-
Yesterday, 06:57 PM
#4041
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by moka
It's a nice story about landlords providing much needed accommodation, but the reality is they buy existing housing. They rarely provide more housing, or new housing. They also push up prices so home buyers are locked out of the housing market. And they are not doing it out of the goodness of their heart, but for their own self-interest as an investment. And they don’t provide much needed accommodation because if there is scarcity their return on investment increases.
Right on - so many drongos seem to think that landlord ownership creates houses- the rationale is strange at best.
-
Yesterday, 07:01 PM
#4042
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by iceman
This is stereotyping moka. I have rentals and have long term (many years) tenants that pay rents at the lower end of the market price year after year for good and well maintained houses. I benefit from reliable long term tenants that look after the houses, reducing my maintenance costs.
I recently decided to sell one house but after a tearful conversation with our great tenant, we decided not to sell at this time. She sure appreciated it.
Yes I am looking after my self interest and it is part of my long term investment portfolio, but my tenants also benefit from it. It is a win win situation.
But if you had sold the house it doesn’t change the supply of housing stock does it?
-
Yesterday, 07:04 PM
#4043
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Aaron
Not sanctimonious just talking my book as a poor person.
Also you did not answer my question.
Is the 2.3billion accommodation allowance a gift to landlords? What other industry gets that sort of TAXPAYER support. Or should we view housing as something different from other businesses?
Is targeted inflation a gift to landlords particularly heavily leveraged landlords?
I would be surprised to get an answer from you regarding my questions, just more ranting on some topic unrelated to my questions.
You have got a good seat on your hobby horse, stay on it.
Balance didn’t address my post about the redundant person because Balance was backed into a corner so replying didn’t suit.
-
Yesterday, 07:19 PM
#4044
blackcap: It's not rugby racing and beer, but if you look at what was essentially Kiwi, that has changed dramatically over the last 30 years.
All cultures evolve.
Immigration is not the problem either, however it is when it is unfettered and too fast. This does not allow the adoption of the host country culture.
The issue I think is that the host country must ensure affordable accommodation, infrastructure and services are developed at the same time as the immigration. Otherwise resentment occurs. Immigration works best when it alleviates labour shortages and adds skills for the benefit of all. Multiculturalism can enrich too.
But the issue I have with this push for multiculturalism, is that the end result is that cultures all over the place will be destroyed and you will end up with a homogonous global culture. Quite sickening really. Thankfully there are countries out there that have Nationalist tendencies and ideologies and they will end up maintaining their cultures. Japan, China, Hungary (maybe) etc spring to mind.
I think multiculturalism will delay a homogenous culture. Increased communication and interaction will see more convergence, even for Amazonian tribes.
Japan’s culture has evolved tremendously in the last 100 years. No culture is static.
But I realise I have gone well off topic so will shut up on this now. Up to you. It is always interesting to exchange ideas. It is relevant to this thread insofar as this Government has quite a different cultural interpretation and impetus compared to the previous.
Last edited by Bjauck; Yesterday at 07:30 PM.
-
Yesterday, 07:54 PM
#4045
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by tim23
But if you had sold the house it doesn’t change the supply of housing stock does it?
They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Not to get rich quick by flicking it to another investor. That's why it's tax free ![Wink](images/smilies/wink2.gif)
The sallies: property investor edition.
-
Yesterday, 11:40 PM
#4046
Now luxon wants bipartisan agreement for his projects after scrapping:
Three Waters
Lake Onslow
Light Rail
Ferry Upgrade
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350...cture-projects
How about lux accept two of the above projects and labour can accept two of his awesome road projects.
Last edited by Panda-NZ-; Today at 12:51 PM.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by tim23
But if you had sold the house it doesn’t change the supply of housing stock does it?
Of course it doesn't. But if there were no rentals, my tenants would be in deep ****.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by blackcap
Yes people born here have just as much cultural connection to the land as Maori born here.
Remembering that Maori were not here originally either.
If we look at culture rather than people there are some huge differences between Maori culture and Western culture regarding land.
Māori culture emphasizes a deep and intimate connection between people and the land. This relationship is fundamental to Māori identity, wellbeing, and worldview.
Māori see themselves as tangata whenua, which literally means "people of the land". This concept expresses that humans and the land are viewed as one, with people not being superior to nature. The natural world is believed to be able to communicate with and impart knowledge to humans.
The connection to land is integral to Māori identity. The land is seen as essential for holistic wellbeing. Māori culture emphasizes a responsibility towards the land.
Western culture generally views the connection to land quite differently from many Indigenous cultures:
- Ownership and exploitation: In Western culture, land is often seen as a resource to be owned, developed, and exploited for economic gain. There is typically a focus on extracting value from the land through activities like agriculture, mining, or real estate development.
- Individual property rights: Western views emphasize private property rights and the ability of individuals to buy, sell, and use land as they see fit within legal boundaries.
- Separation from nature: Western worldviews tend to see humans as separate from nature, rather than intrinsically connected to it. This can lead to a more utilitarian approach to land use.
- Scientific perspective: Western culture often approaches land management from a scientific, evidence-based standpoint rather than a spiritual or ancestral one.
- Future-oriented: There is usually more focus on future development and progress rather than maintaining traditional connections to the land.
- Compartmentalization: Western views tend to compartmentalize land into distinct categories (e.g. residential, agricultural, industrial) rather than seeing it holistically.
- Economic value: Land is frequently valued primarily for its economic potential rather than its cultural or spiritual significance.
- Less emphasis on stewardship: While conservation movements exist, there is generally less emphasis on humans as stewards or caretakers of the land compared to many Indigenous worldviews.
This contrasts with many Indigenous perspectives that view land as sacred, emphasize spiritual connections, focus on stewardship, and see humans as part of nature rather than separate from it
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by dobby41
A bit like the 14 levels of management in NZ Health that isn't.
Just tell the truth!
The list of 14 layers provided by Reti's office includes:
- Chairperson and Board
- CE (Chief Executive)
- Chief of Staff
- National Director Hospital and Specialist Services
- Regional Director Hospital and Specialist Services
- Group Director Operations
- General Manager
- Service Manager
- Manager
- Assistant Manager
- Team Leader
- Team Supervisor
- Team Member (doctor or nurse)
- Patient
Controversies and Clarifications
Inclusion of non-management roles: The list includes the patient and the "team member" (doctor or nurse) as part of the management layers, which has been criticized as misleading.
Actual layers between CEO and patient: If we consider only the layers between the CEO and the patient, as Luxon and Reti initially claimed, the chart shows only 10 layers, not 14.
Criticism from opposition: Labour's Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall suggested that the chart seemed "concocted" to support the Prime Minister's earlier statement.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by blackcap
As Andrew Tate said the other day, is a black person born in China, Chineese?
The English language is lacking nuance when it comes to issues of identity e.g. is he talking about nationality or ethnicity. Similarly sex and gender and the whole “what is a woman” issue.
A person may identify as ethnic Chinese but also identify as a New Zealander because they were born in NZ.
In the case of China specifically:
Chinese nationality law primarily follows the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood). This means citizenship is typically determined by having at least one parent who is a Chinese citizen, rather than by place of birth.
China does not automatically grant citizenship to children born within its borders to non-Chinese parents.
Ethnicity in China is a complex topic, with the government officially recognizing 56 ethnic groups, including the majority Han Chinese and 55 ethnic minorities.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks