https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise

“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."

At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
for years and they new it.

Also

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz

On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>
>“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
>fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."
>
>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>for years and they new it.
>
>Also
>
>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz

Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
Post issued this article:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election

Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
“ . . . Running my own business means I understand it’s essential
to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
forward.

As an independent I’ll be free to work with all councillors in the
best interests of Wellington.

I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.”

Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.

I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
business to keep your rates low."
__________________________________

Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.

Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
- the winning candidate had said:

"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision — to build a
city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.

I’m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I’ve worked
with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
adopt Aotearoa’s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
district plan.

My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.

For a Poneke where everyone can thrive

Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"

_______________________________

So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
the Privileged, not the Many"???

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>
>>�We also haven�t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>it means we�re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,� the document said."
>>
>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>for years and they new it.
>>
>>Also
>>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>
>
>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>Post issued this article:
>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>
>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>� . . . Running my own business means I understand it�s essential
>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>forward.
>
>As an independent I�ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>best interests of Wellington.
>
>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.�
>
>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>
>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>business to keep your rates low."
>__________________________________
>
>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>
>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>- the winning candidate had said:
>
>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision � to build a
>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>
>I�m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I�ve worked
>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>adopt Aotearoa�s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>district plan.
>
>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>
>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>
>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>
>_______________________________
>
>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>the Privileged, not the Many"???
No need, because it is not true..

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:38:37 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>
>>“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."
>>
>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>for years and they new it.
>>
>>Also
>>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>
>
>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>Post issued this article:
>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>
>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>“ . . . Running my own business means I understand it’s essential
>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>forward.
>
>As an independent I’ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>best interests of Wellington.
>
>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.”
>
>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>
>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>business to keep your rates low."
>__________________________________
>
>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>
There you go again Rich - making totally unsubstantiated claims of
political allegiance. Unless you can actually cite support credible
evidence of what you say, you are making a total fool of yourself and
destroying any credibility you might have in your rush to political
rhetoric.

>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>- the winning candidate had said:
>
>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision — to build a
>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>
>I’m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I’ve worked
>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>adopt Aotearoa’s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>district plan.
>
>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>
>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>
>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>
>_______________________________
>
>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>the Privileged, not the Many"???

What can you do to substantiate your allegations and rescue your
reputation that is descending into being a compulsive liar about local
body candidates and the National/ACT parties?

Its nearly too late Rich. You better hope that your real identity
remains hidden so litigation is not possible.

--
Crash McBash

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>>
>>>“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>>it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
>>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."
>>>
>>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>>for years and they new it.
>>>
>>>Also
>>>
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>>
>>
>>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>>Post issued this article:
>>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>>
>>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>>“ . . . Running my own business means I understand it’s essential
>>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>>forward.
>>
>>As an independent I’ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>>best interests of Wellington.
>>
>>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.”
>>
>>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>>
>>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>>business to keep your rates low."
>>__________________________________
>>
>>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>>
>>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>>- the winning candidate had said:
>>
>>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision — to build a
>>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>>
>>I’m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I’ve worked
>>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>>adopt Aotearoa’s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>>district plan.
>>
>>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>>
>>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>>
>>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>>
>>_______________________________
>>
>>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>>the Privileged, not the Many"???
>No need, because it is not true..
Such a quick change! That is fantastic, Tony. if true, but it may be
difficult to back out of the giveaway to landlords quickly . . . . -
and leaving water entirely to Councils is a major shift in
responsibilities - some communities will find that very difficult.

GORDON ---
SPREADING DISEASES LIKE ALL PAAKEHAA -- S.T.D. STUFF.
BUTT EATERS READ STUFF.CO.NZ.
WHY ARE YOU READING THE CRAP LIAR WHITE HOMOSEXUAL
STAFF OF DECEIVERS HALF TRUTHS TOTAL OMISSIONS SODOMITES
FROM GOMORRAH REGION OF DEBAUCHERY --

OF COURSE NO ADHERANCE TO 10 COMMANDMENTS.
SO TOTAL LIES ARE THE NORM: Stuff.co.nz.
A NATION OF LIARS ! (nz).

"Gordon" wrote in message news:l5evt3Fqm4hU1@mid.individual.net...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise

“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."

At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
for years and they new it.

Also

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>>>
>>>>�We also haven�t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>>>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>>>it means we�re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly
>>>>emergency
>>>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,� the document said."
>>>>
>>>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>>>for years and they new it.
>>>>
>>>>Also
>>>>
>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>>>
>>>
>>>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>>>Post issued this article:
>>>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>>>
>>>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>>>� . . . Running my own business means I understand it�s essential
>>>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>>>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>>>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>>>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>>>forward.
>>>
>>>As an independent I�ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>>>best interests of Wellington.
>>>
>>>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>>>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.�
>>>
>>>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>>>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>>>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>>>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>>>
>>>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>>>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>>>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>>>business to keep your rates low."
>>>__________________________________
>>>
>>>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>>>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>>>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>>>
>>>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>>>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>>>- the winning candidate had said:
>>>
>>>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision � to build a
>>>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>>>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>>>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>>>
>>>I�m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I�ve worked
>>>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>>>adopt Aotearoa�s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>>>district plan.
>>>
>>>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>>>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>>>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>>>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>>>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>>>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>>>
>>>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>>>
>>>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>>>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>>>the Privileged, not the Many"???
>>No need, because it is not true..
>Such a quick change! That is fantastic, Tony. if true, but it may be
>difficult to back out of the giveaway to landlords quickly . . . . -
>and leaving water entirely to Councils is a major shift in
>responsibilities - some communities will find that very difficult.
No change - you lied.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:57:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>>>>
>>>>>“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
>>>>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>>>>it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly
>>>>>emergency
>>>>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."
>>>>>
>>>>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>>>>for years and they new it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>>>>Post issued this article:
>>>>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>>>>
>>>>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>>>>“ . . . Running my own business means I understand it’s essential
>>>>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>>>>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>>>>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>>>>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>>>>forward.
>>>>
>>>>As an independent I’ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>>>>best interests of Wellington.
>>>>
>>>>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>>>>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.”
>>>>
>>>>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>>>>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>>>>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>>>>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>>>>
>>>>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>>>>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>>>>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>>>>business to keep your rates low."
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>
>>>>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>>>>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>>>>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>>>>
>>>>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>>>>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>>>>- the winning candidate had said:
>>>>
>>>>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision — to build a
>>>>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>>>>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>>>>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>>>>
>>>>I’m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I’ve worked
>>>>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>>>>adopt Aotearoa’s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>>>>district plan.
>>>>
>>>>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>>>>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>>>>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>>>>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>>>>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>>>>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>>>>
>>>>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>>>>
>>>>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________
>>>>
>>>>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>>>>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>>>>the Privileged, not the Many"???
>>>No need, because it is not true..
>>Such a quick change! That is fantastic, Tony. if true, but it may be
>>difficult to back out of the giveaway to landlords quickly . . . . -
>>and leaving water entirely to Councils is a major shift in
>>responsibilities - some communities will find that very difficult.
>No change - you lied.

Look at it from a ratepayers perspective :
https://youtu.be/47JFpFH0bw0

Will they get a reduction in rents?
Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
rates already announced.

Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
..

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:57:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 14 Mar 2024 00:49:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>�We also haven�t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and
>>>>>>proactive
>>>>>>replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
>>>>>>it means we�re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly
>>>>>>emergency
>>>>>>fixes and increased renewal programmes,� the document said."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
>>>>>>for years and they new it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wellington had Council by-election recently, and on 21 February The
>>>>>Post issued this article:
>>>>>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350183457/independent-candidate-wrests-wellington-city-council-seat-greens-election
>>>>>
>>>>>Karl Tiefenbacher knew what to say - his profile sent to votes said:
>>>>>� . . . Running my own business means I understand it�s essential
>>>>>to spend money wisely, and make logical and affordable decisions.
>>>>>Wellington has some huge and expensive challenges, and I will fight on
>>>>>behalf of renters and owners for Council decisions to be sensible,
>>>>>cost-effective, and aimed at the things that will take our city
>>>>>forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>As an independent I�ll be free to work with all councillors in the
>>>>>best interests of Wellington.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want Council to focus on managing infrastructure, restoring vibrancy
>>>>>to the city, and (importantly) spending our rates prudently.�
>>>>>
>>>>>Another candidate, Edward Griffiths, did not do as well, but his
>>>>>statement included: "I grew up in Wellington and for the past decade I
>>>>>have lived, worked and raised my family in the heart of Wellington on
>>>>>Cuba street. I have experienced first-hand how great our city can be.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to confront the challenges we know we need to overcome to be a
>>>>>great place to live. Transportation, water, governance and essential
>>>>>infrastructure that enables us to live with a focus on our core
>>>>>business to keep your rates low."
>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>Now most of those voting for Council members know that an
>>>>>"Independent" who talks about keeping rates low is part of the
>>>>>National Party Team - or perhaps now the ACT / National team.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sadly for them, voting closed on 17 February, and that gave too many
>>>>>Wellingtonians an idea of where those parties were taking New Zealand
>>>>>- the winning candidate had said:
>>>>>
>>>>>"I'm running for Wellington City Council with a vision � to build a
>>>>>city where everyone can enjoy affordable and healthy homes, clean
>>>>>streams, oceans and beautiful native parks. That means investing in
>>>>>new housing, our pipes, and our public and active transport.
>>>>>
>>>>>I�m proud to have had a hand in shaping our city already. I�ve worked
>>>>>with renters across the city and successfully campaigned for WCC to
>>>>>adopt Aotearoa�s first Healthy Homes Commitment and an ambitious
>>>>>district plan.
>>>>>
>>>>>My previous work with Council means that I can hit the ground running.
>>>>>I will prioritise healthy, affordable housing, alongside accessible
>>>>>public and active transport. I will push for stronger climate action
>>>>>and resilient infrastructure and I will deliver for young people,
>>>>>renters, families, workers, and our future neighbours by investing in
>>>>>water, transport and energy infrastructure fit for the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>For a Poneke where everyone can thrive
>>>>>
>>>>>Vote #1 Geordie Rogers"
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>So a question now for the next Council elections - what on earth can
>>>>>ACT / National "Aligned" candidates say to identify themselves as "For
>>>>>the Privileged, not the Many"???
>>>>No need, because it is not true..
>>>Such a quick change! That is fantastic, Tony. if true, but it may be
>>>difficult to back out of the giveaway to landlords quickly . . . . -
>>>and leaving water entirely to Councils is a major shift in
>>>responsibilities - some communities will find that very difficult.
>>No change - you lied.
>
>Look at it from a ratepayers perspective :
>https://youtu.be/47JFpFH0bw0
>
>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>rates already announced.
>
>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>.
Completely irrelevant - you lied.

NONE OF YOU BUTT EATERS (Stuff) CAN THINK BEYOND
WHAT THOSE HOMOSEXUALS ARE TRYING TO CHANGE
PEOPLE'S OPINIONS.

ONLY RETROBATE -- SCRIPTURALLY DESCRIBED DELUSIONAL,
READ 'STUFF'

"Gordon" wrote in message news:l5evt3Fqm4hU1@mid.individual.net...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212244/napier-ratepayers-face-highest-ever-rate-rise

“We also haven’t invested the way we needed to in maintenance and proactive
replacement. While that saved our ratepayers money in the short term,
it means we’re starting to see assets failing and requiring costly emergency
fixes and increased renewal programmes,” the document said."

At last we have an admission that the core survices have been underfunded
for years and they new it.

Also

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212343/rates-average-15-across-country-lgnz

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>rates already announced.
>
>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>.
Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
government increased it.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>rates already announced.
>>
>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>.
>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>government increased it.

No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.

There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.

Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.

The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.

National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.

That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.

So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
sovereign debt.

Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
.. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
with glee . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>rates already announced.
>>>
>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>.
>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>government increased it.
>
>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>
>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>
>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.
>
>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>
>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>
>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>
>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>sovereign debt.
>
>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>with glee . . .
The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced rentals - why do you
fail to ackowledge that? Oh I think I know - hmmmm more political rhetoric.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:29:21 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>rates already announced.
>>>
>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>.
>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>government increased it.
>
>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>
>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>
That is because family homes are typically owned by owner-occupiers.
They cannot earn income, therefore cannot be taxed. When the owner
sells the capital gain is unlikely to be taxed in any way. Note that
if owner/occupiers repeatedly buy and sell their homes then they can
be deemed by the IRD as 'in trade' and then capital gains are taxed as
income.

>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.

Labour 'fixed' this. No-one renting out a home could claim interest
costs as a tax-deductible expense, regardless of what type of entity
(individual, company, trust etc.) owns the rented home.
>
>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>
Incorrect. Labour allowed entities owning rented homes to claim all
expenses except mortgage interest.

>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>
Incorrect. National are simply restoring the status quo prior to the
changes made by Labour to remove tax-=deductibility of mortgage
interest

>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>
>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>sovereign debt.
>
>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>with glee . . .

Governments of all colours contributed to this. The fact remains that
National are simply restoring what was the status quo.
>

--
Crash McBash

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:40:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>>rates already announced.
>>>>
>>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>>.
>>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>>government increased it.
>>
>>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>>
>>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>>
>>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.
>>
>>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>>
>>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>>
>>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>>
>>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>>sovereign debt.
>>
>>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>>with glee . . .
>The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced rentals - why do you
>fail to ackowledge that? Oh I think I know - hmmmm more political rhetoric.
I agree with you - this was empty rhetoric from Luxon, repeated by
you. With interest rates and building costs and rates going up, and
the building industry already flat out, this tax change will just put
more money in the pockets of Landlords it will not build a single
house.

If you are looking for an initiative to increase housing however, you
will celebrate this one:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-03-2024/housing-wins-the-war

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:40:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>>>rates already announced.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>>>.
>>>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>>>government increased it.
>>>
>>>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>>>
>>>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>>>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>>>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>>>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>>>
>>>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>>>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>>>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.
>>>
>>>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>>>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>>>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>>>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>>>
>>>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>>>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>>>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>>>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>>>
>>>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>>>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>>>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>>>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>>>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>>>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>>>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>>>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>>>
>>>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>>>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>>>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>>>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>>>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>>>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>>>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>>>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>>>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>>>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>>>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>>>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>>>sovereign debt.
>>>
>>>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>>>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>>>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>>>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>>>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>>>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>>>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>>>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>>>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>>>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>>>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>>>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>>>with glee . . .
>>The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced rentals - why do
>>you
>>fail to ackowledge that? Oh I think I know - hmmmm more political rhetoric.
Abuse removed.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:40:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>>>>rates already announced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>>>>.
>>>>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>>>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>>>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>>>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>>>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>>>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>>>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>>>>government increased it.
>>>>
>>>>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>>>>
>>>>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>>>>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>>>>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>>>>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>>>>
>>>>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>>>>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>>>>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.
>>>>
>>>>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>>>>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>>>>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>>>>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>>>>
>>>>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>>>>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>>>>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>>>>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>>>>
>>>>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>>>>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>>>>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>>>>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>>>>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>>>>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>>>>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>>>>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>>>>
>>>>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>>>>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>>>>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>>>>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>>>>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>>>>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>>>>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>>>>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>>>>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>>>>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>>>>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>>>>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>>>>sovereign debt.
>>>>
>>>>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>>>>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>>>>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>>>>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>>>>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>>>>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>>>>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>>>>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>>>>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>>>>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>>>>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>>>>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>>>>with glee . . .
>>>The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced rentals - why do
>>>you
>>>fail to ackowledge that? Oh I think I know - hmmmm more political rhetoric.
>Abuse removed.

I don't often agree with you Tony, but in this case I did find
something that perhaps you misread what I posted, so here it is again
for you:
You said: "The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced
rentals - why do you fail to acknowledge that? Oh I think I know -
hmmmm more political rhetoric."

To which I replied:
I agree with you - this was empty rhetoric from Luxon, repeated by
you. With interest rates and building costs and rates going up, and
the building industry already flat out, this tax change will just put
more money in the pockets of Landlords it will not build a single
house.

No abuse there, just a different way of seeing Luxon's rhetoric. If
you think the policy will build more houses, tell us how, Tony . . .

