Its Over Luxon Wins

[Wainuiguy]

And the gap between the highest paid and the lowest continues to stretch even the imagination of the most limited among us, while there are still some economic dinosaurs out there who really believe unlimited growth is a good thing, rather than symptomatic of a societal and financial cancer...

Unlimited growth isn't a good thing.  Because it creates other issues such as inflation.  Growth, steady, is a good thing because almost everyone benefits.
Some of the biggest reasons the gap between rich and poor has increased is because of policies implemented by this government.   Those with houses have seen their equity in some cases triple in the last 3 years and as the poor tend to not have property or other investments they are left further behind.

Poverty cannot be solved by simply raising minimum wage because that increase tends to just flow on up the pay scales.  This then causes inflation eroding the increase.

[Lilith7]

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this year’s minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

I think that says it all really; its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries but when it comes to people like cleaners, nurses, teachers - those people whose true value we've learned to appreciate far more thanks to covid - then they don't deserve more income & he has no problem leaving them to struggle.

Many business owners don't earn large salaries.  In  may cases they are paid less than some of their employees.  And teachers get substantially more than minimum wage as do nurses.

My comment was about Luxon.

Most business owners are reasonable & treat staff fairly; its the ones who don't who are the problem.

[Wainuiguy]

Many business owners don't earn large salaries.  In  may cases they are paid less than some of their employees.  And teachers get substantially more than minimum wage as do nurses.

My comment was about Luxon.

Most business owners are reasonable & treat staff fairly; its the ones who don't who are the problem.

No your  INITIAL comment was about Luxon - you then proceeded to include all  business owners "its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries".  And Luxon isnt even a business owner.

[Lilith7]

My comment was about Luxon.

Most business owners are reasonable & treat staff fairly; its the ones who don't who are the problem.

No your  INITIAL comment was about Luxon - you then proceeded to include all  business owners "its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries".  And Luxon isnt even a business owner.

Seven properties? Hardly a family home plus a bach, is it.

At which number does it become a business, then? Four houses? Five? Ten?

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this year’s minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

His actions said it all.

[Wainuiguy]

No your  INITIAL comment was about Luxon - you then proceeded to include all  business owners "its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries".  And Luxon isnt even a business owner.

Seven properties? Hardly a family home plus a bach, is it.

At which number does it become a business, then? Four houses? Five? Ten?

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this year’s minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

His actions said it all.

So if I recall - He has his own house, a beach house, his apartment in Wellington and 4 rentals.  So 4 rentals isn't massive .  He likely also has significant other assets outside property.  And  no he isn't a business owner - the rentals will be investments and he has for many years been paid a salary.
Nice to see a quick sidestep of the part when you included business owners in general.

[Lilith7]

Seven properties? Hardly a family home plus a bach, is it.

At which number does it become a business, then? Four houses? Five? Ten?

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this year’s minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

His actions said it all.

So if I recall - He has his own house, a beach house, his apartment in Wellington and 4 rentals.  So 4 rentals isn't massive .  He likely also has significant other assets outside property.  And  no he isn't a business owner - the rentals will be investments and he has for many years been paid a salary.
Nice to see a quick sidestep of the part when you included business owners in general.

So then you disagree that seven properties is a business - you could simply have said that, rather than looking for a way to make a snide comment.

Seven properties is, if not an actual business, extremely close to exactly that.

[Wainuiguy]

So if I recall - He has his own house, a beach house, his apartment in Wellington and 4 rentals.  So 4 rentals isn't massive .  He likely also has significant other assets outside property.  And  no he isn't a business owner - the rentals will be investments and he has for many years been paid a salary.
Nice to see a quick sidestep of the part when you included business owners in general.

So then you disagree that seven properties is a business - you could simply have said that, rather than looking for a way to make a snide comment.

Seven properties is, if not an actual business, extremely close to exactly that.

3 of them are for personal use.  4 will be investments.  And based on  your comments in the other thread 4 for an individual is just right.

