I’ve been wondering if when they get into power, Metiwia and Wussell will erect something like this?

“The Greek food brawl: Hundreds fight each other for free vegetables on the streets of Athens”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274532/The-big-fat-Greek-food-fight-Hundreds-fight-free-vegetables-streets-Athens.html

And you know what, the Greens don’t give a fuck: because they imagine themselves in control of the food handouts.

I’m afraid logic has never been important when a wealth re-distribution policy is so large, will affect so many people for the foreseeable future, will become ever associated with the party that introduces it, and will be as difficult to eviscerate as the interest-free student loans and the nuke free position have both become.

Bugger.

It really does take a special kind of c**t to come up with something like this, doesn’t it. Someone who doesn’t give a fuck the people who pay for the entire thing receive absolutely zero benefit from it. I mean the only possible thing anyone earning over 60k will ever get from it is a few less people burgling their home, but nothing more than that. In return for what d’ya reckon, how much of an increase will it require, from say 33 to say 49%? And we receive no benefit from that, it’s not even like a road, which we can all use.

Maybe we should make Liarbore and Gweens put in a clause that said every family who won a house had to provide bed and breakfast to any taxpayer who happened by, without fail, lest they lose the whole thing and have to give it to the next person on the list.

That would run the whole country through pretty quick, wouldn’t it. Pretty soon, problem solved, no more eligible people.

Awwwwwwwwww.

But you got to admire the lefty manipulation though. First Liarbore announces theirs and people think then the Gweens go all extreme, and put up a strawman, which the media attack, never mentioning Liarbore’s scheme, which looks attractive and gets the discussion happening so people start embedding the concept. That’s what they’re doing. Now. Conservatives don’t use it the same way which is a pity because we could be much successful than we are, if we did.

Oh Fer.
As in Oh Fer Fucks Sake. Even a housewife like me can work through the consequences using common sense.

State housing = ghettos.
If state housing was such a winner then council flats wouldn’t be skody heaps of rubbish filled up with bottom feeders.
No-one who wants to own an asset will be seen dead in these.

For comparison lets see some recent historic rates:
Dec 2010, 10yr Govt bond = 5.99% (cost = $346 per week)
Dec 2007, 10yr Govt bond = 7.78% (cost = $449 per week)
The historic average Govt 10-year bond rate (over the last 30 years) is actually = 8.1%.
And those rates were with the NZ sovereign risk rating of AAA (its dropped now to AA/AA+ which meant approx. an extra 15 points added to interest rates).
How loud do you think the tenant would squeal when their weekly basic minimum rent jumps from $200 to $450 five years after they moved in?

So the government will borrow money at the bond rate and, essentially, lend it to sub-prime borrowers at the same rate. I’m surprised that neither you or the Greens have spotted the whopping great economy-buggering problem with that practice. But assuming it was a great idea, why not abolish private lending? The government could borrow unlimited amounts of money at the bond rate and lend it at the same rate to anyone who wanted to buy a house, a car, or to set up a business.

I suspect that once the Green-created sub-prime housing bubble burst then Norman would pay off the tens-of-billions of dollars of bad loans with his printing press.

I’m confused about how the Greens manage to advocate on behalf of the really REALLY bad policies that have fucked up other countries. They look at the perpetual quantitative easing that has given Japan 25 years of recession, and want to do the same. They look at the sub-prime crisis that has brought the US economy to its knees, and want a government-run sub-sub-prime housing market in NZ. They look at the windmills that have given Europeans really expensive electricity, and want to build them in NZ. Even tho they’re the modern equivalent of the Easter Island statues, destined to be around for hundreds of years as monuments to stupidity. Don’t Greens have any ability to spot a really bad idea?

would turn the Government into one huge set of parents

That might hint at actual motives.

You do realise, that this hair-brained, stupid, unworkable, terrifically unfair and hugely risky, wasteful scheme would turn the Government into one huge set of parents constantly having to bail out the kids who never pay it back? What a piece of shit policy this is.

The flexibility of Progressive Ownership will
allow families to increase, or suspend, equity
purchases as their financial circumstances
change. There will be no mortgage, so no risk of
default or families losing their homes – they could
just pay the basic rent if times get tough – and no
penalties for buying the equity more quickly.

What’s to stop them not making any ‘equity purchases’ and investing savings elsewhere where they may easily exceed the 3.5% rate they are paying?

There is no mortgage. Who is liable for insurance, repairs and maintenance etc?

New roof? New carpet? New stove? New hot water cylinder? Insulation? Heat pump? Who decides what is renewed?

The operational costs of the share equity
programme to the Crown will be minimal
Housing New Zealand spends $1,000-$2,000
per house on administration and rates are
another $2,000 per house on average.

So we are gifting that in additional to stumping up with the capital and taking all the risk?

http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/green_party_-_home_for_life_discussion_paper_0.pdf

It clearly details that assumptions of the $200 cost as being the cost of $300k capital to the government at 3.5% government bond rate. Payments over and above this cost are then effectively paying off the principal, which then reduces the cost of capital portion. Essentially it’s the government taking out a mortgage on the home, with the tenant paying the costs of that capital. Just like they used to do with the State Advances scheme for example.

Thus, clearly the $200 would be higher should the government bond rate be at a higher rate, or the cost of the home be higher. Further, there is no ballooning cost for the government: The cost of government debt is covered by the tenants, and the tenants are then further encouraged to pay off the principal as well.

Now, one could argue whether this is the sort of thing the government should be borrowing for. It seems to me there’s a fairly clear agreement that the housing market in NZ has quite a few issues with it, such as very few affordable houses being built with very little use of economies of scale, and many people investing in housing essentially for capital gain. It seems to me that investing in the building sector is a nice way to stimulate growth, drop house prices overall and increase economies of scale, whilst also ensuring more folk live in houses that are warm and healthy.

I do not believe that she actually believes in Labour’s policy.

It is her job to put policy forward according to her opposition ministerial position.

She will make a good Wellington Mayor. Go for it Annette.

So that could also be called ‘landlord for life’, where the tenant gets a decent home to rent worry free for as long as they like, with improvements so it’s a decent home.

And all the greedy landlord’s profits will be taxed more (to pay for all the houses people own plus of course the “living wage/work optional” policy), plus CGT of course if the tenant dies so they get to sell their investment.

John Armstrong saw through this quickly, but most media don’t know or don’t care.

if labour/greens/dunne/hatfield etc get in. what will the top tax rate be?

how spiteful do you think they can be? 50%?

Greens propose allowing people to ‘buy’ houses at non-commercial interest rates, no deposit, and no requirement to pay back principle in a policy they call ‘homes for life’.

10k houses at an average of $300k is $3b – Labour said by selling the houses they build the capital to fund this will keep rolling over.

But Greens want to tie up the capital by effectively giving people houses to live in for life.

Annette King said:

Labour welcomed the Greens housing policy, I should know as I did most of the interviews!

The Greens said their policy built on Labour’s, making the point a govt needs to lead the build of affordable housing to help people into. Thats what KiwiBuild does. There is no commitment from the private sector to fund first homes for NZers.

http://yournz.org/2013/02/04/annette-king-on-housing-policy/

Put the two together and you have a potential housing and economy train wreck. Especially if (when) inteerst rates go up.

But before you criticise, King…

There is nothing untoward in questioning how policy will work. You are too quick to put the boot in. The policy is not flawed.

Yeah, right. And as In Vino Veritas says, all risk on the Government. That’s us.

Norman has said QE is a good idea, partly on the basis other countries do it. Looks like he’s now trying to create our own sub-prime market, and you’re financing it, whether you like it or not.