Here's another guest commenter on the National lineup, he's also not impressed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-c...ectid=11766115
Your friend Sharon Murdoch really has Paula down pat.
Printable View
Here's another guest commenter on the National lineup, he's also not impressed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-c...ectid=11766115
Your friend Sharon Murdoch really has Paula down pat.
Labour was calling for Murray McCully to step down from office, from at the latest, mid 2015. If he had been a Labour MP in the Clark administration, she would have acted decisively after the Saudi sheep backroom deal. In fairness to Labour, it wouldn't have even occurred under a Clark administration.
The point is, John Key's govt shied away from tricky decisions. They spent so much effort pleasing everybody, that nothing sensible got done.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...tting-politics
So you say. No legal proceedings were ever in play.
https://twitter.com/domesticanimal/s...95143002296320
Who is going to fix the property market? That was certainly fuelled by National's decision to open up immigration.
Yes I am. My question as to what is the difference is. Rentier's provide housing, investment in capital provides jobs, business etc, investment in debt stimulates the economy. There is a good case to make for all three. They work well when working together. One cannot go without the other. If no one provided housing to rent they many more would be living on the streets presumably. (those that cannot afford to purchase a house)
How would it work if there were no people with rentals? That question also needs to be answered. Maybe the laws have favoured landlords too much in the past but it would be dangerous if it were to go too far the other way too.....
Your argument would be stronger, blackcap, if you obeyed the simple apostrophe laws, and related sentences to each other. Obviously there need to be some rental's available. It would be preferable to have the State providing quality lower-priced accommodation, as they can do it the cheapest, with their existing land, the GST/tax treatment, etc. National has tried to remove some of that opportunity and give it to private landlord's, its a very obvious ploy. (Three incorrect uses there).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL7NnV2ntYU
Have the laws of the land favoured landlords too much in the past? Yes, of course they have, many books have been written on the subject, how to make a fortune the easy way, by being a rentier. Then there are the landlord meeting groups where tips are shared. I hear these people are also a big part of the black economy, they like their tradespeople to be on the dole and paid under the table. No shortage of people who would fit the bill.
Of course the biggest chance to make a fortune with rentals is untaxed capital gain. This factor is heightened when property prices boom, as they will do when stimulated by political means. National made sure the perfect conditions remained (OK interest rates were low from external issues) but our immigration settings are lax. Deliberately so.
Trades people on the dole? - paid under the table? Yesterday I wanted a load of #####. Normally I would be lucky to get it by Christmas - yesterday it was delivered within two hours. Money in the letterbox. Both the seller who is not on the dole and the buyer who has never been on the dole are National supporters. It is now 6.30 am on a Saturday and I am about to go up the hill and start up my chainsaw. I paid taxes on my rent income as a landlord - gave it up as I could make more trading on the market with no hassles.
Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black there eZ with the apostrophe in rentiers. Besides your argument is ridiculous. Of course there is a property investors group just as there is for plumbers and accountants etc. I don't know where you hear about this black economy, but suspect it's your imagination. There are plenty of homeowners who prefer to deal in under the counter transactions. But to a landlord there is no advantage, because they lose the deductibility of such payments. And if you really believe the law favours landlords, try being a residential landlord where you may have the opportunity to have a case heard by the tenancy tribunal. Without fail they ignore all breaches by the tenant and hammer the landlord.
Correction. Your apostrophe was in rentals. (not rentiers)