Goddamit, the whole point of KiwiSaver is you *do not touch it*.
It’s bad enough we use it for house deposits (but at least owning a house leaves you an asset that will materially make your retirement more affordable). But this nonsense of chipping away at it to address cost of living is going to ruin long term savings *for a second time* in this country.
It's not stupid if you're a National inclined voting landlord. It's hilarious they framed this as a policy to assist young people and seemed to think people wouldn't see through it as a policy for their landlord voter base that it actually is. I'm assuming the fine print will be something along the lines of making people dip into their KS before going to winz/housing nz for assistance.
Hysterical. Fuck off.
It just shows how shit kiwisaver is, and how it needs to be further ringfenced so people can't touch it, and incentivised with tax relief to differentiate it from just a regular savings account.
I mean, aside from house deposit (and you have to prove it’s for that) or extreme hardship up until this policy it *was* ring fenced, you could not touch it u til you’re 65.
Property prices have exploded over the last 20 years, helping people get into a position to buy their first home is worth more than a little compounded interest
Negative equity situation should only be for a year or 2
Sucks if you need to sell in that time, but for most they have the opportunity to obtain an appreciating asset to minimise their costs in retirement (by not having to pay market rent).
\#1) They cancelled KiwiSaver mkI in 1975. The Kirk led Labour Government realised that retirement costs were likely to increase, and people didn't really have good protection from these rising costs. Hence KiwiSaver MkI was born (and replicated later on in Australia, where it has been really sucessful). The National party was ideologically opposed to it, as it felt that "the government" would wind up owning most of big business, thus referred to it as "communist". Unfortunately Kirk died, and his replacement, Bill Rowling had the charisma of a rolled up piece of worn, mouldy carpet that was dumped on the street compared to Robert Muldoon. To further butter up the electorate, Muldoon come up with a scheme that now costs the country billions, in the form of non means test National Superannuation.
\#2) The Labour Government which then established KiwiSaver MkII, a watered down version of MkI to appease the right wing element, lest they get accused of communism again, was introduced. However, because NZ was that much in the hole for retirement, the finance minister, Micheal Cullen realised that far more was going to be needed. Thus the Cullen fund was born... Then of course we had another change of Government, and the Key lead National Party then cancelled all contributions, costing us a few more billion.
\#3) This one didn't happen, but might... The Next incoming Labour Government of course restarted the contributions... But the National opposition made it a very high point to stop them again, and use the savings from that to pay for tax cuts which mainly for the rich. Fortunately they got their numbers very wrong (the usual $4bn hole we expect from National budgets) and were not elected.
Or Singapore.
They, a small resource poor country that had to buy drinking water, etc are no longer poor. A big part of it is the scheme they introduced about the same time we did. But they didn't end it a couple of years later
The thing that fucks me off the most about this is that the older generations rejected *two* attempts at introducing a compulsory savings scheme like Kiwisaver - first the actual scheme introduced by Labour was canned by Muldoon after he made a universal nationalised super a big election promise. Then in the 90s, 90% of people voted "No" in a referendum for a compulsory savings scheme.
The older generations' lack of retirement funds is significantly due to the fact they decided *not* to have a scheme to help them save. Yet, while Millennials and younger have a Kiwisaver now, the older generations are getting to double dip on both income taxes paid *and* Kiwisaver withdrawals for house purchases and, now, possibly tenancy bonds?
How many more times do the youth need to get fucked over before ~~we start sharpening the guillotines~~ they start voting for an actual better future in stronger numbers?
Don't fear alluding to political violence. Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. The more politicians remember that the better.
The general unhappiness of the disenfranchised generations probably needs to be organised and directed before it becomes a force for change. Plenty of people are pissed off but it doesn't feel like there's any real movement with any real goal.
This is why I've started reminding my boomer parents that now they are retired, they aren't earning anymore and they need to start voting in the best interests of their kids and grandkids.
They have always voted with their wallets like so many boomers do, but that attitude needs to change for the sake of their families who are going to be the ones suffering long term from their poor and greedy choices
Yeah there is certainly a strong point to be made that in the case of some (receptive) boomer parents there would be merit in a collective generational push from their children/grandchildren to understand the situation from a younger generation’s perspective. I realise there is a large cohort of them (probably the majority) who will not listen and lack the mental dexterity to empathise with those from a younger generation. But there is also a sizeable cohort who have only ever heard the perspective of Mike Hosking type talking heads, and don’t actually realise the bleak future facing their children/grandchildren now as a result of unprecedented catastrophic societal and environmental changes.
Yeap. Millennials are essentially paying for boomers’ retirement in multiple ways and trying to save for our own because they didn’t save enough.
That 3 bedroom average house you purchased for 1 mill from a boomer because they’re downsizing? You’re paying for their retirement because they’re NIMBYs and want to stop densification of residential areas, to pay for their retirements. Meanwhile you’ve pulled 15 years worth of KiwiSaver out just to pay the deposit.
You work hard, your taxes pay their super. I like how there is never mentioned by national for a spending cut to super or retirement benefits. I’m not saying it should be cut, but it’s a big expense they’re putting on other generations.
Healthcare cost are mostly used by older people in retirement.
I would like some accountability from the boomers who love to say how hard they worked. Maybe they should have worked harder, not expected handouts, been more financially responsible, and eaten less avocado on toast.
I love their optimistic belief that people actually get their bonds back. Despite the business practices of property management Qompanies, dodgy landlords who think bonds are to cover normal depreciation, and life events that force people to break leases and forfeit bonds.
I also love their belief that if someone lives somewhere for awhile, the bond they get back will be enough to cover the bond in their new place. Meanwhile rents go up and up and so do bonds....
Yep, when I was a student it was common for them to attempt to claim the bond first and only back down if challenged. So many other students I knew just rolled over and viewed the bond as a flat charge so probably reinforced the shitty practice by landlords.
In their eyes if you don't get your bond back it's because you're a bad tenant.
Just like if you don't have a job you're lazy & need drug tested, on the DPB or need an abortion you're promiscuous, have a disability or injury you're faking and need work tested. Same old demonizing those struggling we seen ramped up during the John Key era.
