9 ms·

Seems reasonable to me. Housing should be for housing people, not a speculative financial investment. It's reasonable for cities to ask that people show that t

Seems reasonable to me. Housing should be for housing people, not a speculative financial investment. It's reasonable for cities to ask that people show that they have some skin in the game, that they're living, working, paying taxes and contributing to and enhancing the community.

briandear 8y ago
If they own a house, they are paying taxes, so they do have significant skin in the game. They pay property taxes despite not using the local schools or most other city services. As far as not allowing housing as a speculative financial investment, there are some significant unintended consequences there.
- pouetpouet 8y ago
  way less than poeple living there. Unless there is some sort of a unique land value tax
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    Like property tax?
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Ya, property taxes should act against such behavior, but many places like Vancouver lack one. Not sure about NZ, but it seems like property taxes are more of an American thing. Edit: oops, Canada does have a property tax, and New Zealand has something like it. So it’s just Australia (on first residences) and the UK that don’t. Well, China also. I’ll take my downvotes gracefully.
      - goodJobWalrus 8y ago
        We pay property tax in Ontario.
      - kareemm 8y ago
        Homeowners do pay property tax in Vancouver: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/property-tax.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/property-tax....
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        There are property taxes here in New Zealand, known as ‘rates’. You can look up what they are for a property and get an idea of the property value on local government websites. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuations/Pages/find-property-rates-valuation.aspx https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuation...
        indemnity 8y ago
        They are absolutely minimal though, works out to about 0.23% of value (aware that’s not the only component) for us in Auckland.
        jly 8y ago
        Yeah, this is a relatively important metric for both investing but also affordability. It shows that there is an apples to oranges comparison in housing prices across markets (discounting currency differences). When calculating the affordability of a home, the total monthly cash flow requirements (housing costs as a percentage of income) are critical. I live in an area where the rates are 10x that of Auckland. A $600k home valuation requires a ~$250 weekly rate commitment vs only about $27 in Auckland - a significant difference. It's still an expensive home by any metric, but considerably more affordable. From a speculation perspective, an investor in Auckland can sit on a very expensive property with almost no cash flow burden, reducing the need to even rent.
- user5994461 8y ago
  The tenant covers all the taxes and costs through his rent.
  - itake 8y ago
    So the property is being occupied, which I don't think they have a problem with. The issue is wealthy investors are coming in, buying up property at above market rate, and then letting it sit empty and driving up the price higher since there is less sellers on the market.
    - user5994461 8y ago
      Doesn't matter if it's rented or not, it drives the price up either way.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        If it’s rented out to a local or sold to a local, the ratio of buildings to locals is the same. Supply or demand (or things outside this context such was wages) has to change for prices to change.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        You assume that the ratio of buildings to locals is the sole input for real estate prices. If an external rentier enters the market and realizes yield, other rentiers will follow. This increases demand for housing assets, not necessarily housing utility. this is the problem they are trying to solve.
        user5994461 8y ago
        Foreign buyers increase the supply of cash. It drives buy prices up, which in turns drives rent up slightly.
  - jpollock 8y ago
    No, they do not, they only cover a portion. As the owner of a New Zealand investment property... In NZ, ROI on property is targeted to be around 8% [3]. The owner will take that ROI either in capital increase or in rent. [2] If the property is appreciating, the rents will be allowed to slow down. If the property stops appreciating, then the rents increase to maintain the ROI. The entire market is targeted at 8%, particularly the property management companies. Changing the property tax rules changes this equation, with a shift to higher rents. New Zealand is trying everything to remove demand from the housing market. They first brought in new deposit rules (20% min for owner occupier[4], higher for investment properties 35%+[5]), now they've brought in foreign ownership legislation. It might affect the rate of capital increase, but that will only shift the ROI equation towards rental increases. The government is looking at building more housing (FINALLY), but they are finding that all the