Trump's behaviour over the election perfectly encapsulates why he is so reviled. It has nothing to do with whether he is conservative or liberal, or left or right or anything like that. This is the bullshit line trotted out by his supprters - it's all because the media is left wing. It's not really, it's that he is a piece of shit who thinks he is above the institutions.
He's acted like that from the outset, and done his utmost to remove independence from the other branches of government, and basically wants to behave like he is a king. Now he's tweeting that he wants people's votes to not be counted, so even democracy itself isn't above his own self-interest.
Shame on the Republicans who have not had the strength of character to denounce him. If he loses, watch the backlash from these cowards.
Shame on the Democrats who have been so fucking useless that they may not be able to defeat someone both immensely unlikeable and abjectly incompetent, who with 4 years to prepare for it have managed to come up with 77 (?) year old Joe Biden.

this WAS the big game. this WAS the game you keep your powder dry for.
the reality is that we aren't doing that, it's just wishful thinking from fans to excuse us playing like shit, which frankly we've been doing for quite a while now - our servings of shit have regularly been papered over by bits of individual brilliance getting us out of jail when we've been dominated all day, and a shit-hot lineout. the lineout saved us last week against the poms, but wasn't quite enough this week. we dropped the miracle balls that would have won the game this week. but both weeks, and against the saffas, we have been pretty thoroughly dominated this year.

we kick way too much ball away, and badly. the opposition give us scraps, we finally get the damn ball, and these primadonna fuckwits immediately put boot to ball in low percentage plays. then they laugh about it at half-time.

we get a penalty advantage and BB takes a fucking drop kick. the potatoes get a penalty advantage and they - jonny fucking sexton - try to score a try. we are fucking dumb. we kick a penalty to give us a chance of a draw. a fucking draw. the all blacks. playing for a draw and kicking drop goals under penalty advantage. fuck my days what a fucking disgrace.

all it takes is an off-day for a couple of guys when our tactics are mud and we are so reliant on individual brilliance. sam whitelock, a great player - giving away dumb penalties. BBR, a great player - dumb penalties, terrible handling - his worst game i can remember. it's not time to throw the baby out with the bath water, but when guys like that don't perform, it does show the glaring deficiencies in other areas.

we are dumb. we still can't cope with a good rush defence. we haven't really been able to since the 90s when france used it to beat us. our defensive line speed was utter shit - so the potatoes made ground all day and had momentum. their line speed was really good, and there seems not to be a single fucker out there who has the wits to think, 'oh you know, with all this fanning out and quick line speed, we could either pick and go a few times or throw it behind the line to get around the rush'. barely a pick and go all game, and it was only in desperation when chasing the game that we threw in some depth to get around the rush - which promptly worked - except then when we made breaks, we were so totally lacking in composure that we forced dumb shit low percentage passes, or kicked the damn fucking ball away yet again. pack of fucking morons.

barnes is still a shit ref, inconsistent and doesn't seem to understand when a ruck forms. he had nothing to do with the loss however.

to the players:
karl T got a bit of a rough ride, but not as bad as some are making out. 2 scrums went badly, and 1 barnes should have reset. why barnes didn't blow their scrum when we were dominant i don't know. franks was solid, as was taylor, and all the replacements were good too. poor old ofa showed great hands to hold that piece of shit perenara pass - but when you have to catch that slop you're always going to get barrelled and struggle to win the ruck.
BBR his worst, and whitelock pretty poor too by his standards. scott barrett played well, was our best lock, but was playing out of position which fucks our forward balance.
squire was okay before injury, ardie at least tried hard, and read was rank. dropped everything, hasn't run hard into contact in about 3 years, and is a shitty captain. the way the irish were playing, and the way barnes was reffing, the player in our 23 most suited to that game was matt todd. bit disappointed he didn't manage to win it for us in his 3 FUCKING MINUTES YOU MORONS.
aaron smith's kicking is nowhere near as accurate as it was against the lions. he is still so much better than perenara -because he can actually pass - but if we don't have the brains to use smith's speed to get around the rush then he's wasted, and why not use a bigger running halfback.
BB. well it's pretty fucking limiting when your 10's weakest skill is his passing. also dumb. also doesn't appear to care a great deal. also thinks wasting try-scoring opportunities with drop-goals is a good idea, and funny. can run, can catch a high ball.
crotty and goodhue were both really pretty good given the shit they were served up. 20-something touches vs 40-something for the irish midfield wasn't it?
ben smith no ball. can run.
rieko no ball. no composure. can run.
mckenzie, not bad, but we are wasting ben smith on the wing.

to ireland: well bloody played, a good plan, well executed. you knew exactly what we were going to do, because we do it all the time (keeping our powder dry hahaha fuck me) . we box kick and put up high balls. you dealt with that easily. you know that if you rush, we will chip. you covered that easily then kept the ball. you knew that we throw our ruck ball to forwards one or two off the ruck - you got up quick on them and we never made the gain line.
great fire and commitment from all on the park, and an inspirational and thoroughly deserved victory, which i could really have done without watching.

rant over. as you were everyone.

@gt12 said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

@Hooroo said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

@canefan said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

@Hooroo said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

@Salacious-Crumb said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

@booboo said in 2019 Rugby World Cup:

#1. Brad Thorn securing lineout ball 80th min Final 2011.

Up to that “moment” my asshole had never been tighter my entire life.

For me it is when a shattered Stephen Donald was tackled on one side of the park and got turned over at the ruck, France spun it to the other side of the field and the first tackle made since the turnover was Donald on the other side of the field.

The guy was running on pure Columbian grade uncut adrenalin.

That's how legends are born. I don't think he probably has to buy himself beers when he's out on the town in NZ

Deadset, I will always buy him a beer if he is in the same pub!

This may sound a bit strange, but it’s something I’m looking forward to being able to do - I’m sure at some stage in my life I’ll be in the same room as him, and at that point the drinks will be on me. I can’t wait.

That reminds me of my favorite JK story - I met him in Tokyo one evening when I was out on a date with a very good looking girl (sadly hot crazy was in full effect though). I quickly talked to him on the way in (thanks, you’re a legend etc), then he stopped by our table on his way out (he was Japan coach at the time I think) to briefly say hi, making it seem like I kind of knew him (even though he was a complete stranger of course). Then gave me a greeeeat look like ‘get in there!’ and left, and I did, until the crazy fully developed.

great wing man JK.

Pathetic. Lomax outplayed on starting debut, Coles stupid then Taylor shit lineouts. Moody okay I guess, bit flat. Pat a bit flat too. Whitelock tried hard in a well beaten pack. Cane looks a bit knackered. Savea is, again, a lightweight against big teams playing fast defence and makes no impact. He should have been subbed rather than Frizzel, at least then we would have had someone make a few more tackles and hit some rucks. And you'd also be leaving on the guy who just had a rest, and taking off the guy who hasn't. Sotutu tried hard once on, a couple of good runs and had the skip pass execution been on - as it usually is - we'd have been in with a chance. Vaai went okay too.
In the backs, just anonymous, the lot of them. It almost seems like it might be an NZR directive to have Goodhue play 12 at the crusaders, trying to develop a combination with mo'unga, and foster is sticking to that... unfortunately it is wrong. goodhue is a gun at centre, and he's being wasted.
as for refusing to bring webber on for the hopeless TJ last week, then dragging smith early... christ, make up your mind.

i guess this is what you get when you pick a coach who has never won anything. It was good to hear JK, another coach who hasn't won anything, get stuck in a bit. At least when JK couldn't coach for shit what he got was sacked, rather than promoted to the ABs job.

Well done Argentina, thoroughly deserved. Nico Sanchez runs a bit hot and cold, but when he's on, he really is world class. Combine that with 14 blokes tackling their arses off and it's a good recipe - that was a hell of a defensive effort.

Jesus, the McKenzie criticism is a bit over the top. As others have said he was involved in most of the tries, one bad error, and some seem to think he's worst on the field?
Meanwhile Rieko makes pretty much the same error, runs Reece out of space then throws a rank pass into touch, and he's best on the park?
The only difference I can see is that Caleb Clarke turned one of the errors into a try, but he seems to be getting a free pass...

Shit super season sure, but a good game last night.

Not really too sure what to make of that game.

They put out a B front row and we hammered their scrum, so what. Their forwards looked a bit tired, and we dominated a bit. Our ruck work was improved. Our ball running was still mediocre, even against tiring defence. We clearly won the forward battle though.

Our backs on the other hand, were nothing short of terrible. Just really, really fucking awful. That much ball, and they couldn't do shit with it. Aimless kicks. Kicks when you have an overlap. Poor finishing. Poor option-taking. The kicks were clearly a tactic drilled into them, because they were doing them even when they weren't on. Worst part is that we didn't even bother to send someone back to cover - that's some pretty basic schoolboy stuff when you're kicking to a 50/50 contest.

The thing about the Argies is that without field position they can't do much. And with Cubelli out, and Sanchez struggling then off the field, our shit kicking was never effectively cleared, likewise our other mistakes/turnovers in their 22. So we basically spent the whole game hot on attack with all the ball, a dominant pack, the world's best halfback, and were pathetically ineffective with it.

Now, despite some odd selections which I think may have been mentioned in passing by others, we have a number of reasonably effective ball runners in our backline. That makes me think that our tactics are dogshit. We aren't finding the space. Honestly it doesn't even seem like we're looking for it.

So we're left with kicking the ball away. A shit tactic, poorly executed, which won us the game pretty comfortably.

Fucken yuck.

Last time I saw this much confidence here was just before the Aussies smashed us to bits.

Ireland are a good side, who lack depth at 10. We seem to think they're shit now because they were beaten by Japan and thumped by England before the WC. But both games no Sexton. You can't play 10 man rugby without a 10.
They whipped Scotland and looked good against Samoa - they're not a spent force and they've beaten us 2 out of last 3. The Dublin game was one which we targeted to get payback for the first loss, and we scored 9 points and were well beaten.
Now I see Coles in the Herald saying 'we haven't talked about what happened last time'. Sounds a bit too much like Cheika not worrying about the opposition to me.

As for us, our best forward is underdone, and our reserve scrummaging has looked a bit shaky. I don't think Cane is back to his best, and we lack the grunt to bend set defensive lines. We have beaten South Africa, and had a couple of pretty meaningless cakewalks vs minnows, that's all. There's obviously a lot of potential in the Mounga Barrett axis, but I don't consider it proven under pressure just yet, and we have inexperienced wings who we know will be targeted in the air. Our centre has been out injured and the 12-13 combo lacks match time together.
Underdogs, clearly.

Glad we have Owens compared to some other options, but he's been below his usual high standards this cup, letting too much go at the breakdown and offside line which will suit the Irish. He is however the least likely to give a panicky dodgy shit red card.

Interesting game, interesting comments.
Smith was good.
Mo'unga was mediocre, but he's a good player and will come right.
Goodhue played fine albeit not in his best position: defended very well, well positioned and nice hands to link for the try.
Ioane was poor. Very good as always once he caught the ball and ran with it, but unfortunately bad everything else. The bombed grounding was a shocker, and as others have mentioned, no surprise. He didn't pass when he should have to blow an overlap, and also bombed another try with the foot on the line but that didn't get called somehow. And he was the guy who squeezed in on defence instead of trusting the insides to give the Aussies their try. Of those 4 bad mistakes, 2 are wingers jobs, so no excuse. He's a good player, but that was not a game to remember.
Bridge was okay only. Not as good in the air as we'd like, good pass for the try, otherwise not involved enough which is supposed to be one of his strengths.
Jordie was okay out of position, not his fault he was picked there. That 22 reception was a shocker though.
MacKenzie was pretty good actually. More like the North vs South than the Chiefs version.

Moody was good.
Taylor was okay.
Tungafasi was okay, but I had hoped for more.
Tuipolotou was okay, but I had hoped for more.
Whitelock was good-ish, which seems to be about where he sits in his dotage. Lots of work in the ruck and tackle and solid lineouts.
Frizzell was fine, lots of tackling, and linked well for the try in the corner. Seems a bit weird to be copping flak from some of the same guys lauding Cane when Frizz had the more tackles in the first half.
Cane was mighty. Not sure he's a captain, but the performance did say 'follow me'.
Savea was poor I thought. A few good moments, but just nowhere near enough of them.

Coaching wise, well, fucking hopeless. Selecting 3 debutants on the bench alongside Perenara means Foster either was arrogant enough to think it would be in the bag by 60 minutes, or is just stupid and has chucked one of the positives of Hansen's regime in blooding new players one at a time surrounded by experience and established combinations.
Just pick Sotutu. He's good enough, so he's old enough. Savea was playing well enough to demand selection in the WC year, but I don't think he's done that this year, and there's no dropping Cane barring injury.
Barrett and Bridge, no no no. Jordie is a fullback. Bridge is fine, but if he's selected the other wing should be a bruiser like Clarke for a shit day in Wellington.
For those saying drop Goodhue, what the hell? He was fine in this game, he was our best in the WC loss, and let's not forget that ALB has had a shit super season at 12. Certainly his best position is centre, but dropping him would be crazy.
You'd think we would have had a plan for White after what he did to us last time, but apparently not.
Passive defensive line. We're sticking to that shit tactic eh. Nice.
Bugger all possession, another time-honoured tactic. Gotta love that continuity.

The reffing, as others have said, plenty let go both ways. Either side could point at missed decisions in the last few minutes that could have changed the result, but who cares really.

Well done to Dave Rennie, didn't really expect anything less given his history of making teams greater than the sum of the parts. If Faingaa hadn't played so badly I think the Aussies would have got the win they deserved. Also worth noting that they showed a bit of belief - Aussie sides of the recent past might well have crumbled after playing all the rugby for scant reward and then conceding points against the run of play.

fuck i've had a gutsful of this shit. there are people who need benefits, who don't rip the system off. but you put a photo of a big fat fluffybunny with a claim she eats one meal a day, what are most people going to think?
you boast about ripping nz taxpayers off, what do you expect nz taxpayers to think?

fucking idiots.

new zealand needs a viable left. plenty of shit is happening that needs to change, but there is just no pressure on the government because of the morons on the other side. look at something like the state of our rivers. that is something that the majority of people care about. there's an article on stuff about the 100% pure NZ tourist campaign showing someone drinking water from a river - which is pretty much never safe in nz. people from all over the political spectrum care about that, they care about the environment - the government's response has been to shift the 'swimmable' goalposts to outside world standards - which is a goddamned fucking disgrace. that is a huge opportunity for the greens, but instead they're boasting about ripping us all off. fucking hell, you wouldn't read about it.

i am gutted about this. you get another chance in 4 years at a world cup, but you never get this record back.

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

@reprobate said in Housing hornets' nest:

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

Agree with the political whinge bit and obviously not fixing supply. I listen to it because I have to vote for one of them and prefer to know what I am voting for. So not a waste of time in my view. A lot (not you) don't seem to, they just vote for a party because they, or their family always have voted one way. It actually makes it quite difficult being informed because some policies from both sides I will agree with and others not.

https://www.interest.co.nz/charts/real-estate/median-rents-nz

Data is from Dept building and housing. Quite a spike there. Median, not average of course. Only goes back 4 years and having a bigger data set would be good, but does show that it is out of the norm for increases.

The data on that page goes back to 2002 if you move the slider below the graph (not on mobile). The big spike you're referring to is well before the government announcements so is not related to them - we may yet see one, but that's not it - if you slide to a shorter period you can see the months.

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

@canefan said in Housing hornets' nest:

As far as capital gains taxes are concerned, as a home owner and small time investor, I have no major problem with such a tax. People who buy more and more houses are not producing anything of value to the economy, they don't manufacture, they don't provide services per se. And they serve to drive up property prices out of the reach of people who aren't yet in the market, making the supply discrepancy even worse.

People who buy more and more houses are classified as traders and are already taxed. It's all there earlier in the thread, with quotes from the IRD website. The same applies to people who do too many (in IRD eyes) share transactions. It is the same as any investment.

I would have thought that unless you are buying and selling that the argument that you are investing for rental income would be completely valid, i.e. buying more and more is not an issue - if you are flicking them for profit then you earn yourself the tax.