If you are looking for an initiative to increase housing however, you
will celebrate this one:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-03-2024/housing-wins-the-war

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:40:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:31:13 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Will they get a reduction in rents?
>>>>>>>Then on top of that giveaway to landlords, we have the government
>>>>>>>abandoning assistance to fix water problems - with large increases in
>>>>>>>rates already announced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes successive Councils have ignored problems - being proud of
>>>>>>>"keeping rates low" may just identify the culprits when voters are
>>>>>>>next faced with a choice - at both local and national elections . . .
>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>Give away to landlords?? What Liebor dream world do you live in .
>>>>>>The government is just restoring the tax system to it was before
>>>>>>Jabcinder and her landlord envy tax kicked in. Did you complain about
>>>>>>rents going up then?? No of course not as you only wear pink tinted
>>>>>>glasses so everything that labor did was OK with you . You're
>>>>>>complaining like you did when John Key's government restored the $60
>>>>>>grand and above envy tax back to what it was before Helen Clark's
>>>>>>government increased it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No dream world - that is what National is giving landlords.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are two ways in which property is taxed. First, the family home
>>>>>is not taxed as a business. There are no tax deductions for
>>>>>maintenance or property development costs or interest on mortgage
>>>>>costs, and no tax is paid on profit on sale.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then there are properties owned by companies - they can deduct the
>>>>>expense of mortgage interest, and development costs to improve the
>>>>>building. On sale, any capital profit is taxable.
>>>>>
>>>>>The previous government treated landlords to the same tax basis as
>>>>>their personal dwelling - no deductions for mortgage interest, but
>>>>>also no tax on capital gains, but recognising that some short term
>>>>>sales were in fact investment deals, hence the 'bright line" test.
>>>>>
>>>>>National are giving tax deductions for mortgage interest, but also
>>>>>exempting these investments from tax on capital gains - treating
>>>>>investors in residential rental properties to a more generous tax
>>>>>basis than home owners or hotel / motel owners.
>>>>>
>>>>>That has given us significant distortions to our investment markets -
>>>>>it is harder for companies to raise share capital in New Zealand, but
>>>>>has not flooded the country with rental properties - it is better that
>>>>>there be shortages to keep rents high, and developers tend to 'land
>>>>>bank' approved developments until prices are enough to cover
>>>>>development costs - often 'encouraging' councils to subsidise
>>>>>services, or often do them on the cheap so that in the longer term we
>>>>>are now seeing deficient water systems for each of the 3 waters.
>>>>>
>>>>>So will rents go down because of this deductibility? Of course not.
>>>>>Rents are set by what the market will bear. Luxon implied that because
>>>>>he has no mortgages that he had no reason to change rents on his
>>>>>properties - is he expecting those looking to rent to hunt out
>>>>>landlords that have huge debt burdens? No, rents will go up because
>>>>>of rates increasing - NACT1st are happy with a flatter tax base and
>>>>>rates hit us all in a much flatter way than income tax - they are
>>>>>delivering to the wealthy again - but what goes with that is a worry -
>>>>>we have not yet been told whether the government will borrow and
>>>>>on-lend, or whether they will increase borrowing limits for local
>>>>>authorities and let them borrow at higher rates to account for the
>>>>>higher risk of default and the lower marketability of stocks below
>>>>>sovereign debt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even worse, they are leaving it to local authorities to fix the
>>>>>complex inheritance of "we will keep your rates low" poor performing
>>>>>water systems - knowing that a country the size of New Zealand will
>>>>>not have experts near every local council. Unlike Waka Kotahi who have
>>>>>sufficient knowledge and expertise to seek suitable contracts with
>>>>>safeguards, many local authorities just know they will have to pay,
>>>>>and increase rates, and hope, and get fleeced by the private sector .
>>>>>. . so have to put up rates again. NACT1st are not there for anyone
>>>>>except themselves and those that funded them - they will happily blame
>>>>>local councils for anything that goes wrong, and see a major move from
>>>>>income tax to non-progressive rates and charges at local level. Atlas
>>>>>acolytes in each of the government parties will be rubbing their hands
>>>>>with glee . . .
>>>>The policy will improve availability of reasonably priced rentals - why do
>>>>you
>>>>fail to ackowledge that? Oh I think I know - hmmmm more political rhetoric.
>>Abuse removed.
>