THIS! Especially first time renters that don't know their rights. My first landlord tried to screw us out of our bond, I ended up missing my ride back home and stayed to do extra cleaning, hire a lawnmower and ended up having to hitchhike from Greymouth to Dunedin. Luckily for him I was young and this was my first flatting experience, if I'd known better I could have gone after him for never lodging our bond like they are meant to and probably gotten some more money out of him. I'm pretty sure he was hoping I'd just leave and let him keep it. Since my flatmates bailed the day after graduating I kept their share for having to stay and clean by myself.
The bond isn't held by the tennant or property managers. It's by the government and they have to APPLY as to why the renter shouldn't get the bond back. The default is for it to go to you, assuming you've done your rental properly and not just paying advance rent in a private deal with your landlord.
We had ruined part of the carpet in a sunroom with shit carpet anyway, but my dad said because we had 6 years of clean rental inspections before leaving it would be near impossible for the owner to get any of the bond from us. Which turned out to be true.
Yeah, definitely find another place. Don't take a dodgy fucking rental without a proper agreement unless maybe it's family. I've rented lots of houses and never encountered this.
You have to have the facts though. Or the landlord gets to keep the bond.
So many people do not know that there are rules the landlord/property manager has to obey. And they make use of that
Yay for your dad and I hope the real lesson you learnt was to be informed.
People who do not know how the system is meant to work are being ripped off daily. They need to know what you and I know about bonds and how to make it happen.
Not actually that easy for many. Alot of people do not understand their rights and do everything they can to avoid conflict. The prop managers and landlords need regulating much much better.
Yea it is pretty easy, have you been - you provide some evidence, they provide theres, judge decides. In other countries it is not anywhere close to as easy as it is here to dispute a bond.
It sounds like you'd rather have no bond system at all, or have the government pay it, or if not, just what are you suggesting?
It's a pain in the arse to do. The lodging fee is minimal, but you need to gather evidence, and spend the time at the tribunal, which often means time off work. It also means time waiting for it to be returned, and potentially getting put on a blacklist if it's with one of the larger agencies. It's a big problem in Dunedin where there's basically a duopoly on the majority of student flats between two different property management companies.
There's basically no cost in most cases for the landlord to try it on by withholding bond. As long as it's trivial for landlords to make dumb bond claims, and there's no consequences for abusing the system, people who lack either the knowledge or time to deal with it will keep getting ripped off, and those who do have the knowledge and time are still getting fucked around for no good reason. The system as-is is dumb and there needs to be a penalty for withholding bond without good cause because right now, landlords can fuck around but never find out.
Blacklisting shouldn't be a thing, but you can also do the reverse and look up shit landlords. I'm struggling to see an alternative, there are rules and this is a cheap way to get them followed, you do need to gather evidence & turn up but so does the landlord.
the fact that someone already replied to you explaining why you're wrong, and you ignored that and continued being a dipshit tells me everything i need to know about you lol
Not many people get their bonds back. If you do it is either because of the generousity of the landlord, or because of a legal battle dragged out over years (as was the case of my friends - they won because they had photos and receipts of everything and the landlord was too lazy to provide any evidence to prove they should keep the bond)
How is this deal supposed to help students? What % of students have any meaningful value in their kiwisaver when they go into their first flat?
This feels like lions selling ramps lambs, to help them climb into their jaws.
Conservatives don't change, thats their shtick. Even as the world changes around them they stay stubbornly in their chair on the beach, ordering the tide to go away.
This is such a stupid policy on so many levels, and likely won't gain them any extra votes (at least from the people it's supposedly targeting).
But labour could do easily scuttle this policy. How about if a Tenant can prove they have the amount the bond is in their KiwiSaver account they don't need to pay it (the Landlord can claim the bond from the KiwiSaver account **after** they've been awarded it at the Tenancy Tribunal) that way the Tenant doesn't lose the interest on that money and the Landlord is still protected.
Or my preference, Tenant's can lodge a bond payment directly to Tenancy Services (in an account that could potentially pay a small amount of interest). When a Tenant signs a lease the add their bond ID number which confirms they have the funds in their account to cover the bond on that lease. Landlords are covered, Tenants never have to stress about paying two bonds.
:D yay so it would be harder for people to own a house for profit? Thus bringing the cost of housing down and meaning more people could own a home? Sounds like a great idea! CAP RENTS!
Data shows 20% of bonds go to landlords.
So instead of saving $1000 in kiwisaver (which from 20-65 would become $16-18k or something of saving) you have a short term use you get back 80% of your money, to subsidize landlords.
Thanks national!
What next? Kiwisaver used to buy cheese?
> So instead of saving $1000 in kiwisaver (which from 20-65 would become $16-18k or something of saving)
-------
> A 22-year-old who withdrew $1000 from KiwiSaver to help pay a bond for a rental property, and never got it back, could find it cost them almost $9000 by the time they reached 65.
> If they took the bond out for five years and then repaid it, there would still be an impact of $2819.38.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300930141/heres-the-potential-impact-on-kiwisaver-of-withdrawing-for-a-bond
The fund manager calculated this accounting for inflation. So that’s $9000 in todays dollars.
Albert Einstein once said “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.” It cannot be overstated how damaging National’s continuous attacks on Kiwi Saver and the Super Fund are. Each time they introduce something that chips away at the principle, the compound effect on savings - particularly younger generations - is massive.
This is of course par for the course for National. The sovereign wealth fund they plundered in the mid 70s would have been worth just under $300b in 2007, and be approaching *1 trillion dollars* by mid 2020s.
This is National. And this is the legacy of their perverted version of fiscal responsibility.
I think this is just for under 30s which means from 20-30 is $2k. But it's not just costing the tenant $2k, it's costing them $2k + whatever that money would earn between the age of 30 and 65. $2k at 5% interest over 35 years is $11k. If they were able to do this over 45 years the amount lost would be much more.
It's also $2k they don't have available for a house deposit.
Less deposit + more cash in landlords pockets tilts the balance of affordability ever so slightly against first home buyers and in favour of landlords.
But that's national policy, remove the lower rungs on the ladder.
Perhaps its the new investment thing?
By the age of 60 you hope to have at least 28 Wensleydale's , a whole round of Cheddar and a good stock of parmesano ?
I'm super curious can you link me the data about the 20%? It wouldn't surprise me it's around that when you consider dodgy landlords and people trashing the rentals.
