Quick rant thread.

[Jacko 2158]

Looked at 5 houses from trademe today, all circa 900k, all look nice in the ads, all in "nice" areas. Every single one was a mess of either unconsented additions, rotten roofs, leaks, bodge jobs.

Its depressing... 

[gjm 3258]

1 hour ago, Jacko said:

Looked at 5 houses from trademe today, all circa 900k, all look nice in the ads, all in "nice" areas. Every single one was a mess of either unconsented additions, rotten roofs, leaks, bodge jobs.

Its depressing... 

And the closest the vultures agents will get to admitting the problems is suggesting a little tlc is needed.
Although real estate agents are deserving of a rant thread all of their own...

 

[Jacko 2158]

Currently they seem to be rolling with "Immaculately presented" which actual translates to : water running down behind the freshly bunnings paint soaked walls

[richard 384]

lol, come on fellas, their no different to car dealers. you have to research what your buying, know your market, put in a price and be prepared to walk away. If you can see value added, negotiate.

I see leaky roof, rotten weather boards , driveways etc as a negotiating tool.

[Jacko 2158]

1 hour ago, richard said:

lol, come on fellas, their no different to car dealers. you have to research what your buying, know your market, put in a price and be prepared to walk away. If you can see value added, negotiate.

I see leaky roof, rotten weather boards , driveways etc as a negotiating tool.

Problem is post last CV/RV valuations everyone has wickedly over inflated ideas of what their places are worth, so wont negotiate, so sh*t just sits on the market until they give up and rent it out or withdraw it  

[richard 384]

if your waiting for a market crash, then your in for a LONG wait.

With high LVR's (30%) over the last 3 years, people are in no hurry to sell, they can afford to sit and wait it out.

There would have to be a world wide depression for housing to drop much further than it has.( My opinion)

I one said to a friend that if you wait any longer you'll end up in HuNtY.. He's in Pokeno.

And if we're paying RATES on these valuations then we are entitled to think that is the price.

[M3AN 4016]

Yeah, they said that ^ about Sydney 24 months ago... ?

[Jacko 2158]

16 minutes ago, richard said:

if your waiting for a market crash, then your in for a LONG wait.

With high LVR's (30%) over the last 3 years, people are in no hurry to sell, they can afford to sit and wait it out.

There would have to be a world wide depression for housing to drop much further than it has.( My opinion)

I one said to a friend that if you wait any longer you'll end up in HuNtY.. He's in Pokeno.

And if we're paying RATES on these valuations then we are entitled to think that is the price.

Not waiting for a crash at all, its just market is totally stagnant, and many sellers still think they are riding the wave of a few years ago. The places that actually sell (at least in areas / price brackets we are looking) are selling below CV though, those that do go above are normally because the cv was probably on the "low" side to start with.  

In contrast, our "first home buyer" bracketed house we just sold went stupidly quickly for a decent return on capital value for what we paid. It was easy to sell. 

Attended an auction this evening, 12 odd potential buyers, 6 year old nice 5 bedroom place in a nice street, likeable/sellable place. RV was $1.1m. Auctioneer opened bidding, no one stood up, so placed a vendor bid at 900k, asked for 910k... and no one stood up. Waited a few minutes then came back with real estate agent saying they have just spoken to owner, reserve 1m, asked for 1.01m.... Nothing. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Jacko

[richard 384]

3 minutes ago, M3AN said:

Yeah, they said that ^ about Sydney 24 months ago... ?

its a different market. Rampant bank lending , no to little deposit running for years and oversees migrates have to build new house to enter the country.

[richard 384]

12 minutes ago, Jacko said:

Not waiting for a crash at all, its just market is totally stagnant, and many buyers still think they are riding the wave of a few years ago. The places that actually sell (at least in areas / price brackets we are looking) are selling below CV though, those that do go above are normally because the cv was probably on the "low" side to start with.  

In contrast, our "first home buyer" bracketed house we just sold went stupidly quickly for a decent return on capital value for what we paid. It was easy to sell. 

Attended an auction this evening, 12 odd potential buyers, 6 year old nice 5 bedroom place in a nice street, likeable/sellable place. RV was $1.1m. Auctioneer opened bidding, no one stood up, so placed a vendor bid at 900k, asked for 910k... and no one stood up. Waited a few minutes then came back with real estate agent saying they have just spoken to owner, reserve 1m, asked for 1.01m.... Nothing. 

so their in no hurry to sell, sorry I cant see the problem.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why do you think they should sell cheaper/at your price.

