Scum Landlord’s being forced to provide homes rather than capital gains tax free commodities are now threatening to leave Ghost Houses to punish tenants as a fuck you to the Government…
Investor John Kenel of Assured Property Investments said yesterday there was no question about what he would do in response to the law change from February 11.
“This means I’ll be keeping more property vacant, unfortunately. I buy older houses for development and in the past I could rent them out at low costs until I wanted to develop them. Now, it will be just too hard,” Kenel said.
…these scum maggot landlords need a crackdown, and they need it hard!
Tax the 200 000 Ghost Houses NZ currently has with the only exemption being a holiday batch. Every other Ghost House should be taxed a percentage of its value, watch how quickly the scum maggot Landlords will rush to find tenants then!
I am sick of scum maggot Landlords benefitting from a rigged housing market and then making threats against us if we don’t let them have their own way!
If only the Greens weren’t so spineless and Labour so gutless.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.
By crackdown you mean lynch? Check out this piece from none other than “fuck you underclass Kiwi peasant scum, bow down to your foreign owners’ Gary Lin: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/rental-reform-13m-landlords-fears-for-borderline-tenants/2LZUQKAPR7XIJAUVT2ZEKFL5JY/
Party political bullshit from people who are so far removed from the daily grind that life is for the majority of NZers, that their opinions aren’t worth the price of a small can of camel shit… These people are Keys people” and should be getting pilloried constantly for being traitors to their own country … (yes, I know. A hell of a lot of those arseholes aren’t NZers, but enough of them are to be an issue)
John Key should be stripped of his knighthood, as he has shown himself to be an agent of foreign powers and has never had the interests of NZ society as an integral part of the colonial parties agenda…
Still both Jacinda and Robertson want house prices to INCREASE. At least Judith said in the debates; ‘house prices needed to come down in certain areas’.
Oh, the same debate Jacinda said child poverty was getting better. So yeah, John Key sucked, but still better than this Labour lot. I didn’t and wouldn’t vote for either of them.
If you voted Labour or National last year.. really aren’t you part of the problem.
Truth.
You will own nothing and be happy
How about an Occupy Housing Movement targeting all longterm empty houses?
Yes RosieLee, that’s the only course of action left. Appealing to the conscience of people that don’t have one yet hold all the power is pointless.
Nothing will change until it’s in the interest of those in control to do so.
Friends just had their rental agreement extended for another year. Happy to have one more year of certainty. Came with a rental increase of 10% no explanation take it or leave.
Unfortunately there are scum tenants you never mention these and the regulations do not take them into account. I had a tenant that smeared faeces over the toilet wall just before a open home and another turned my lawn into a hangi pit.
I sold at a lose as I could not take the worry of renting. I do not deny there are scum landlords and unfortunately one of the worst landlords in Chch is the council run homes.
So Trevor have you hammered the Council about their responsibilities as a landlord, if not why not, I know Minto has repeatedly!
Unlike Minto I do not think the council should be involved in housing as all it does is duplicate the services offered by the government and they do not do it well. . Most of those I have come across in social housing need more than cheap rent they need wrap around support and the government has the social services in their system . This is the reason we have a government to look after those that cannot look after themselves. We need more state houses built instead of promises this time.
I dont know if Labour are gutless or just plain stupid. For those in it who know better, gutless sums them up. Had it of been National, rest assured, the housing market woes would be down to pure self interest.
But it looks increasingly like key players within Labour have zero work and or life experience other than academia and politics and are just too reliant on polling, advisors and focus groups to think for them. In other words they cannot see anything for themselves such as the obvious damage NZ’s housing market is doing to society.
As James Shaw said, Labour’s attitude toward housing was infuriating and it is but I wonder if it’s because their lack of life experience means they are too mentally impaired to think about any other subject other than risk to re-election?
On housing the Greens must to be that thoroughly annoying thorn in Labour’s side to overcome Jacinda’s current catatonic state created by her risk adversion that hamstrings her government on multiple levels. Somebody needs to, for New Zealanders sake!
I wasn’t alive at the time..
From what I understand [** puts neo-liberalism in the corner**] David Lange’s Labour Government understood huge reforms needed to be made. Lange’s Labour government didn’t care about reelection, they had a guaranteed thee years in power and they WEREN’T going to waste it!
How bold they were! NZ went form (again, as I understand it) a closed economy to one of the MOST OPEN in the world.. right down to the NZD. They had gumption!
As for the ‘neo-liberalism’.. Boomers have had 30+ years to shave off the hard edges, go please let ‘s not long for Muldoon, not that anyone would.