regulations (houses with heating and insulation cost more!) means they can't do it for less that 600-650k [1]. [1] https://www.interest.co.nz/property/95345/housing-minister-says-because-kiwibuild-homes-are-more-affordable-they-will-be-safe https://www.interest.co.nz/property/95345/housing-minister-s... [2] https://www.interest.co.nz/saving/rental-yield-indicator https://www.interest.co.nz/saving/rental-yield-indicator [3] https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-advice/lindy-lear/rental-yields--are-they-the-best-indicator-of-a-good-investment-178106.aspx https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-advice/l... [4] https://sorted.org.nz/guides/home-buying/buying-a-first-home/ https://sorted.org.nz/guides/home-buying/buying-a-first-home... [5] https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/education/at-a-glance-series/lvr-restrictions-at-a-glance https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/education/at-a-glance-series/lvr-re...
- zzleeper 8y ago
  In many countries, property taxes are local and don't go to schools (which have funding from income taxes i.e. from the state). So it's not like the foreign investors are beneficial in any way, besides maybe paying their bit of water/electricity/police costs (and if they only pay their share, then why bother accomodating all the volatility to house prices they bring?)
  - Taniwha 8y ago
    Yes this is true in NZ - property taxes here ("rates") pay for roads, water, street lighting, that sort of thing. Not schools, police, or other stuff done by central govt. Also property taxes here are not tied directly to house valuations - there's a fixed component, plus a component that's calculated from your valuation divided by the sum of the valuations of ALL the properties in the city. That means that if everyone's valuations are doubled your taxes don't change, if your house value goes up faster than the average you do pay more, if it goes up more slowly your taxes go down.
    - lancewiggs 8y ago
      To add to that - the valuations include both the land and the property, and they are itemised.
- Tiktaalik 8y ago
  The problem with absenteeism is that while taxes are still being paid to maintain city services, the city doesn't function correctly, because there's weak street life. Here's an article about the struggles of retailers in Vancouver's Coal Harbour neighbourhood, which has estimates of around 20-25% empty housing. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/at-vancouvers-cold-harbour-a-neighbourhood-hollows-out/article11713598/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/at-vancouvers-co...
  - toby 8y ago
    Vancouver has a vacancy tax, which strikes me as a really good idea to avoid these problems. Does anyone know why these aren't more popular?
    - nedwin 8y ago
      I can imagine they're difficult to enforce.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Enforcement? People gaming the system so it doesn’t look unoccupied?
    - ggcdn 8y ago
      I agree with you that it seems like a good idea. However, the vacancy tax is still in its infancy, so we've yet to fully understand its effectiveness or side-effects. A big issue around the housing discussion in Vancouver is the lack of data and amount of misinformation being injected into the discussion.
      - peterburkimsher 8y ago
        The Netherlands has a system where vacant properties may be occupied by squatters after they've been empty for a year. There's an active squatting scene in Amsterdam, particularly OT301 (an abandoned cinema, now an arts centre).
  - TheBeardKing 8y ago
- saltcured 8y ago
  Yes, what is the target problem really? Do you want to ban vacant or mostly vacant housing stock for its constriction of housing supplies? Why only foreign owned? Don't vacant holiday or investment homes of residents have the same impact? Do you also want to ban renter occupied homes where a landlord is profiting excessively? How do you define excessive? Why only foreign landlords? Don't domestic landlords have the same impact? Don't investment trusts have the same impact, regardless of who owns the shares? Or is there a problem with your tax system, so the foreign-consumed profits are not taxed at the source? If you dislike speculative investment, shouldn't you really dislike renter occupied homes where the landlord isn't profiting? They might accept a tenant at a partial loss, as long as it costs less than holding the property vacant, but this behavior depends on their speculative expectation that the future value is worth the holding costs. It is not sustainable for rent to be lower than the total holding costs (taxes, maintenance, depreciation, risk). It is interesting to imagine a strict owner-occupation requirement. Nobody can own a home they don't live in as primary residence. Obviously, that means nobody can own a second home unless you zone some special vacation-home areas. And nobody can become a landlord, owning and operating rental properties. No person and no corporation nor trust. Ignoring the obvious disaster of how to get there from here, how would such an economy work? Does everybody at every income level get access to financing to buy their own home? It's hard to define a similar rule for commercial properties, since