiwibuild is relying on hot air. It will not happen. Main reason is we should today have an oversupply of construction industry labour. This is because after the christchurch earthquakes there was an ideal "once in a life time" opportunity to get NEET's and others into industry training. It didn't happen. Pair that with reducing the number of immigrants there simply will not be enough labor to build at the promised rates.

Also noted in the article is an increase in government debt. This is acceptable if it is used to power production - but not if its going to pay beneficiaries or fund projects doomed to failure.

[artemis]

.... Remember some local bodies and some of government have already moved to this ridiculous "Living Wag e" thing which has already driven up costs with no increase in productivity.

The Treasury has said that the main beneficiaries of the "Living Wage" are the government (reduced transfers, increased tax) and young single workers. Also that only 6% of affected households match the criteria on which the LW calculation was based.

.Relying on kiwibuild is relying on hot air. It will not happen.

The Opposition was very focussed on this in the first Question Time for the new government. Basically - where's the plan. Answer - wait and see. And does building 100,000 new properties mean 'build', ie constructed new. Answer - we stand by our commitments.

I get it is a new government but they have a hundred day plan and the clock is ticking. Fluffy and woolly will have to come to an end pretty soon. There are many stakeholders waiting on Kiwibuild detail.

The media has already painted Ms Ardern and Mr Hipkins as liars and shambolic. They can't afford much more of that.

[minimoke]

The Treasury has said that the main beneficiaries of the "Living Wage" are the government (reduced transfers, increased tax)

Which is exactly I suspect why National stayed as silent as it did on this "movement". National should have been much more vocal advocating higher skill and higher contribution to business (ie increased productivity) is the path to higher wages not some arbitrary "poverty" line.

[dobby41]

The Opposition was very focussed on this in the first Question Time for the new government. Basically - where's the plan. Answer - wait and see. And does building 100,000 new properties mean 'build', ie constructed new. Answer - we stand by our commitments.

I get it is a new government but they have a hundred day plan and the clock is ticking. Fluffy and woolly will have to come to an end pretty soon. There are many stakeholders waiting on Kiwibuild detail.

I thought the 'wait and see' was just giving National back what they did when they were asked questions.

[artemis]

I thought the 'wait and see' was just giving National back what they did when they were asked questions.

Ministers are required to give accurate answers to Questions in the House. Are you suggesting Ministers lied for political reasons?

It is more likely they really don't know, which will get them through but only temporarily as Kiwibuild (and housing generally) was the main election promise. They have to actually deliver on that or the fallout will be major.

[dobby41]

Ministers are required to give accurate answers to Questions in the House. Are you suggesting Ministers lied for political reasons?

It is more likely they really don't know, which will get them through but only temporarily as Kiwibuild (and housing generally) was the main election promise. They have to actually deliver on that or the fallout will be major.

I'm not suggesting they lied.
The answer may not be as complete as you'd like but that seems to be the way it is done.
In reality question time is about theatre and politics and has no real meaning.
Committies is where all the real work is done.