Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
david, hint at whether she needs an anti-terrorism kit too?
i'm sure they could be assembled by a dedicated team of toy-makers here in wellington for.... oh.... $119.99? (+gst and p/h).
-
hmmm... parents should assemble an anti-terrorism set.
you will need.
1x New Zealand flag, large.
1x megaphone, to trumpet freedom (optional: may be substituted with trumpet to trumpet freedom)
1x anti-terrorist fridge magnet. should identify at least three types of known terrorist hats.
1x banner stating "freedom ain't free"
1x copy of "i've been thinking" by richard prebble.
1x magnifying glass, large (optional: actual directions to the wmd)
1x box of band-aids, extremely large. -
PS a few families in our building. no greenery for the kids to run about in, but there's parks everywhere downtown. we see people taking their wee tackers out to run about all the time.
-
The interesting factor in Auckland is apartments. I visited someone in a city apartment last weekend and standing on his balcony brought home to me how many people, including families, are already living apartment lives. But how many people buy apartments to live in themselves?
we're living in an apartment, and really liking it. kind of makes wellington seem a lot bigger and more enjoyable.
as for purchasing? on our combined income we could afford something pretty sweet, but why impoverish ourselves? if we get kicked out we'll just put everything in storage, take some accumulated annual leave, and go to the islands for a few weeks.
savings you see...
-
yup... and investors try to argue that "we need to free up more land for housing", "it's overseas investors, blah frickin blah.
the problem is subsidies...
where did you see those figures james? are they public, or, otherwise
-
james, great figures. i've seen similar, and agree its the only way to go.
but, what irks me is the $12k per annum mr. x is making back off the tax payer. it's that very money that is, imho, driving up housing.
and not because the occasional investor is doing it, but because there are tens of thousands of people doing this every year.
i can't remember the exact figure, but if it is 30k of these companies, that's 3.6 billion out of the tax take (based on james' figures).
now, you could see that as a boon for investors, but i see it as 'false investment' via government subsidy.
-
At current prices, I would imagine the only reason most people buy investment properties is related to depreciation, and its flow-on taxation benefits.
loss-attributing qualified companies (LAQC's) are the third(?) largest number of company in nzl by type.
and, they're nothing more than a vehicle for negative gearing of investment properties, as james indicates.
so, what you have is people using my tax dollar to drive up property values beyond what i can afford to buy, and then no capital gains to claw my tax dollar back.
makes me a little angry, actually. in fact, one might say, "it's a fucking rort, and should be stopped"
-
dammit. stephen got there first.
i was going to say to yamis, don't count your chickens.
plus, you're not including the cost of serving the mortgage, including rates.
most $200k houses will cost over $200k in interest over the lifetime of the mortgage. what most people don't do is subtract that cost from the "profit" on their investment.
-
like joanna i'm living in a place that must easily be worth half mil. i like in the very centre of wellington, and pay no body corp fees, no rates, no nothing but rent.
i take all the money i would have to pay on a mortgage to live here, subtract the rent, put the remainder in the bank.
i blow the rest on <strike>fast cars and fast women</strike> eating well and cleaning living.
let's face facts. until someone has the balls to bring in a capital gains tax on houses, it will continue to be "investor city", and none us student-loan-types will be able to afford homes.
-
all good. i'll consider myself collateral damage.
[cue:] ouch! [little cry]