If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Sure, businesses like that are great. But being niche they are going to be very limited in how many people they actually employ. And as I've said before, if there are way more options available for businesses like this then we'd be doing it already.

Going back to the topic of the thread, politics, how is a CGT (which will capture innovate new businesses) going to promote kiwis trying to start these sorts of businesses? Answer, it's not. It will discourage exactly what you say we need.

I'm really starting to think you're a closet right winger who is to scared to admit it to yourself el Z

Not at all, NBT. CGT wouldn't worry me, it's only a small proportion of a business sale profit anyway. Putting aside the numerous retail and service private sector businesses for the meantime, which need a really healthy economy to prosper, and you are left with manufacturers, exporters and the primary sector. Surely the goal for these business owners should be to bring through new products and services that are capable of earning a good margin and overseas exchange in at least some overseas markets, using NZ labour and expertise.

If you look at manufacturers in NZ, they have been gutted over the last few years since the GFC, 42,000 jobs gone, mostly from quite small businesses. But they can add up, and some grow to be large operations. Manufacturers are in one of the sectors that can employ across the spectrum, they can be sited close to worker populations, they usually have minimal impact on the environment. They also support a lot of other small and large businesses, and contractors. When Labour and the Greens spearheaded a look into manufacturing last term, National didn't even bother showing up.

Here's a CV list of the people looking at Labour's last election campaign. Impressive lineup.

http://campaign.labour.org.nz/review...ource=nzlabour

[fungus pudding]

Not at all, NBT. CGT wouldn't worry me, it's only a small proportion of a business sale profit anyway. Putting aside the numerous retail and service private sector businesses for the meantime, which need a really healthy economy to prosper, and you are left with manufacturers, exporters and the primary sector. Surely the goal for these business owners should be to bring through new products and services that are capable of earning a good margin and overseas exchange in at least some overseas markets, using NZ labour and expertise.

Why should that be their goal? That's just wishful thinking and a huge generalisation.

CGT would not be significant as part of a business sale as you state, but it does elevate the difficulty always present in business sales - that is the diametrically opposed view of vendor and purchaser (or their accountants) of the split between value of plant and goodwill. Australian experience shows that leads to more valuations, arbitrations etc. Not the end of the world but it costs more than just the tax and slows things down. CGT needs to be carefully designed.

[elZorro]

Why should that be their goal? That's just wishful thinking and a huge generalisation.

CGT would not be significant as part of a business sale as you state, but it does elevate the difficulty always present in business sales - that is the diametrically opposed view of vendor and purchaser (or their accountants) of the split between value of plant and goodwill. Australian experience shows that leads to more valuations, arbitrations etc. Not the end of the world but it costs more than just the tax and slows things down. CGT needs to be carefully designed.

It's not wishful thinking, I know for sure that there are opportunities out there with that sort of a return, FP. The problem is usually a lack of capital and/or risk aversion, as smaller businesses can only easily borrow against property. Great if you're into farms, commercial building and rentals, but R&D might involve big staffing costs and a year or two of waiting for the product to get to a sale point. No bank will lend on that.

[fungus pudding]

It's not wishful thinking, I know for sure that there are opportunities out there with that sort of a return, FP.

But it's not for you, me or anyone else to decide what any business owners' goals should be.

[westerly]

el Z re your earlier post, if people don't want to go out and get a better job and earn more because they are not motivated, then they deserve to earn a low wage. It's not up to me or the state to motivate them. And it sure as hell isn't fair for me to pay more taxes to subsidize them either.

The far right supporters of the National Govt, continue to direct policy. Sell off the State owned housing. Let charity provide for the ever increasing poor. The rich will dig into their deep pockets and provide for those who struggle. There aren't many. The rest are lazy good for nothings too tired to get out and educate themselves, find a job and waste any money they have on the TAB, booze, and cigarettes.
John Key suggests they buy an apartment and anyway it is only a supply fault, caused by local councils and their restrictions on land etc. We will modify the RMA to remove any impediment to progress and allow our developer friends to make plenty of money building houses for all the wealthy immigrants we let in.

westerly

[elZorro]

But it's not for you, me or anyone else to decide what any business owners' goals should be.