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

I get emails from both of the major NZ political parties - I try to keep a balanced view - as well as knowing what they are both up to.

I have been going on about this for a while (and it is from the National party). Some disagree on here but this is what they said:
*"Officials told Labour that renters would suffer. Officials cast serious doubt over the effectiveness of the Government’s housing package in the months before its announcement. The advice showed the package wouldn’t make a difference to the supply of housing, instead they would likely increase rents.

First home buyers are predominantly renters, any measures that drive up rents only serve to make it harder for first home buyers to put together a deposit, further locking them out of the market."*

Maybe they read my posts. I also have no idea who "officials" might be? It is pretty obvious that shafting renters, is also shafting some first home buyers, and making property investment more difficult doesn't help with rental supply.

Changing taxation and interest write-offs is not meant to target supply, it's meant to target demand. The supply side is building. So, that's not really any sort of insight, it's just the usual opposition whinge.
What are the numbers on rent increases following the announcements? It certainly wouldn't surprise me, particularly anyone who has bought recently needs a massive rent to deal with the big capital outlay - but show us some figures - and then answer whether it is a greater increase than the highest ever monthly increase in rents, which occurred before the announcements?
Politicians are so disappointing. Labour wants to centralise the polytechs, centralise health admin, cut out a heap of bureaucracy - implementation may prove to be shit, but it's almost inarguably a sound idea. But National rail against the principle of it, despite it being both sensible and what they are meant to stand for - small government and efficiency etc - but of course Labour said it, so we must oppose it. Listening to either party is a waste of bloody time.

I'm sick of the Crusaders, used to love the way they played basically ever since Mehrtens' time. Now they're cynical as fuck, led by Barrett. They just cheat every time they're under any pressure.
That's just a whinge and not on topic: Matera is a great signing, he's a gun and seeing blokes like that play is always a good thing. He may keep out someone at the Crusaders, but they'll learn from him, and everyone else in opposition gets value from the increased standard.

@jc said in Housing hornets' nest:

@reprobate said in Housing hornets' nest:

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

Out of interest why do you keep bringing up interest only loans? They are available to anybody who has the income, or assets to borrow. The banks financial lending criteria are the same for everybody, not just people who own investment property or want to buy investment property. Owning your own home is a good start but most people could get an interest only loan. I don't know why you would though, other than bridging finance.

Investors use them, leveraging existing property equity on the back of housing inflation, the interest only repayments are much smaller, and write it off as a business expense - because they're after the capital gains. None of which first home buyers have access to, meaning the investors can afford to pay more, and so the kids get no house. I think it was 40% of new lending to investors was interest only loans recently (?), highest ever anyway. Not a good idea from a financial stability point of view.

Investors only account for 30-odd % of interest only lending. The majority is to owner occupiers.

Not according to this: https://www.interest.co.nz/news/109356/nearly-40-bank-lending-residential-property-investors-are-interest-only-arrangements

"As at December, 39% of bank lending to residential property investors, worth $32 billion, was interest-only."
"13% of owner-occupier lending, worth $28 billion, is interest-only. Yet the value of interest-only mortgages held by owner-occupiers is about 12% higher than it was a year ago."
So, if accurate, that's more than half to investors - despite a big recent spike to owner occupiers.

I read somewhere recently that new loans to investors were over 50% interest-only. @snowy this is why it's a relevant topic, and while i agree with you to an extent on 'why would anyone do that', they clearly are doing it.

@snowy said in Housing hornets' nest:

@victor-meldrew said in Housing hornets' nest:

Do you think a Capital Gains Tax in NZ will stop people investing in property for their retirement? (It hasn't in other countries). What is the return (after tax) on rental v stocks/bonds and what rate would a CGT stop people investing in rental?

It hasn't been successful in other countries as you say, and was discussed at length when it was raised by labour a few years ago. Stamp duties don't really work either. You are just adding a tax that the people who are struggling to buy can't afford either.

The other comment about about relative returns - historically houses (not just property) have doubled in value over a 7 to 10 year period (that will be a bit distorted at the moment). The NZX50 has returned:

"As of April 2020- the NZX 50 has returned 476% since the year 2002."
https://www.passiveincomenz.com/nzx50-past-percentage-returns-table/

"Average 10 year period 7.09 %"

Extreme example of course - if you bought Apple shares 10 years ago at around USD12 they are now worth USD130, so property ain't all that.

NZ sharemarket is tiny - Nasdaq has gone from below 2000 to about 14000 in that period. Housing increasing far faster than wages is not a good thing, hence the criticism of the policy allowing it to happen.

I agree with some of what @reprobate says above. We will disagree on a few things but we have been through them already. Tax, etc.

Out of interest why do you keep bringing up interest only loans? They are available to anybody who has the income, or assets to borrow. The banks financial lending criteria are the same for everybody, not just people who own investment property or want to buy investment property. Owning your own home is a good start but most people could get an interest only loan. I don't know why you would though, other than bridging finance.

Investors use them, leveraging existing property equity on the back of housing inflation, the interest only repayments are much smaller, and write it off as a business expense - because they're after the capital gains. None of which first home buyers have access to, meaning the investors can afford to pay more, and so the kids get no house. I think it was 40% of new lending to investors was interest only loans recently (?), highest ever anyway. Not a good idea from a financial stability point of view.

The article about the government purchasing houses against first home buyers has data from 2017 because it wouldn't be much of a sample if they took the purchases from just yesterday. Most investors have seen this coming with this government for some time and have been bailing out, the consequence has been they are having to fill the gap in the rental market by purchasing property. Just socialism in the end I suppose. More state owned and controlled than private.

Anyway, as you said a shit solution.

But investors have not been bailing out, they've been piling in. Lots of people see the money that others have made - far more than from actually working - and assume it's going to stay that way. The housing shortage is due to lack of supply, which is a consequence of other things discussed, it's got bugger all to do with investors selling properties because they fear the government - until very, very recently perhaps.

@reprobate said in Housing hornets' nest:

Anyone who bought before house prices went ballistic is killing it on rental yields in terms of money spent and interest rates, not to mention capital gains.

That actually doesn't add up because yield is measured against the value of the asset, not the purchase price and you cannot put rents up fast enough (nor could tenants afford it) to keep up. I have mentioned the diminishing returns as property values go up earlier and why private investors are getting out, and the government stepping in before we end up with a really serious homeless situation.

That's why I specified 'in terms of money spent'. If your house goes up my 200K and you are complaining about your reduced yield you aren't likely to get much sympathy, but of course selling it ought to be considered, as there is an opportunity cost to holding it.

@reprobate said in Housing hornets' nest:

The NZ market is tiny and not very liquid. International shares have tax issues. Over the long term, the share market tends to do better, and you have the ability to diversify risk - NZ has basically no financial literacy unfortunately, and people are scared of it - but it is in my opinion a far better option. Low interest rates inflate shares too, as bank deposits are pointless.

Yep, and how I ended up in this discussion at all. Property isn't a good investment at the moment, whether you pay tax on any capital gain or not. It is a good time to sell though. What you do with the cash afterwards isn't so easy.

If I had property, I would be selling, no doubt. I would cash up and hope that the RMA review etc and building incentives come to pass to address supply, and consider getting back in on that front if I wanted to stay in property. Shares in general are overvalued. Plenty of buying opportunities when Covid hit, now is selling time for a lot of things, but the stimulus and infrastructure packages, and the banks with all that flood of lending may create some options.

@dogmeat said in Housing hornets' nest:

Unlike @reprobate I don't think old fucks are to blame for the housing crisis. Politicians have got us to the present point mainly through inaction. Plus Kiwi's seem very reluctant to look at alternatives to a mcmansion in the burbs.

I don't think that at all, my ranting is very much about policy by successive governments. The outcomes of those policies have favoured those who are older, because they purchased property when it was at a more reasonable income multiple. Now that multiple is fucked up, so the young have been screwed by comparison - to the point where it's verging on those with rich parents being the only ones buying houses they can get help - which is a terrible situation for social mobility or equality of opportunity or whatever you want to call it: it's messed up.

