It is hardly the Governmentīs responsibility to fund a very expensive racing/sailing syndicate and their multi million dollar salary packages.
That's correct up to a point. It would appear to have been a good investment overall though. A Labour govt would have been involved more heavily because they know how to grow the economy properly, and a promise is a promise.
What was the National Govt doing when they granted Peter Thiel NZ citizenship after he had visited here for just 12 days? Perhaps here is a clue.
“There is no limit on the amount that a New Zealand-based person or company can donate to a candidate or party, provided that they disclose their identity to the recipient. An anonymous donation or an overseas donation cannot exceed NZ$1,500.” https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaig...newzealand.php
We've covered before how Peter Thiel made certain that he made a big financial return out of a Xero investment that he JV'd with the govt. Compared to that, $1mill to the Earthquake fund was not a big deal.
That's correct up to a point. It would appear to have been a good investment overall though. A Labour govt would have been involved more heavily because they know how to grow the economy properly, and a promise is a promise.
What was the National Govt doing when they granted Peter Thiel NZ citizenship after he had visited here for just 12 days? Perhaps here is a clue.
“There is no limit on the amount that a New Zealand-based person or company can donate to a candidate or party, provided that they disclose their identity to the recipient. An anonymous donation or an overseas donation cannot exceed NZ$1,500.” https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaig...newzealand.php
We've covered before how Peter Thiel made certain that he made a big financial return out of a Xero investment that he JV'd with the govt. Compared to that, $1mill to the Earthquake fund was not a big deal.
Fairyland stuff. eZ. Say hi to Tinkerbell and the crowd from me.
Bill doing much better on social media - Andrew a non-event ...
They just need to get those who take notice of sm to get out and vote. However Post Trump & his fixation on and use of sm, is frequenting social media actually a positive thing for a politician?
Just another example of National having more marketing spend, surely. It's made to look unprofessional, but it's not. They've just thrown some money at it.
"Affordable homes" still largely unaffordable in Auckland.
You have at least 2 problems EZ (a) you want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds (b) you don't understand (wilfully) that calendar years are not Budget years and vice versa.
The huge Budget surpluses you are so proud of claiming for Labour were in fact due to Roger Douglas (ACT precursor) from doing such things as flogging off Telecom and all the other Government corporations (and cutting subsidies) and their sale was counted as part of the Budget surplus. So, what do you want to do EZ, oppose the sale of Telecom && or claim credit for the resulting Budget surplus? You can't have it both ways!
(b) as pointed out Roger Douglas successors were busy running down his surplus with election bribes and when it came to the last Budget year, the surplus had gone! Vanished entirely! It's no good quoting the previous Budget year as if it was a calendar year and saying Surplus! Surplus! EZ. The last Budget of Labour was for a Deficit; Labour had spent all of Roger's good work and was now trying some sophistry, some year juggling SOME BIG LIES!
Last edited by Major von Tempsky; 01-07-2017 at 12:24 PM.
You have at least 2 problems EZ (a) you want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds (b) you don't understand (wilfully) that calendar years are not Budget years and vice versa.
The huge Budget surpluses you are so proud of claiming for Labour were in fact due to Roger Douglas (ACT precursor) from doing such things as flogging off Telecom and all the other Government corporations (and cutting subsidies) and their sale was counted as part of the Budget surplus. So, what do you want to do EZ, oppose the sale of Telecom && or claim credit for the resulting Budget surplus? You can't have it both ways!
(b) as pointed out Roger Douglas successors were busy running down his surplus with election bribes and when it came to the last Budget year, the surplus had gone! Vanished entirely! It's no good quoting the previous Budget year as if it was a calendar year and saying Surplus! Surplus! EZ. The last Budget of Labour was for a Deficit; Labour had spent all of Roger's good work and was now trying some sophistry, some year juggling SOME BIG LIES!
MVT, maybe you are numerically challenged. The Labour govt was pushed out in September 2008, just three months into the 2008-2009 financial year. It would be unfair to attribute the rest of the nine months of that year to Labour's policies. National wasn't slow at changing policy settings. R&D credits removed overnight, state servants being sacked, etc.
