NZ 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...

[Aaron]

The govt giveth tax cuts for landlords but will they taketh away the $2.34bill landlord subsidy? Is it keeping a roof over poor people's heads or is it allowing landlords to keep cranking up the rent?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...FGV7MVZBDBM7U/

Now might be the time to do it as landlords will be reducing rents due to interest deductibility coming back. I think denying the deduction was going straight onto the tenants if I remember the news articles at the time.

[Aaron]

National set to scrap $60 million first home owner grants.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...64f334de&ei=12

I guess you need to find savings to fund the $2.9billion reversal of interest deductibility for landlords. I did not think it was right to single out residential housing for this treatment re interest but then maybe we should be thinking as homes as something other than investment. You could still deduct interest if you were actually building houses and increasing supply rather than buying and sitting on existing houses.

I would take it as another reason to head to Aussie if you are young and Mum & Dad can't help you into a home here in NZ.

Chris Luxon is clear on his vision for NZ. It seems at least 55,000 young kiwis may not share it, but then again they are probably not his voter base. Maybe Chris's vision is more aligned to himself and his voter base rather than NZ as a whole.

[Ggcc]

National set to scrap $60 million first home owner grants.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...64f334de&ei=12

I guess you need to find savings to fund the $2.9billion reversal of interest deductibility for landlords. I did not think it was right to single out residential housing for this treatment re interest but then maybe we should be thinking as homes as something other than investment. You could still deduct interest if you were actually building houses and increasing supply rather than buying and sitting on existing houses.

I would take it as another reason to head to Aussie if you are young and Mum & Dad can't help you into a home here in NZ.

Chris Luxon is clear on his vision for NZ. It seems at least 55,000 young kiwis may not share it, but then again they are probably not his voter base. Maybe Chris's vision is more aligned to himself and his voter base rather than NZ as a whole.

Remember how many years landlords could have interest deductibility. Labour was the one who introduced the legislation to stop deductability and used that money to spend elsewhere. Just a different way to look at it. Otherwise I am for deductibility for landlords, you just punish tenants by giving landlords more costs. We need landlords

[Aaron]

Remember how many years landlords could have interest deductibility. Labour was the one who introduced the legislation to stop deductability and used that money to spend elsewhere. Just a different way to look at it. Otherwise I am for deductibility for landlords, you just punish tenants by giving landlords more costs. We need landlords

Interest had always been deductible but instead of addressing inflation targeting and monetary policy and 30 years of lower and lower rates and central banks constantly stepping in to save the over indebted speculators, Labour stopped interest deductibility. What I did like was that interest remained deductible if you were actually building new supply as I agree with you we need houses although I am not sure if I agree we need landlords instead of homeowners though.

You could argue that tenants are not likely to benefit from the interest deductibility being reintroduced. So you punish tenants by giving landlords more costs but benefit landlords by reducing them. Heads you lose tails I win.

A strong argument for encouraging home ownership in my opinion and working toward a more equal society instead of a feudal one.

[Ggcc]

Interest had always been deductible but instead of addressing inflation targeting and monetary policy and 30 years of lower and lower rates and central banks constantly stepping in to save the over indebted speculators, Labour stopped interest deductibility. What I did like was that interest remained deductible if you were actually building new supply as I agree with you we need houses although I am not sure if I agree we need landlords instead of homeowners though.

You could argue that tenants are not likely to benefit from the interest deductibility being reintroduced. So you punish tenants by giving landlords more costs but benefit landlords by reducing them. Heads you lose tails I win.

A strong argument for encouraging home ownership in my opinion and working toward a more equal society instead of a feudal one.

Not everyone can or wants to own a house and I know many that never want one. Too much restricted, as they want to be able to live the way they choose. Plus do you really want houses to go down to $400,000, if so that is the only way people will get into houses in this current market. It will destroy more than 50% of home owners retirement plans.

Look at what it costs to build a house and look at the property value. Sections are selling in Napier for a minimum of roughly $350,000 and most of these sections have conditions. Building on there is roughly $3000-3200 per square metre for a basic spec home. Older homes should be less to buy than new homes, for similar houses but not by $400,000-500,000, maybe $200,000.

