Looting from those with the least as usual. No tax on CGT & restored interest deducibility just isn't enough for them.
They simply must have everything.
Printable View
I am happy for them that they are taking their skills, experience and hardworking ethic to a country which appreciates them and will give them and their families an excellent future - free from the woke policies of racial, social & economic divisions which now doom NZ towards 2nd world status.
I have no experience yet as either a landlord or tenant, apart from renting from a family member for six months. What will the situation be if a good tenant has done everything they are contracted to do, but the Landlord does not like hearing that the tenant has been campaigning for the Green Party, for example. Will the landlord be able to evict under a “no cause” eviction, and immediately re-tenant the property to new tenants? Could the no cause eviction be used to get the “right sort” of tenant, racially, sexual orientation, or political affiliation?
As more families have gradually become priced out of home ownership, It does appear that establishing a stable home as a renter could become more difficult for some under no cause evictions. As unstable homes, and disconnection from the community may contribute to increased criminal activity, I hope the reform does not lead to further problems later on.
Did “no cause” terminations lead to increased housing supply in the past?
They can give a 'no reason' eviction of 90 days also (back to what it was before Labour changed it).
You are correct that most won't use it - so why is it important to change it?
What it does do, though, is allow LLs a further hold over tenants - you complain and I'll kick you out. This was used before to great effect.
All the better to drive Aotearoa to 2nd world status faster.
And all the better to drive more young, skilled, experienced and hardworking NZers to Australia.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...pg?format=500w
Rental providers = Landlords = Exploiters of tenants = Labour's divisive social agenda to disharmonious Aotearoa
This is how Labour & the Greens & dobby41 want tenancy rules - NO EVICTION irrespective of how unruly, anti-social and destructive tenants are.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...000-complaints
"Kāinga Ora has yet to cancel any tenancies or evict a single tenant since it was instructed to more vigourously employ the law against unruly renters.
The housing agency has, however, moved 113 households, although it admits about half of those are tenants who have chosen to move away from their disruptive neighbours."
https://thumbnailer.digitalnz.org/?r...d%3DIE83495637
“The lack of action or consequences is as breathtaking as the arrogance of those who are responsible for it.”
“How on earth is it sound policy to allow gang members to behave in the manner they do, in a state house, paid for by the taxpayer, with zero repercussions?”
https://thebfd.co.nz/wp-content/uplo...th-630x462.jpg
I do not see anything inspirational, uplifting and bold from this coalition government to lift NZ from the deep malaise that the country has sunk into. Where is the vision for New Zealand?
Heck, they have already started to renege on some of their stated election promises and policies like changing government department & agency names back to their proper functional names! So simple yet seemingly so hard - so just imagine them trying to change the divisive racial, social and economic settings & policies which bedevil NZ as a country. Not a show in hell imo.
The young, skilled and experienced cannot afford to hang around in a country which breeds parasites, beneficiaries and losers at their expense - so let's be grateful that they can go to where they are welcomed and can be successful, flourish and have a good life.
Meanwhile, just observe the excuses coming out of the Reserve Bank for its pivotal role in screwing up the NZ economy royally - the chief architect Adrian Orr is still waxing lyrical about what a great job he did! He should be gone by now and NZ may yet have a chance before the self-induced recession wrecks the NZ economy even more than necessary to get inflation down.
What kind of a buffoon drove interest rates well below what was required and now, well above what is required? The chart below shows a drunk can drive a car better than Adrian Orr can drive monetary policy settings!
https://s.oneroof.co.nz/image/bc/00/...b16e3c628d.jpg
Unlike shares in a company or a term deposit, your rental property is someone else’s home. They are all your property.
In fact it is more difficult to cancel a term deposit, any change to which is always subject to the bank’s approval, than it will be for a landlord to evict “without cause” a tenant. Go figure!
Perhaps you expect your real estate property to come with the old feudal rights?
So if 90 days is not enough, what should it be?
I mean, surely the Landlord must be able to stop renting their property to someone if they so choose without having to make up an excuse?
If three months is not enough notice, then how much? Six months? A year? Ten years?
Or once someone decides to rent out their property, is it your view that they should never be allowed to stop renting it?
I have been a small landlord for 20 years and have had my fair share of terrible tenants.