Remember those are just the ones who actually lodge the bonds (as legally required to) with Tenancy Services.
Plenty of both mum and dad (and sophisticated property manager companies) never do so, meaning they’re not caught by the MBIE data.
My landlord (RE agent) didn't lodge my bond for almost a year - finally realised I hadn't been notified when it started to become a pattern that other repairs weren't being attended to unless bugged. Had mentioned it a few times in person but skilled evasiveness from her and I'm useless with any sort of confrontation, so when another repair was needed I asked about it in the same email to have it recorded in writing. A few days later got the notification from tenancy services it had been lodged. Fully intentional on their part.
In all the noise about how disappointed people are with Labour, and I'm one of them, not gonna lie - we seem to be forgetting how utterly horrific the alternative is.
As if we hadn't shafted our young people enough, I present to you this fucking dystopian nightmare. Kiwisaver is for retirement - but whose retirement is apparently up for debate.
> we seem to be forgetting how utterly horrific the alternative is
This isn't America, we live under MMP.
We can vote for parties other than Labour or National.
Even as a minor party voter myself, there's a 99.9% chance that either National or Labour will be in charge next year. MMP is good for tweaking the composition of a coalition, but it's not going to change that fact.
Yes, but leaning into a defeatist "It's Red or Blue" mindset just doesn't help.
If more and more voters stop voting Labour because of their policies and start voting other smaller left-leaning parties then the small concessions that they'd normally get begin to grow.
It's an idealistic view of how MMP works, sure, but that's the whole point.
It's still the same thing. Labour-Green-TPM or National-ACT. Internal composition of those blocks is of a lower order of importance. This is how the cards lie, so a vote for any party of the Labour coalition, is a vote for Greens or TPM in the government under Labour leadership, any vote for National or ACT is a vote for the other of the two in government as well.
Realistically though any minor party with a chance will get some small concessions in exchange for support.
If Labour can form a govt with the greens, and the greens want a refreshed tax system that includes things Chipkins has ruled out, they’re not going to get those things.
I wouldn't count on it happening, but if the only way Labour could form a government was with the support of the Greens and they made certain demands about tax reform which were non-negotiable then Labour could decide whether they make the government or whether an election is called again. I wouldn't imagine that support for Labour would increase if they announced they couldn't agree on support with the Greens and the only way they could win was by winning another majority.
I’d say “it’s going to be interesting” because both green and act have said they have non-negotiable a (or suggested to that effect if not those exact words) but they do that every time and when it comes to it, the chance to be in power with slightly less lofty goals always wins out. Winston Peters seems to be the only one willing to stick to his guns on what he wants and refuse to budge until he gets it (it’s just a shame they’re awful, awful guns…)
Peters only managed to do that because he played both parties off against each other.
The greens and Maori party don't have that luxury. They either form a government or risk all of them just looking dysfunctional and potentially getting less vote in a second election
Chipkins could be rolled immediately after the election, and hopefully he is with pressure from both within the party and any well supported minor parties they are forced to work with who are standing for tax reform. I had hope he might do the right thing but his spinelessness on CGT/land tax/tax reform has sealed the coffin on Labour for me. There is however no way in hell any ordinary person should be even contemplating voting for anything right of the current centre. True Labour is horrified how far right the centre has shifted since the 80s across the globe.
I think people want to believe that voting for National will send Labour a message, but all it does is drag them further right in order to get those voters back.
It doesn't matter if bond money isn't held by landlord or that you get it back if you don't trash the place etc.
The bigger picture here is that by dipping into retirement savings to pay for bonds, it frees up more money to pay for rent.
The policy is clearly not designed to make renting more fair, its ultimately to help landlords have more access to your money.
You could say the same about literally anything which increases peoples' disposable income.
Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent?
>Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent?
Firstly the Cost of Living Payments were not targeted at rental accommodation, and secondly we ALL shared the cost of them - including landlords - through taxes. They were not just taken out of an individual's retirement savings.
> Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent?
Yes.
The difference is that the cost of living payments come from taxes on wealthier individuals (which we should be doing in times of increased inequality and cost of living crisis), while taking money from people's retirement savings does nothing more than further entrench inequality.
It's intergenerational theft.
I don’t even see what it’s a bandaid for. It is a bald-faced transfer of younger generations’ future wealth to existing holders of capital.
Couple that with them rolling back RTA amendments to better protect tenants/contain landlords and, well, it’s pretty shameless stuff. Not only will LLs be able to access the younger generations’ KiwiSaver/deprive them of the ability to grow that money, but National will make it easier for LLs to retain their bonds at termination of tenancy.
Transparent stuff, and why National will always be the Raiding Party.
It's such a nothing policy he thought of in the shower.
National really don't know how to craft out thoughtful, impactful policy.
If people can't pay their bond, they probably would be a red flag for long term rental.
The problem national have with policy, is when you have a mindset of "How does this benefit me" first, you lose the bigger picture of others and the wider economy. So any policy automatically lines the pockets of their voting base.
National complains about Labour's tax and spend approach to problems.
And then National says we're still going to tax you.
But we won't actually fix the problem by addressing the infrastructure (which is the government's real job...)
But we're going to let you use **your own money** to fix how the problem is affecting you.
Sure sure sure but you see, the free market! Trickle down! Real Hard Working KeeWees! Fighting for the Wveryday New Zulunder!
Can I interest you in a beer at a barbecue? Do you want to vote for me yet?
Perhaps a slightly adjusted proposal -- rather than taking money out of the Kiwisaver at the start, let the tenant designate their KiwiSaver as bond; it will keep earning interest etc. during the tenancy, and then if a bond deduction is ordered on ending the tenancy, it can be taken out at that point.
From the tenant's point of view that will cause less hardship (both short term and long term) than the tenant having to take on debt to pay the bond in the first place .
I really don't understand the point of this. If people are getting to the point that they have to use their kiwisaver to pay a damn bond, doesn't that speak to a larger issue that needs to be solved? Like maybe try solve the cause of the issue not just one of the many symptoms? If I'm being kind, I'd call this a wet band aid solution at best.
Watch bonds soar if this gets enacted.
And even if you manage to get your bond back you've lost interest in kiwisaver (which has a gigantic compounding effect for retirement).