corporations can fractionally live in many places and it will be hard to define a minimum occupation density to distinguish real use of a commercial property from token use of a speculative holding. The same problem applies to wealthy home owners---what's the difference between a huge estate/mansion and an apartment building other than resident density? At the other extreme, what about a strict public-owner requirement? What if every property had to be owned by a trust available on open markets? Everyone could buy into shares of every trust, and everyone would pay rent to some trust owning their residence. Everyone could benefit from real estate investment whether they have enough assets to own 1/100, 1, or 100 homes. Independently, they would decide what kind of housing and cost are best for them. What would happen to rents and property values...?
  - refurb 8y ago
    Why only foreign owned? Don't vacant holiday or investment homes of residents have the same impact? This happened in BC, Canada. It’s a popular spot for vacation homes for Canadians, this they get slammed with a tax as well. Govt backed down and created exemptions for large swaths of BC.
weberc2 8y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but if you're investing in property, don't you have "skin in the game"? Presumably it's in your interest that the community thrives, because that will help drive up property values (increasing your ROI)? This is just my naive intuition, so please correct me. EDIT: Downvoters, what gives? Just asking a question...
- kazinator 8y ago
  Some people just want a roof over their head without paying rent to a landlord and being subject to their whims.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    So the issue is that foreign investors are significantly driving up the cost of real estate, making home ownership prohibitively expensive for locals? Has anyone quantified the impact in various regions?
    - lancewiggs 8y ago
      That's the issue, and no.
- Tiktaalik 8y ago
  Skin in the game means participating in the community and the local economy. An investor doesn't buy groceries at the local store, doesn't go to local music venues etc. They help out the construction industry and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) industry, but local neighbourhoods weakly benefit.
  - sgolestane 8y ago
    Investor pays property tax without using any of it's benefits.
    - sitharus 8y ago
kovrik 8y ago
My opinion may be controversial, but I never understood this logic... I live in New Zealand at the moment. I am not Kiwi though, my wife and I moved from Russia. And I disagree. First, stats show that foreign buyers own ~3% of homes. Everything else is kiwi-owned. Second, there is another thing going on here -- KiwiBuild. Basically, government funds and builds 'affordable houses'. Prices (in NZD) are $500-650k, but now they want to have even more affordable houses - $300k. For comparison, actual average house price in Auckland is above $1kk. My wife and I work really hard, NZ is not our country, English is not our language, the culture is different, we have nothing to inherit here. Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house? Shouldn't they work harder instead? Get education, get better job. We wish we could buy a $1kk+ house in Auckland too, but we can't. If you can't afford a house, then buy an apartment because they are much cheaper. Yes, it is not that fancy, but at least you'll have a place to live in. I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that. UPD: another problem in my opinion is that Kiwi culture is very different. NZ is isolated from the rest of the world. It is very quiet here, people are very relaxed, everything goes slow. People are not used to work hard (in my opinion). It is common here to spend a year or two doing nothing, just traveling around the world after graduation. Many people don't want to build a career, they want to 'try many different jobs, find themselves, enjoy life'. Many people live with their parents, start thinking about career at the age of 30-35. At work, if it is 4pm (sometimes 5pm) -- people just leave and go home. "We have an urgent task" here means that it must be done within a week. In schools they teach children that everyone is a winner -- even if you have poor marks. Also, if there are any competitive games/sports, then sometimes they make it that the winner is not the one who actually won, but the one whose turn today is. And so on. Hence many people here, when they grow up, are not used to fight for survival. Just enjoy their quiet life in a beautiful country. But then they are 35, have no money, no career, but want a fancy house... Sorry if I'm being too harsh, don't mean to offend. But this is my take on Kiwi culture, the way I see it as a non-native.
- vilmosi 8y ago
  > Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house? Why pay taxes at all for a country you're not citizen of? /s Seriously now, it's because you live there. Their government makes the rules, you decided to live there and, by extension, decided to follow their rules. > I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that And, given which democratically elected government is in power, it's their right to choose how to spend their money.

