Yeah, I figured it was a little too meta…my initial reaction was to dismantle the analogy point by point but there’s just too much there:
reacted emotionally as Chinese and not as citizens of New Zealand
Rob Salmond on the Panel, Radio NZ, today.
The tax data shows that between January and March 31 2016, three per cent of property (buyers) transfers, involved people who are registered as an overseas tax resident.
Land Information New Zealand began collating tax data last year to get a better picture of the housing market. However it stresses the data does not amount to a foreign buyers register as overseas tax residency doesn't mean the same thing as nationality.
In the three months of data released, there were 45,114 property transfers.
1158 were where at least one of the property buyers provided an overseas tax residency (three per cent).
321 of those were tax residents of China, 312 were from Australia and 99 from the UK.
When the numbers are broken down to look at the Auckland market, the influence of overseas tax residents is slightly higher at four per cent
I don't think this is exactly vindicating, eh. Conversely I'm already seeing lefty nativists on Twitter convinced that the stats must be wrong.
I just watched Bernard Hickey on Checkpoint who suggests the 3% figure is pretty sketchy and probably under-reports the reality. His logic...
* For a start, 10% of the data is irrelevant because those transactions were exempt because they were "grandfathered" -- commenced before the October 1st start date.
* 35% of the buyers of homes said they were foreign students or had temporary work visas. However LINZ said that they may New Zealanders who misinterpreted the survey question, so they weren't added to the 3% figure. That skews the results hugely.
Hickey reckons the actual number is somewhere between 3% and 48%.
Quite a wide range.
There is also the percentage of murk- where a company or trust is the immediate owner, that falls into the "doesn't count towards the 3% because we don't know the ultimate owners".
That would greatly affect the results, but in this case this you can get a ballpark of the size of the problem,. Possibly naively I would suggest you could:
1) take an old snapshot of the property titles database.
I assume political parties researchers have been doing this. If I can, people who get paid to do so should be able to.
2) take a current snapshot.
3) find all the titles that have changed ownership
4) find what percentage are companies or trusts.
This could be done through data matching, but does lead to the potential problem of "inhuman sounding names" where Mr Transpacific Megacorp Holdings Limited is confused with a similarly named company,. Rather than get into a fight over the classification of a tiny number of properties owned by the Trust family (rather than a family Trust) , I would just classify those as "couldn't tell if owned by a human"
The information released is statistically flawed so is useless for analysis.
Stats is a very principled discipline, break those principles and the data is flawed, welcome to maths 101, bought to you by 1000's of years of mathematical development.
It doesn't stop a maths illiterate like continuity announcer Hoskings commenting like a buffon on what it apparently shows. Dude needs to finish his year 12 and 13 again.
The data gathering on this issue is pathetic and blurry, probably intentionally.
Once again their is a huge problem and we are told to look away because National.