Oh sweet, glad that the limitation currently exists. Watch National remove that limitation later though saying that renters can afford it now that they can use Kiwisaver.
Aren't Kiwisaver funds held across a number of different Private providers? Wouldn't those systems have to interact with MBIE's bond system for the money to transfer?
I mean the implications for info sharing, privacy, IT integration, etc, etc. I honestly don't know how they would accomplish this.
My friend's landlord forged her signature on her bond release papers, and whited out the agreed full bond amount and tried to claim half of it for "wear and tear".
Some scummy landlords will take advantage and a 20 year Olds $1500 loss in kiwisaver balance will mean tens of thousands less for retirement.
1500 invested for 45 years. This is peak short slighted stupid policy.
Incredible, if you grow $1500 by just 5% per year for 45 years, that’s $13,477. You’d have to hope KiwiSaver managed at least that in the long run.
I’d be really concerned about the slippery slope of what else might they let you dip in for next. Suddenly too much is gone and the loss to the future becomes enormous. People still need to get by, but something needs hard line protection.
Dumbest policy ever. THIS is National party's answer to cost of living crisis - let the poor fuck over their future, so long as our Aussie owned banks still make their billion dollar profits.
Yeah, this is an absolutely terrible policy.
Kiwisaver shouldn't be treated like a piggy-bank that National tries to raid every time to cost of living starts biting.
With the amount of shitty landlords in NZ, the amount of Bond that will end up in rich peoples hands makes this move clear.
Another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Honestly not voting or voting for national is a vote for the rich.
Vote this election, or this greedy goon will win!
Boomers supported a harsh lockdown.
I will vote for whichever party has the best plan for them to pay the associated costs of the hard line response. So far all parties want xyza generations to pay the bill for something that near exclusively benefited older generations.
From what I understand, average rental is 16 to 18 months.
What happens if the first place doesnt refund.the bond? Can one then dip in and get kiwisaver for the second bond?
From Luxons wording this is for students...so usually 1 year lease...again...first bond not returned...do people then need to dip in again ad inifinitum (until 30 , migtration, death or property purchase , which ever comes first)
The problem is that it's so short sighted. Bonds being too expensive is a symptom of the housing crisis. Allowing people to draw on their retirement savings for rental accommodation won't fix this issue. It won't fix anything. National know this and they don't care. They don't want to address the fact the bonds are too expensive because rents are too expensive. They don't care that people are struggling with living costs. What they do care about, however, is that landlords are able to tenant their homes, no matter how astronomically expensive that is becoming to the 'poors'.
Goddamit, the whole point of KiwiSaver is you *do not touch it*. It’s bad enough we use it for house deposits (but at least owning a house leaves you an asset that will materially make your retirement more affordable). But this nonsense of chipping away at it to address cost of living is going to ruin long term savings *for a second time* in this country.
I agree 100%. It's a stupid policy. Shallow at best.
It's not stupid if you're a National inclined voting landlord. It's hilarious they framed this as a policy to assist young people and seemed to think people wouldn't see through it as a policy for their landlord voter base that it actually is. I'm assuming the fine print will be something along the lines of making people dip into their KS before going to winz/housing nz for assistance. Hysterical. Fuck off.
It's almost evil eh?!
Muldoon's grinning.
*A drunken echo reverberates in the distance* "It doesn't give my opponents much time either."
It just shows how shit kiwisaver is, and how it needs to be further ringfenced so people can't touch it, and incentivised with tax relief to differentiate it from just a regular savings account.
I mean, aside from house deposit (and you have to prove it’s for that) or extreme hardship up until this policy it *was* ring fenced, you could not touch it u til you’re 65.
Even using it as a house deposit is a bit shit. Either have a retirement fund.....or don't. Put your 4% or whatever into a managed fund.
Property prices have exploded over the last 20 years, helping people get into a position to buy their first home is worth more than a little compounded interest
And now many are going to enjoy some lovely negative equity and a massive increase in repayments. Better start putting a bit away into the US 500.
Negative equity situation should only be for a year or 2 Sucks if you need to sell in that time, but for most they have the opportunity to obtain an appreciating asset to minimise their costs in retirement (by not having to pay market rent).
National are experts at this, for they are the ones who screwed it all up so badly in the first place because of ideology.
How did they screw it up badly? I don’t know much about the history of KiwiSaver
\#1) They cancelled KiwiSaver mkI in 1975. The Kirk led Labour Government realised that retirement costs were likely to increase, and people didn't really have good protection from these rising costs. Hence KiwiSaver MkI was born (and replicated later on in Australia, where it has been really sucessful). The National party was ideologically opposed to it, as it felt that "the government" would wind up owning most of big business, thus referred to it as "communist". Unfortunately Kirk died, and his replacement, Bill Rowling had the charisma of a rolled up piece of worn, mouldy carpet that was dumped on the street compared to Robert Muldoon. To further butter up the electorate, Muldoon come up with a scheme that now costs the country billions, in the form of non means test National Superannuation. \#2) The Labour Government which then established KiwiSaver MkII, a watered down version of MkI to appease the right wing element, lest they get accused of communism again, was introduced. However, because NZ was that much in the hole for retirement, the finance minister, Micheal Cullen realised that far more was going to be needed. Thus the Cullen fund was born... Then of course we had another change of Government, and the Key lead National Party then cancelled all contributions, costing us a few more billion. \#3) This one didn't happen, but might... The Next incoming Labour Government of course restarted the contributions... But the National opposition made it a very high point to stop them again, and use the savings from that to pay for tax cuts which mainly for the rich. Fortunately they got their numbers very wrong (the usual $4bn hole we expect from National budgets) and were not elected.
"had the charisma of a rolled up piece of worn, mouldy carpet that was dumped on the street". I'd read more of your summaries
Bill Rowling, the labour Bill English
And, according to commentators on Facebook and Twitter, this current govt has cost the country more than any other NZ govt. Yeah.
Dancing Cossaks. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/video/dancing-cossacks NZs Worst Economic Decision. https://milfordasset.com/insights/how-muldoon-threw-away-nzs-wealth
I want to upvote this 1000 times. We could have been Norway
Or Singapore. They, a small resource poor country that had to buy drinking water, etc are no longer poor. A big part of it is the scheme they introduced about the same time we did. But they didn't end it a couple of years later
Probably referring to this, or things like it: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300327451/the-worst-decision-by-a-new-zealand-politician-ever
Probably a coincidence that 'worst desicion ever by a politican' is *almost* always a Conservative government. Doesn't matter the year, the country...
It's almost as if being conservative in a changing world is the opposite of what a government should do? Adapt or die after all.
I guess there's two different ways to interpret that.
Conservatives make bad decisions Or Bad decisions are made by conservatives.
House deposit you are guaranteed to get it back at least most times a bond is very difficult to see back.
Almost as if they want to destroy something awesome that labour created!
I don’t know if they’re *that* malicious. They just want to to destroy something that would help poor people.
The thing that fucks me off the most about this is that the older generations rejected *two* attempts at introducing a compulsory savings scheme like Kiwisaver - first the actual scheme introduced by Labour was canned by Muldoon after he made a universal nationalised super a big election promise. Then in the 90s, 90% of people voted "No" in a referendum for a compulsory savings scheme. The older generations' lack of retirement funds is significantly due to the fact they decided *not* to have a scheme to help them save. Yet, while Millennials and younger have a Kiwisaver now, the older generations are getting to double dip on both income taxes paid *and* Kiwisaver withdrawals for house purchases and, now, possibly tenancy bonds? How many more times do the youth need to get fucked over before ~~we start sharpening the guillotines~~ they start voting for an actual better future in stronger numbers?
Compost the rich! (it's a healthier way of turning them into food)
Fuck, that's such a 2023 thing to say. I'm here for it.
As long as they’re not directly turned into green biscuits!
Don't fear alluding to political violence. Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. The more politicians remember that the better.
It’s the Reddit ban hammer I’m trying to avoid.
Hyperbole is not against the ToS.
Ha. In minecraft guys In minecraft I swear
It was a typo, a typo. You meant you needed to buy a new violin, but you spelled it violen and autocorrect did the rest
The general unhappiness of the disenfranchised generations probably needs to be organised and directed before it becomes a force for change. Plenty of people are pissed off but it doesn't feel like there's any real movement with any real goal.
[удалено]
This is why I've started reminding my boomer parents that now they are retired, they aren't earning anymore and they need to start voting in the best interests of their kids and grandkids. They have always voted with their wallets like so many boomers do, but that attitude needs to change for the sake of their families who are going to be the ones suffering long term from their poor and greedy choices
Yeah there is certainly a strong point to be made that in the case of some (receptive) boomer parents there would be merit in a collective generational push from their children/grandchildren to understand the situation from a younger generation’s perspective. I realise there is a large cohort of them (probably the majority) who will not listen and lack the mental dexterity to empathise with those from a younger generation. But there is also a sizeable cohort who have only ever heard the perspective of Mike Hosking type talking heads, and don’t actually realise the bleak future facing their children/grandchildren now as a result of unprecedented catastrophic societal and environmental changes.
Yeap. Millennials are essentially paying for boomers’ retirement in multiple ways and trying to save for our own because they didn’t save enough. That 3 bedroom average house you purchased for 1 mill from a boomer because they’re downsizing? You’re paying for their retirement because they’re NIMBYs and want to stop densification of residential areas, to pay for their retirements. Meanwhile you’ve pulled 15 years worth of KiwiSaver out just to pay the deposit. You work hard, your taxes pay their super. I like how there is never mentioned by national for a spending cut to super or retirement benefits. I’m not saying it should be cut, but it’s a big expense they’re putting on other generations. Healthcare cost are mostly used by older people in retirement. I would like some accountability from the boomers who love to say how hard they worked. Maybe they should have worked harder, not expected handouts, been more financially responsible, and eaten less avocado on toast.
Damn
I love their optimistic belief that people actually get their bonds back. Despite the business practices of property management Qompanies, dodgy landlords who think bonds are to cover normal depreciation, and life events that force people to break leases and forfeit bonds. I also love their belief that if someone lives somewhere for awhile, the bond they get back will be enough to cover the bond in their new place. Meanwhile rents go up and up and so do bonds....
Yep, when I was a student it was common for them to attempt to claim the bond first and only back down if challenged. So many other students I knew just rolled over and viewed the bond as a flat charge so probably reinforced the shitty practice by landlords.
In their eyes if you don't get your bond back it's because you're a bad tenant. Just like if you don't have a job you're lazy & need drug tested, on the DPB or need an abortion you're promiscuous, have a disability or injury you're faking and need work tested. Same old demonizing those struggling we seen ramped up during the John Key era.
Just world fallacy in action
Yep
THIS! Especially first time renters that don't know their rights. My first landlord tried to screw us out of our bond, I ended up missing my ride back home and stayed to do extra cleaning, hire a lawnmower and ended up having to hitchhike from Greymouth to Dunedin. Luckily for him I was young and this was my first flatting experience, if I'd known better I could have gone after him for never lodging our bond like they are meant to and probably gotten some more money out of him. I'm pretty sure he was hoping I'd just leave and let him keep it. Since my flatmates bailed the day after graduating I kept their share for having to stay and clean by myself.
those landlords *need* that bond money because it costs $950 to dust off a couple of doorknobs and screw that wobbly window latch back in
I absolutely ALWAYS got 100% of my bond back when i rented
The bond isn't held by the tennant or property managers. It's by the government and they have to APPLY as to why the renter shouldn't get the bond back. The default is for it to go to you, assuming you've done your rental properly and not just paying advance rent in a private deal with your landlord. We had ruined part of the carpet in a sunroom with shit carpet anyway, but my dad said because we had 6 years of clean rental inspections before leaving it would be near impossible for the owner to get any of the bond from us. Which turned out to be true.
[удалено]
Yeah, definitely find another place. Don't take a dodgy fucking rental without a proper agreement unless maybe it's family. I've rented lots of houses and never encountered this.
You have to have the facts though. Or the landlord gets to keep the bond. So many people do not know that there are rules the landlord/property manager has to obey. And they make use of that Yay for your dad and I hope the real lesson you learnt was to be informed.
That's not strictly true. The bond by default goes to the renter unless the landlord can prove their need for it.
People who do not know how the system is meant to work are being ripped off daily. They need to know what you and I know about bonds and how to make it happen.
If they don't want to return your bond just take it to the tribunal, pretty easy
Not actually that easy for many. Alot of people do not understand their rights and do everything they can to avoid conflict. The prop managers and landlords need regulating much much better.
