Monday, 22 July 2013

Down to the Doctor’s: Making home ownership more difficult

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath has been watching home ownership made more difficult.

John Key, former scourge of communists, leads a government whose central bank now wants to nationalise this country's private banks. State-owned Radio NZ News, of course, gets it arse-about-face, claiming that "[U]nder the proposed changes, the Reserve Bank would require trading banks to increase their loan-to-value ratios". In actual fact, the Central Bank wants to make it harder for people with little cash on hand to purchase their first (or any) house by decreasing loan-to-value ratios, apparently to a level below 80%.

Labour's housing spokesman, Philip Stoner Twyford—who, incidentally, supported the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill when it was before Parliament in 2009—quite rightly labelled this heavy-handed intervention as a form of governmental dentistry: "a kick in the teeth... for first home buyers," and said it would "lock out thousands of low-to-middle income first-home buyers."

I'm glad the Blue Socialists hadn't nationalised banks when I purchased my first four homes, as in each case I had less than 20% of the value of the properties available as a deposit. And I never defaulted on my loan obligations. Yet PM John Phillip Key, Housing Minister Nicolas Rex Smith and Reserve Bank boss Graeme Paul Wheeler want to stop me, and other New Zealanders, from being able to easily purchase real estate.

Should the government be allowed to manipulate the property market by fixing interest rates or making arbitrary rules about the required deposit for home purchasers? If your answer to that question is yes, then what's to stop the required deposit from being raised to 50%? Or 80%? Or to completely outlaw home loans altogether?    

Governments have certainly done things just as stupid in the past.

Fortunately, there is a political party in New Zealand which opposes moves by the Blue Socialists to nationalise the private banking system, while also opposing corporate welfare for banks. That party is Libertarianz. At a local level, Affordable City candidates will be attempting to make house ownership more affordable by reducing property taxation via reductions in the cost of running district councils.

So if you want more government, John Key's the man for you; if you want less government across the board, you might want to back the party described by Tumeke as "far, far, far right"—this being the same party that supported legalisation of prostitution and supports the legalisation of all drugs and separation of church and state. Does that sound "far, far, far right" to you? 

See you soon!
Doc McGrath
LEADER, LIBERTARIANZ PARTY

10 comments:

  1. make it harder for people with little cash on hand to purchase their first (or any)

    That sounds pretty fucking sound to me. That's the problem with you libs: leftists at heart.

    Budgers & "workers & "unionists" & the "squeezed middle" don't deserve to "own their own homes".

    "far, far, far right... legalisation of prostitution and supports the legalisation of all drugs and separation of church and state.. does that sound "far far right" to you

    No - it sounds like the slogans of the first Communists, the Paris Commune no less, whose baleful influence on the founding fathers lead to the destruction of the original, unamended US Constitution with the Bill of Rights.

    Just goes to show: NZ doesn't have a single right-wing party worthy of the name.

    The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    GOD made them, high or lowly,
    And ordered their estate.



    NZ doesn't have a shortage of "affordable homes" - we just have a shortage of slums and slum landlords.




    ReplyDelete
  2. "Or to stop home loans from being outlawed altogether?"

    Or to stop home loans from being allowed altogether?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon - sounds as though you would be happy with the government banning all mortgage loans (i.e. making the minimum deposit on a house 100%).

    "NZ doesn't have a single right-wing party worthy of the name"

    Isn't there the National Front?

    "That's the problem with you libs: leftists at heart"

    Not quite - we believe people should be free to act in their self interest as long as they don't harm others (and if they do harm others, then they pay restitution to their victims). We don't worship the welfare state, the state-run health system and the chain of government indoctrination centres (as leftists do), because by their nature they necessitate taking money by force from some for the alleged benefit of others.

    "[We] just have a shortage of slums and slum landlords."
    I think you've lost me there. Why not have housing that is affordable for those on low incomes? By imposing ridiculous administrative hurdles and interfering in the banking system, our politicians are destroying the dreams of tens of thousands of New Zealanders.

    "The rich man in his castle", etc.

    Looks like you buy into the fallacy of social immobility. The poor man doesn't have to stay poor these days, though the Labour Party and their fellow travellers require a constituency mired deep in a poverty trap to stand any chance of being elected.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Or to stop home loans from being allowed altogether?"

    Yes, my bad. Poor proof reading on my part. Alternatively: "Or to completely outlaw home loans."

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The anonymous dickhead can't even get right the history on which he purports to rely.

    The Paris Commune, which supposedly had some baleful influence on the Founding Fathers, postdates the US constitution by nearly a century.

    So unless the Founding Fathers were clairvoyant as well as outstandingly heroic, it seems our Anonymous commenter is as ignorant as he is idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whilst I'm pleased to see the Libz take such a straightforward view on mortgages, as well as surprisingly sympathetic to those who will struggle to realise a 20% deposit of any current house prices, I can't help but see a genuine rationale behind the governments actions.

    It was, as I understand it, the issuing of mortgages to anyone with a pulse that caused the credit crunch when large numbers of said people simply found they'd bitten off more than they could chew.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Frankie Lee:
    "Large numbers of said people simply found they'd bitten off more than they could chew."

    True - and hopefully they learnt from the experience. But at least they were treated like adults by their government.

    It's the implicit assumption by politicians that the rest of us are children, and thus need protecting from our own stupidity, that is so damned insulting to those of us who can actually think for ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Frankie Lee, you said, "It was, as I understand it, the issuing of mortgages to anyone with a pulse that caused the credit crunch when large numbers of said people simply found they'd bitten off more than they could chew."

    It was indeed one of the proximate causes of the crash--but this was in the U.S., where the creators of credit out of thin air were *forced by law* to issue mortgages to anyone with a pulse.

    Which is a little different to simply allowing them to issue mortgages to those who apply for them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well yes, no argument there.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.