If National wins ...

[elZorro]

No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/update...says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

[iceman]

No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/update...says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

What issue in this instance ?

[blackcap]

No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/update...says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

Im not sure what the issue is elZorro. I saw a copy of "hit and run" in the fiction section of my bookstore the other day....

[craic]

Odds are that Little will make a promise to carry out an enquiry immediately after he his party is elected. I often promise my wife remarkable things if and when I win the Lotto. But I don't buy Lotto tickets. I notice WP says that an enquiry is needed but he hasn't made the promise. He knows that such a promise would alienate a fair block of his supporters.

[Bjauck]

No doubt following internal poll results, Bill decides no need for an enquiry over the contents of "Hit and Run".

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/update...says-jw-201469

How many times have we seen National running away from issues?

Everyone is selective when deciding which issues need to be tackled. Also, one needs to establish sufficient prima facie substance behind the issue prior to committing resources to investigate any allegations.

[blackcap]

Andrew Little painting himself into a corner:


From the Herald
"At the time, the Hagamans gave Little a deadline to apologise and retract his comments, but he refused. Mrs Hagaman said at that point, all the Hagamans wanted was an apology and “minimal” costs: “just a couple of legal letters.”

Mrs Hagaman said in February this year, Little offered the wording of an apology and $26,000.

In response the Hagamans said although they “have no wish to destroy Mr Little by rendering him insolvent,” a more realistic offer was needed.

His return offer of $100,000 was also rejected – Mrs Hagaman said her costs by then were already $215,000 and the wording of the apology was inadequate because it did not state there was no link between the donation and the hotel’s business interest in Niue."

[elZorro]

Andrew Little painting himself into a corner:


From the Herald
"At the time, the Hagamans gave Little a deadline to apologise and retract his comments, but he refused. Mrs Hagaman said at that point, all the Hagamans wanted was an apology and “minimal” costs: “just a couple of legal letters.”

Mrs Hagaman said in February this year, Little offered the wording of an apology and $26,000.

In response the Hagamans said although they “have no wish to destroy Mr Little by rendering him insolvent,” a more realistic offer was needed.

His return offer of $100,000 was also rejected – Mrs Hagaman said her costs by then were already $215,000 and the wording of the apology was inadequate because it did not state there was no link between the donation and the hotel’s business interest in Niue."

Meanwhile Andrew Little has needed to state that he'd cover any awarded court costs personally, it's curious that the amount the Hagamans are seeking ($2mill) is around the level of donations that the party might get this year. They probably can't get that sort of money out of Andrew Little, but I would hazard a guess they intend to cripple Labour's fundraising anyway.

I still say there was a tight timeline between the $101,000 National Party donation and the granting of the lease, and another tight timeline to the spending of millions of taxpayers funds on the same hotel in Niue. It looks highly suspicious. Maybe the case will backfire on the Hagamans. If ever there was a time for some leaked emails between the parties, this is it.

[blackcap]

Meanwhile Andrew Little has needed to state that he'd cover any awarded court costs personally, it's curious that the amount the Hagamans are seeking ($2mill) is around the level of donations that the party might get this year. They probably can't get that sort of money out of Andrew Little, but I would hazard a guess they intend to cripple Labour's fundraising anyway.

I still say there was a tight timeline between the $101,000 National Party donation and the granting of the lease, and another tight timeline to the spending of millions of taxpayers funds on the same hotel in Niue. It looks highly suspicious. Maybe the case will backfire on the Hagamans. If ever there was a time for some leaked emails between the parties, this is it.

Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?

Either way not a good look: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ue-resort-deal

[Bjauck]

I can't agree with part of that simple idea, Iceman. It's easy and fair to put GST across the board, not so with a capital gains tax. Commercial building owners and rental property owners all claim back their interest costs as an expense, and maintenance and general costs too. Private households can't do that, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. ....

To say what I said previously without use the the "i" word:

Commercial owners and property investors claim back interest because their investment in the real estate receives taxable rent income.

Private owner occupier households have the advantage. They in effect rent their investments to themselves. In the NZ tax system, there is no taxable income generated despite value being received from their ownership of real estate. That is why they cannot deduct maintenance and other costs.

The combination of negative gearing and untaxed capital gains, may give the incentive to landlords to borrow so much money to fund their investment that they incur a negative return from their rental property on the expectation tax free capital gain.

All major political parties probably put these in the too hard basket. There could be reform to:
1. Equalise the tax burden faced by those who choose (or are forced to) pay rent out of tax-paid income and those who become owner-occupiers
2. Limit Negative gearing either by amount or period.
3. Tax all capital gains.
4. Allow an inflation deduction for the income/gains from all investments.

[elZorro]

Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?

Either way not a good look: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ue-resort-deal

Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.