Response to KiwiBuild ballot criteria

There were nearly 6,000 registrations of interest for KiwiBuild homes on the first day people could apply.

There were also a number of criticisms of the generous income criteria for those eligible to buy tickets in the government housing lottery. Few houses are likely to be available this year, and not a lot next year either.

RNZ: Ballot will keep Kiwibuild equal, Twyford says

Requiring people to ballot for Kiwibuild homes would help to ensure those on lower incomes still have a good chance, Housing Minister Phil Twyford says.

The income caps are $120,000 for sole purchasers and $180,000 for couples.

To be eligible, buyers must be purchasing their first home, or be “second chancers” – those people who have not yet had an opportunity to own their own home or who no longer own one.

They must be New Zealand citizens, permanent residents or those who ordinarily reside in New Zealand, and intend to own and live in the house for at least three years.

As of early evening there have been nearly 6000 registrations of interest in KiwiBuild since it opened online at 10am, and the numbers are climbing.

The balloting system would help to avoid those on the higher incomes blocking out those earning less, Mr Twyford said.

“Everyone has an equal shot in the ballot so people who are on a low income, or a high income, as long as they fit the criteria … then they can have a crack at doing this.”

He defended the high threshold for the income cap saying there were “not many” houses in Auckland people earning more than $100,000 could afford.

But some people will be more equal than others – those who can afford deposits, and those who get drawn from the ballot.

National’s Amy Adams: KiwiBuild a fail for lower-income families

The Government is admitting that its ‘affordable’ KiwiBuild houses are out of reach for many lower and middle income families by having to lift the eligibility criteria to $180,000, National’s Finance spokesperson Amy Adams says.

“Housing Minister Phil Twyford has set the eligibility criteria for KiwiBuild so wide that 92 per cent of first home buyers are eligible. That’s because he knows he will fail to deliver houses that are affordable to lower and middle income earners.

“Having such a wide criteria and a ballot system to determine the lucky few to get a subsidy is unfair and will mean struggling families could miss out in favour of higher income families and people with significant cash assets.

“There are 24,000 first home buyers a year and the Government is now only planning to deliver 1,000 homes in its first 20 months in office – so they should be targeted to lower and middle income families.

“It is ironic that Labour doesn’t think that someone on the average wage deserves a tax cut, but believes families earning $180,000 deserve a subsidy to help them buy their first home.

Some people on lower incomes will be able to benefit from low rent state houses.

But KiwiBuild is likely to be dominated by people on higher incomes who see an opportunity to make some capital gain from a cheaper Government funded/built house.

Leave a comment

26 Comments

  1. Grimm

     /  July 5, 2018

    What an unmitigated disaster.

    Is this truly what Shearer had in mind when he dreamt this up to win the leadership?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 5, 2018

      Geez Louise, as an American friend says, I hope not.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 5, 2018

        $180,000 is 18,000 times more than the Jobseeker allowance that Labour considers is enough to live on. It is, if you don’t mind having no heating in winter or luxuries like that.

        Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  July 5, 2018

    not too impressed ,although it is the ultimate poison chalice set up by National.
    This helps the aspirational ,middle class ,people who vote and have seen Key and Co destroy the Kiwi dream before their eyes.
    Ireland managed to build 90,000 houses a YEAR!

    ‘Ireland’s “Celtic tiger” economy boomed in two cycles in the 1990s and 2000s, new houses were built at a rate of up to 90,000 a year, incomes went up and unemployment declined. Lending, for credit and mortgages, and investment increased, and this unrestrained expansion of the credit market fuelled a construction and house price boom.

    Low interest rates encouraged people and businesses to borrow, builders to build, and banks to lend, which let the genie out of the bottle for house prices to climb so rapidly they doubled in around five years.

    By the time everyone realised what was happening, it was, of course, too late.’Stuff’

    Reply
    • Grimm

       /  July 5, 2018

      “ultimate poison chalice set up by National”

      Do you mean in their failure to reform the RMA?

      Or their failure to keep interest rates high enough?

      Or in their failure to slow immigration?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  July 5, 2018

        they did 5/8ths of F.U…2 year brightline test….fffffffffftttt.

        Reply
        • Grimm

           /  July 5, 2018

          And what, pray tell, are Labour doing differently?

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 5, 2018

            What a silly question, Grimm. 8/8 of bugger all.

            Reply
  3. PartisanZ

     /  July 5, 2018

    A perfect indictment on our so-called democracy where no political party can do the ethical or ‘right’ thing because they have to pander to their constituent of voters …

    So Labour-led has to pander to the middle-class who are the new working-class, and more or less forget about the Precariat …

    Why no bipartisan cooperation on housing?

    It may be ‘politics’, where the winners are happy and the losers are sad & angry … and some hungry to boot … but ultimately it is not the best way to organize a society … and it appears not to even constitute movement in that direction …

    An ethical (tertiary-phase) society would house people as a matter of course … as their basic human right …

    Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  July 5, 2018

      No. An ethical society gives people the opportunity to look after themselves Parti.

