If National wins ...

[elZorro]

What was the time and cost of your claim? I know many companies that claimed in the millions. The Big 4 set up specialist teams so they were obviously expecting it to earn some serious money.

I don't like Labours scheme - too much effort for a special claim.
I don't like Nationals scheme as it picks winners.

Not sure what the solution is but needs to be simple.

Hello HS, I printed off all the background info, read it up and did the claim myself using staff timesheets, with about 2-3 hrs help from an accountant. I claimed on several small projects. It took several evenings I remember, but it would be a lot easier next time. MED was quite happy with the small claim report I sent in, one phone call from a staff member to confirm it was approved. Maybe some big firms claimed for costs in the millions, but of course the rebate was only 15% of suitable costs. They would have been carefully audited too. My point is not that big firms shouldn't be allowed the credits, they certainly should. But the scheme is equally suitable for small firms like mine. And we all have ideas worth taking a good look at.

[elZorro]

[QUOTE=iceman;475890]

Iceman, where did the figure of 23,700 lost jobs come from?[/QUOT

From a conversation I had with a trusted source. I can not read anything from that chart you posted !

Sorry about that, I needed some expert help there. Now the chart is labelled, although it reads backwards. I've also supplied a 6 monthly table of the actual data from mid 2007 onwards. Manufacturing as defined by StatsNZ doesn't appear to include IT work or software.

Between June 2008 and December 2013, there was a drop of 41,900 manufacturing jobs, of which 35,200 were fulltime, 3,800 part-time, and 4,100 less working proprietors. So the figure of 1,700 less manufacturing businesses over the period, is well in the ball-park. These are not charts you can get from StatsNZ without digging down into the data and turning off the other categories within their framework.

What is scary about this data, is that these are jobs that suit many people during their working lives, with a range of skills and educational backgrounds. Take these away, and some people don't have a lot of job options left.

[fungus pudding]

If I read this right, in your mind FP, there is not a chance that the collective thought processes of govt dept boffins or politicians could generate any useful policy that will make any difference in NZ (in other words, they will not ever fulfil the jobs they were elected into, or were paid for). It would be far better to leave it all to the vested interests of private business owners, as to what direction the country takes.

This lines up with your own business view that an SME without any staff is a lot easier to run and more profitable, despite the fact that these types of SMEs rely on other businesses with employees, generally, in order to survive.

That is not relevant to the fact they are easier to run. I don't recall saying they were more profitable. Of course they can be, but such a massive generalisation could hardly be right. I'm far too soft to be a boss anyway. No doubt you'd be a massive fan of that sad-sack Matt McCarten who once said it should be compulsory for all businesses to take on one more employee.

[elZorro]

That is not relevant to the fact they are easier to run. I don't recall saying they were more profitable. Of course they can be, but such a massive generalisation could hardly be right. I'm far too soft to be a boss anyway. No doubt you'd be a massive fan of that sad-sack Matt McCarten who once said it should be compulsory for all businesses to take on one more employee.

I think I recall you posting that you'd never employ anyone again, that it was too much bother. But it would partly solve having to pay too much tax in the meantime, another issue you had. Of course if the employee worked out, like Matt McCarten suggested, you'd eventually have to pay a lot more tax

[fungus pudding]

I think I recall you posting that you'd never employ anyone again, that it was too much bother. But it would partly solve having to pay too much tax in the meantime, another issue you had. Of course if the employee worked out, like Matt McCarten suggested, you'd eventually have to pay a lot more tax

Yes, it's too much bother. That is an entirely different thing. I have no objection to paying tax. I do object to progressive tax on income; again a different thing.

[iceman]

An article on another of Labour's great legacies http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-...oney-dc-154924

[fungus pudding]

An article on another of Labour's great legacies http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-...oney-dc-154924

Slimy Michael Cullen told us that by removing interest students would repay the principal sooner because they would be able to. Even he knew that was b/s when he said it.

[elZorro]

Poor, middle aged Dan Lowe was part of the cohort who had to pay student loans plus interest. I was in a previous cohort that was virtually fully funded by the state (fees, plus accommodation via bursary). So Labour's idea to provide interest free loans simplified everything, which must have saved a lot of administrative costs, and was also fairer to the latest generation. After all, who decides what proportion of the uni fees students pay, and what proportion the state pays? And who cares if international students who have already been here three years, get the same loans? Some universities need those students, to keep respectable numbers.

As someone commented, interest free loans divert some secondary students into tertiary training, instead of onto the dole queue. Which would be more expensive long term, or even short term? Shouldn't our government be far more concerned with ensuring there are suitable jobs for all who are able to work, right now?

But that would take a bit of research and some positive adjustment to the market, not something National is interested in. What they are more keen on, is reducing the size of some state employers (not all), and increasing the pool of those who need more work hours for extra income, so as to place a strong clamp on wages.

In the paper the other day, I read about a food manufacturer who decided to pay all staff at the liveable wage, or higher. For most staff, it was an immediate 25% pay increase. The result has been that the staff no longer needed govt topups, staff turnover was lower, so in the longer term the business will have less risk from untrained workers in the start of their tenure. But also, it was the case that the business shouldered more of the real costs of a person with (usually) family expenses in paid employment, rather than expecting the govt to help cover it. The business didn't go belly up, and probably because it was a strong, profitable business before that decision, and is now stronger again. Staff are a very big business asset, but they don't appear on the balance sheet, unless you call that goodwill.

[winner69]

They are indeed. And all too often completely overlooked by our "captains of industry" in their various pronouncements and announcements. Don't believe me? Have a look thru HY and FY market announcements and see how many times thanks or praise appears for a company's staff.

And often the capitalised value of that human endeavour is greater than what equity investors have in it ...now that gets the "captains of industry" wound up if ever mentioned.

[craic]

Can we please change this Topic to "When Labour loses, again, in 2014"