But now we have long term tenants in our 2 properties that have been our tenants for many years and want to stay “forever”, one of them we have moved between properties (a huge upgrade for her). We have a great and trusty relationship.
I have no idea where they stand politically and couldn’t care less. I think your example of a Green’s voter is so far fetched that it is irrelevant.
Regarding your question about whether no cause evictions being allowed will increase rental housing supply, I can categorically say yes. If my current long term tenants left, I would sell my rentals under the current law. With the proposed law, I would consider looking for another tenant.
I think I am pretty much like most landlords, caring for our tenants, wanting them to be happy and stay for years
An excellent example of how FXXKED UP the Aotearoa social welfare system, especially in the last 6 years, has been breeding parasites, beneficiaries and losers - people who not only choose welfare as a lifestyle choice but feel entitled to pick and choose what welfare they receive.
And we have the woke leftist media playing up the soap story without an iota of inquiry of how anyone should be allowed to become a welfare blood-sucking parasite/beneficiary/loser in the first place.
Read on :
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-...IYUF2BYYKYMDM/
So this 'poor wretched woman' has 8 children and 5 of them, aged 4 to 16 live with her since since 2016 when she moved into the Kainga Ora (KO) 3 bedrooms apartment.
Point #1 : She has been in the KO unit for 8 years and in that time, she has produced at least another 3 children (to how many fathers?) - while on full social welfare entitlements. No presumption required here.
What kind of mother or human being does that - bring ever more children on welfare into the world?
She complains that upon moving into the unit, they 'almost immediately they claimed to have started experiencing antisocial and threatening behaviour from a Kāinga Ora neighbour'. So her children are traumatized.
Point #2 : So KO did nothing for years despite numerous complaints about said abusive & anti-social tenant. What kind of landlord is KO then?
And what kind of mother produces another 3 children (at least) with that kind of alleged behaviour from the abusive gang neighbour?
The mother of 8 children now does not want to move away from the unit "as the alternative house being offered is not suitable for her five children, who are highly traumatised from an abusive ex-neighbour. But the state landlord says the mother and her children need to move out of their apartment so it can be upgraded to meet healthy homes standards. Furthermore, have been offered a number of alternative homes but all have been declined."
Point #3 : In Aotearoa today, beggars can be choosers. Especially when a mother can produce 8 children (to how many fathers?) with full expectations that the state & taxpayers would and must take care of all their needs.
https://www.conservativecartoons.com/1995/manykids.gif
And Paula Bennett, ex Minister, was savagely attacked by the woke leftists and the Labour Party when she attempted to change the welfare settings pertaining to provision of state housing :
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-conten...970d-800wi.png
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kainga...IYUVQOEZIEMOA/
Kāinga Ora tenants who don’t deserve state homes should be evicted – Paula Bennett
It is all about your rights instead of acknowledging that you also have responsibilities.
It may be a small percentage of Kāinga Ora tenants that are making other people’s lives hell but those that are should be dealt with swiftly and in the best interest of others.
It is obvious that they should be evicted for the safety of neighbours but they should also be evicted because they don’t respect the property and there are plenty of others who will.
https://thumbnailer.digitalnz.org/?r...id%3DIE2640741
It would be great if all landlords were like you. However it is also great if there would be no possibility of landlords using no cause evictions to select tenants on a discriminatory personal basis.
My question was slightly different. Would housing supply be increased as a result? Or, would the increased demand for rental properties be at the expense of pricing out owner occupiers, in our perennially constrained supply of new housing for our increasing population..
Ok, so I can just say I want to move into it then. And then when they move out, I decide I will just leave it vacant.
That ok then?
Why I might want to stop renting my property is nobody’s business really. It is my property.
Yes, I need to give reasonable notice as human beings are using it for shelter…but it is still my property. To rent or not.
So the “human beings” use your rental property just for “shelter”, not as their home?
Here in Auckland I think almost 50% of households are tenanted. I would surprised if some didn’t regard the houses where they live as more than just shelter. However this is Auckland so expectations may be quite low with respect to housing in general.
It is irrelevant whether you want to refer to it as it actually is (shelter) or use an emotive term (home).
The relevant point is that I own the shelter/home.
And I should have an avenue to stop renting it out to someone without having to make up a reason.
