今年要不要投行动党？

小盖子

今年这张选票不知该投谁。不喜欢国家党，也不喜欢工党。

Danger_Decibels

每个人都投行动党，就有希望啊

DinC

行动党没戏，别浪费了选票。

鹬鸵圣者

上次投过了，后悔了，以后不会再投行动党了。

小盖子

再看看其中一个Comment
Hugh Tomlinson · Community Mental Health Nurse at Waikato DHB
What sort of warped logic are you using? You have just described foreign investors pushing Kiwi John out of the market and putting the market under inflationary pressure! This may be good for businesses & the wealthy but is a sure recipe for hurting the middle & working classes.

Of course, now Kiwi Jane now has to go out & find another property & will be going up against foreign investors so her extra capital will be wiped out by having to pay another inflated price.

If John & Jane cannot afford to pay the price for a decent property they have to rent - from the very investors that forced them out of the market. On top of this, their rents are going to be higher (because of the inflated market) and that money is now flooding out of the country into foreign bank accounts.

Of course the crowning glory of all this is that New Zealand doesn't have any capital gains tax so these investors will make their huge profits without making any contribution to the economy what so ever.

That's not the New Zealand I want to live in.

小盖子

看看他的观点之一：
Allowing Kiwis to sell their homes to foreigners benefits Kiwis
Jamie Whyte / Blog / Housing
Winston Peters has apparently convinced David Cunliffe that when foreigners buy New Zealand property they make New Zealanders worse off. Mr Cunliffe has announced his intention to adopt Winston Peters’ policy of banning foreigners from buying homes. Even John Key is now saying he will look into the matter.

There is no need to. Mr Peters and Mr Cunliffe are wrong: allowing New Zealanders to sell their homes to foreigners benefits New Zealanders.

To see why, start with the benefit to New Zealanders that occurs when one Kiwi buys a house from another Kiwi. To make the matter simple, suppose Kiwi John buys a house from Kiwi Jane for $500,000.

John must value the house more than the $500,000 he paid for it, otherwise he would have been unwilling to swap this amount for the house. Suppose the maximum he would have paid is $510,000. Then he benefits $10,000 from the purchase, this being the difference between the $500,000 he lost and the value (to him) of the house he gained.

Similarly, Jane must have valued her house at less than $500,000, otherwise she would not have been willing to swap it for this amount. Suppose she would have sold it for no less than $490,000. Then she benefits $10,000 from the sale, this being the difference between the $500,000 she gained and the value (to her) of the house she sold.

So the total benefit of the transaction to Kiwis is $20,000, split evenly between the buyer and the seller.

Now suppose instead that a Foreigner Fred had out-bid Kiwi John. To do this, he must have paid at least $510,001 since, by hypothesis, John was willing to spend up to $510,000. What is the benefit to New Zealanders in this case?

Well, John is where he started, still with his $500,000 and no house. He gets 0 benefit from the sale of Jane’s house to Fred. But Jane’s benefit has risen from $10,000 to $20,001. In other words, the total benefit to New Zealanders has increased by at least $1. (In reality, the net gain will usually be in the thousands.)

Some will be tempted to say that when Foreigner Fred buys the house Kiwi John is $10,000 worse off because he has lost the $10,000 benefit he would have got if Fred had not bid. Fine. But then you must say that, in the initial case, where Fred does not bid, Jane is $10,001 worse off because she has lost the extra $10,001 she would have got if Fred had bid. So the net result ends up the same, with New Zealanders being better off when Fred bids.

And let’s not forget the benefit to Fred, who must have valued the house at something more than $510,001 to have paid this for it. Fred is not a New Zealander, of course, but he is still a human being and his welfare should still be a matter of concern to civilized people.

As this example should make clear, Mr Peters’ policy simply creates a transfer of wealth from Kiwi house sellers and foreigners to Kiwi house buyers, and one that makes New Zealanders worse off as a group. The cost of this transfer is not worth incurring, if only because, over the long run, house sellers and house buyers are the same people.

Indeed, the policy is so economically ludicrous that I suspect its real motivations lie elsewhere. To mangle Samuel Johnson’s famous saying, xenophobia is the last refuge of the political scoundrel.

小盖子

liebestraum 发表于 2014-4-20 10:48
要投，给王小选副党魁一个面子么，显示一下华人的力量，嘿嘿。

考虑行动党，就是因为王小选。觉得这个小伙挺踏实，想支持他一下。

superok

liebestraum 发表于 2014-4-20 10:49
什么那么可怕？

那个领导公开说，乱伦没有问题，弄得新闻界都搞不懂，行动党是不是乱伦党

小盖子

哎，新西兰的政坛怎么都是一群。。。。。。

小盖子

进去行动党的网站看了一下，吓死我啦。他们的党魁简直是个弱智。算了，我这张票还是废了吧！

NewLynnHse

无所谓啦，谁上台都一样