Contrast the about to Jacinda.. as someone on interest.co.nz said, “she’s a Waffle in a Soft-Serve-Cone”. Probably the best line of 2020.
Expect Rodney Hyde and Rimmer to start screaming about the supremacy of individual property rights very soon
According to the Income Tax Act landlords who leave their properties untenanted would not be able to claim tax deductions for expenses such as rates, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, or interest.
Which is fine if the main income source is property speculation. One of the intended consequences of low interest rates and appreciating values is it makes it easier for banks to justify lending to individuals without debt servicing capabilities. They all do it despite internal bank rules against it.
What you say above makes logical sense given we have a shortage of supply. I would be more in favor of a localized charge. Like a congestion fee but on housing. Let districts charge the rate based on their housing need. The issue of course is you could spook the property market and given outside of animal carcasses and plant byproducts our economy isn’t much at all a spooked property market could pull down the house of cards economy we have at the moment. As such there is as much chance of this as National polling > 30% in the next 18 months.
You don’t want to play of game of musical chairs without any chairs……..
“Which is fine if the main income source is property speculation. One of the intended consequences of low interest rates and appreciating values is it makes it easier for banks to justify lending to individuals without debt servicing capabilities. They all do it despite internal bank rules against it.”
Sounds very much like a repeat of the Yank’s sub prime mortgage scheme that preceded the 08 GFC
Given the risk of having tenants at this point, trivial taxation losses are more attractive than tenants.
In anycase if you aren’t renting your property out then by defintion you aren’t a landlord.
It’s not just the tax losses: the expenses themselves, rates, insurance, interest, etc, still would have to be met from the the landlord’s own pocket. Interest, in particular, can be quite a large amount if the landlord is highly leveraged
The renting situation in NZ is deplorable. I have seen the absolute 3rd-world hovels (no kidding) that my daughter has had to live in in Wellington [the capital city!!] during the last 8 or 9 years. There should be a government-set fair-rate system based on the property state/size/amenities but with a enforceable minimum [and respectable/decent] standard. Landlords should not be able to rent out properties that they themselves would not deign to live in. Provision of homes should be the business, not making profits as the be-all and end-all. Shame on NZ for allowing this.
No Zealand is not a country… it is a territory with a bunch of landed gentry and serfs on it, that is all
I know. I live in a house with rising damp and mould. Nobody is coming and nobody cares.
The rates and insurance increases due to quake damage and quake risk will of course be passed on to tenants. Wellington is Absolutely Positive about that
And this won’t help
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/engineers-withdraw-from-building-consent-work-in-wellington/FM7YTMAQBE4H6XKUXVT3F4KLEQ/
I can’t see many landlords wanting to leave their properties untenanted if it means they have to meet the ownership expenses from their own pockets. It is more likely that they will sell, which would make things easier for first home buyers.
Don’t worry, business can provide a motel room for $1000 p/w with the profits often going overseas when the landlords give up.
Not sure if tenants are better off, with the campaign to drive landlords out or the NZ economy having circular money staying within NZ with local landlords, rather than being offshore international housing profits never to be seen again in NZ as seems to be the globalist solution to housing.
Most of NZ problems are replicated in the UK, which went from Thatcherism and selling off government housing and converting it to private and social housing ownership, to globalism and allowing the UK to swell with new foreign residents who were apparently the new developers… (spoiler), has not worked out for the UK very well. NZ is mimicking the UK strategy with the same poor results.
“More than 500 high-rise developments are in progress across the city of London. For a nation in the grip of a housing crisis, this should be good news. But in reality, this will bring hardly any benefit for many of those seeking a decent home. Almost none of the new homes are reserved for people with no or low incomes and, although house prices in London are falling – particularly at the upper end of the market – construction for wealthy people and international buyers continues.
Much of this building is actually intensifying the stress on the affordable housing market, as developers grab cheap land and resources that can be converted into expensive, for-profit housing construction. Many public housing estates have been demolished, while others threatened with demolition may be replaced by expensive rented housing and units for sale at eye-watering prices.
