If National wins ...

[craic]

B

Councils have very real costs, like pumping water around the city to great heights and pressures, lighting up streets all night. It would all be a bit easier if every landowner paid higher local body rates. Now who's squawking?

Any suggestion that local councils are sensible or open to reason is nonsense.
I share a front gate with my neighbour. We are both rural blocks. My neighbour wanted town water on and paid the $2,000 or so to have a pipe across the street to a water metre on his boundary. I suggested a second pipe, in the same trench to a twin water metre for my block at the same cost. Council refused and missed out on virtually a free $2000 and ongoing water rates. The reason - I would have to pay for a water main along the street to the next block at a five-figure cost If I wanted the water. But the next block does not want town supply - they have a bore.
To add insult to injury, I had to pay costs to the city council for "permission to remove an existing house" from a town site (to this site). Fine - but it was their house that they were selling and which I had bought.

[elZorro]

Any suggestion that local councils are sensible or open to reason is nonsense.
I share a front gate with my neighbour. We are both rural blocks. My neighbour wanted town water on and paid the $2,000 or so to have a pipe across the street to a water metre on his boundary. I suggested a second pipe, in the same trench to a twin water metre for my block at the same cost. Council refused and missed out on virtually a free $2000 and ongoing water rates. The reason - I would have to pay for a water main along the street to the next block at a five-figure cost If I wanted the water. But the next block does not want town supply - they have a bore.
To add insult to injury, I had to pay costs to the city council for "permission to remove an existing house" from a town site (to this site). Fine - but it was their house that they were selling and which I had bought.

Craic, it does sound like you were shortchanged there. I have close relatives who have worked in councils at a mid-tier level, so in a way we have received our rates back no problem, and I don't begrudge the annual amount, after seeing all the background work that is involved.

I have had one issue with TransitNZ, and by writing letters and sticking to a position, researching it, I was able to get them to use reason and compromise. That saved me over $30,000.

Lately I'm looking into the rules around signage. You wouldn't think that a low-profile local council would have written a text document regarding signs that is 24 pages long, which has been in force for over 15 years, and yet many of their points and rules seem valid.

On a first glance I will be able to put up a sign the size of a postage stamp, with letters at least 160mm high, no more than 40 characters, not confusing or distracting to motorists, this sign cannot obstruct any other signs from any position on the road, it'll be at least 5mtres away from the road, tall but not wide, cannot look like a traffic sign, etc, etc. In my case I'll be trying to put a new sign onto a plinth that is already in place and has had existing exposure, even if it may never have been authorised by the previous property owner.

Not having a near-road sign may have hampered my business, and the rules do make some mention of economic benefit being something they'll consider. But if I have to spend several thousand dollars getting approval for a sign that will cost say $1,000 to put up, I will have to defray the project. It's interesting to see some businesses on open road parts of SH1 with multiple signs, each just below the size limit, but which have the clear potential to distract drivers. Time will tell what happens to my small project.

Labour is happy enough to work with National on parts of the RMA laws, but not in the fundamental additions to parts 6 and 7, which will probably need 10 years of new case law to establish the new intent. This is the scary part, National railroading new laws and law changes just because they can, without being held to account. I am genuinely worried about the next three years.

Interesting article about the wealthiest 200 in NZ, each controlling more than $50mill of investments.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11392100

Almost all of them have declared personal income below $70,000, have an average of 34 companies they are involved in, have on average under-declared earnings or over-estimated losses, to reduce taxes due by $385,000 last year.

[iceman]

Don't let facts stand in your way EZ to get your point across. How can 93/200 be " almost all" ?
Too many I agree but why not just quote the article correctly !

Interesting article about the wealthiest 200 in NZ, each controlling more than $50mill of investments.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11392100

Almost all of them have declared personal income below $70,000, have an average of 34 companies they are involved in, have on average under-declared earnings or over-estimated losses, to reduce taxes due by $385,000 last year.

[777]

And of course none of them would be Labour voters. They are so clean and pure.

[elZorro]

Don't let facts stand in your way EZ to get your point across. How can 93/200 be " almost all" ?
Too many I agree but why not just quote the article correctly !

I'm sorry, I should have double checked that 94 figure, I thought it was 94%. I got the rest right though? Which means that as only some of the top 200 people were thought to have infringed tax law intent, some of their shortchanging would have been in the millions of dollars per person, for one tax year.

In answer to 777, yes, some may even be Labour voters. I was working alongside one very Christian chap in the campaign, who was involved in left-wing protests over the years, and who paradoxically owns several rentals, one of which he reluctantly sold over a shortish time period but without paying any tax on the proceeds. Don't think he's in the $50mill area of course, but it did give me pause for reflection. I still say there must be more productive assets out there, and yes, they are a bit riskier.

[westerly]

I'm sorry, I should have double checked that 94 figure, I thought it was 94%. I got the rest right though? Which means that as only some of the top 200 people were thought to have infringed tax law intent, some of their shortchanging would have been in the millions of dollars per person, for one tax year.

In answer to 777, yes, some may even be Labour voters. I was working alongside one very Christian chap in the campaign, who was involved in left-wing protests over the years, and who paradoxically owns several rentals, one of which he reluctantly sold over a shortish time period but without paying any tax on the proceeds. Don't think he's in the $50mill area of course, but it did give me pause for reflection. I still say there must be more productive assets out there, and yes, they are a bit riskier.

Just as interesting was the $112 million these wealthy people were disputing. No doubt highly paid legal an accounting retainers were doing their best to foil the IRD Do not think there are too many Labour voters involved going by the finances of the Labour party.

westerly

[elZorro]

Just as interesting was the $112 million these wealthy people were disputing. No doubt highly paid legal an accounting retainers were doing their best to foil the IRD Do not think there are too many Labour voters involved going by the finances of the Labour party.

westerly

Based on the election results, and what I saw here during the campaign, I think you are right, Westerly. PM me, if you want to see data in that area. All the best.

I'm very surprised that there aren't some National Supporters defending the rights of the already well-off to Defraud the Government and the Average Taxpayer on such a big scale. Not too many ways of supporting that, but there must be some, surely? All Quiet on the Western Front.

Note to self: $77mill is about twenty-five times the amount of funding needed for an election campaign, if you follow the rules.

Someone sent me this link about what politics may hold for us in 2015. It links to a whole lot of articles, I looked at the last two, good for a belly laugh.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11392562

Good on you, Eleanor Catton.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainm...ectid=11392635

[elZorro]

Another really good summary of opinions, in this research article from Bryce Edwards, on the RMA. It must take a long time to put something like this together. Very useful at the moment, with the main leaders' presentations today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11391312

[Sgt Pepper]

I know John Key is a few fries short of a happy meal, but mandating flags at half mast for the late Saudi monarch??. Yet despite being present in Colombia last year when the Venezuelan President died, he was "too busy" to attend. The National Party is being rather selfish, keeping John Key as leader is depriving some village of its idiot.

[westerly]

I know John Key is a few fries short of a happy meal, but mandating flags at half mast for the late Saudi monarch??. Yet despite being present in Colombia last year when the Venezuelan President died, he was "too busy" to attend.

It is part of the subscription to the club. We blindly follow.

westerly