briandear 8y ago

If they own a house, they are paying taxes, so they do have significant skin in the game. They pay property taxes despite not using the local schools or most other city services. As far as not allowing housing as a speculative financial investment, there are some significant unintended consequences there.

pouetpouet 8y ago
way less than poeple living there. Unless there is some sort of a unique land value tax
- VectorLock 8y ago
  Like property tax?
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Ya, property taxes should act against such behavior, but many places like Vancouver lack one. Not sure about NZ, but it seems like property taxes are more of an American thing. Edit: oops, Canada does have a property tax, and New Zealand has something like it. So it’s just Australia (on first residences) and the UK that don’t. Well, China also. I’ll take my downvotes gracefully.
    - goodJobWalrus 8y ago
      We pay property tax in Ontario.
    - kareemm 8y ago
      Homeowners do pay property tax in Vancouver: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/property-tax.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/property-tax....
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      There are property taxes here in New Zealand, known as ‘rates’. You can look up what they are for a property and get an idea of the property value on local government websites. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuations/Pages/find-property-rates-valuation.aspx https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuation...
      - indemnity 8y ago
        They are absolutely minimal though, works out to about 0.23% of value (aware that’s not the only component) for us in Auckland.
        jly 8y ago
        Yeah, this is a relatively important metric for both investing but also affordability. It shows that there is an apples to oranges comparison in housing prices across markets (discounting currency differences). When calculating the affordability of a home, the total monthly cash flow requirements (housing costs as a percentage of income) are critical. I live in an area where the rates are 10x that of Auckland. A $600k home valuation requires a ~$250 weekly rate commitment vs only about $27 in Auckland - a significant difference. It's still an expensive home by any metric, but considerably more affordable. From a speculation perspective, an investor in Auckland can sit on a very expensive property with almost no cash flow burden, reducing the need to even rent.
user5994461 8y ago
The tenant covers all the taxes and costs through his rent.
- itake 8y ago
  So the property is being occupied, which I don't think they have a problem with. The issue is wealthy investors are coming in, buying up property at above market rate, and then letting it sit empty and driving up the price higher since there is less sellers on the market.
  - user5994461 8y ago
    Doesn't matter if it's rented or not, it drives the price up either way.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      If it’s rented out to a local or sold to a local, the ratio of buildings to locals is the same. Supply or demand (or things outside this context such was wages) has to change for prices to change.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        You assume that the ratio of buildings to locals is the sole input for real estate prices. If an external rentier enters the market and realizes yield, other rentiers will follow. This increases demand for housing assets, not necessarily housing utility. this is the problem they are trying to solve.
      - user5994461 8y ago
        Foreign buyers increase the supply of cash. It drives buy prices up, which in turns drives rent up slightly.
- jpollock 8y ago
  No, they do not, they only cover a portion. As the owner of a New Zealand investment property... In NZ, ROI on property is targeted to be around 8% [3]. The owner will take that ROI either in capital increase or in rent. [2] If the property is appreciating, the rents will be allowed to slow down. If the property stops appreciating, then the rents increase to maintain the ROI. The entire market is targeted at 8%, particularly the property management companies. Changing the property tax rules changes this equation, with a shift to higher rents. New Zealand is trying everything to remove demand from the housing market. They first brought in new deposit rules (20% min for owner occupier[4], higher for investment properties 35%+[5]), now they've brought in foreign ownership legislation. It might affect the rate of capital increase, but that will only shift the ROI equation towards rental increases. The government is looking at building more housing (FINALLY), but they are finding that all the regulations (houses with heating and insulation cost more!) means they can't do it for less that 600-650k [1]. [1] https://www.interest.co.nz/property/95345/housing-minister-says-because-kiwibuild-homes-are-more-affordable-they-will-be-safe https://www.interest.co.nz/property/95345/housing-minister-s... [2] https://www.interest.co.nz/saving/rental-yield-indicator https://www.interest.co.nz/saving/rental-yield-indicator [3] https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-advice/lindy-lear/rental-yields--are-they-the-best-indicator-of-a-good-investment-178106.aspx https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-advice/l... [4] https://sorted.org.nz/guides/home-buying/buying-a-first-home/ https://sorted.org.nz/guides/home-buying/buying-a-first-home... [5] https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/education/at-a-glance-series/lvr-restrictions-at-a-glance https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/education/at-a-glance-series/lvr-re...