[gjm 3258]

49 minutes ago, Jacko said:

Problem is post last CV/RV valuations everyone has wickedly over inflated ideas of what their places are worth, so wont negotiate, so sh*t just sits on the market until they give up and rent it out or withdraw it  

 

30 minutes ago, richard said:

if your waiting for a market crash, then your in for a LONG wait.

With high LVR's (30%) over the last 3 years, people are in no hurry to sell, they can afford to sit and wait it out.

There would have to be a world wide depression for housing to drop much further than it has.( My opinion)

I one said to a friend that if you wait any longer you'll end up in HuNtY.. He's in Pokeno.

And if we're paying RATES on these valuations then we are entitled to think that is the price.

Market is dropping a bit. Hardly a crash, but NZ tends to follow Oz in these things, and they're in a world of hurt.

CVs are a council rort. You can (and should) challenge them, but no-one wants to because they like the idea that their house is miraculously suddenly worth $150k more than it was. Real estate agents *love* CVs - they slap 10, 20, 30% and more on the CV and tell buyers the CV means nothing. Of course, they're the first to shout when a property is listed or below CV...

 

[mynbmr 225]

24 minutes ago, richard said:

if your waiting for a market crash, then your in for a LONG wait.

With high LVR's (30%) over the last 3 years, people are in no hurry to sell, they can afford to sit and wait it out.

There would have to be a world wide depression for housing to drop much further than it has.( My opinion)

I one said to a friend that if you wait any longer you'll end up in HuNtY.. He's in Pokeno.

And if we're paying RATES on these valuations then we are entitled to think that is the price.

Dont worry even Huntly is expesive, next door and two in our neighbourhood over $500k.

build ours 40 years ago for $39k and section $8.5k.

3 more sections left in street over $100k each

[Jacko 2158]

17 minutes ago, richard said:

so their in no hurry to sell, sorry I cant see the problem.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why do you think they should sell cheaper/at your price.

No offence taken at all, good discussion. I dont think people should sell at my price, however they should probably sell at the market price if they want to sell  To be clear, we arent low balling /tyre kicking the market, we just dont want a damp dump for the price of 8 new M2 competitions  

No hurry to sell is the issue, they are, thats the problem, and likely wont drop below the crazy numbers in their heads due to what they paid as little as a year ago and now will leave in a worse financial position than where they started. Many (most?) of the places up in locations such as manukau heights are like this, and a bunch are leaky on top of that. 

Owners need quick sales, however likely cant pay their mortgage off at the price the market is prepared to pay for their properties.. Its been massively over inflated, and unless the economy suddenly manages to start paying more people 6 plus figures a year, its beyond unsustainable. Jacinda needs to pull finger! 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Jacko

[richard 384]

I don't think TAXCINDA is the answer, she's  Winstons show pony, wheeled out for the PR stunts full of clichés and sound bits for the networks.

I do agree that wages have to rise so people can afford to purchase their fist home.  How this is done without causing massive inflation i'm not sure.

[BlackrazorNZ 83]

Yeh, I had high hopes for the CGT concept but either it won't come in at all or Labour will butcher it.

Even the idea that you would tax shares and not the family home is just nutso. All that does is encourage to sandbag their home, which is a totally nonproductive way to use our collective wealth.

Instead, they should have full CGT on any sale of a non-GDP-generating asset (including the family home!),  and a fairly punishing Estate Tax (to address the problem of hereditary wealth privilege), and use that income stream to support massive incentives for investing in business and shares to drive real growth in the economy.

Will never happen though. Labour are the party of 'tax the rich and give to the poor', and National is the party of 'don't tax on me!'. No one seems to be the party of 'let's use tax as a useful tool to steer the ship.'

[BlackrazorNZ 83]

Quick rant : Having lived through all the Christchurch earthquakes and having to see the bulk of a city need to empty out quickly, Auckland is fooked if we have a decent natural disaster and people need to get out. 1-2 car crashes will grind the entire motorway system to a halt - what do you think a volcano or tsunami would do? We'd all be sitting ducks.

[coop 261]

3 hours ago, richard said:

I don't think TAXCINDA is the answer, she's  Winstons show pony, wheeled out for the PR stunts full of clichés and sound bits for the networks.

I do agree that wages have to rise so people can afford to purchase their fist home.  How this is done without causing massive inflation i'm not sure.

I'm still surprised people think she was going to 'fix' this, or anything. It reminded me of when Obama was elected back in '09 and there were random street interviews of poor blacks who thought they were going to be given free cars and TVs because a black man became president. 

