Comments on: Christchurch Council Housing Changes Not All We Were Led To Believe. Did Government Change Terms Or Was Council Wilfully Blind?

By: Frank Macskasy

Frank Macskasy — Sat, 21 May 2016 02:22:18 +0000

Here, David, have a Tui. It’s on me and 800,000 children living in poverty.

By the way, that’s offered to the real David Seymour who made a bit of a twat of himself this morning on TV3’s ‘The Nation’. Only a man with a poorly developed intellect or human empathy could possibly think that perpetuating higher and higher house prices is a good thing. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/radical-changes-child-protection-and-care

By: David See-More

David See-More — Sat, 21 May 2016 00:52:31 +0000

Christchurch has to pay its way after their earthquakes, so any way that expensive assets can be privatised to fund this, the better.

It is no surprise to ACT that this is happening and tenants and the taxpayer will be better off as a results. ACT’s mantra for success for the last 33 years has always been for the state and local councils to get out of expensive ventures that private sector can do better.

Expect more of the same after the next election from ACT as the last elements of the plan – 20% GST and 20% flat tax rate for taxpayers and business are implemented.

Only then will we see real growth in NZ under ACT and its coalition parties of National, Maori Party and United Future.

By: Quick Thinking

Quick Thinking — Thu, 19 May 2016 08:46:18 +0000

Who owns the 51% of the CHP & what guarantee is there that they will not asset strip the properties? What is to stop the CHP changing the numbering of the units then saying the tenants are new tenants so they can get the IRRS? It would cost for a lawyer & new contracts but might be cost effective.

By: Z

Thu, 19 May 2016 06:00:12 +0000

Tenants who qualify for IRRS are better off than with the accommodation supplement.

It’s time the two different subsidies were made equal.