Maybe Labour had prudently given advance warnings of harder times to come in their budget, but it was Treasury that stretched the data out for another 9-10 years and their worst-case scenario (which couldn't possibly be accurate) was snatched upon by National. That doesn't change the facts - that Labour grew the tax base along with the economy for nine straight years, always posting a strong budget surplus for each financial year, and they also brought through some great policy changes, still in place today.
They did all this while hamstrung with no ongoing dividend payments from the likes of Telecom, a former state-owned enterprise. That sale income was long gone, swallowed up by the following National term.
From the web, approx. 2010:
Many Kiwis are wary of asset sales due to their experience with Telecom, which was corporatised in the late 1980s and sold to US-based Bell Atlantic and Ameritech in 1990. Over the next couple of decades, the company was highly criticised for high pricing, monopolistic practises, excessive executive salaries and poor investment in broadband services.
In the last five or six years, the Government has forced Telecom to unbundle the local loop, (that was Labour of course) lower mobile termination charges and open its network to competitors.
The difference with Telecom is that it was sold off in full – for now, the Government is only proposing partial privatisation.
But regardless, many Kiwis fear that the shares will end up in foreign hands, sending money that would previously been going to the Government or local investors, overseas.
Dr Norman last year said that within six years of being sold, Telecom's dividend payouts had tripled.
"The taxpayer basically funded the construction of a state-of-the-art telephone network and then foreign-owned companies reaped all the profits from that public investment," said Dr Norman.
What utter rubbish from el Zorro and the WEB - "Foreign owned companies reaped all the profits from that public investment" I get a handsome dividend from Spark each year and I can and do buy and sell the shares at will. I can also buy and sell worldwide if I chose to - that is the nature of trade these days. I'm sure Kiwisaver has a few spark shares and others that were sold overseas. Next thing you will want to bring back the customs system that charged duties on anything a traveller had in his suitcase at the border that might have been purchased outside NZ.
What utter rubbish from el Zorro and the WEB - "Foreign owned companies reaped all the profits from that public investment" I get a handsome dividend from Spark each year and I can and do buy and sell the shares at will. I can also buy and sell worldwide if I chose to - that is the nature of trade these days. I'm sure Kiwisaver has a few spark shares and others that were sold overseas. Next thing you will want to bring back the customs system that charged duties on anything a traveller had in his suitcase at the border that might have been purchased outside NZ.
Craic, surely the point is that Telecom/NZ Post comms dept was built up over many generations, with taxpayer money. It was sold cheaply, like NZ Railways, and it was then plundered by private investors until Labour put the brakes on under Helen Clark's govt and made them split out Chorus. It doesn't matter that you now happen to be one of these investors, because the vast majority of taxpayers don't own many, or any, shares. That's also beside the point - MVT implied that Labour had some imaginary supply of easy cash coming through, from the likes of the Telecom sale. That Roger Douglas had provided them a windfall. Far from it.
Helen Clark's govt was all about bringing failing neo-liberal policies back into a sensible balance, and setting NZ up for the future. They achieved that, National had an easier ride through the GFC, they even admitted it when they took over. Didn't stop National making a pig's ear of the job of governing for all, though.
MVT, maybe you are numerically challenged. The Labour govt was pushed out in September 2008, just three months into the 2008-2009 financial year. It would be unfair to attribute the rest of the nine months of that year to Labour's policies. .
Are you serious ? No Government changes course the next day with immediate results to the Government accounts. The fact is that Labour under Clark and Cullen ran down budget surpluses and turned them into huge deficits in their desperation of retaining power at the end of their 3rd term. Of course their populist and very expensive polcies have been largely maintained under National as you have often pointed out, simply because voters think about little other than their own pockets and getting rid of policies that give people large amounts of money for nothing in return, would be political suicide. This applies particularly to Working For Families which is a crazy middle class welfare policy that gives people money they havenīt earned (in many instances) and donīt deserve. Much simpler and cheaper to reduce their tax rates and leave the money with those who earn it in the first place.
But of course this is all pretty irrelevant history now. You should be talking about Labourīs policies for the future. Sadly voters donīt seem to be listening to Little and Labour.
Originally Posted by iceman
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks