- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

14 000 state houses to be privatized by Minister who charges fast food to tax payer credit card, can I upsize my double standards combo please?

'State house for life' axed in review plan
State house tenants would face eviction if a review decided they no longer needed public housing, under a plan proposed by Housing Minister Phil Heatley.

Taking a page out of the UK Conservatives’ orgy of social spending amputations where scorched earth policy has replaced the actual welfare state and where David Cameron has managed to make Margaret Thatcher look reasonable, the Government used the cover of the manufactured Hobbit crises to quietly whisper a new policy to privatize 14 000 state houses in an attempt to off-set anger at the closing of a tax loop hole for rental properties earlier this year. Nothing annoys middle class property speculators around election time more than closed tax loopholes, so by throwing 20% of State houses out to the private sector at low prices, the National Government manage to privatize state assets right when increased numbers of people in poverty are needing more help than ever before.

The ultimate irony is that this mean spirited penny pinching attack on the poor is being implemented by a Minister who was such a tightwad, he charged fast food to his tax payer funded credit card. Phil Heatly aka Unca Scrouge has even managed to make his eviction order for privatization policy sound like a gentle prod, it’s called ‘reviewable tenancy’ as in, Unca Scrouge will review you to a new set of qualifying standards that you’ve had no role in shaping which are designed to throw you out onto the street so he can sell the house off as quickly and as cheaply as possible to large commercial slum lords.

Now, if this all goes horribly wrong and the social disaster of throwing the poor onto the streets for short term financial gain from a Government claiming poverty because they spent all the money on tax cuts that benefit the wealthy turns out to have a negative social impact on the poor, well we can’t blame John Key for that -because it’ll be the Actors Unions fault.


At 26/10/10 7:08 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Wtf? So reviewing current needs after 3, 5 or 10 years is privatization? A leap of faith too far my friend.

Look, peoples circumstances change. A person making 90K doesnt need a state house. Unless they want to buy it, but thats another story. And the privatization is a dog whistle, Housing NZ already lease a number of private properties, and it seems to work reasonably well.

At 26/10/10 8:43 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Oh wow Scott, you must not have watched Phil tell q+a that he was looking to sell off 20% of the state house stock to the private sector yet decided to comment on it with a pre-set justification anyway.

What happened to that moderate 90 day right to sack law you were defending because it was only implemented for small business, yet was magically expanded to all. Your faith in the moderation of National is funny, I can't wait for you to blame this on the Actors Union as well.

At 26/10/10 9:35 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I didnt see Q & A to be fair, its called spending time with ones son. Far better for the soul.

Suffice it to say I read the herald article to which you linked. The article mentions re-evaluating need after a set period of time - seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I actually believe in helping those who need it, and if they can get to the point where they stand on their own two feet then let them, and shift the resources to those who actually need it.

At 26/10/10 1:31 pm, Blogger flemhoof said...

Income related rents are calculated at 25% of your after tax income for low income singles[no partner/kids] and 50% above the low income threshold. The threshold is based on the NZ Super rate."Market Rent" is charged once your income calculation exceeds the market rent. This already exists, there is no need to continue wittering on about when people can stand on their own two feet etc. What does need to happen is a continuation of the rationalization of the housing stock. Three bedroom houses with single tenants are a reality. But not a return to Nationals' disastrous mistakes of the 90s'. What we want to know is when they sell your state house does that affect your IRR? What guarantees against your house being demolished and rebuilt as units?


Post a Comment

<< Home