And it's ridiculous to think you and your kids are better than where you can afford to live. If you drive across town to *better* schools you are the problem not the solution.

heather902 - 2020-12-16 20:43:00

heather902 wrote:

If you drive across town to *better* schools you are the problem not the solution.

exactly .. plenty like that in Ak ..

pf - 2020-12-16 20:53:00

aklreels wrote:

Rental property investors 50% deposit
Retiress and homeless 0% deposit

You do realise that majority of investors are cash buyers so your 50% deposit rule is irrelevant. Mortgage rules and interest rates have no effect on them. Which is why reserve bank fiddling with interest rates has done nothing for house prices over the last 20 years.

mone - 2020-12-16 20:58:00

heather902 wrote:

And it's ridiculous to think you and your kids are better than where you can afford to live. If you drive across town to *better* schools you are the problem not the solution.

the ‘problem’ is that people who want their kids to get a good education can’t necessarily afford to buy a house near a good school. It’s worth converting to Catholicism just for when your kids go to school, even if you can’t abide the teachings of it st least the kids get to go to a better school.....anyway my worry over the issue ceased to exist after I left the place.....thank goodness. But that is half the problem with the Auckland traffic.

lakeview3 - 2020-12-16 21:13:00

heather902 wrote:

Once upon a time those same people probably raised their families in *not so good* areas when they were finding their way on the property ladder. Don't begrudge people what they have worked for.

pfft....

lakeview3 - 2020-12-16 21:14:00

lakeview3 wrote:

the ‘problem’ is that people who want their kids to get a good education can’t necessarily afford to buy a house near a good school. It’s worth converting to Catholicism just for when your kids go to school, even if you can’t abide the teachings of it st least the kids get to go to a better school.....anyway my worry over the issue ceased to exist after I left the place.....thank goodness. But that is half the problem with the Auckland traffic.

See you are just buying into an idea that kids will fail at local low decile schools. We didn't ever take our kids out of zone. And I don't know where you lived but if $900K was entry level it wasn't the cheapest suburb by any stretch. that price being just below the median. My Son missed out of a 4 bed, 2 bathroom, 2 lounge Decile 9, sold for $930K

Edited by heather902 at 9:29 pm, Wed 16 Dec

heather902 - 2020-12-16 21:26:00

lakeview3 wrote:

pfft....

try saying something that makes sense.

heather902 - 2020-12-16 21:28:00

heather902 wrote:

See you are just buying into an idea that kids will fail at local low decile schools. We didn't ever take our kids out of zone. And I don't know where you lived but if $900K was entry level it wasn't the cheapest suburb by any stretch. that price being just below the median. My Son missed out of a 4 bed, 2 bathroom, 2 lounge Decile 9, sold for $930K

I bought it for 102K in 1993.....it WAS entry level. It’s 945k now. I suppose I could have bought in papakura or some such suburb for $70K but yeah nah too far away from work and frankly just um yeah nah

Don’t you think it’s a bit disturbing a 24 year old even has to contemplate buying such an expensive property?

Seriously pur kids will be debt slaves forever if they have to pay that much just for a roof over their head, or should I say half a roof.

We will probably turn our garage into another bedroom/bedsit and elderly parents or child can live there. It’s already double glazed and insulated. No big deal at all to do. It’s a decent size and if we wanted we could make it so they have access to the 2nd bathroom and another bedroom, leaving us with 3 bedrooms 2 lounges kitchen and 1 bathroom. Plenty of options. Or we could live in it and one of the kids live with their family in the house.

Fact is, this is the new norm. Overcrowding.

lakeview3 - 2020-12-16 21:41:00

lakeview3 wrote:

I bought it for 102K in 1993.....it WAS entry level. It’s 945k now. I suppose I could have bought in papakura or some such suburb for $70K but yeah nah too far away from work and frankly just um yeah nah

Don’t you think it’s a bit disturbing a 24 year old even has to contemplate buying such an expensive property?

Seriously pur kids will be debt slaves forever if they have to pay that much just for a roof over their head, or should I say half a roof.

We will probably turn our garage into another bedroom/bedsit and elderly parents or child can live there. It’s already double glazed and insulated. No big deal at all to do. It’s a decent size and if we wanted we could make it so they have access to the 2nd bathroom and another bedroom, leaving us with 3 bedrooms 2 lounges kitchen and 1 bathroom. Plenty of options. Or we could live in it and one of the kids live with their family in the house.

Fact is, this is the new norm. Overcrowding.

Its $930 with 4 incomes, maybe 4 x combined income, these people all have a financial plan to pay that down fast. sure it might not work out. but hey they are trying.

sounds like you should downsize and free up some space for someone more in need.

heather902 - 2020-12-16 21:50:00

mone wrote:

You do realise that majority of investors are cash buyers so your 50% deposit rule is irrelevant. Mortgage rules and interest rates have no effect on them. Which is why reserve bank fiddling with interest rates has done nothing for house prices over the last 20 years.

The majority of them are equity buyers - I suspect they have very little cash

funkydunky - 2020-12-16 21:51:00

We are in Sth Auckland and we have GD zoned out for intermediate and high school!
Primary school acceptable though!
We brought in 97 and it’s worth almost million dollars! Sadly though it will be pulled down and have 4 to 6 houses put on it and each will have a million $ prize tag!

pamols - 2020-12-16 22:32:00

heather902 wrote:

Its $930 with 4 incomes, maybe 4 x combined income, these people all have a financial plan to pay that down fast. sure it might not work out. but hey they are trying.

sounds like you should downsize and free up some space for someone more in need.

pffft hardly - theres 3 of us in a 4 bedroom house. Hardly a crime.

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 06:58:00

funkydunky wrote:

The majority of them are equity buyers - I suspect they have very little cash

exactly - leveraged up more like

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 06:59:00

lakeview3 wrote:

pffft hardly - theres 3 of us in a 4 bedroom house. Hardly a crime.

Clearly your house is underutilised and should be seized by the state and allocated to one of those poor families that need 4 beds but can't afford to buy one themselves.

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 07:38:00

mone wrote:

You do realise that majority of investors are cash buyers so your 50% deposit rule is irrelevant. Mortgage rules and interest rates have no effect on them. Which is why reserve bank fiddling with interest rates has done nothing for house prices over the last 20 years.

Nope - it's about 1/3 are cash buyers and 2/3 needing a mortgage.

And in October, around 1/3 of investor lending was above 70% LVR (by value not volume).

Edited by sparkychap at 7:43 am, Thu 17 Dec

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 07:40:00

It is all very well borrowing these huge amounts when the interest rates are abnormally low, but when they go up again, you can't service the mortgage.

When I bought my house it was 9.5% and my friend bought one about a year earlier at 10.5%.

It used to be well over 20% in the 80s and whilst it might not go back up that much, I can see no reason why it couldn't go back up to 8%+

And it isn't so easy now to save for a 20%+ deposit when the house prices are so high and the rents are so out of control.

tygertung - 2020-12-17 07:52:00

sparkychap wrote:

Clearly your house is underutilised and should be seized by the state and allocated to one of those poor families that need 4 beds but can't afford to buy one themselves.

nah there’s heaps of 1 resident 4 bedroom houses, baches, air BnBs and whatnot to be seized before my place....lol

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 08:13:00

sparkychap wrote:

Nope - it's about 1/3 are cash buyers and 2/3 needing a mortgage.

And in October, around 1/3 of investor lending was above 70% LVR (by value not volume).

that’s good news the investors are so wealthy- they won’t need a pension and the money can instead go into educating the next batch of taxpyers.

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 08:14:00

lakeview3 wrote:

pffft hardly - theres 3 of us in a 4 bedroom house. Hardly a crime.

Um, not how many are in the house, but bedrooms used?
Yourself and darling in one room?
Third person in another?
Leaves 2 empty?

Best give to a deserving family and feel better about yoursel!

smallwoods - 2020-12-17 09:18:00

lakeview3 wrote:

nah there’s heaps of 1 resident 4 bedroom houses, baches, air BnBs and whatnot to be seized before my place....lol

But are they spouting on about the "needy"?

smallwoods - 2020-12-17 09:20:00

lakeview3 wrote:

nah there’s heaps of 1 resident 4 bedroom houses, baches, air BnBs and whatnot to be seized before my place....lol

Being so vocal about it I thought you'd like to set a good example.

