Loomio

A prosperous country for who? Housing in New Zealand

DU
[deactivated account] Public Seen by 559

From 'State Housing' to 'Affordable Housing' for first time buyers - what should be done?

Open Discussion, lets start the debate!

DU

[deactivated account] started a proposal Wed 28 Jan 2015

Will National's plan on State Housing work? Closed Sun 15 Feb 2015

Do you agree with National's approach or disagree. In the general discussion feed give us some idea what your thoughts are on this topic of 'State Housing'.

Results
Agree - 1
Abstain - 1
Disagree - 1
Block - 1
8 people have voted (1%)
CE

Colin England
Abstain
Wed 28 Jan 2015

Depends upon how you define 'work'. I suspect it will do what National wants it to do which seems to be to give a few more landlords state subsidies but I don't think it will make state housing any better or any more available.

MW

Marc Whinery Wed 28 Jan 2015

It'll work great. I own multiple houses. I'll make a mint jacking up rents and squeezing the poor. I'm who the policy was made for. The rest is lies to explain how it's "good for the people".

The entire house renting situation is broken. I can deduct work on a rental, but not a house I live in. I can deduct interest on a loan for a rental house, but not the one I live in.

The result is, it's cheaper to rent than own. So if you live in a house you own, you are doing it wrong. Buy the house next door to the place you want to live. Rent out the house you want to live in. You'll pay less, and still be on the property ladder.

The "fix" is to tax income from a leasehold at 80%. Don't lease it, sell it and let someone else improve it. Also, eliminate all tax deductions for rental property, tax all income equally. Why do I get to deduct the cost of driving to inspect my rental property, but not the cost of driving to a salaried job?

I know the answer to that one. National exists only to make the 1% richer. Pay for parking to go to your rental you own? Deductible. Parking to work a salaried job? Nope.

UFB/RBI was subsidies to private companies to build what they were already building. This plan also looks like a plan to give subsidies to the rich. National thinks there's nothing that can't be solved by paying a rich person/company to do it.

TWP

The Working Poor Class
Disagree
Fri 30 Jan 2015

Plans for the fertile land of Chch need to be addressed first before jumping to any issues regarding state houses.. and to try and sugar coat and febreze the hell out of these state housing talks, makes me so sick I need to projectile vomit.

BW

Benjamin Wood
Disagree
Fri 30 Jan 2015

DU

[deactivated account]
Disagree
Fri 30 Jan 2015

No it won't work to provide better housing for people in need.

JWP

Jp Willam Perry
Agree
Fri 30 Jan 2015

PB

Peter Baxter
Disagree
Fri 30 Jan 2015

MW

Marc Whinery
Block
Wed 11 Feb 2015

Yes, it will work. But the implied goals (cheap housing) isn't the actual goal (private profits for National supporters in the housing/landlord industry). Since a "yes" for one is indistinguishable from a "no" for the other, the wording is ambiguous

FL

Fred Look Wed 11 Feb 2015

Prosperous for some preposterous for others

P

pilotfever
Block
Sat 14 Feb 2015

I'm with @marcwhinery on this, proposal is ambiguous, needs to be clarified. Also my first ever block vote :)

MW

Marc Whinery Sat 14 Feb 2015

@jamesabbott Congratulations on your first block vote. you are now ready to kick puppies and club baby seals.

My problem with National is that they think they are right. They are deliberately boosting the 1%, expecting the voodoo economics of "trickle down" to raise all ships. The US tried it 30 years ago. It was proven a failure. So why are we doing it again?

The only thing that has been proven to work (to rise all boats) is to help the bottom 80%. When those losers have money to spend, they improve their lives, and buy more things that boost the 1%. The "problem" with that is that the 1% isn't helped sufficiently disproportionately.

It's not an economic problem, it's a psychological one. The guy making $100,000 a year in the Congo (over 100 the average) is happier than the guy making $200,000 in NZ (still top 1/2 of 1%). It's not the money, it's the feeling of superiority over others, more than the 1% would like to acknowledge.

The 1% feels that the economy is a zero sum game. On a microscopic scale, that's right, but we live in a macroscopic world.

  • no, you don't get more details on that, I could write a long paper defending that statement, both on the economics and the psychology, and then tie it in to our failed transportation policy. Something I'd much rather be working on.

Yeah, I'll digress for a moment. You can stop reading if you aren't interested in traffic engineering.

So, one guy getting on the motorway. He has the choice to speed up a little more (to above the average speed of the motorway), cut someone off (obviously having to brake after, as he's going faster than the cars around him), or he could build speed to ~80% of the motorway speed, then pick the spot to get on that least inconveniences all drivers.

The 1% mentality picks the first option. This results in him (and those behind him) braking to avoid a crash. In heavy traffic, this results in a brake-wave that can persist for hours (you know the ones, where you stop in the middle of the motorway for no particular reason, but just for a moment).

The most optimal for road throughput is the latter choice.

On a microscopic level, the guy who takes #1 "wins" because he is farther ahead than if he hadn't done it.

On a macroscopic level, the guy who takes #2 "wins" because everyone on the road gets where they are going faster.

The problem exists because there's a disconnect between the rules and conventions, and the psychology behind it. The 1% constantly pushes for more 1% benefits, without considering the overall result. If something hurts the 99% but doesn't hurt the 1%, that would be considered a "win" by the 1%, and something that results in everyone getting the same benefit, 1% or 99%, then the 1% would call that a loss, because the gap isn't widening.

Unfortunately, recognizing the root cause doesn't fix it. NZTA knows the traffic problems are psychological, not physical, but won't word it that way for traffic plans, but obviously understands it, as that was the point of "drive social" they spent millions on, and that didn't seem to help at all.

