Requoting it doesn't make it right JT. Either 59% is some sort of inflation adjusted figure or it is horribly wrong. Even taking the 13k from '79 (not the 60's) it is still 200% or so out.
Printable View
That deposit was often got by capitalising your Family Benefit (the few bucks Mum got each week for looking after the kids)
Question then JT - are advocating Jacinda build 30,000 or whatever new homes (at a affordable cost) and then finance families into them with a low deposit and low interest rate loans.
Jacinda literally won't build the homes ...she'll only see that they get built.
Last i looked National have absolutely no plans or details about their big build of 30,000 let alone affordable ones.
Must be inflation adjusted ...if so hope they inflation adjusted both eh
From stuff I have - ......1994 estimated average house and land package price has increased 248% while the average employee's gross annual income has increased 101%.
So a gap does exist, no question
But no worries - Jacinda is going to build a lot of lower cost houses (and not put a margin on them) to reduce the gap.
Yes prob inflation adjusted 777. Its not pro national or labour imo; just explaining whats happened and looking at solutions. Im very surprised that there is no data to let us know how many foreigners have and are buying.This can have an impact on prices and demand.
EMBRACING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONSBut there are alternatives to traditional home ownership, and New Zealand needs to embrace these.
Bruce presents a co-operative housing scheme in Germany. The upside? No landlord can evict you. The downside? Your money is locked in there for a minimum 18 months and you can't sell your shares in the building for more than you paid for them.
Affordable long-term leasing is another option. Post-war construction in Berlin saw many such buildings made available to tenants, who can live there for life, decorating their home however they wish. Both the State and private companies have invested in the scheme.
Such a scheme seems like a solution for New Zealand. But it's not about "mum and dad" landlords and damp, poorly insulated rentals – it's about institutional investment from sources, such as KiwiSaver and the NZ Super Fund and ACC.
But first, says Bruce, we need that data. Then we can create the "essential" infrastructure. And it will undoubtedly include high-rise living options for families, which in turn, will demand more innovative thinking from our regulatory bodies – and fast tracking.
Bruce is right. When it comes to the question, who really owns New Zealand now?, we deserve a better answer than "I don't know".
This documentary, screening so close to a general election, will surely ramp up the conversation about the housing crisis. Just watch those promises come trotting out, but at least we now know what they should be saying
A simple fact about wages and house costs. I arrived here early in 1960 and went to work at Fords in Gracefield. My wage as a car assembler was seven shilling and an extra fourpence an hour if you were on time every day. A section in those days averaged 1,000 pounds and a house with State advances cost 3000 pounds.Ten shillings changed to one dollar so seven shillings became 70 cents.so the inflation is in the mid 200's from 1960.Most people saved to buy the section and then went for the State loan. The universal child benefit of fifteen shillings per week could be capitalised for an amount limited to one and a half children. I had the great good fortune to get in on this scheme after I had gone up in the world and only just qualified on my past years salary. A couple of oil shocks saw me going to State Advances to double or triple my repayments but they wouldn't agree.
A common misstatement.
According to the governments own budget figures 13% of your tax dollar went on social security and welfare (I assume plenty of them wanted to work)! 17% went on National Super !!! The two biggest expenses were health at 21% and education at 17%
zacman