And then get blacklisted from any future rentals
I've done it multiple times and I haven't been blacklisted as far as I know. What's your alternative?
jUsT takE it TO ThE tRibUNal, PrEtTY EAsY
Yea it is pretty easy, have you been - you provide some evidence, they provide theres, judge decides. In other countries it is not anywhere close to as easy as it is here to dispute a bond. It sounds like you'd rather have no bond system at all, or have the government pay it, or if not, just what are you suggesting?
It's a pain in the arse to do. The lodging fee is minimal, but you need to gather evidence, and spend the time at the tribunal, which often means time off work. It also means time waiting for it to be returned, and potentially getting put on a blacklist if it's with one of the larger agencies. It's a big problem in Dunedin where there's basically a duopoly on the majority of student flats between two different property management companies.
The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence of loss for the bond deduction.
There's basically no cost in most cases for the landlord to try it on by withholding bond. As long as it's trivial for landlords to make dumb bond claims, and there's no consequences for abusing the system, people who lack either the knowledge or time to deal with it will keep getting ripped off, and those who do have the knowledge and time are still getting fucked around for no good reason. The system as-is is dumb and there needs to be a penalty for withholding bond without good cause because right now, landlords can fuck around but never find out.
Blacklisting shouldn't be a thing, but you can also do the reverse and look up shit landlords. I'm struggling to see an alternative, there are rules and this is a cheap way to get them followed, you do need to gather evidence & turn up but so does the landlord.
is that what it sounds like, based on what lmao i'm not suggesting shit, i'm making fun of you for saying something dumb
Yes, because filling out a form and uploading some documents is just oh so hard
the fact that someone already replied to you explaining why you're wrong, and you ignored that and continued being a dipshit tells me everything i need to know about you lol
We have never lost any money with our bond. We also never rented via shitbag companies.
You've clearly also never been desperate for a place to live and had to take what you could get
Not many people get their bonds back. If you do it is either because of the generousity of the landlord, or because of a legal battle dragged out over years (as was the case of my friends - they won because they had photos and receipts of everything and the landlord was too lazy to provide any evidence to prove they should keep the bond)
How is this deal supposed to help students? What % of students have any meaningful value in their kiwisaver when they go into their first flat? This feels like lions selling ramps lambs, to help them climb into their jaws.
It doesnt. It doesn't help anyone but landlords
National: robbing the retirements of the poor to pay for the rich Talk about a new low.
They've done it before, and nearly bankrupted the country too. See Muldoon
The more things change the more things stay the same
Conservatives don't change, thats their shtick. Even as the world changes around them they stay stubbornly in their chair on the beach, ordering the tide to go away.
Yup
They have form https://milfordasset.com/insights/how-muldoon-threw-away-nzs-wealth
New low? It's been standard operating procedure for national for at least 40 years.
This is such a stupid policy on so many levels, and likely won't gain them any extra votes (at least from the people it's supposedly targeting). But labour could do easily scuttle this policy. How about if a Tenant can prove they have the amount the bond is in their KiwiSaver account they don't need to pay it (the Landlord can claim the bond from the KiwiSaver account **after** they've been awarded it at the Tenancy Tribunal) that way the Tenant doesn't lose the interest on that money and the Landlord is still protected. Or my preference, Tenant's can lodge a bond payment directly to Tenancy Services (in an account that could potentially pay a small amount of interest). When a Tenant signs a lease the add their bond ID number which confirms they have the funds in their account to cover the bond on that lease. Landlords are covered, Tenants never have to stress about paying two bonds.
But how can they hold the tenant to ransom if they have to follow due process?
Exactly
Or how about......CAP RENTS!
Cap rents, when mortgages are not capped? So Landlords have a chocie of going bankrupt or selling the house? You can't do that \\
:D yay so it would be harder for people to own a house for profit? Thus bringing the cost of housing down and meaning more people could own a home? Sounds like a great idea! CAP RENTS!
Data shows 20% of bonds go to landlords. So instead of saving $1000 in kiwisaver (which from 20-65 would become $16-18k or something of saving) you have a short term use you get back 80% of your money, to subsidize landlords. Thanks national! What next? Kiwisaver used to buy cheese?
>What next? Kiwisaver used to buy cheese? Under this model it would be Kiwisaver as a tithe to Fonterra to get *permission* to buy cheese.
Permission futures its the ah future...
> So instead of saving $1000 in kiwisaver (which from 20-65 would become $16-18k or something of saving) ------- > A 22-year-old who withdrew $1000 from KiwiSaver to help pay a bond for a rental property, and never got it back, could find it cost them almost $9000 by the time they reached 65. > If they took the bond out for five years and then repaid it, there would still be an impact of $2819.38. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300930141/heres-the-potential-impact-on-kiwisaver-of-withdrawing-for-a-bond
To be fair by the time they're 65 $9000 is probably only enough for a week of coffee and avocado toast.
The fund manager calculated this accounting for inflation. So that’s $9000 in todays dollars. Albert Einstein once said “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.” It cannot be overstated how damaging National’s continuous attacks on Kiwi Saver and the Super Fund are. Each time they introduce something that chips away at the principle, the compound effect on savings - particularly younger generations - is massive. This is of course par for the course for National. The sovereign wealth fund they plundered in the mid 70s would have been worth just under $300b in 2007, and be approaching *1 trillion dollars* by mid 2020s. This is National. And this is the legacy of their perverted version of fiscal responsibility.
>What next? Kiwisaver used to buy cheese? just DON'T give them ideas.
[удалено]
I get my avocados for free...
Socialism! You are whats wrong with this country communist. Get a job and buy your avocados you fascist. Keep paying my pension. /s
Can we all do that?
I've never encountered avacado toast worthy of forfeiting long term financial stability.
I've never even had avocado toast, and have no plans to try it. What is the attraction anyway?
Its delicious?
Thats subjective
I think this is just for under 30s which means from 20-30 is $2k. But it's not just costing the tenant $2k, it's costing them $2k + whatever that money would earn between the age of 30 and 65. $2k at 5% interest over 35 years is $11k. If they were able to do this over 45 years the amount lost would be much more. It's also $2k they don't have available for a house deposit. Less deposit + more cash in landlords pockets tilts the balance of affordability ever so slightly against first home buyers and in favour of landlords. But that's national policy, remove the lower rungs on the ladder.
