(14-12-2021, 10:16 AM)SueDonim Wrote: The Spinoff article is good. It does leave out other factors though, eg the fact that the cost of living is much less now that everything is cheap from China. There is no doubt that it is difficult for young people to get started, but not insurmountable as the actual sales data shows. The Wellington councillor quoted in the article does have a point. Although another factor making things tougher is when banks requiring property inspections prior to purchase. The days of buying a dunger and doing it up are also going by the by as the banks are reluctant to lend on such properties. So they have to be left to investors and traders.

Which takes me back to the original question that hasn't been answered yet: " How many investment properties is too many?". A couple of people have quoted investors with 90+ as being too many. I disagree if they are managed and maintained properly. That level of investment is a huge amount of work that would need to employ managers, thereby contributing to employment as well as housing. Such and investor might be rolling in wealth on paper from the recent price gains, or might be mortgaged to the hilt. They might even be feeling that it's too many. But how do Joe Public and/or the tenants know that a particular landlord has too many proprieties?

(14-12-2021, 01:19 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: It isn't possible to buy every last thing 'cheap from China' - junk certainly & cheap appliances made for virtual slave wages by workers in various countries, for sale to the poorest people in western countries who can afford nothing else.


I think if a number is really wanted, then perhaps no more than 2-3 properties per person or no more than 5-6 per trust or company - but that's just guesswork & probably  experts would see things differently.

(31-12-2021, 11:28 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(14-12-2021, 01:19 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: It isn't possible to buy every last thing 'cheap from China' - junk certainly & cheap appliances made for virtual slave wages by workers in various countries, for sale to the poorest people in western countries who can afford nothing else.


I think if a number is really wanted, then perhaps no more than 2-3 properties per person or no more than 5-6 per trust or company - but that's just guesswork & probably  experts would see things differently.

So based on your own words looks like Luxon has just the right number of properties.  I am sure he will be thrilled with your approval.

(31-12-2021, 11:31 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:28 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: So based on your own words looks like Luxon has just the right number of properties.  I am sure he will be thrilled with your approval.

Really? Can you point out where I said that? 

(31-12-2021, 11:34 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:31 AM)Lilith7 Wrote: Really? Can you point out where I said that? 

"I think if a number is really wanted, then perhaps no more than 2-3 properties per person or no more than 5-6 per trust or company - but that's just guesswork & probably  experts would see things differently."

And seeing as Luxon likely has his 4 rentals in  trust or company structure......QED.

(31-12-2021, 11:43 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:34 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: "I think if a number is really wanted, then perhaps no more than 2-3 properties per person or no more than 5-6 per trust or company - but that's just guesswork & probably  experts would see things differently."

And seeing as Luxon likely has his 4 rentals in  trust or company structure......QED.

Best not to make assumptions - seven properties in total is a business or as close to a business as its possible to get.

Perhaps just accept that we disagree.

(31-12-2021, 12:44 PM)king1 Wrote: I don't see this as a right or wrong tbh, just a matter of different perspectives...

(31-12-2021, 12:46 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 12:44 PM)king1 Wrote: I don't see this as a right or wrong tbh, just a matter of different perspectives...

True. And my perspective is she is wrong.

(31-12-2021, 02:04 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 12:46 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: True. And my perspective is she is wrong.

My perspective is that you're keen to stir.
Agreeing to disagree & acknowledging that others see things differently isn't beyond most people.

(31-12-2021, 05:11 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 02:04 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: My perspective is that you're keen to stir.
Agreeing to disagree & acknowledging that others see things differently isn't beyond most people.

I find those who are wrong often say such things.

(28-03-2023, 05:30 AM)billcopeland Wrote: Sorry for bumping into an old conversation. IMO, Limiting the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands could help address issues around affordable housing, especially in cities with high property prices.

(28-03-2023, 05:30 AM)billcopeland Wrote: Sorry for bumping into an old conversation. Limiting the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands could help address issues around affordable housing, especially in cities with high property prices. However, it's essential to consider how this could impact property investors and their ability to build wealth through property ownership. I hope it helps you!

(06-04-2023, 01:15 AM)TylerMcCalls Wrote: Returning to the original topic of the conversation, I need to note that there are pros and cons to both limiting the number of residential properties and using taxation to encourage more productive use of savings.