Your argument appears sound with regard to ‘Why would you buy equity in the house?’ After all when we invest our hard earned money we want a good comparable ROI.

The reality of this population niche is they have tendencies to take an offer without much thought. Which leads to answering why this population would buy equity in such a house. You need to reverse your argument in order to get your valid points across.
My own argument being; the majority of this demographic would buy into this scheme without doing the math – they have no other option if they are being sold the vision of owning a home as being the ultimate kiwi dream and the making of a sound financial future. It seems too good to be true and the deal is done. However if these buyers really gave it even a superficial thought; the budget set aside for each home is $300,000; we have to envision what we can build on that budget in Auckland? Are we talking homes for families or one bedroom ‘sardine cans’? Similar to open polytechnic (n.d) ‘Cranford’s analogy; where if we think an employer is entitled to use other information seeking activities, then by analogy, we should think an employer is entitled to use drug testing.’ Similarly it can be analogous in saying the campaign to encourage low income families to buy into this scheme will earn them a house in the same way the marketing of pay day loans will get this same group cash now; no pressure required just a bit if enticement!

Who do you think the target population is within this scheme? We know it is low income families but why? Has the Government run the risk factors on this group? Is it only the population that can afford to invest on their own steam that are needing to ensure they ‘qualify’ for the privilege of borrowing to invest? Let’s not stop here, why don’t we ask the Greens and Labour to lend the lower risk population an equivalent to this sort of capital. What great rates they are offering compared to the banks current lending rates.

One has to ask if this ‘owning a home scheme for lower income families’ is fair? Not only on the target population as susceptible ‘buyers’, but on the taxpayers who work so hard to achieve their own goals independently. This plan of home ownership will place a further dent of $3 billion on top of our already existing deficit. Influencing the masses with the underlying objective of self-interest requires a scheme, and this is a good one! Kennon, J (n.d.) states ‘Real estate is often a more comfortable investment for the lower and middle classes because they grew up exposed to it (just as the upper classes often learned about stocks, bonds, and other securities during their childhood and teenage years). It’s likely most people heard their parents talking about the importance of “owning a home”. The result is that they are more open to buying land than many other investments.’ Without going into the numbers it is equally easy to ask this simple question of someone that is considering buying a house. If you were to invest $5000 in Apple stocks and every year received a call asking you to pay an additional $5000 in order to keep the company afloat so you could be paid your dividend; would you consider this a good investment? Absolutely not! In the same way Labour and the Greens are asking lower income families to pay far more than they may ever gain from buying a house under this scheme – all to follow this cleverly staged kiwi dream.

Back to the argument of self-interest. We are dealing with a demographic population that is being targeted with an underlying agenda– that of increasing votes. What Labour and the Greens tend to overlook is the statistics of voters. How many voters are actually voting that fall within this demographic and at what cost is this campaign to the voting taxpayer?

As stated and argued by Pillay, P (n.d.) ‘the act of deception within the business situation is actually detrimental to the individual’, in this case the individuals are low income families. Leading our nation is a business, get real, and take a look. Despite the media hype and human natures ability to focus on the desperation of others, John Key and his National leadershipare doing well in a tough economy; however the Greens and Labour are transparently leaching off the poor to empower themselves.

References:
Farrar, D. (2013). Kiwi Blog. Why not just have the govt build and own all the homes. Retrieved 29/01/2013 from: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/why_not_just_have_the_govt_build_and_own_all_the_homes.html
Duska, R. (1983). Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty.
Open Polytechnic (n.d). The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.Business Ethics 71203.Module 2.Cranford’s Analogy.
Kennon, J (n.d.). Investing for beginners. Real Estate vs. Stocks – Which Is the Better Investment? A Comparison of Real Estate Investments vs. Stocks. Retrieved 30/01/2013 from: http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/realestate/a/real-estate-vs-stocks.htm
Pillay, P (n.d.). Chapter 3. The Ethical Boundaries of Business: Questions of Integrity. Retrieved 30/01/2013 from: http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_iii.htm

“Why not just have the government just build and own all the homes?” [implied: - "homes for strugglers"]

http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.hk/2013/01/come-to-nz-nice-stupid-people-will.html

I paid-off my student loan when they attracted interest from day 1. Now I, as a taxpayer get to pay everyone elses’ interest on their loans.
I support my own family, but as a tax payer I get to support everyone elses’ through working for families.

Now, if the Greens get their way, having worked hard to pay-off my own mortgage, I will now get to pay for everyone elses’ mortgage.

Viking2 sums it up nicely here http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/housing_affordability-4.html#comment-1084766

We either make a serious effort to reign in house prices relative to incomes, or we leave it to politicians to spend money on the problem.

I don’t think we can do much/anything to decrease the prices of housing in NZ (it’s overpriced relative to our income, but we live in a global economy after all) so we need to increase incomes. It’s a question of productivity, which we are sadly lacking in this country. And our leftist govt policies don’t help.

Rental insulation subsidy extending to warrant of fitness is fine – and is proposed by Labour and Greens.
The government’s own focus on efficient managment of existing state housing stock is fine.

But there is not enough state housing supply and extending it is debt load expensive. This problem will worsen if a generation without home ownership reach retirement with insufficient saving to afford rent even with accomodation supplement.

Labour and Green proposals are not perfect, but are a response, rather than inaction.

We either make a serious effort to reign in house prices relative to incomes, or we leave it to politicians to spend money on the problem.

The government has said it will take the lead in developing irrigation programmes because of private sector inaction, but despite lack of private sector investment in house building in Auckland in recent years the government has done nothing.

“Auckland’s median section price has increased by 8.8 per cent over the same period, from $285,000 in 2007 to $310,000 this year. And that increase has come during a period of subdued building activity, lending weight to the argument that there is a supply problem.”

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7324389/Funding-required-for-new-housing

Clint:
If people are unable to afford new houses (though for $300,000 you are talking about an apartment), then isn’t it because NZers are relatively poor? I mean, an average house price of $500,000 may seem like an awful lot to us, but its bloody cheap if you have an Australian or US level of income.
And the reason why New Zealand is relatively poor is because our productivity is so low – so what are the Greens going to do about improving NZ productivity?

I would like to congratulate Clint Smith on the most economically illiterate piece of writing I have ever seen.

No fucking idea would be an apt title. Christ us if these clowns ever get near the Treasury benches aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Corrupt bastards.

I remember her as an active Green Party youth activist about ten years ago and “Kate Shuttleworth, CHRISTCHURCH representing Nandor Tanczos” in the 2000 Youth Parliament.

Of course, her politics may have changed since she became a journo.