P

pilotfever Sat 14 Feb 2015

Whatever it takes glad you are on the team.

----- Reply message -----

DU

[deactivated account] Sat 14 Feb 2015

@marcwhinery I like the above comment, but feel that you have left out the other group who's lives don't revolve around winning the game because the game means nothing to them.

Also, calling people."those losers" is foolish. The difference between them and you is a bank mistake, a new law, or just society deciding that your culture suddenly isn't the culture du jour. They may be winners in ways that you are currently not able to understand but are far more real than money.

MW

Marc Whinery Sun 15 Feb 2015

@tane I understand and agree. The use was ironic. The 1% would consider the bottom 80% losers, but obviously they aren't, as that's where most people are. They aren't "losers", they are "average", and there's a problem with the system if 80% are "losers".

EC

Esther Cook Fri 27 Feb 2015

Sad ..bye

BR

Blair Robson started a proposal Fri 27 Feb 2015

Hapu Lead Communal Living Villages Closed Tue 3 Mar 2015

We all know that a shift towards fully sustainable living is the eventual end-game for earth if we hope to conquer the mess we have made of the planet and the reliance on capitalist society.......It can only ever be achieved by a gradual shift this way and Maori are actually placed well to lead this shift if its something they want.

As a means of restoring the cultural component Maori lost when they moved away from this type of communal society as well as creating an alternative and a catchment for the areas of social welfare that have historically failed - I truly believe that if given support Hapu can be empowered to create villages like this...Not just for Maori but for anyone willing to contribute to the community.

I'm thinking ares of land which surround historical sites and Marae being turned into plots with agriculture which firstly satisfies the community in terms food and resources but also the environment...Ie commitment to reforestation, Whanau driven support networks and education.

We cannot rely on the petrodollar forever, we have the number of homeless people exponentially growing, we have disenfranchised unemployed folk out there who could do with some wholesome lifestyle choices that a community of this type would promote.

As long as the religious component was excluded and everything was based around the concepts of mother earth...Papatuanuku, Tangaroa etc etc then it could be a fantastic method of revitalising the lower socio-economic part of society.

Obviously the downside would be that it inherantly discourages employment within the economic state....but....who cares? Whats important.

I believe this would be a great way of suring up things like conservation, fisheries and working together.

I think that a concept like this supercedes the concepts surrounding the treaty of Waitangi and in fact could possibly address many of the social problems treaty settlement 'claims' to address.

Itd also be a fantastic way of helping EVERYONE understand the spirit in which this country was -actually- founded upon....Which was a working relationship between Pakeha and Maori to work the land together as one.

Results
Agree - 5
Abstain - 5
Disagree - 5
Block - 5
5 people have voted (0%)
AB

Alan Bainbridge
Agree
Fri 27 Feb 2015

Wholeheartedly agree. First nations all over the world knew that they were part of nature, not the boss of it. While some of this knowledge has been buried quite deeply by the rhetoric of capitalism, it is not lost completely. Good proposal.

P

pilotfever Fri 27 Feb 2015

Yes, UBI could also support such initiatives. Officially the hippy movement died in the 1960's but survived in Northland into the 80's. I think we have a lot to offer the rest of the planet with regards such sustainable arrangements and absolutely agree it is not limited to Maori. Ultimately, the rangitira need to recognise that value is being stolen from New Zealand in terms of its innovation economy, this value once restored will also enable such initiatives.

P

pilotfever
Agree
Fri 27 Feb 2015

As per discussion.

FL

Fred Look Fri 27 Feb 2015

Somehow in the morass of permits and process a fundemental right to house ourselves is lost. IP policy needs to consider protecting and reinstating this right as it makes policy in this area.

FL

Fred Look
Agree
Fri 27 Feb 2015

AB

Alan Bainbridge Fri 27 Feb 2015

Very true @fredlook

C

Courtney Sat 28 Feb 2015

If i had the land and or money i would be starting an eco village tomorrow, i have it all planned fully self-sufficient, building my own power supply and waste treatment based on the US earthships using recycled materials where practical, just need the opportunity

P

pilotfever Sat 28 Feb 2015

Our neighbours have already got a wonderful adobe, off the grid construction. I hope to do the same. I also favour temporary summer housing on farmland via the sharing economy / airbnb. I am looking for investment to purchase Yurts and also more land...

NA

Nicholas Adamson
Agree
Sun 1 Mar 2015

Agree in principal

SG

Sam Gribben
Agree
Mon 2 Mar 2015

Absolutely has to happen, and of course it already sort of does in some communities. I think the government supporting Iwi and Hapu to set up more community initiatives is an absolute must.

IJB

IP Jo Booth Mon 26 Mar 2018

Recently had contact from a student wanting to chat about expensive housing if anyone is interested...

I would like to ask a member of the internet party on their thoughts/perspective on expensive housing, and what actions they are taking in relation to their perceptive.
I would love to talk with someone on the phone, or I could come and interview someone, or they could just email me back stating their perceptive and what actions they are taking.
e.g. If you believe that expensive housing is unfair on first home buyers and unfair on people who don't earn enough income, what actions are you taking reduce expensive housing?

D

D'Artagñan Mon 26 Mar 2018

Please have a look at : www.barcelonahousingsystems.com , we are developing in NZ urban blocks with 1.000 family apartments a year. A factory assembly plant on site with affordable and quality building . The central goverment and local councils must follow us , so we can make "first homeownership" available for all new zealanders ...NOW !!!!... (not need to wait a dream of 10 or more years)