[Lilith7]

So then you disagree that seven properties is a business - you could simply have said that, rather than looking for a way to make a snide comment.

Seven properties is, if not an actual business, extremely close to exactly that.

3 of them are for personal use.  4 will be investments.  And based on  your comments in the other thread 4 for an individual is just right.

 Seven properties in total is about as close to a business as you can get.
We disagree.

[Praktica]

Three properties for personal use...when a good portion of the population are lucky to rent one. How does privileged, pampered, entitled sound?

[Wainuiguy]

3 of them are for personal use.  4 will be investments.  And based on  your comments in the other thread 4 for an individual is just right.

 Seven properties in total is about as close to a business as you can get.
We disagree.

You can't class properties for personal use in that category.  4 are investments.

[Lilith7]

 Seven properties in total is about as close to a business as you can get.
We disagree.

You can't class properties for personal use in that category.  4 are investments.

 Of course you can - the fact is that he can only live in one house at a time.

And even one house which is the family home & another which is a holiday home/bach still leaves five as investment properties - a business.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/disagree

"to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (on that issue).
[ + that ] Few people would disagree that something should be done to reduce crime in the area."

[Wainuiguy]

You can't class properties for personal use in that category.  4 are investments.

 Of course you can - the fact is that he can only live in one house at a time.

And even one house which is the family home & another which is a holiday home/bach still leaves five as investment properties - a business.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/disagree

"to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (on that issue).
[ + that ] Few people would disagree that something should be done to reduce crime in the area."

 [Removed: Rule 2A]  4 investment properties.  4, not 5.

1
2
3
4

The 5th property is the apartment in Wellington for when he is sitting in Parliament.  4 INVESTMENTS.  Do you think he lists his occupation as property manager?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

[Wainuiguy]

For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

[Olive]

For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Isle?   Or Aisle?

[Lilith7]

 Of course you can - the fact is that he can only live in one house at a time.

And even one house which is the family home & another which is a holiday home/bach still leaves five as investment properties - a business.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/disagree

"to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (on that issue).
[ + that ] Few people would disagree that something should be done to reduce crime in the area."

 [Removed: Rule 2A]   4 investment properties.  4, not 5.

1
2
3
4

The 5th property is the apartment in Wellington for when he is sitting in Parliament.  4 INVESTMENTS.  Do you think he lists his occupation as property manager?

Are you incapable of discussion without insults?

The man's in business; the landlord business.

[Wainuiguy]

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Isle?   Or Aisle?

Both

[Oh_hunnihunni]

For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Indeed, and it should stop. On any side of the aisle.
But like putting any kind of brake on property value inflation it won't happen so long as it isn't in the interests of the 'landed gentry'. A group that is becoming smaller by the day...

[Wainuiguy]

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Indeed, and it should stop. On any side of the aisle.
But like putting any kind of brake on property value inflation it won't happen so long as it isn't in the interests of the 'landed gentry'. A group that is becoming smaller by the day...

I don't think that those who own a house are "landed gentry".

This government came to power with the promise to solve the housing crisis.  Everything they have done has made the issues significantly worse.  The idea of building 100000 houses was the right one but so poorly thought out and implemented it was never going to work.  Almost everyone told them this.  Add to that they bought houses already scheduled to be built making Kiwi Build, Kiwi Buy.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Actually I see new homes rising around us here on the Shore every time I go out. After a long drawn out period of all talk and no digging, all of a sudden cloned apartment blocks are going up all over the place - private developments, while the state is developing several large groups of social housing - multiple unit blocks that should be homes for lots of people by the end of this year.

But, whether that will significantly spike the rising property prices is all guesswork. I doubt it personally, the few who own land are not too willing to let those values drop despite the fact it is all paper wealth. And I am not convinced apartments are going to replace actual homes on actual land for many of us, though getting smaller is definitely a trend to be welcomed.

The reality is until the gaps close more, the inequity in our community will continue and that is not good for any of us, long term.