Yes, a reasonable notice period needs to be given. I think 3 months is reasonable.
You are trying to make a ‘big thing’ out of nothing. You should have gotten a job with Paddy while the going was still good if ‘making news’ is your business.
Exactly. Property rights. You own the property. You can do what you like with it.
3 months is perfectly reasonable.
Heck next Bjauck and others will be advocating that your personal vehicle is actually not yours and certain conditions are attached.
You rightly point out that it is totally irrelevant whether it is a shelter, home or haven. That's just emotive nonsense and playing semantics.
Either we have property rights or we don't.
p.s I am a small landlord. Most tenants are great. But you need to be able to be selective and also not have to make up a BS reason if you want your house back.
I look after tenants that look after my place. It's symbiotic and works well. They don't get annual rates increases and if there is one it is well below market.
The tenants that do not look after the place, out they go.
I have zero problem or issue with voting them in vs allowing the likes of you voting Hapless Hipkins & his useless incompetents back in for another term to drive NZ rapidly into 2nd world status within the next 2 years.
This government will slow down the decline but the cancer of racial, social & economic divisions induced by Labour over the last 6 years is too widespread and terminal to reverse.
Meanwhile, best we encourage our hardworking young, skilled and experienced to migrate to Australia for a better future for them
& their families.
When I see the nutty stuff from bjauck and the like I start to feel more aligned with Balance in that you need to come down hard on these b@staffs whenever they start trying to share their nonsense.
The way he is carrying on you would think the current govt has made it so that landlords can kick people out with 24 hours notice, no reason given.
3 months (a quarter of a solar year!) is more than enough time.
I remember this article and this lady and thought it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. How many different fathers and what is she thinking at what point in time does she take responsibility for her actions or contribute anything other than manpower to society. I also worried that her kids will learn from their Mum so the manpower contribution might not be significant.
But talking of parasites I have heard of welfare recipients earning over $100,000 a year and still putting a hand out AND receiving $25,000 to $27,000 annually depending on if they had a partner, there are even some people like Winston Peters who don't declare their partner and get the full $27,000 until they are caught out.
Not only that, this category of benefit is bigger than all the others combined and there is no income or asset testing at all, but if you suggest they shouldn't get it if they don't need it, my goodness do they kick up a stink.
Isn't it interesting that the party of individual responsibility and that people are better placed than politicians or bureaucrats to make decisions about the way they live their lives (ACT) wants to tell parents when their children are sick enough to not go to school?
Just like locals should make decisions for local issues unless the decision isn't what Seymour or Luxon want - then decisions should be made from Wellington.
How to fxxk up like Te WTF Ora & Labour government - $300m hospital sitting unused due to lack of staff.
Too busy assigning points (eg. prioritization based upon race and social welfare)to see who gets onto the waiting list and into the queue to actually recruit staff!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...-lack-of-staff
A brand new surgical building the size of a provincial hospital is sitting empty on the grounds of North Shore Hospital, its opening delayed and no new date set.
There are lights on and hospital beds in place in the four storey, 150-bed Tōtara Haumaru building, but it could be months before there are patients.
It did not have the staff it needed, and the amount of money allocated to run it for the next financial year had not been decided.
The $300m facility, with eight operating theatres, was always intended to be opened in stages but the first stage - the ground and first floor - was initially supposed to open last December, then this month
Point #1 : She has been in the KO unit for 8 years and in that time, she has produced at least another 3 children (to how many fathers?) - while on full social welfare entitlements. No presumption required here.
What kind of mother or human being does that - bring ever more children on welfare into the world? [/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
Which leads to a timely question.
Carmel Sepuloni stated removal of requirement of such mothers to name the fathers, would 'only' cost taxpayers an extra $20M pa.
What's the true cost now Carmel?
And who thinks they are getting value for money?
The males screwing the mother to produce 8 children and leaving taxpayers to pay for the results of their pleasures are certainly getting value?
Fxxking joke - just like Sepuloni.
She not only removed the requirement to name the fathers, she also removed all restraints on solo mums breeding more baby beneficiaries & parasites :
"In 2012, during Paula Bennett's time as minister, obligations were placed on single parents to return to work earlier if they had an additional child while receiving a benefit. Carmel Sepuloni removed that requirement effectively allowing the birth of more babies to be used to avoid working. As it is sole parents have no work obligations until their youngest turns three (and then it is only to seek part-time work.) Three years is inconsistent with the time most working mothers take out of the workforce."