 

If you don't tow the mainstream media line/lie, first homes are achievable. 

So long as they aren't expecting the minimum wage worker or beneficiary to buy a house, the media seems to present the idea both these groups should be able to have lifestyles afforded by people who've worked their way into 6 figure incomes.   

And that also assumes FHB expectations are realistic - they aren't going to get a house they grew up in, in Epsom or Khandallah. They might have to buy something outside of the desirable areas, or an apartment/unit, and progress from there.  

Times have changed since their parents and grand parents bought houses with one income on a 1/4 acre section. People need to stop parroting that broken record.  

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by coop

[coop 261]

1 hour ago, BlackrazorNZ said:

Yeh, I had high hopes for the CGT concept but either it won't come in at all or Labour will butcher it.

Even the idea that you would tax shares and not the family home is just nutso. All that does is encourage to sandbag their home, which is a totally nonproductive way to use our collective wealth.

Instead, they should have full CGT on any sale of a non-GDP-generating asset (including the family home!),  and a fairly punishing Estate Tax (to address the problem of hereditary wealth privilege), and use that income stream to support massive incentives for investing in business and shares to drive real growth in the economy.

Will never happen though. Labour are the party of 'tax the rich and give to the poor', and National is the party of 'don't tax on me!'. No one seems to be the party of 'let's use tax as a useful tool to steer the ship.'

Forgetting successive governments doing their best to remove the concept of personal responsibility and allowing or even encouraging more people to be reliant on the govt, I think a lot of resentment to more tax is the blatant waste of money by local and central governments, on vanity projects to suit their ideologies pushed by life long parasitic councillors/politicians who'd struggle to make it in the real world and aren't held to account for the rate/tax payer money they throw down the drain year on year. 

 

What is the 'problem' of hereditary wealth? Sounds like jealousy or envy at best to me. 

I can't see Labour bringing it in as a lot of their educated voter base are likely in line for their wealthy boomer parents to knock off the perch in the next 5-20 years and inherit that big inner city home plus a rental or several and perhaps a business. 

 

In the medias drive to hate on the rich, and hate on land lords, it must be mentioned that a CGT will rarely impact most property investors, who are in the game long term - buy and hold. 

Property traders & speculators/flippers already pay a CGT in way of the brighline test, that is any home that isn't primary place of residence is sold for profit within the first five years (I wouldn't mind if this is extended to the family home, to also target the flippers/speculators, but perhaps at a flat rate of 15% as not subject to GST etc). 

An investment property producing income will be paying tax on that income. 

I laugh at the uneducated jealous fools in the Facebook comments who think land lords (that they've been told to hate) will be forking out huge sums of cash over a potential CGT, as if they don't pay any tax on income producing properties already, or aren't subject to the bright line test if they trade a property within 5 years. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by coop

[BlackrazorNZ 83]

16 minutes ago, coop said:

What is the 'problem' of hereditary wealth? Sounds like jealous or envy at best to me.

The problem with hereditary wealth is simple - it stratifies society and creates the perpetually poor and the automatically wealthy, without any regard to merit or deservedness. 

If someones parents were relatively wealthy, they’re already likely to have had a significant advantage in life due to no deservedness of their own. Compounding that with large transfer of additional wealth when the parents die only compounds the issue. 

Ive long felt that the tax system would be far better off if both company and income tax were substantially reduced, but there was a massive (and I mean 75-90%) estate tax on their passing. Allow people all the fruits of their labour while alive, without entrenching undeserved generational wealth once they’re gone.

I don’t expect or desire equality of outcome, but inter generational wealth transfer completely eradicated equality of opportunity which i feel is the core required tenet of any long term successful and healthy capitalist democracy. 

[coop 261]

5 minutes ago, BlackrazorNZ said:

The problem with hereditary wealth is simple - it stratifies society and creates the perpetually poor and the automatically wealthy, without any regard to merit or deservedness. 

If someones parents were relatively wealthy, they’re already likely to have had a significant advantage in life due to no deservedness of their own. Compounding that with large transfer of additional wealth when the parents die only compounds the issue. 

Ive long felt that the tax system would be far better off if both company and income tax were substantially reduced, but there was a massive (and I mean 75-90%) estate tax on their passing. Allow people all the fruits of their labour while alive, without entrenching undeserved generational wealth once they’re gone.

I don’t expect or desire equality of outcome, but inter generational wealth transfer completely eradicated equality of opportunity which i feel is the core required tenet of any long term successful and healthy capitalist democracy. 