Which is, of course, what a National voter would say, FP. How about Maria Slade, she has been pro-National in all her articles too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/unli...-wire-rules-ok

The market will sort it out, don't worry? Trouble is, the learning of lessons in the business world can take decades. And meanwhile opportunities for NZ slip by. No harm in the government agencies taking a more proactive stance. It's not expensive, it could easily be argued that it is cashflow positive.

Steven Joyce bandied a few sentences around today, but the record of National's first two terms is not good. No progress, and in fact 42,000 manufacturing jobs go west (or was it east?) since 2008, that can't be good.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11345366

Labour's audited tax credits for R&D could have helped thousands of SMEs along the path to more profits since 2008, but that would not have allowed National to pick winners, would it?

[fungus pudding]

Which is, of course, what a National voter would say, FP.

That's a ridiculous remark. It has nothing to do with whoever a business owner votes for or their political beliefs. They're in business to make a living - not to save the world.

[elZorro]

That's a ridiculous remark. It has nothing to do with whoever a business owner votes for or their political beliefs. They're in business to make a living - not to save the world.

You can call me a namby-pamby do-gooder, but I'm in business to make a dollar too. I'm just saying that you can earn above average income, be an exporter and an employer, and the IT or manufacturing sector are good places to do that from. The benefits to NZ from those types of industry are diverse, so how is it that the National government is doing a relatively poor job of helping these sectors? They are admittedly good at importing hardware for fibre installs, and tar and trucks for roading, trains and wagons. That is costing us foreign exchange, not earning it.

[nextbigthing]

You can call me a namby-pamby do-gooder, but I'm in business to make a dollar too. I'm just saying that you can earn above average income, be an exporter and an employer, and the IT or manufacturing sector are good places to do that from. The benefits to NZ from those types of industry are diverse, so how is it that the National government is doing a relatively poor job of helping these sectors? They are admittedly good at importing hardware for fibre installs, and tar and trucks for roading, trains and wagons. That is costing us foreign exchange, not earning it.

Not one of your better posting days el Z. National are building infrastructure, like the fibre you mention. Fibre is vital if we want to be ahead of the world as you want. How can we compete with crappy net. My friend in Sydney working in IT is jealous of the speeds we get here. Tell me National has done a bad job....

Secondly, you think a Labour government lead by a bunch of union leaders, 'beltways' and girls on work experience would be better at running businesses then the leaders of those businesses themselves? Get your hand off it el Z.

You're clutching at straws trying to force an argument that National aren't doing well. Maybe they actually are doing a pretty good job. It's OK to admit it el Z. It's OK to support the center right. The cognitive dissonance will pass

[elZorro]

What have you been reading NBT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

No, I'm not conflicted over Labour values in general. You have failed to make a case against most of my arguments so far, and you have to realise that the Labour party is a lot more broad-based than you think it is. Labour doesn't try to run businesses. They will have ideas to lead them in certain directions, for the common good. Labour also leave behind good strong policy during their terms, which is not unwound by National.

At the moment, under National, the tax take has just about recovered to where it was in 2008. Govt costs are about the same. Employment as a percentage is down, unemployment is up, GDP/capita is recovering post GFC but is well behind Australia's. Manufacturing jobs are well down, hardship is more prevalent in many suburbs of NZ. Our crown debt is still rising quickly from almost a net zero under Labour. It's now more than an entire year's govt income. House prices in major cities are leaping ahead, a statistic National said they'd sort out. Exports as a percentage of GDP, also way below target.

I think you'll have to admit that National has done very little to steer NZ into better waters, they have only managed to keep the ship afloat by borrowing and hoping.

In fact, core crown residual cash won't return to surplus until at least 2017/18, based on latest Treasury figures.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/f...fu2014/016.htm