London hosts the highest number of super-rich individuals per capita of any city globally: around 3,100 residents are ultra-high net worth individuals (UHNWIs) – those with assets, not including property, of £20m or more. And a further 6,100 UHNWIs have second homes in the city. The 2018 Sunday Times rich list suggested there were 92 billionaires in London.”
https://theconversation.com/londons-extraordinary-surplus-of-empty-luxury-apartments-revealed-97947
and you get this
“UK housing crisis: Influx of foreign cash boosted average property prices by a quarter, research finds
‘Significant’ proportion of price growth down to overseas investment – much of it through anonymous shell companies registered in secretive tax havens”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/house-prices-increase-foreign-buyers-money-property-market-kings-college-london-a8274106.html
Note with immigration new people (or their families) are living in the houses so the capital gains taxes do nothing, it is their ‘family’ home and NZ then needs to convert our taxes away from current social problems to creating the circa 1 million more houses needed for the 1 million new families, and we then need to borrow the money for the infrastructure and social services for the 1 million incomeless or low/middle income people coming into NZ and being able to call on NZ’s social welfare.
Yeah let’s crack down on landlords!….and cause a rental crisis just in time for the next election. 😉
I am reliably informed by industry insiders that many landlords are flicking off their renters and these are generally being picked up by returning NZers and young couples taking advantage of the low interest rates. It seems landlords don’t like the hooks in the new tenancy laws and are acting accordingly. The result will be a steady loss of rental accommodation. Rents will go up and homelessness will increase.
It’s obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. The government borrows hundreds of billions the magically house prices spike and the global debt narrative crowd thinks it’s got something to do with supply. No wonder National are screwed up.
A tired argument.. some stats would be good.
I could argue that these anecdotal landlords were offering uninhabitable houses and by selling them; there’s a chance they’ll become habitable, therefore increasing rental stock. We just don’t know.
What are the health implications and costs both personally and nationally of allowing these shonky properties? Perhaps s*** housing attacks s*** tenants and vice versa.
Isn’t the mass sale of houses to crash the housing market and speculators wealth the preferred goal? Renters might face some short-term-pain, but really it couldn’t get much worse for many. And when the younger generations benefit form the transfer – I’m sure they’ll actually continue to help each other.
Are younger households (relative to property size) lager than older households? If so all the better.
Entire generations grew up in the houses now deemed not good enough, villas, 60’s and 70’s houses, state houses…. sadly don’t have the mod cons for the modern politicians high standards….
Funny enough nobody is worrying about healthy standards in the cars and streets people are now sleeping in and the safety and security of that!
Too many middle class (aka ex Les Mill instructors and lawyers) in parliament who want to impose their middle class sensibilities on others, while ignoring what that is going to do to those who have prison records, no jobs, social issues and history of bad behaviour, who funny enough find it difficult to rent a middle class renovated property and just hope to get a roof over their heads so they are not sleeping in cars and on the streets … and a certain percentage of renters destroy what they live in or allow others to do so, as a matter of course…
It depends on whom one would wish to benefit: existing homeowners by maintaining prices, or would-be homeowners by bringing about at a market crash. I think I would rather see the latter, even if it left some owners “under water”.
I should mention that I am a homeowner myself and would therefore be disadvantaged by a crash. However I would still be “above water”.
Here’s a ‘new’ house also not good enough due to perceived Formaldehyde….
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/tenants-vs-landord-formaldehyde-off-gassing-blamed-for-headaches-insomnia/MNVBQHAZSNKC3W7VOBMZ47WOGU/
Landlord had to go through a large amount of expensive hoops before the case was dismissed… and it was a new house…..
If some people are not complaining about ‘damp housing’ then they seem to be compelled to be complaining about new housing…
“They raised the issue with the landlord who had painting done but that did not resolve the problem for them, so the master bedroom V-groove wall panels were removed and replaced with a new product, Quickline, the tribunal said.
They moved back into the master bedroom in October “but after two to three nights could not tolerate sleeping in the bedroom further and moved back into the living room to sleep”.
The landlord engaged NZ House Surveys to assess the dwelling, got a report the same day and that concluded Quickline would not present any risk of formaldehyde off-gassing.”
” the landlord said the Ingrams had been offered alternate premises and had declined to move so which was inconsistent with their expressed concerns.”
“But it noted the landlord had consented to the tenancy agreement being varied to allow the term to end early.”
And the landlord had to go to court /pay for their agents to go….
P>S> sadly Formaldehyde is in everything these days, especially clothing but it was the house these tenants concentrated on…. if there had been Formaldehyde in the house then the issue should have been around the safety of the building materials and developers who put it in, but nope… for whatever reason all blame for anything is generally put on the home owner not those responsible! In this case it sounds like there was nothing to prove but sounds like an extremely expensive process by tenants who took a bit of science and then tried to make money out of it about a substance that is everywhere these days.
Listen, without us landlords there would be more people living in cars. End of story.
Or, conversely, there would be more first home buyers without landlords/speculators/investors ramping up prices in bidding wars?
Comments are closed.