zzleeper 8y ago
In many countries, property taxes are local and don't go to schools (which have funding from income taxes i.e. from the state). So it's not like the foreign investors are beneficial in any way, besides maybe paying their bit of water/electricity/police costs (and if they only pay their share, then why bother accomodating all the volatility to house prices they bring?)
- Taniwha 8y ago
  Yes this is true in NZ - property taxes here ("rates") pay for roads, water, street lighting, that sort of thing. Not schools, police, or other stuff done by central govt. Also property taxes here are not tied directly to house valuations - there's a fixed component, plus a component that's calculated from your valuation divided by the sum of the valuations of ALL the properties in the city. That means that if everyone's valuations are doubled your taxes don't change, if your house value goes up faster than the average you do pay more, if it goes up more slowly your taxes go down.
  - lancewiggs 8y ago
    To add to that - the valuations include both the land and the property, and they are itemised.
Tiktaalik 8y ago
The problem with absenteeism is that while taxes are still being paid to maintain city services, the city doesn't function correctly, because there's weak street life. Here's an article about the struggles of retailers in Vancouver's Coal Harbour neighbourhood, which has estimates of around 20-25% empty housing. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/at-vancouvers-cold-harbour-a-neighbourhood-hollows-out/article11713598/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/at-vancouvers-co...
- toby 8y ago
  Vancouver has a vacancy tax, which strikes me as a really good idea to avoid these problems. Does anyone know why these aren't more popular?
  - nedwin 8y ago
    I can imagine they're difficult to enforce.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Enforcement? People gaming the system so it doesn’t look unoccupied?
  - ggcdn 8y ago
    I agree with you that it seems like a good idea. However, the vacancy tax is still in its infancy, so we've yet to fully understand its effectiveness or side-effects. A big issue around the housing discussion in Vancouver is the lack of data and amount of misinformation being injected into the discussion.
    - peterburkimsher 8y ago
      The Netherlands has a system where vacant properties may be occupied by squatters after they've been empty for a year. There's an active squatting scene in Amsterdam, particularly OT301 (an abandoned cinema, now an arts centre).
- TheBeardKing 8y ago
saltcured 8y ago
Yes, what is the target problem really? Do you want to ban vacant or mostly vacant housing stock for its constriction of housing supplies? Why only foreign owned? Don't vacant holiday or investment homes of residents have the same impact? Do you also want to ban renter occupied homes where a landlord is profiting excessively? How do you define excessive? Why only foreign landlords? Don't domestic landlords have the same impact? Don't investment trusts have the same impact, regardless of who owns the shares? Or is there a problem with your tax system, so the foreign-consumed profits are not taxed at the source? If you dislike speculative investment, shouldn't you really dislike renter occupied homes where the landlord isn't profiting? They might accept a tenant at a partial loss, as long as it costs less than holding the property vacant, but this behavior depends on their speculative expectation that the future value is worth the holding costs. It is not sustainable for rent to be lower than the total holding costs (taxes, maintenance, depreciation, risk). It is interesting to imagine a strict owner-occupation requirement. Nobody can own a home they don't live in as primary residence. Obviously, that means nobody can own a second home unless you zone some special vacation-home areas. And nobody can become a landlord, owning and operating rental properties. No person and no corporation nor trust. Ignoring the obvious disaster of how to get there from here, how would such an economy work? Does everybody at every income level get access to financing to buy their own home? It's hard to define a similar rule for commercial properties, since corporations can fractionally live in many places and it will be hard to define a minimum occupation density to distinguish real use of a commercial property from token use of a speculative holding. The same problem applies to wealthy home owners---what's the difference between a huge estate/mansion and an apartment building other than resident density? At the other extreme, what about a strict public-owner requirement? What if every property had to be owned by a trust available on open markets? Everyone could buy into shares of every trust, and everyone would pay rent to some trust owning their residence. Everyone could benefit from real estate investment whether they have enough assets to own 1/100, 1, or 100 homes. Independently, they would decide what kind of housing and cost are best for them. What would happen to rents and property values...?
- refurb 8y ago
  Why only foreign owned? Don't vacant holiday or investment homes of residents have the same impact? This happened in BC, Canada. It’s a popular spot for vacation homes for Canadians, this they get slammed with a tax as well. Govt backed down and created exemptions for large swaths of BC.