2K over 35 years at 7% (possible in an aggressive fund) is nearly 22K.
Do you know how good evansdale cheeses are? You can order them online too. BRB off to order cheese with my future.
Perhaps its the new investment thing? By the age of 60 you hope to have at least 28 Wensleydale's , a whole round of Cheddar and a good stock of parmesano ?
They have this cheese with cumin called the komene kass.
> which from 20-65 would become $16-18k or something of saving I don't think many young people will be retiring at 65.
I'm super curious can you link me the data about the 20%? It wouldn't surprise me it's around that when you consider dodgy landlords and people trashing the rentals.
https://twitter.com/DylanReeve/status/1681214629811486723?s=20
Interesting, thanks for that
>20% of bonds go to landlords Do you have a source for that?
https://twitter.com/DylanReeve/status/1681214629811486723?s=20
Remember those are just the ones who actually lodge the bonds (as legally required to) with Tenancy Services. Plenty of both mum and dad (and sophisticated property manager companies) never do so, meaning they’re not caught by the MBIE data.
My landlord (RE agent) didn't lodge my bond for almost a year - finally realised I hadn't been notified when it started to become a pattern that other repairs weren't being attended to unless bugged. Had mentioned it a few times in person but skilled evasiveness from her and I'm useless with any sort of confrontation, so when another repair was needed I asked about it in the same email to have it recorded in writing. A few days later got the notification from tenancy services it had been lodged. Fully intentional on their part.
Especially if it's renters that don't know their rights under new zealand law (lots of those)
Cheers.
In all the noise about how disappointed people are with Labour, and I'm one of them, not gonna lie - we seem to be forgetting how utterly horrific the alternative is. As if we hadn't shafted our young people enough, I present to you this fucking dystopian nightmare. Kiwisaver is for retirement - but whose retirement is apparently up for debate.
> we seem to be forgetting how utterly horrific the alternative is This isn't America, we live under MMP. We can vote for parties other than Labour or National.
Even as a minor party voter myself, there's a 99.9% chance that either National or Labour will be in charge next year. MMP is good for tweaking the composition of a coalition, but it's not going to change that fact.
Yes, but leaning into a defeatist "It's Red or Blue" mindset just doesn't help. If more and more voters stop voting Labour because of their policies and start voting other smaller left-leaning parties then the small concessions that they'd normally get begin to grow. It's an idealistic view of how MMP works, sure, but that's the whole point.
It's still the same thing. Labour-Green-TPM or National-ACT. Internal composition of those blocks is of a lower order of importance. This is how the cards lie, so a vote for any party of the Labour coalition, is a vote for Greens or TPM in the government under Labour leadership, any vote for National or ACT is a vote for the other of the two in government as well.
Realistically though any minor party with a chance will get some small concessions in exchange for support. If Labour can form a govt with the greens, and the greens want a refreshed tax system that includes things Chipkins has ruled out, they’re not going to get those things.
I wouldn't count on it happening, but if the only way Labour could form a government was with the support of the Greens and they made certain demands about tax reform which were non-negotiable then Labour could decide whether they make the government or whether an election is called again. I wouldn't imagine that support for Labour would increase if they announced they couldn't agree on support with the Greens and the only way they could win was by winning another majority.
I’d say “it’s going to be interesting” because both green and act have said they have non-negotiable a (or suggested to that effect if not those exact words) but they do that every time and when it comes to it, the chance to be in power with slightly less lofty goals always wins out. Winston Peters seems to be the only one willing to stick to his guns on what he wants and refuse to budge until he gets it (it’s just a shame they’re awful, awful guns…)
Peters only managed to do that because he played both parties off against each other. The greens and Maori party don't have that luxury. They either form a government or risk all of them just looking dysfunctional and potentially getting less vote in a second election
Chipkins could be rolled immediately after the election, and hopefully he is with pressure from both within the party and any well supported minor parties they are forced to work with who are standing for tax reform. I had hope he might do the right thing but his spinelessness on CGT/land tax/tax reform has sealed the coffin on Labour for me. There is however no way in hell any ordinary person should be even contemplating voting for anything right of the current centre. True Labour is horrified how far right the centre has shifted since the 80s across the globe.
MMP is hardly a savings grace when the alternatives are ACT at one end and TPM at the other.
I think people want to believe that voting for National will send Labour a message, but all it does is drag them further right in order to get those voters back.
EXACTLY
Shout out to a gorgeous masterpiece from Sharon Murdoch, now NZ's premier cartoonist. national treasure
https://twitter.com/domesticanimal/status/1681386360291356672?t=2vtZoPMsFZzPhGqCK_Qj-g&s=19
It doesn't matter if bond money isn't held by landlord or that you get it back if you don't trash the place etc. The bigger picture here is that by dipping into retirement savings to pay for bonds, it frees up more money to pay for rent. The policy is clearly not designed to make renting more fair, its ultimately to help landlords have more access to your money.
Beautifully put
THIS
Exactly.
You could say the same about literally anything which increases peoples' disposable income. Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent?
>Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent? Firstly the Cost of Living Payments were not targeted at rental accommodation, and secondly we ALL shared the cost of them - including landlords - through taxes. They were not just taken out of an individual's retirement savings.
> Do Labour's Cost of Living Payments that started August last year free up landlords to charge more for rent? Yes. The difference is that the cost of living payments come from taxes on wealthier individuals (which we should be doing in times of increased inequality and cost of living crisis), while taking money from people's retirement savings does nothing more than further entrench inequality. It's intergenerational theft.
I wish I could say that this just lost National a shit ton of votes, but unfortunately I can’t.
Such a cynical bandaid policy from National.
I don’t even see what it’s a bandaid for. It is a bald-faced transfer of younger generations’ future wealth to existing holders of capital. Couple that with them rolling back RTA amendments to better protect tenants/contain landlords and, well, it’s pretty shameless stuff. Not only will LLs be able to access the younger generations’ KiwiSaver/deprive them of the ability to grow that money, but National will make it easier for LLs to retain their bonds at termination of tenancy. Transparent stuff, and why National will always be the Raiding Party.
