elyobo

25 ms·

271.
by elyobo 9y ago
It's not a solution over any time period, because without fixing the drivers of the price growth in the property market any increase in purchasing power will be met with property price growth to absorb it.
272.
by elyobo 9y ago
Most owners are not impacted by "crash prices and keep them low" because they have experienced enormous capital growth. Auckland prices have doubled in the last four years; a 50% crash would leave almost everyone in the propert
273.
by elyobo 9y ago
No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing.
274.
by elyobo 9y ago
I don't think you understand the NZ situation very well; the government collects very little from property sales compared to most parts of the world, because there's no stamp duty and there's practically no capital gains tax.
275.
by elyobo 9y ago
I'm not sure what sort of call you think I'm making here, it's just an observation of the economic effects. If you've bought a house to live in and the market doubles then halves again, you didn't benefit from the
276.
by elyobo 9y ago
OK,fair call; I don't want to drive people out of their homes, I want to a) crash prices and b) keep them low, so I'd prefer to tax gains (even paper ones) in combination with other speculative disincentives (mainly the removal of
277.
by elyobo 9y ago
No exemptions, tax them all. Homes will, ironically, be cheaper if they're taxed because it will further drive out speculative money.
278.
by elyobo 9y ago
I have no idea about entry level rates, but I wouldn't think it would take many years to break 100k in IT. I know many non-management people making well over 100k/year. The cost of living calculator they put up[1] suggested that
279.
by elyobo 9y ago
Southbank isn't the CBD - it's is a dump in general, terrible amenities, and the new apartments there and in the CBD tend to be tiny. I live in an apartment in the CBD and have done since 2009 and it's awesome; ~80sqm intern
280.
by elyobo 9y ago
Agreed that the relevant factor is the "real" demand absent the additional demand from speculation, but what reason do we have to think that "they" (which includes me) want it that way? Some do, and they're the one
281.
by elyobo 9y ago
Sure, there are a some that would be disadvantaged (new home buyers that end up in negative equity would also be in a bad situation) but they're dwarfed by those that benefit. A government with the nerve to crash the market through sa
282.
by elyobo 9y ago
I don't know that they're generally considered "benefits" here, but that's what they are. There is a means test (i.e. if you have enough in the way of assets then you don't get the pension) but it totally omit
283.
by elyobo 9y ago
Yeah, NZ national living in Melbourne, there's not much that could tempt me back to NZ. Property prices in Melbourne are more reasonable than Auckland, and salaries are far higher. Cost of living not much lower either.
284.
by elyobo 9y ago
> However, introducing CGT would essentially mean less money in everyone's pocket. On board with you up until this point, but this is where I disagree with you; by smashing property prices you'd actually end up with more money
285.
by elyobo 9y ago
We might be talking at cross purposes to some extend; Paris is not what I would call low rise, it's far more dense than Auckland is (and Auckland is low rise). A continuous genuine low rise city like Auckland is a nightmare, and a hy
286.
by elyobo 9y ago
Consistent low to mid density sprawl is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds. You need a mixture of densities.
287.
by elyobo 9y ago
I think that's inherently wrong; you need a mixture of densities, but everything low density sprawl is a nightmare. Increasing average density has benefits even for the left over areas of low density, e.g. reduced traffic, lower infra
288.
by elyobo 9y ago
However, as whatever they're looking to buy has dropped as well they're no worse off, and given that they've almost certainly still made a tax free killing (unless they're very recent purchasers) they're probably st
289.
by elyobo 9y ago
Well, it has managed to keep apartment prices in the Melbourne CDB pretty flat.
290.
by elyobo 9y ago
The OP mentioned living in them, so the reply was on point - clearly some people _do_ want to live in them. I love my apartment, but would admittedly be less keen on suburban apartment living as the convenience factor would probably not be
291.
by elyobo 9y ago
Hell no there should be no compensation; the entire goal of the government should be to crash prices hard and if increasing density achieves that by simultaneously increasing supply _and_ decreasing values due to people having to see higher
292.
by elyobo 9y ago
Different situation here in AU, but the idea would be that you put so many dampeners on capital growth that there isn't really any (and so nobody gets driven out of their home). See the other comment re: multi millionaires collecting t
293.
by elyobo 9y ago
That's a false dichotomy; you can allow more density without skyscrapers as far as the eye can see. The problem is hard because existing property owners have more rights, but those without have plenty of incentive and skin in the game
294.
by elyobo 9y ago
Well yeah, obviously. Anything that reduces the profitability reduces the appeal to investors, which decreases price pressure, which leads to price falls, which ideally falls into a virtuous cycle of falling prices and falling investor dem
295.
by elyobo 9y ago
Why allow the compensation at all?
296.
by elyobo 9y ago
The NIMBYism being referred to isn't about foreigners buying property, it's about zoning preventing higher density housing and therefore constraining supply.
297.
by elyobo 9y ago
This is a different issue, establishing the difference between someone that buys a property to live in vs buys it as an investment.
298.
by elyobo 9y ago
While overseas investors (or even local students etc) would have no taxable income to offset against, why would this be preferred over simply banning it?
299.
by elyobo 9y ago
No, you can't deduct capital expenses like a renovation from your personal income, but you can deduct those capital expenses from the eventual capital gain so that the capital gains tax is only paid on the net profit. The negative gear
300.
by elyobo 9y ago
I wouldn't bother, because my preference is to tax capital gains on all property including family homes (and to apply this tax annually based on paper profits too). That said, occupancy requirements are reasonably common elsewhere (e.g

More ›