So clear why these solo mums keep producing babies - courtesy of Labour & Carmel Sepuloni.
So how's the parasite breeding program going?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/v...=70&smart=true
You’ are right a home is a type of physical shelter. Home however is not an emotive term. It has quite a different meaning from shelter, which is more aptly applied to structures such as bus shelters, That people use sporadically. Similarly families, who are indeed human beings have homes in rental housing. For some reason you seem to want to make peoples homes into more of a transactional investment commodity.
Sure the news for you is that some human beings form families and some of these families need to establish homes in rental accommodation.
However if 40% plus of Aucklanders homes are treated more as mere shelters, then we will need to/ are dealing with the social consequences.
You certainly cannot do whatever you like with your “shelter “ that is a house. I remember there were all sorts of codes that have to be complied with. NZ law extends over your house. His Majesty bestows on us certain rights. The Crown can actually end up doing what it likes with your property.
We have such property rights that the Crown allows us. You need to be aged over 15 to own a car for a start. Your motor vehicle can only be operated with a licence, with a warrant of fitness and driven by a licensed driver. Cars can be taken off owners, impounded, confiscated and destroyed in certain circumstances. The Crown can further limit property rights over cars, and anything else, if it so pleases.
In which case, they must learn to be good tenants because there are very very few cases of good tenants being asked to leave for no good reason.
Maybe you need to visit a few Kainga WTF Ora properties to see 'families' establishing homes in rental accommodation with the NO EVICTION policy :
"Kāinga Ora has yet to cancel any tenancies or evict a single tenant since it was instructed to more vigourously employ the law against unruly renters.
The housing agency has, however, moved 113 households, although it admits about half of those are tenants who have chosen to move away from their disruptive neighbours."
https://thumbnailer.digitalnz.org/?r...d%3DIE83495637
Bjauck needs a reality check.
Going mental because the new govt says landlords can give a quarter of a year notice if they don’t want to rent their property any more.
Jesus, what a bunch of despicable c*nts!!!
As you say, good tenants getting the boot got no reason at all will be virtually zilch.
Next!
Let's just say you own a property, and you lease it to someone on a contract. The renter has no obligation to give reason (cause) why they might choose to terminate the contract and leave. You however think that you the owner and lessor of the property should be obligated to have a reason 'cause' for terminating the contract?
Why would you suggest and support this imbalance in contract law, where one party has to give cause, whereas the other party need not give cause?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-...IYUF2BYYKYMDM/
So this 'poor wretched woman' has 8 children and 5 of them, aged 4 to 16 live with her since since 2016 when she moved into the Kainga Ora (KO) 3 bedrooms apartment.
Point #1 : She has been in the KO unit for 8 years and in that time, she has produced at least another 3 children (to how many fathers?) - while on full social welfare entitlements. No presumption required here.
What kind of mother or human being does that - bring ever more children on welfare into the world?quote
Read the article again. The 3 children maybe are older and have left home?
westerly
First, it would not necessarily be an imbalance as there are various rights and obligations on both sides. Contracts are also subject to public policy as reflected in the statutory requirements.
Second, for a variety of reasons I decided some time ago never to be a landlord of a residential property. This has probably cost me from a purely transactional investment point of view, as I think some of my peer group have had excellent investment returns from leveraged residential rental investments., in excess of the returns I have received from my shares and funds.
All investment classes have different laws and rules pertaining to them. I would recognise that renting out housing would have specific rules: Such as rules relating to health, safety and other standards. As this investment specifically relates to providing accommodation, for “human beings” some of whom may be bringing up families, then I would realise that would come with obligations. Of course, if I no longer wished to provide accommodation, I could sell the property giving the otherwise good tenants at least 90 days (I think) notice that I may need vacant possession for the sale.
And good for you.
But there is no requirement to sell it if you want to stop renting it to someone (as you seem to think there should be).
If I have a tenant living in one of my properties - and I decide I no longer wish to rent the property out to the tenant, I quite rightly have an avenue to do so.
Whether I am doing it because I intend to sell the property, or prefer to rent the property out to someone else I know, or have split from my wife and need my own place to live, or want to move my whole family into the rental is actually none of my tenants business.
I don’t have to provide evidence or a good story as you seem to think. All I have to do is give a minimum of 90 days notice.
You are desperately trying to make a big deal out of a non-issue.
mistaTea;1048087 And good for you. Thanks. I was asked if I thought there is an imbalance in contract law. I do not. Even when coalition statutory changes come into force, it will just change the mix of rights and obligations. The whole housing and rental market is riddled with the effects of government policy, requirements and subsidies. This of course benefits landlords as well as tenants. There is not an uncontrolled free market. The fact NZ households seems to prefer to invest in residential housing by a margin over investing in equities indicates where the balance of cost/benefit of entering contracts has lain.
But there is no requirement to sell it if you want to stop renting it to someone (as you seem to think there should be. Sure, if a tenancy has legally ended. You can keep you investment property empty, or keep it is an extra home. It could become an expensive exercise, with negative returns in a consolidating property market. Not a good investment. However that is up to you if you can, and are prepared to bear those costs.
If I have a tenant living in one of my properties - and I decide I no longer wish to rent the property out to the tenant, I quite rightly have an avenue to do so. From 2025, when the Residential Tenancy Act amendments with no cause evictions take effect. Will the amendments be retrospective - and apply to pre-exisiting agreements?
Whether I am doing it because I intend to sell the property, or prefer to rent the property out to someone else I know, or have split from my wife and need my own place to live, or want to move my whole family into the rental is actually none of my tenants business.
I don’t have to provide evidence or a good story as you seem to think. All I have to do is give a minimum of 90 days notice.
You are desperately trying to make a big deal out of a non-issue.
You had the conniptions over my posts.
You are correct that there is an imbalance in the relationship between renter and LL.
In the contract, there are conditions - conditions around the quality and maintenance of the property.
There are also actions that a tenant can take if the tenant feels that any of those conditions haven't been met - they can (ultimately) go to the tenancy tribunal to seek remedy after they have issued the LL a 10-day notice to repair.
In many cases what happened (under the 90-day no-cause termination) the LL would decide that the tenant was a troublemaker and seek to remove them by saying be gone in 90 days.
Many tenants felt an implied threat of this and would put up with issues that they shouldn't have to put up with (leaks, mold due to leaks, ovens not working, etc).
That is where the imbalance is.
A shortage of rental accommodation means tenants had to put up with what they shouldn't have to put up with.
So the tenant
Yes, yes you lot have no shortage of made up sop stories to share.
But you can’t get away from the fundamental fact that the LL owns the property and can rent it or not. There must be an avenue for the LL to stop renting the property without having to make up a reason.
Otherwise you just force them to lie. “I need you out because I am going to renovate and sell”. Then after the person gaps it “Ahhh, my circumstances have changed and I will rent it out for a bit longer. He he”.
It’s just silly.
If there is a problem with dodgy LL’s not ensuring that their properties meet the legal minimum requirements then you address that issue, but you don’t remove the whole 90 day notice as a lazy and clumsy way of doing it.
If the LL has done what they are legally required to do and the tenant is overly demanding and keeps pestering the LL with wanting this and that then too f*cken right the LL can give them the boot , no reason given, 90 days notice and get someone else in who won’t be such a headache.
Redacted post.
Redacted post
Interesting editorial opinion by NZ Herald (one of the biggest recipients of Ardern's media bribe - $10.5m to NZME) urging Labour to do something, anything to rise up and be a real Opposition to the Coalition.
Sounds like a cry for help by the woke left leaning Herald which does not allow any criticism of the Maorification of NZ to be published.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/labo...HEIYBDCPKDKZY/
paywalled
Since the election, Labour’s loyal supporters have been waiting for the real opposition to the coalition wrecking-machine to please stand up. Some of Labour’s old guard have left the red team. Some were forced out when losing their once safe electorate seats like Mahuta (Hauraki-Waikato), Kelvin Davis (Te Tai Tokerau), Peeni Henare (Tāmaki Makaurau but still a list MP), Rino Tirikatene (Te Tai Tonga), Michael Wood (Mt Roskill), Tamati Coffey (East Coast) to name a big few scalps as the 2020 red wave turned into a blue lagoon.