      It is not the States role to house everyone. Its the States role to set an environment people can succeed in – intervention in housing should only be a short term measure to get people on their own feet (the chronically ill/ infirm, the genetically unlucky and pensioners who have nothing being exceptions in my view).

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 5, 2018

        A couple I know had their house bought back because of subsidence. Fair enough, it was bought and sold under a subsidence protection scheme.

        They then blew much of the money and have never owned a house since, which must be a hardship in retirement. Should the taxpayer bail out fools like this ?

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  July 5, 2018

        it isthe states role to give NZ citizens the opportunity to have a stake in their and their families future by avoiding them having to compete with non domiciled millionaires looking to store their wealth in our land or..launder money.

        Reply
  4. Trevors_Elbow

     /  July 5, 2018

    This is ridiculous. IF you are not going to let the market solve this by sorting the regulatory environment (RMA constraints, Building Materials lack of competition, disincentivising Landbanking) THEN do a proper social housing build programme….

    The deal should be:
    > for families on less than 70K a year
    >a 10 year mandatory hold period before they can sell – only opt outs: death, job in a new city.
    >mandatory insurance cover on the house and the prime income earner financing the mortgage (death cover, loss of income cover)
    >Government should retain a share so profit on sale the government gets a slice to reinvest in housing

    Allowing such high income ceilings is a sell out of the principle of affordable housing for those on the average income and below….

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 5, 2018

      I’ll bloody well say.

      Opposite me is a lovely house looking out over the country, recently redecorated, new polished floors, new curtains and so on. No garage. $330,000.

      Someone on $180,000 could own it freehold in a few years, but may God forbid that they have to move away from Auckland and spend an hour commuting each way.

      People I knew paid their house off in a short time by living on one wage and using the other to pay off the mortgage. The one wage was enough to live well on.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  July 5, 2018

      show me where the ‘market’ solves ..anything.

      Reply
      • Trevors_elbow

         /  July 6, 2018

        Where it’s not screwed by regs … look at the US…Houston for example…

        Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  July 6, 2018

        And show me where total state control solved anything…. USSR was a failure, Eastern Block = failure…. Mixed economy with good legal framework that personal initiative can operate in freely but protects against monopolies and dodgy behaviour is the correct balance… NZ is not currently well balanced in the Housing area and freeing supply is the key

        Reply
  5. George

     /  July 5, 2018

    At the end of all this there will not be the claimed numbers of houses built.
    People will still be living in cars, garages, on the streets and in a friends living room..
    And the yearly earnings they require the bidders to have?
    Not even nurses earn that sort of money.
    Nor teachers or any of the parents of the kids they supposedly teach

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 5, 2018

      They don’t require it, but people on it will qualify for the rest of us to build a house for them to buy cheaply.

      If anyone can’t survive on $1000 a week after the mortgage is paid, they must be appallingly bad managers.

      Reply
  6. David

     /  July 5, 2018

    Twyford did the political numbers and the more you include the more likely Labour voters you have. WFF, student loans, winter fuel payments they are all the same bribe me with my own tax money schemes…thought Kiwibuild may have been something different.
    On the flipside I am looking forward to two junior solicitors moving into their government subsidised 650k house while a more deserving family in the ballot with no other options misses out. With 17000 now registered and at best a 1000 houses being built in the next year the level of disappointment could be bloody huge.

    Reply
  7. Zedd

     /  July 5, 2018

    better than sitting on your hands for 9 years denying it exists & now critising nzf/lab/grn for finally drawing a line.. its ok to turn tamaki into millionaires row, but where are the kiwis going to live.. sooo glad they went with labour.. even one term ‘to stop all the rot’.. smug Tories cutting costs & maximising profit for their cronies

    you cant live on denial you actually need to remember their are 4.5mil of us, not just 200k rich sods, feeding at the trough 😦

    Reply
    • Grimm

       /  July 5, 2018

      What trough?
      What 200k?
      What cronies?

      Same old tired BS Zedd.

      Reply
  8. Kitty Catkin

     /  July 5, 2018

    I wonder how people on the average wage feel about people earning 4 times that amount being considered eligible and joining the queue ?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 5, 2018

      The Herald has $180,000 as 87% of the highest wage in NZ.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 5, 2018

        How can Labour consider anyone in the top 13% to be in need of a handout ?

        Reply
  9. PartisanZ

     /  July 5, 2018

    Essentially, Labour-led are trying to do two contrary and irreconcilable things …

    Provide so-called affordable housing whilst maintaining the ever-escalating property market which is the backbone of most people’s personal wealth and the nation’s economy …

    Genuine affordable housing won’t win them enough votes to compensate for the votes they’d lose by taking away most people’s chance at personal wealth …

    The market ain’t gonna sort this out … even a much deregulated market … any more than our so-called system of democracy is going to …

    Both of these things have reached their limits … their event horizons … and need to be modified in the direction of betterment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s