Interesting proposition regarding a 75-90% estate tax. My bet would be those who are subject to that will have their money/assets off shore, or will cash them in and send/invest money off shore or spend it up. 

I think your first sentence contradicts itself? As in those who are poor, or are perpetually poor, can pull themselves out of it by merit. 

Those who are automatically wealthy without merit or deserving it, will likely be in the same financial position some years after the inheritance. 

 

I think people who have a similar viewpoint to you seem to think that there is a confined or limited amount of money in this county. 

Money makes money, and if someone who is poor has the drive & common sense, and perhaps the right advice/direction to become rich, they will do so. I've seen it many times.

 

What sort of threshold will be subject to such an estate tax? 

Consider two or three kids may be beneficiaries, of say a $2million estate (I don't know what an average deceased estate in NZ is worth, but I'd guess $2 mill is on the high side), well that only leaves the kids with $1mill, or $660,000 or so each. Hardly big dollars, especially if they live in Auckland and don't own a house or have a substantial mortgage.  

[Olaf 3339]

What is totally broken in the current debate on CGT is that the aparrent use of this tax income to provide the lazy and the indolent or underpriveliged with a tax break.  

Thankfully there were three on the Tax Working Group prepared to politely point out its folly with unemotive logic.   Our government is not proposing using the proceeds of their proposed CGT for something useful such as infrastructure or healthcare, but are proposing pissing it away on $500 a year to those who "need it".    It's another bloody vote-buying lolly scramble, and is totally unfair, in contrast to the way the media touts it as 'fair'.   Fair that they're proposing redistributing the fruits of someone's investment labours and risk-taking?  The message is clear:  "you rotters making money on investments need to give your nasty ill-gotten lolly to those who aren't".

There should have been a riot when they announced Michael 'Socialist Worker' Cullen as the chair.  I'm surprised his values allowed him to accept a knighthood.  Perhaps absence of riot is based on those who understood this realised it was in fact a charade, that it couldn't happen this time around.  Winston is not expected to bless this; perhaps the best thing to come from his backroom deal to power.

/rant.

[Jacko 2158]

10 hours ago, coop said:

If you don't tow the mainstream media line/lie, first homes are achievable. 

So long as they aren't expecting the minimum wage worker or beneficiary to buy a house, the media seems to present the idea both these groups should be able to have lifestyles afforded by people who've worked their way into 6 figure incomes.   

Totally agree, it is possible if you have realistic expectations. Milking kiwisaver for all its worth and then being prepared to live in a cheap house in a cheap suburb for a few years. Its totally doable (thats what we did). 

 

 

This was in the herald a few weeks ago, its a BNZ ad... (for those that think the aussie banks are scum...). Advertising to first home buyers to get a million dollar mortgage

Edited March 9, 2019 by Jacko

[Jacko 2158]

Was having a yarn with some mates last night, maybe part of the solution would be something akin to WOF's for all houses for sale.

Licensed building inspectors (not the rort that exists at the moment) who are legally required to inspect any house prior to it being listed. It could be given the equivalent of a japanese auction rating for its condition, or like the UK has with repaired vehicles, likely with some sort of scalar that takes into account age/construction etc. The inspector would also take into account compliance/title issues and make them very clearly part of the report. 

Something that steps over the estate agents nonsense, and either forces the owners to fix problems prior to sale, or to bring back to reality some of their expectations. It'd stop the market having so many problem houses listed, and would likely de-skew some of the pricing. For example a leaky building would be a "D" and the market would take that into account, where as a decent place with a higher grade would command more money. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Jacko

[gjm 3258]

5 minutes ago, Jacko said:

Was having a yarn with some mates last night, maybe part of the solution would be something akin to WOF's for all houses for sale.

This is done in the UK. It used to be the case that UK housebuyers were responsible for sorting a report on a property, which the buyer paid for, before presenting to a lending institution for a loan. This often led to several such reports being commissioned, and paid for, on a single property.

That's changed (I think) and now a house seller is required to provide the report to buyers. The report is compiled by, as suggested, licensed building inspectors. It's not a ridiculously expensive document and may not be entirely exhaustive, but it will cover things like structural integrity, leaks, an overview of elctrics and plumbing, and information regarding changes and their approval. 

[richard 384]

I don't think regulating/WOF would fix the problem. Its a circular thing. All the rubbish comes to the surface after a housing surge trying to gain an advantage . You'll start see rent to own soon.

And many/lots of houses are 70+ years old now.