Now is the time for Labour to take a deep dive into itself and consider who and what it represents. Changes must happen. In other words, stand down and step aside.
Bunch of tired, useless and clueless Losers - Rejected by the majority of NZers.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/v...=70&smart=true
You're the best example of a repetitive tired clueless antikiwi there is,congrats on reaching the top of the blubber heap.👍
Balance is doing God's work in my view.
Not yielding, slapping down ridiculous woke ideology-based policy that some on here like to spout.
We saw what happened over the previous 6 years where the silent majority just let everything slide. NZ is in terrible shape, not only economically but also race relations etc.
If he has to repeat himself to keep the Woke Brigade in check he has my full support.
I would also point out that it is very rare (if ever) to see someone unpick any of his posts and point out where he is 'wrong'.
And the truth does hurt sometimes, that's a fact.
Second that. As repetitive as Balance appears I have no doubt his comments are based on his concern for our future. The problem with most Kiwis is we are far too apathetic. Why do we stand by and watch a perfectly functional society and economy slide down the gurgler.
That has to be one of the most inaccurate posts I have seen on here, and boy that's saying a lot when considering what is posted.
Balance's posts if there is anything of substance which is rare, are unpicked regularly.
The rest of his post are just sloppy insults to a large part of the population and referring to get his arse kissed.
Well I guess we just found out who is first in the arse kissing queue.
Don't you love terms like 'silent majority' another words a figment of your imagination.
And when you say 'God's' work, which god are you referring to?
Also I'm not aware of too many god's that advocate for arse kissing or insulting others on a regular basis. Apollo perhaps?
Awww thats so cute, ridiculous but cute.
I'm sure Balance is enjoying the adoration as he's obviously into that sort of thing.
And like a good little soldier you are ready to pucker up on demand.
Water of a duck's back buddy, as when he continuously repeats the same insults, woke this, left that etc, it just loses all effect, as it's not intelligent or quick wit.
It's lazy slagging off people that have different views.
It's just tedious.
But each to their own. It's just interesting what some people enjoy. It's very rare to see any of the posters from the left on here call the righties any extreme terms, they could but they don't tend to. However there is a constant barrage of that from the right.
What do you think is God’s work? What ideology do you pursue? How do you think Balance is doing it? You need to be woke to the needs of others to do God’s work.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
Mate, I have worked on some of the biggest trading floors in the world, do you think a bit of Balance's poor attempts to slag all insundry off would bother me. It's boring, it's tedious, it's lazy, but it's not incendiary.
But if that makes you feel better, keep thinking that. I'm all for giving me.
I gather that you are calling me a liar.
Maybe I see more of the truth from where I sit?
Not a fundamental fact at all and your saying so doesn't make it one.Quote:
But you can’t get away from the fundamental fact that the LL owns the property and can rent it or not. There must be an avenue for the LL to stop renting the property without having to make up a reason.
There doesn't have to be a way to stop renting to a person at will (no reason given) if society deems that isn't in society's best interest.
dobby41, you are a self described large scale landlord. Yet you advocate for a Marxist position, whereby the state shall have control of personal property in the state's best interests. (substituting state for society). I don't think you have thought this through. Champagne socialists are the bane of our society (no state substitution)
Marxist? Is any central government “interference” in markets “Marxist” in your definition? If so, I say thank God for Marxism with that definition! Without standards and regulation we would all be so much worse off. Maybe you prefer to cherry-pick your Marxism?
If your Auntry arrives from out of town, surely it is a “Marxist”. curb on your rights of property ownership, if you cannot immediately, without notice, evict your tenants so that Aunty can stay in the house that you own.
Trust you to extrapolate my position as Marxist.
I advocate that LLs have a responsibility to fairness.
When the power is skewed one way or the other an environment or unfairness is created.
Currently, LLs have greater power because there is such a shortage of property (owner-occupied and rental) that LLs can get away with taking advantage.
I don't think you understand what actually happens on the ground - I see it more often than I should from fellow LLs.
It isn't champagne socialist you should worry about - it is positions born of ignorance like yours and many others here.