@victor-meldrew said in Housing hornets' nest:

@reprobate said in Housing hornets' nest:

I think tax does affect pricing in NZ. NZ has a highly favourable tax situation for rentals, the capital gain is untaxed - which is why every old couple wants to put all their retirement savings into buying a rental.

Do you think a Capital Gains Tax in NZ will stop people investing in property for their retirement? (It hasn't in other countries). What is the return (after tax) on rental v stocks/bonds and what rate would a CGT stop people investing in rental?

You can have a housing shortage, but if all the people clamouring for the one property have bugger all money, then the price is limited.

Isn't that the same thing as people not being able to afford the price of the house?

that all cranks up the price despite the demand (in terms of population) being constant - which it pretty much is right now, due to Covid.

Is the demand constant now, or has it been constant for a while or has there been a big growth in demand?

. And who votes in local council elections? I assume turnout is pathetic, so wouldn't have thought that unpopular policy would really matter - due to having no idea what any of the candidates actually stand for.

Are there objections/campaigns when a council approves higher-density housing or new developments which might impact (nearby) house prices?

Genuine questions. Appreciate your thoughts.

No, I don't think it would stop people completely - depending on the level obviously - but for the past decade it has been the best tax avoidance option - and available only to those with money - which is pretty wrong in my opinion. The government has been shortchanging itself by not taxing this area, which then means other taxes have to make up that shortfall - if you assume that the tax requirement is set. I would like to see it taxed, and income taxes reduced. Tax can be used very effectively to incentivise / disincentivise behaviours. We desperately need to incentivise building of houses, and disincentivise buying of existing houses by people that don't need them - if people want to invest in housing because it is viewed as safe, then that can be a great thing if we use it to increase supply.
As for return, it depends totally on when you bought. Anyone who bought before house prices went ballistic is killing it on rental yields in terms of money spent and interest rates, not to mention capital gains. Anyone buying now, at crazy prices, will be seeing a crap rental yield - this is a big part of the unfairness between generations which is a big social problem. The older buyers also have to question the opportunity cost of holding an asset which (hopefully) has done most of the appreciation it is going to do, as wages ought to provide some limit on how much rent can be charged. This is one of the reasons why people are trying to raise rents - up 6% nationally, and 14% in some areas March to March annually - i.e. before the new rules, in a period with investors having everything in their favour (except high house prices). So high house prices are bad for investors too, if they are genuinely rental investors and want to buy - but the reality is most people are chasing the capital gains - though I'm sure for many that won't be their 'intention' as far as the IRD is concerned.
Compared with shares, well that depends which. The NZ market is tiny and not very liquid. International shares have tax issues. Over the long term, the share market tends to do better, and you have the ability to diversify risk - NZ has basically no financial literacy unfortunately, and people are scared of it - but it is in my opinion a far better option. Low interest rates inflate shares too, as bank deposits are pointless.

@canefan said in What’s out there at Second Five?:

@reprobate it may take us a long time to fill the void of a GOAT conversation MF combo like Snake and Nonu

Yep - Nonu's the one we miss the most out of all those greats I reckon, we have pretty decent quality options in the other positions. I guess it's hard to pick a combo and stick with it so it can develop when you don't have 2 quality players to pick in the first place.

We really miss Nonu's vision. From what I've seen Havili and Nankivell are the only two guys who even seem to see the skip pass opportunity when it's on at the moment. Havili doesn't play there that much, and Nankivell doesn't play at all that much.
Laumape has no vision. He's a brutal runner, and does have the occasional really good game e.g. when he made BB look silly - but that's not enough for big tests when you're not that big and the opposition is top quality and fully committed.
Tupaea looks to have potential, very young.
Haven't seen enough of TUJ to comment.
ALB was very poor in early rounds, particularly defensively some really glaring costly errors - starting to come right though.
Goodhue is a centre, and a very good one. Didn't work out at 12.

If you want pace at centre, I think Ennor is probably the better bet long term than Ioane. Reads the game better, better defensively, nost as elusive but hits gaps better. Both inexperienced though, so who knows how they turn out.

The nice thing about Havili is that he can kick from 50m so then you can pick a proper winger...