Your $12 billion bill

Laughing? Don't, because you are paying it (and will be for a long time).

Could be that you are the taxpayer who who cannot afford to buy your own home - now , you are subsidising those who can, people who took the risk and failed.

We are talking about $12 billion bailout of leaky homes. I have been reading a blog from NZ blogger CACTUS KATE (http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/) and she makes some great points:

Why are Councils (ie ratepayers) and the general taxpayer paying for the mistakes of those who bought homes from people who didn't do the job of developing or building properly? Shouldn't the civil courts take care of that and insurance companies? No, it is the likes of people who are purposefully not into property or deliberately paid more for good quality property that will be burdened with bailing out people who took a risk and lost (buying newly constructed homes).

May seem unfair but if I purchased $500,000 of shares and lost the lot, the taxpayer would never bail me out of that loss. Why is property any different? Move the burden of "leaky building syndrome" back on to the people who took the risk in the first place - the home owner. What does that say to future homeowners? Yes, it encourages them to take more risk. The homeowners should take legal action against Councils issuing the Code Compliance Certificates which should be backed by professional indemnity insurances and builders/developers with likewise. While it may seem unfair to burden the homeowner with this load, how fair is it that other taxpayers and ratepayers now have to stump up for something that they had no business with? The taxpayer has no share of the homeowners upside risk of the home gaining value -so why should they take the burden of the downside risk?

It amazes me that NZ taxpayers are not up in arms about this...I am furious about it!