sharetrader
Page 29 of 52 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031323339 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 518
  1. #281
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    244

  2. #282
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vorno View Post
    I don't think that rental data takes account of people who rent from their family trust (and may or may not be settlors), or from their mum and dad. We have up to half a million trusts in NZ, nobody knows for sure but that number is from the Law Commission's recent reports on trusts. Many trusts will own the PPOR of the settlors.

    People who rent from mum and dad - again how many is unknown - are often close to being owners, paying off the olds mortgage and eventually inheriting the house. So probably counted as renters and they are .... for now. But a long way frombeing your usual renters.

  3. #283
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    I don't think that rental data takes account of people who rent from their family trust (and may or may not be settlors), or from their mum and dad. We have up to half a million trusts in NZ, nobody knows for sure but that number is from the Law Commission's recent reports on trusts. Many trusts will own the PPOR of the settlors...
    What the article did not refer to is that Auckland home ownership rates have dropped even faster than NZ-wide rates - as previously discussed on this thread. From memory the last census included questions on trusts and whether the home was owned by a family trust. Under NZ law if you (the settlor) have your house in a family trust, you can live in it (derive benefit from it) and retain as much de facto control over it as if it were not in trust, which makes a mockery of the traditional concept of a trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    I would have picked that the other way round. Certainly it seems to be Aucklanders who are railing against high prices which may - or may not, who knows - be caused by offshore buyers. Outside Auckland, not so much and in some places a fillip to prices might not be so unwelcome.

    Auckland's rising population and housing supply imbalance means there are more voices raised against unaffordability. And a lot of media attention too, which might be giving the issue more airtime than it actually warrants.
    Even many existing Auckland home owners are being hurt by the rising Auckland prices for example if you want to sell and get a bigger property etc. Those who are benefiting the most are those who are trading down or moving away and, of course, investors who want as much untaxed capital gain as possible.


    So it is a big issue, as many potential first home owners (those who do not have a wealthy family or family trust to help out) are priced out of their own home market. Many existing home owners are being priced out of trading into bigger homes as their circumstances change. All while domestic investors and non-resident foreign investors enjoy making money out of ever-increasing capital gains. It seems to be an us and them situation. Guess which side the government inaction favours.

  4. #284
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Much debate in the herald this morning. Although only an opinion piece Peter Calder was expressing what I am thinking. Although I am not angry. I noticed in amongst it all the articles mention of the scrapping of govt loans to home buyers or the capitalisation of family benefits to buy a house as well as large state house construction. We can't afford these things now but national super can't be means tested. What a lot of bull****. The greedy generation is happy to sell out to foreign buyers ahead of a younger generation. They are the ones young kiwis should be talking to, asking for a fair shake. 40 National MPs are property investors that might be why Steven Joyce doesn't seem too concerned about foreign buyers.

    Anyway John Key is doing something useful unrelated to housing so wishing him all the best getting mutual recognition for imputation credits with Australia. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

  5. #285
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Anyone been online to have a look at their rates shock today ? Len Brown can't help himself can he ? Not only does he want to screw a poor unfortunate misguided women behind his wife's back he want's to do it too all Aucklanders !! Brown's ambition to create the world's most liveable city is such a pathetic and hollow ambition. No point in creating a really liveable city if nobody can afford to live in it is there !!
    Remember it was this little "gentleman" that passed the whopping 9.9% rates increase by the slimiest of margins, his own vote.
    Looks like after the base uniform annual charge which I think is about $375, you're up for about $267 per annum per $100,000 of capital value...so anyone with a $10m mansion in Epsom, Remuera or elsewhere is being "done" for just on $27,000...which by my way of thinking means effectively you don't own that property at all as you're paying about $520 per week to rent it off the council.

    ITS TIME FOR A RATES REVOLT !!!!!! Just stop paying them and claim its a breech of your human rights !!
    Last edited by Beagle; 15-07-2015 at 01:47 PM.

  6. #286
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    [QUOTE...so anyone with a $10m mansion in Epsom, Remuera or elsewhere is being "done" for just on $27,000...which by my way of thinking means effectively you don't own that property at all as you're paying about $520 per week to rent it off the council.
    ][/QUOTE]

    I'm finding it hard to muster much sympathy for anyone with a $10m mansion in Epsom, Remuera or elsewhere - but I take your point, Roger!


  7. #287
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    No, actually it's worse that that because in the current Auckland property market it won't be long before all your modest three bedroom homes are valued around $10m!


  8. #288
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    190

    Default

    I see this as another symptom of the Auckland Housing Crisis

    Rates are now tied to the property evaluations which are climbing rapidly.

    Not only are first home buyers such as myself pretty much locked out of the market (Prices are climbing $1000 a day and I don't have a job that pays that well)

    But now honest hard working home owners are being forced to pay ever increasing rates for all the issues not directly related to them in the greater Auckland area

    I don't see how that is fair especially since a house of only 100 sq meters is now close to 1 million in most suburbs of Auckland.

    Which in my mind is a disproportionate rate for the average dwelling in Auckland

  9. #289
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,658

    Default

    Yup...that $10m mansion in Remuera may may have seen an appreciation of $3m+ since the last 2007 house price peak all of which would be tax free should the owner wish to sell. If this were an investment, whether by a local or an off-shore investor, it would be tax free. If the house were an owner-occupied mansion, then the owner could trade "down" and put aside a difference that would have grown larger than if Auckland house price inflation had been more akin to the national average. Even with $27000 pa in rates, they have had a great investment with little to pay in taxes!

  10. #290
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeverQuestion View Post
    ..... Rates are now tied to the property evaluations which are climbing rapidly.....
    Yes and no. The real driver of rates is the council budget, which then gets spread across all rateable properties in the city.

    Sounds to me like the council budget is the thing that's well out of proportion. The remedy is to vote out the spendthrift council and vote in councillors who will manage they city's budget.

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
  •