Anyway who should people's business and family treasures be seized before your place?

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 09:39:00

sparkychap wrote:

Being so vocal about it I thought you'd like to set a good example.

Anyway who should people's business and family treasures be seized before your place?

I wasn’t suggesting anything be seized - that was your idea

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 09:45:00

smallwoods wrote:

But are they spouting on about the "needy"?

of course not their heads are well an truly buried in the sand, until they get robbed or such like.

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 09:46:00

lakeview3 wrote:

I wasn’t suggesting anything be seized - that was your idea

Great, they can all get on with owning their own properties and not have to worry about busy bodies trying to take them off them. Nice.

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 09:56:00

lakeview3 wrote:

pffft hardly - theres 3 of us in a 4 bedroom house. Hardly a crime.

come on you know you need to downsize, think you could get by with a two bed. its just selfish and irresponsible otherwise.

heather902 - 2020-12-17 10:27:00

sparkychap wrote:

Great, they can all get on with owning their own properties and not have to worry about busy bodies trying to take them off them. Nice.

if they own more than one house on the other hand......

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 19:30:00

heather902 wrote:

come on you know you need to downsize, think you could get by with a two bed. its just selfish and irresponsible otherwise.

I am sure you could get a couple of rows of townhouses on your plot of land.....

lakeview3 - 2020-12-17 19:31:00

lakeview3 wrote:

if they own more than one house on the other hand......

So what if they do? Many families have a family bach or run a small business to supplement their meagre pensions by owning an AirBnB...

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 19:33:00

lakeview3 wrote:

I am sure you could get a couple of rows of townhouses on your plot of land.....

We live in an area protected by the heritage act 2008. so one dwelling per property. that's what draws people to the area. large protected sites, for bird life and bush regeneration.but i'm sure you can figure out a reason we should be kicked off in favour of a younger family.

heather902 - 2020-12-17 20:03:00

heather902 wrote:

We live in an area protected by the heritage act 2008. so one dwelling per property. that's what draws people to the area. large protected sites, for bird life and bush regeneration.but i'm sure you can figure out a reason we should be kicked off in favour of a younger family.

Good on you for clearly working hard and getting in a position to buy a nice house in a nice area.

sparkychap - 2020-12-17 20:06:00

sparkychap wrote:

Good on you for clearly working hard and getting in a position to buy a nice house in a nice area.

thank you. we were very fortunate to have good jobs and i don't take it for granted. but we did work for i for a long time, i walked out the door to work with dinner ready as my husband walked in to feed and bath the kids.

heather902 - 2020-12-17 20:10:00

lakeview3 wrote:

taxpayers are already guaranteeing loans to the landlords via the accommodation supplement......if the govt is going to supplement housing at the very least they should help the actual person living in the house, not some other person who seemingly has enough money to buy more than one house.

I agree with you on that. better to offer a subsidy to a first home buyer for say 5 years Than give a subsidy to rent.

3tomany - 2021-01-09 13:11:00

A hand up costs for a short term, but a hand out has to be given forever.

3tomany - 2021-01-09 13:15:00

3tomany wrote:

I agree with you on that. better to offer a subsidy to a first home buyer for say 5 years Than give a subsidy to rent.

House prices will just rise by the amount the subsidy allows. Fomo is half the market.

sw20 - 2021-01-09 13:31:00

sw20 wrote:

House prices will just rise by the amount the subsidy allows. Fomo is half the market.

No it should not as more home owners = less renters. Just shifting the ownership structure from investors to family home buyers.
Investors will shift from rental to shares or commercial investments further helping the economy.

Edited by 3tomany at 1:38 pm, Sat 9 Jan

3tomany - 2021-01-09 13:38:00

3tomany wrote:

I agree with you on that. better to offer a subsidy to a first home buyer for say 5 years Than give a subsidy to rent.

A subsidy just encourages FHBers to pay more than they would have done.

sparkychap - 2021-01-09 13:48:00