17
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
17 points (94.7% liked)
NZ Politics
556 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
oooo so close Greens, so close.
This still does nothing to curb speculation on the housing market which is driving out of control prices and inflation.
The costs for housing improvements will be easily carried by the conglomerates owning tens or hundreds of houses, but small investors with one or two properties may be forced to sell because they won't be able to afford to be compliant, thus providing more stock for the large whales to buy, completing the straight line of more wealth to the already wealthy.
I see it's been offset by the basic income there, so you're appealing to the desperate lower class, while screwing over the middle to feed the top.
Should we have healthy homes? Yes. But shouldn't the goal be to have less people renting and more people owning?
One policy can't do everything, and this is at least better than other platforms. At least it incentives improving housing stock, which the current system does not. Of course we still desperately need a capitol gains/wealth tax and a reform of our tax brackets to being them out of the 90s.
Should it? If housing was structured a little different so owning a house wasn't partaking in speculation but the house was simply a place live, and rental laws allowed reasonable use of that property by tenants, and there was ample housing supply, then is there a compelling reason for us to push for everyone to own a house? What wellbeing measurement would this help?
Owning a house (or having a significant piece of the mortgage paid off) gives you a safety net. It's dormant capital, something you can use to borrow against for much cheaper loans, something you can hand down to your kids, and something you can rely on during retirement years.
The measurement might be called 'financial stability' or financial freedom etc.
Having access to low interest loans is something that renters don't have.
If we had ample housing then there would be more supply than demand, and houses would cost closer to what it costs to provide rather that a race of who can pay the most. But the downside is there would be less to borrow against, because the "value" would increase at around inflation instead of based on speculation.
In that situation, you could rent, and put the money in a low fee broad based investment fund. The capital would grow (over a long time period) much more than inflation, offsetting loan interest to give a similar benefit. And at the end you can give your kids the stocks instead of the house, and in your retirement years you'd have more income from the stocks than what you'd be paying in rent.
I'm just propositing something that could be an alternative to buying. Even if not for everyone, I think we should be able to have a system that doesn't rely on young people buying houses from old people for much more than it cost them.