weberc2 8y ago

Forgive my ignorance, but if you're investing in property, don't you have "skin in the game"? Presumably it's in your interest that the community thrives, because that will help drive up property values (increasing your ROI)? This is just my naive intuition, so please correct me. EDIT: Downvoters, what gives? Just asking a question...

kazinator 8y ago
Some people just want a roof over their head without paying rent to a landlord and being subject to their whims.
- weberc2 8y ago
  So the issue is that foreign investors are significantly driving up the cost of real estate, making home ownership prohibitively expensive for locals? Has anyone quantified the impact in various regions?
  - lancewiggs 8y ago
    That's the issue, and no.
Tiktaalik 8y ago
Skin in the game means participating in the community and the local economy. An investor doesn't buy groceries at the local store, doesn't go to local music venues etc. They help out the construction industry and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) industry, but local neighbourhoods weakly benefit.
- sgolestane 8y ago
  Investor pays property tax without using any of it's benefits.
  - sitharus 8y ago

kovrik 8y ago

My opinion may be controversial, but I never understood this logic... I live in New Zealand at the moment. I am not Kiwi though, my wife and I moved from Russia. And I disagree. First, stats show that foreign buyers own ~3% of homes. Everything else is kiwi-owned. Second, there is another thing going on here -- KiwiBuild. Basically, government funds and builds 'affordable houses'. Prices (in NZD) are $500-650k, but now they want to have even more affordable houses - $300k. For comparison, actual average house price in Auckland is above $1kk. My wife and I work really hard, NZ is not our country, English is not our language, the culture is different, we have nothing to inherit here. Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house? Shouldn't they work harder instead? Get education, get better job. We wish we could buy a $1kk+ house in Auckland too, but we can't. If you can't afford a house, then buy an apartment because they are much cheaper. Yes, it is not that fancy, but at least you'll have a place to live in. I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that. UPD: another problem in my opinion is that Kiwi culture is very different. NZ is isolated from the rest of the world. It is very quiet here, people are very relaxed, everything goes slow. People are not used to work hard (in my opinion). It is common here to spend a year or two doing nothing, just traveling around the world after graduation. Many people don't want to build a career, they want to 'try many different jobs, find themselves, enjoy life'. Many people live with their parents, start thinking about career at the age of 30-35. At work, if it is 4pm (sometimes 5pm) -- people just leave and go home. "We have an urgent task" here means that it must be done within a week. In schools they teach children that everyone is a winner -- even if you have poor marks. Also, if there are any competitive games/sports, then sometimes they make it that the winner is not the one who actually won, but the one whose turn today is. And so on. Hence many people here, when they grow up, are not used to fight for survival. Just enjoy their quiet life in a beautiful country. But then they are 35, have no money, no career, but want a fancy house... Sorry if I'm being too harsh, don't mean to offend. But this is my take on Kiwi culture, the way I see it as a non-native.

vilmosi 8y ago
> Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house? Why pay taxes at all for a country you're not citizen of? /s Seriously now, it's because you live there. Their government makes the rules, you decided to live there and, by extension, decided to follow their rules. > I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that And, given which democratically elected government is in power, it's their right to choose how to spend their money.