JOHN ELLIOTT: LOCAL NEWS

I have been waiting for new National party leader Chris Luxon to tell us something of his political philosophy, his values, and what he thinks the National party stands for.

I have waited in vain. What Luxon has said is, “We’re back!” Who is back? A new National leadership team, but with what policy and principles?

So now his speech to the nation has been given, and guess what he promised? Tax cuts! Brian Fallow, no raving leftie, said in his Herald article: “against a background of stubborn wealth inequality, changing the tax scales will benefit those on higher incomes most”, and said it looked 'politically tribal'.

Fallow pointed out that someone on $45,000 would save $112 a year, while someone on $85,000 would be little more than $1000 a year better off.

I remember when John Key did the same trick in 2008. He reduced tax for the rich and added GST for the poor. He called it fiscally neutral. It may have been for the government’s revenue, but it simply added to the inequality gap between rich and poor in New Zealand. Luxon’s plan would further exacerbate that inequality which is now nearly the worst in the OECD.

Fallow also talked about Labour’s income insurance scheme, rejected out of hand by National. “It would force everyone to pay for a scheme that will incentivise those who lose their job not to re-enter the workforce for more than half a year,“ cried Luxon.

Fallow’s comment, “to describe the plight of those who lose their jobs through redundancy or illness with such facile condescension is telling.”

There has been raw sewage floating off our beaches, oozing down the wall of Whangarei Hospital. There is mould in hospital wards, there is desperate deferred maintenance in our schools, there are roads and hopefully more rail to build. Just what would Luxon cut to achieve those desperately needed investments in our health, education and wellbeing, and infra-structure.

The New Zealand welfare state was set up by the first Labour Government to provide for the old, the young, the sick and the underprivileged.

Unfortunately we are still dogged by the Roger Douglas free market crap that so privileges the one percent and widens the inequality gap further and further.

Half a dozen richlisters have just given Act nearly one billion dollars in donations. They want their interests looked after, and to hell with the rest of us.

John Key tried hard to pose as the leader of the best managers of the economy, but also caring stewards of support for the poor. He tried to straddle the middle ground. Luxon seems to be eyeing up the true blue right wingers, although Act still has a bunch of those in its pragmatic grasp.

The best news this week was that with climate change so rampant, with wild fires, floods and droughts throughout Australia, there is absolutely no time left for what Greta Thunberg called 'blah blah blah', and New Zealanders have responded in the latest poll with over 12% for the Greens.

Most New Zealanders are social democrats and believe in private enterprise with state back up where needed, but Luxon is already sounding like a neo-liberal of the Thatcher, Reagan or Douglas mould. Not for me thank you. (JOHN ELLIOTT)  PN

St Columba's much-anticipated annual pottery market fundraiser is timed for Friday 6 and Saturday 7 May, 10am - 4pm.

Everything is in place for an amazing two days of new and previous potters providing stunning work of the quality the public has come to expect.

Watch this space for updates and photos!

www.facebook.com/events/849722386425488 /849722396425487/?ref=newsfeed

instagram @stcolumbagreylynn

Max and Sharon had lived in the same house in Browns Bay for twenty years.

They raised a family there, with their two children attending the local schools. Now both grown, Gemma, the eldest, was living in London and Dylan, the younger, was living close to home with his partner, Isobel.

Isobel and Dylan had recently welcomed a child, a beautiful baby girl who as the first grandchild was the absolute light of Max and Sharon’s life. With Isobel heading back to work soon, Sharon was planning to look after the baby three days a week. Isobel was reluctant to return to work so soon, but the reality was that meeting current bills and dealing with rising grocery and petrol prices all while saving for a house just wasn’t possible on one income.

Max and Sharon were concerned that Dylan and Isobel might never be able to get a foot on the property ladder. They were currently renting a two bedroom which was barely big enough with a tiny baby and offered no room to grow. Still, the rent Dylan and Isobel were paying was high enough to prevent saving for a house deposit in a meaningful way.

Max and Sharon started thinking of ways they might help. First, they looked at their own resources. Their house was still situated on a full quarter acre site. They knew they were sitting on valuable land that would become too much for them to maintain in the future. The house itself was a standard issue 1970s style. With four bedrooms, one bathroom and a separate toilet, it was too big for them, but not quite big enough for Dylan, Isobel and the baby to move in with them, saving on rent.

Determined to help, Max and Sharon sat down one Sunday afternoon with Dylan and Isobel to brainstorm. It turned out when Dylan and Isobel combined their savings with their Kiwisaver, they had around $100,000. A lot of money to be sure, just not enough in today’s market.

After much discussion, they concluded that it would be sensible for Max and Sharon to sell their house and pool their money with Dylan and Isobel to buy a property that they could all live in together. This solved two problems: It would allow Max and Sharon to free up some capital for their retirement and it would get Dylan and Isobel on the property ladder. Not to mention all the benefits of having Nan and Grandad on site!

Tammy McLeod The two couples started to look for a home and income situation where one couple could live in the main home and the other in the minor dwelling. It took some time, but they eventually found the perfect place: close to good schools, modern, spacious and within their budget.

The arrangement was that Max and Sharon would own 75% of the property, Dylan and Isobel 25%. Dylan and Isobel’s savings were only 5% of the actual purchase price and so they needed to borrow some money to top them up to 25%. Max and Sharon weren’t in the position to lend them more money, as they needed savings for retirement and had their other child, Gemma to consider. They talked to the bank and understood that while the bank could lend Dylan and Isobel the extra $400,000, Max and Sharon would need to be coborrowers as they would also be on the title to the property.

Realising the complexity of the situation, the two couples decided to get legal advice. They went to see Max and Sharon’s lawyer who explained that these kinds of intergenerational property sharing arrangements were becoming more and more common. She emphasized that even within a trusting family, it was important to have an agreement in place that dealt with all the worst-case scenarios. She had seen things go wrong too many times before. Some issues to consider were:

· What if Dylan and Isobel couldn’t pay their mortgage and the bank looked to Max and Sharon to pay? · Were the outgoings on the property (rates, insurance etc.) to be paid 50/50 or proportionate to their percentages in the property? · What happened if one of the couples separated or someone died? · What would happen if it just didn’t work out, and they no longer desired to live all together on the property?

It felt quite overwhelming, but the lawyer explained it was much better to set the ground rules now in a well thought out property sharing agreement. It ensured all parties were on the same page, avoiding nasty surprises down the line.

There are many ways to help children into property. The property sharing arrangements described in this article are being used not just by parents and children, but often by siblings and sometimes by friends. Pooling resources can be a smart way to get on the property ladder. It is tough at the moment; the traditional methods aren’t cutting it for a lot of people. Thinking outside the square is more important than ever. However, involving more parties in a property can complicate outcomes. Legal advice about the different scenarios and options should be a part of your strategy.

French Blue: An iconic property in the heart of Three Lamps

It’s hard to imagine Ponsonby in the early 1900s when four working men’s cottages sat high and proud on four adjoining sites.

Today French Blue is the only original cottage left, boasting high ceilings, wooden floors and yes over the years kitchen and bathrooms have been modernised.

The location is as special today as it was then. Great sunlight floods the site, while three good sized rooms have served as brilliant offices for the past 13 years. The rear studio with its own courtyard is simply a bonus.

Situated in the heart of Three Lamps where the transport options are plentiful and the lifestyle on offer here is bountiful - from the fabulous wine bars to some of the best food institutions on offer in Ponsonby.

This is certainly a property offering numerous future options. Call or email for more information.

JASON TROWBRIDGE, M: 021 358 888, E: jtrowbridge.ponsonby@ljhooker.co.nz

TROWBRIDGE in association with LJ Hooker Ponsonby

The essence of historic Ponsonby is captured in these walls, one of the four original terraces built on these adjoining sites. Today French Blue has a life of its own, having been used as consulting offices for the past 13 years. The property offers diverse opportunities with many options. Indeed, this location offers a lifestyle of ease and connection if a central home or office is what you are after. The bonus is the garden studio. Generous parking. Transport, cafes, wine bars, restaurants are within metres of the property.

Price by negotiation CV $2,325,000

View Saturday & Sunday 1:45-2:15pm or view by appointment Jason Trowbridge 021 358 888 jtrowbridge.ponsonby@ljhooker.co.nz