An idea of just what the new government is up against in trying to turn NZ as a country around from the waste, incompetence and failure of Labour/Green under Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson, the Maori cabal and the cast of useless ministers :
Ardern and Kainga Ora added 170% (yes, 170%) more staff between Dec 2017 and April 2023 - from 1223 to 3305 during Labour's first 5.5 years in office.
And what did the additional 2082 staff achieved and do?
Well, clearly they do not know how to even arrange and manage a rubbish collection! Something so simple and with plenty of experiences by councils to learn from, they managed to stuff it up!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/failed...EXN6Y4RYO4HFI/
"The cost to clean up “mountains of rubbish” illegally dumped on Rotorua’s Wrigley Rd has come to more than $11,000. Rotorua Lakes Council has confirmed more than 7 tonnes of rubbish was removed after a community clean-up day organised by Kāinga Ora went wrong. Kāinga Ora was picking up the tab after word spread on social media people could dump their rubbish for free on Wrigley Rd."
But WAIT! There's more!
KO's debt has risen from $1.089 billion in 2017 when Labour took office to $12 billion today! So that's $916,000 for the additional 12,000 units added (not built) by Labour under Twyford & Woods.
And so KO (under Woods) came out with a plan to sell off 10,200 state houses next few years which Treasury, after reviewing the proposal, slated it as unreasonable!
Because KO has only ever sold around 100 units a year.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...BBVZL5EHRRJQQ/
paywalled
What a bunch of buffoons!
Vui Mark Gosche - ex-Labour Minister appointed by Ardern to chair KO who resigned in a big hurry this year so he does not have to front for the failures of KO to deliver.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/v...=70&smart=true
https://liberation.typepad.com/.a/6a...1fef200d-800wi
Did I miss mention here of the interesting idea Simion has to tunnel 4km under Wellington?
It's Marxist in that it advocates for State control over Capital (in this case the landlord's house). State dabbling in subsidising the rental market has just further distorted it. Accommodation allowances paid to renters are destined to end up in the pockets of landlords, justifying higher house prices and enabling a never ending upwards climb. Non-too clever is it?
Every investment is subject to a regulatory scheme with state imposed requirements. If you don’t like any if them, then don’t invest, or sell up. I think for you, a state formulated scheme for residential property in which you think the balance favours the landlord, ironically is not Marxist.
I was thinking what life would be in a Jonu-inspired Marxism free society without state control over owner’s capital. I am not sure if there would be any Crimes or whether that would be regarded as Marxist control of the individual. However, There would be no building codes, as owner’s of capital should be free to employ their capital however they like, without any state regulations.
We would probably see the sophisticated development of voluntary codes that participants would be free to join. This would probably lead to areas of settlements that would have good quality buildings with a higher wealthy owner-occupant proportion, and with good quality rental accommodation with secure tenure for the wealthier tenants. There would be good security from private armies, and reliable services from suppliers. None of these people would want the independent non-member contractors, landlords and builders to move into their areas.
There would be townships with cheap buildings prone to collapse and fire, where the destitute would reside at their peril, and where landlords would risk having their investments collapse and burn. Private bailiffs would patrol these townships terrorising, and trying to exact overdue rent and absconding tenants.
There would be shanties where wouild reside the people that even the most lowly slum landlords would not accept. Some charities may helicopter in water, food and clothes.
There would be majority middling areas, where building collapses and fires would not be a daily occurrence. Services would be spasmodic.
This would end up similar to Ancient Rome in other words. Although that was bit “Marxist” with its state supplied aquaducts and gladiator events, and its sophisticated legal system controlling what people could do.
Agree, and very boring as well, like grandstanding or seeking attention, posting lengthy diatribe on public discussion groups just because they have bit of extra time on their hands and are probably just bored themselves, creating pointless narrative for the sake of meaningless, unlikely or ridiculous conversation.
No, I just think you are very boring and wasting everyone's time posting nonsense arguing immaterial points that will lead to no one being more enlightened. Your crusade against the tax system and advocacy for a CGT is also extremely tedious and repetitive. Very close to ignore, imo. You need some new material, maybe school up on investing and start posting something on the investment threads instead? Just a thought.
I did not realise that there was a requirement to post on certain threads. Many of the posts on investment threads are drivel or personal attacks. A bit like this post of yours. Please ignore me! Just do it. No need to keep on showboating about threatening to ignore me.