I own 2 houses freehold and I want to sell both eventually to buy one house, but it has to be at a price I want. I got what I did by sacrificing 25 years of my life to work 7 days per week. People can do the same, although I agree it is tougher today. I am 48

[Aaron]

Not everyone can or wants to own a house and I know many that never want one. Too much restricted, as they want to be able to live the way they choose. Plus do you really want houses to go down to $400,000, if so that is the only way people will get into houses in this current market. It will destroy more than 50% of home owners retirement plans.

Look at what it costs to build a house and look at the property value. Sections are selling in Napier for a minimum of roughly $350,000 and most of these sections have conditions. Building on there is roughly $3000-3200 per square metre for a basic spec home. Older homes should be less to buy than new homes, for similar houses but not by $400,000-500,000, maybe $200,000.

I own 2 houses freehold and I want to sell both eventually to buy one house, but it has to be at a price I want. I got what I did by sacrificing 25 years of my life to work 7 days per week. People can do the same, although I agree it is tougher today. I am 48

Well done, I am not really advocating for people who do not want to crimp their lifestyle or make any sacrifice and expect home ownership.

Not sure where you got $400,000 from, even for me that seems a little low. If we took the average income of $53,040 or the median is better as this is $66,196 and assume both parents work at 5 times median income that is $661,960. I think historically 5 times income is expensive and even more historically we would be basing this on one wage. Amazing how inflation works on asset prices compared to wages over time.

Still $661,960 still sounds cheap compared to a $1mill average akld house only a couple of years ago.

Timing any market is tricky, who would have thought that selling your houses during a global pandemic was the best time. Appreciate why you want low interest rates and ezi money from the RBNZ, but I do not think it is good long term for NZ even though I can see how it would help your retirement plans.

What do you propose for NZ? historically low interest rates and historically high house prices? or perhaps negative rates to really get asset prices pumping (you may have a friend in Adrian Orr on that one as he is the only person I have heard mention such stupidity).

It might help your retirement but it shuts young people out of the market and imposes an inflation tax on the poor who do not benefit from all those lovely capital gains.

Good luck though hopefully a buyer will come along at a price you are happy with.

[Ggcc]

Well done, I am not really advocating for people who do not want to crimp their lifestyle or make any sacrifice and expect home ownership.

Not sure where you got $400,000 from, even for me that seems a little low. If we took the average income of $53,040 or the median is better as this is $66,196 and assume both parents work at 5 times median income that is $661,960. I think historically 5 times income is expensive and even more historically we would be basing this on one wage. Amazing how inflation works on asset prices compared to wages over time.

Still $661,960 still sounds cheap compared to a $1mill average akld house only a couple of years ago.

Timing any market is tricky, who would have thought that selling your houses during a global pandemic was the best time. Appreciate why you want low interest rates and ezi money from the RBNZ, but I do not think it is good long term for NZ even though I can see how it would help your retirement plans.

What do you propose for NZ? historically low interest rates and historically high house prices? or perhaps negative rates to really get asset prices pumping (you may have a friend in Adrian Orr on that one as he is the only person I have heard mention such stupidity).

It might help your retirement but it shuts young people out of the market and imposes an inflation tax on the poor who do not benefit from all those lovely capital gains.

Good luck though hopefully a buyer will come along at a price you are happy with.

Thank you. I do understand you when you talk about average income and then median income and compare it to the value of a house. I have always been told by my father, In times where people want average incomes they receive an average financial life. I would not be in the position I am in without him.

Financial literacy is important for young people and without a person guiding them, they most likely won't own a home. I looked into it further and I found most young people who never wanted to own a home came from parents that could not get through to their children about the importance of investing (Not at a Bank).

Another thing that bothers me are young people that work only want to work 30-40 hours per week..... what about a side hustle to earn more. People have not got rich from working 40 hours per week, unless lucky or extremely frugal. If you are under 30 and single is that you should be able to work 70 hours per week and that will help save you heaps. I worked 7 days per week for a long time longer than 30. People should not just feel 40 hours is enough.

I don't want low interest rates for a long time, I just want inflation under control for the poor, which includes some of the middle income earners now.