This question must be crucial to the 72 hour deliberations about the next 7.2 weeks.
I reckon she's going to.
The MoU will be ripped up, but politely.
Thursday, August 03, 2017
Tuesday, August 01, 2017
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Landlord capture of accommodation subsidies
The following excerpts are from a cabinet paper prepared by MSD, arguing that increasing accommodation subsidies (Accommodation Supplement - AS) won't be exploited by landlords. I am unconvinced if only because of the contradictions in the paper.
For instance, the paper primarily argues that the tenant is likely to spend the extra income from raised subsidies on food, clothing, heating etc. "...rather than more expensive housing".
But it then goes on to make this statement:
Moving out of HNZ properties into the private sector almost always involves paying extra rent.
Which is it to be?
Then consider this:
For instance, the paper primarily argues that the tenant is likely to spend the extra income from raised subsidies on food, clothing, heating etc. "...rather than more expensive housing".
But it then goes on to make this statement:
Moving out of HNZ properties into the private sector almost always involves paying extra rent.
Which is it to be?
Then consider this:
It isn't difficult to imagine a graphic depiction of this. The rent line would be increasing year-on-year, and the AS line would be static.
Yet the graph used in the paper (to argue that landlords have not been capturing the subsidies) shows virtually the opposite:
Of course, these are averages and city rents pose a problem for low income people. But that also means that there are imminently affordable rentals elsewhere.
Here is a prime example of someone spending far too much on rent.
The answer to housing affordability is not to keep on increasing subsidies. The answer lies in increasing supply and tenants actually cutting their cloth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)