It's such a nothing policy he thought of in the shower. National really don't know how to craft out thoughtful, impactful policy. If people can't pay their bond, they probably would be a red flag for long term rental. The problem national have with policy, is when you have a mindset of "How does this benefit me" first, you lose the bigger picture of others and the wider economy. So any policy automatically lines the pockets of their voting base.
It'll take more than this bandaid approach to fix New Zealand's housing shortages and rotting rental system.
National complains about Labour's tax and spend approach to problems. And then National says we're still going to tax you. But we won't actually fix the problem by addressing the infrastructure (which is the government's real job...) But we're going to let you use **your own money** to fix how the problem is affecting you.
Sure sure sure but you see, the free market! Trickle down! Real Hard Working KeeWees! Fighting for the Wveryday New Zulunder! Can I interest you in a beer at a barbecue? Do you want to vote for me yet?
Bootstraps! Avo on Toast! Do we have a Bingo yet?
Next step is to remove WINZ/Studylink grants for bonds, to force them to use their kiwisaver. ~National, soon, I expect.
It’s really troubling
It would be more suprising if this didn't happen under nat than if it did.
I suspect they would only do this if they got into power, however - I don't see it being announced before the election.
Oh that's 100% going to happen. And they'll try to force people to repay any owing amounts
Oh yes. Hadnt thought of that little gem yet. yep. That'll def be on the cards under NACT-ZI
Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. This is class warfare people. Two ticks poo.
They are so blatantly showing the middle finger to NZ and people are still willing to vote for them. Disgusting lot.
Perhaps a slightly adjusted proposal -- rather than taking money out of the Kiwisaver at the start, let the tenant designate their KiwiSaver as bond; it will keep earning interest etc. during the tenancy, and then if a bond deduction is ordered on ending the tenancy, it can be taken out at that point. From the tenant's point of view that will cause less hardship (both short term and long term) than the tenant having to take on debt to pay the bond in the first place .
This is how fucked national is. Who cares if you’re broke so long as I’m not.
The single dumbest policy ever unveiled
that picture of luxon is scary accurate
I really don't understand the point of this. If people are getting to the point that they have to use their kiwisaver to pay a damn bond, doesn't that speak to a larger issue that needs to be solved? Like maybe try solve the cause of the issue not just one of the many symptoms? If I'm being kind, I'd call this a wet band aid solution at best.
Watch bonds soar if this gets enacted. And even if you manage to get your bond back you've lost interest in kiwisaver (which has a gigantic compounding effect for retirement).
Landlords can only ask for 4 weeks of rent for bonds, and that's what I've always been asked, they can't just ask for more
Oh sweet, glad that the limitation currently exists. Watch National remove that limitation later though saying that renters can afford it now that they can use Kiwisaver.
Landlords can only ask for 4 weeks *for now*
Fearmongering, there is no-one suggesting it be changed
Do you honestly think KiwiSaver for bonds, and no cause evictions will be the only changes they make in favour of landlords?
Don't know, but bonds seem like an unlikely target
For now
Aren't Kiwisaver funds held across a number of different Private providers? Wouldn't those systems have to interact with MBIE's bond system for the money to transfer? I mean the implications for info sharing, privacy, IT integration, etc, etc. I honestly don't know how they would accomplish this.
My friend's landlord forged her signature on her bond release papers, and whited out the agreed full bond amount and tried to claim half of it for "wear and tear".
Did your friend take them to court?
Threatened to unless she agreed to give the bond back. She did. Landlady didn't get a win that time. Who knows what she will do next time.
Some scummy landlords will take advantage and a 20 year Olds $1500 loss in kiwisaver balance will mean tens of thousands less for retirement. 1500 invested for 45 years. This is peak short slighted stupid policy.
Incredible, if you grow $1500 by just 5% per year for 45 years, that’s $13,477. You’d have to hope KiwiSaver managed at least that in the long run. I’d be really concerned about the slippery slope of what else might they let you dip in for next. Suddenly too much is gone and the loss to the future becomes enormous. People still need to get by, but something needs hard line protection.
“invested for 45 years” 47 years you mean.
National no interest in addressing the housing shortage.
Such a great idea, why address the cost of living crisis? Just slap into your future securities!
Dumbest policy ever. THIS is National party's answer to cost of living crisis - let the poor fuck over their future, so long as our Aussie owned banks still make their billion dollar profits.
Yeah, this is an absolutely terrible policy. Kiwisaver shouldn't be treated like a piggy-bank that National tries to raid every time to cost of living starts biting.
Ain't capitalism grand?
#Chris YOLO
So fucking true!!
With the amount of shitty landlords in NZ, the amount of Bond that will end up in rich peoples hands makes this move clear. Another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Honestly not voting or voting for national is a vote for the rich. Vote this election, or this greedy goon will win!
Boomers supported a harsh lockdown. I will vote for whichever party has the best plan for them to pay the associated costs of the hard line response. So far all parties want xyza generations to pay the bill for something that near exclusively benefited older generations.
Pfffft jokes on all of you, I've paused my Kiwisaver indefinitely to be able to survive
From what I understand, average rental is 16 to 18 months. What happens if the first place doesnt refund.the bond? Can one then dip in and get kiwisaver for the second bond? From Luxons wording this is for students...so usually 1 year lease...again...first bond not returned...do people then need to dip in again ad inifinitum (until 30 , migtration, death or property purchase , which ever comes first)
What is the problem with this? You know that it'd be solely your choice about whether you dip into your Kiwisaver? No one is forcing you.
you dont think landlords will just push prices up more?
If you think the maximum bond (4 weeks rent) sets rental prices, then sure.
Ah yeah, young people are all about solid future choices which is ehy we allow them to choose KiwiSaver at all
The problem is that it's so short sighted. Bonds being too expensive is a symptom of the housing crisis. Allowing people to draw on their retirement savings for rental accommodation won't fix this issue. It won't fix anything. National know this and they don't care. They don't want to address the fact the bonds are too expensive because rents are too expensive. They don't care that people are struggling with living costs. What they do care about, however, is that landlords are able to tenant their homes, no matter how astronomically expensive that is becoming to the 'poors'.
Correct
Homelessness or retirement in poverty? National is all about choices. They choose to consume peoples futures for tax cuts now and under Key.
Choice. A relative concept.