PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

westerly
19-04-2015, 10:32 AM
Thanks for that BP. I had a quick look, and I see that a policy change from the Health Ministry in late 2013 is behind some of the issues. If you are an overseas trained doctor of medicine with appropriate matching qualifications and have passed any NZ tests needed, and may even have some years of work experience overseas, you still need to do a year or two as a junior intern in a NZ Hospital. Except the applications for such jobs are screened by a software package first, called the Ace Matching System. In late 2013, the settings on this software were changed, so that only NZ or Aussie-trained people could be entered into it.


Now that is one nasty government policy that you wouldn't expect from a market-driven party like National. Yes, we'll have new doctors all right, but only if they are trained in NZ or Australia. There is no way that these latest overseas-trained people from further away, who are now domiciled in NZ and are bringing up their families here, can work in their chosen profession as certified doctors.
[/LIST]

The ACE program appears to only apply to medical graduates applying for their first house doctor appointment with DHBs and is not relevant to qualified doctors from overseas.

westerly

elZorro
19-04-2015, 11:23 AM
The ACE program appears to only apply to medical graduates applying for their first house doctor appointment with DHBs and is not relevant to qualified doctors from overseas.

westerly

I'm not sure about it Westerly, but I think the recent rule change means that even if someone has trained to be a doctor overseas, and perhaps has some practical experience, they can't do a final year of probation in NZ, so they can practice here. They are locked out of the process. There's a fair bit about it on the web, looks genuine.

Daytr
19-04-2015, 11:26 AM
Government has oversight & policy control over factors that are contributing to the Auckland property bubble. Namely immigration & tax, then there are more indirect elements such as infrastructure & urban planning which is co-owned by central & local government. National has done nothing in regards reigning in immigration at a time when migration of Kiwis has reduced substantially & they haven't done anything in regards tax on property or capital gains. Their policy s to increase supply that will place more pressure on infrastructure & see Auckland spread further. Why, because they are relying on immigration for growth. Fungus is correct it will come to an ugly end at some point as it is unsustainable, however it could also run for some time if immigration levels are maintained. The Sydney market has been running hard since the early 90s. It could quite likely be an external factor that pricks the bubble. Meanwhile average Kiwis are being priced out of the market.

BlackPeter
19-04-2015, 11:30 AM
Just how highly qualified are all these people? From my own experience there seem to be plenty of Indian and other nationalities working in the health system. I for one do not want someone with dubious qualifications being let loose to treat patients. There are any number of immigration consultants working to get people into NZ Just because someone turns up and says he or she is qualified in whatever profession does not mean we must accept there word. A competency test and and certification of their qualifications is essential.

westerly

Oh dear - you sound like the guy who told me once that Kiwis are the best builders in the world - he just never has seen any other place than NZ (and frankly had no clue of what qualifications and skills are required to set up a proper building (but the bungalows dominating the NZ landscape). Ah yes, this was after I showed him that the way he roofed houses inevitably resulted in leaks - but hey, this is why you guys need to even "treat" timber which is used inside of buildings - isn't it?

While we agree that qualifications are important for medical staff, and while I agree that most New Zealand medical staff has been adequately trained (at one time or another) - I have seen in this country as well incompetent but arrogant medical professionals, and none of these black sheep was trained abroad. I have seen as well outstanding medical professionals in other parts of the world - and believe me the chances to get a properly trained and skilled doctor or not just caring but qualified nurses are in many parts of the world at least as good (and some would say better) than here in New Zealand.

The medical training here might be adequate, the attitude and professionality of the staff sometimes is, and sometimes is not. Basic things like hygiene in NZ health facilities (particularly state owned) is often neglected. I have seen New Zealand cleaning staff whizzing though isolation wards without any protection for the (quite sick) patients. The health "professionals" around didn't care or choose not to notice. I have seen acute sick patients in need of isolation due to a break down of their immune system dropped into rooms where still the dishes of the last (infectious) patient were laying around. I have seen cleaning staff disinfecting dirt instead of removing it in hospital wards. Ever wondered why we breed in this remote island that many "superbugs"?

No reason for NZ too be particularly proud of its health system - and the fact that we don't accept often better trained health professionals from other countries has nothing to do with the desire for having a good health system. It is based on ignorance and protectionism.

Just lets take a quite obvious example - a qualified German doctor (or nurse) are for example not allowed to work in their trained profession in New Zealand. Do you really think that their training in Germany is worse than what the health professionals learn around here? Really?

elZorro
19-04-2015, 12:10 PM
Not sure what you mean with it being NIMBY. We don't have this problem here in sunny Nelson so it isn't really an issue for me personally. I don't have any silver bullet for solving AUCKLAND's housing crisis EZ, but most certainly don't think an ill thought out full of holes CGT will do anything to solve it. In my view, any CGT (wealth tax) that may work is a comprehensive one which includes all asset classes including the family home.
Changing the RMA to speed up consent process and more and quicker land supply is definitely an issue. I have little doubt that the future in Auckland at least, lies in much more apartment living. Local Government needs to get their act together to facilitate this much much faster.
Some form of immigration control or distribution of new immigrants more around the country would help ease pressures in Auckland.
Banks rules need to change so banks are less interested in lending to residential investors and more interested in lending to businesses, especially promising start ups.

Not sure either what you mean by "restore fairness to the tax issues in NZ" . Am I correct in reading that as you wanting the more than half of "tax payers" in NZ that are net recipients of Government funds to start paying their way, or are you advocating taxing the rich bastards (even more) like Cullen did ?

First, I really like your idea of having some bank rules enforced that made it easier to start up or expand a business. You shouldn't have to buy a house and demonstrate paying some of it off first, as a prerequisite. Although I guess that's showing a bit of get-up-and-go.

You and FP appear to have similar ideas on a CGT, yes it's OK as long as every homeowner has to pay too. Of course, you realise that this will make it very hard to sell as an idea to the nation, hence it'll stay on the back-burner. Take your own house out of it, and it's fairer. We all know it'll be fairer, because homeowners don't get to claim their interest costs as an expense, or any materials and time they might spend doing up their homes in their spare time after work. They'll often overspend on their own homes too. So why would we then be happy to pay a CGT on the asset value and inflation increase over the years? Even at a low average rate, it's still not cricket.

Rental and commercial properties are different. All maintenance and interest costs can be claimed back as expenses, you can depreciate parts of the building, a tenant in a commercial building may have to cover all internal fitout, etc. At the moment, the yield on rentals might be lower than 5%. In other words, the only thing making these recently-purchased assets look good for the owners, is the tax free capital gain. That's unfair for those who pay taxes and pseudo-taxes via GST, fuel and power prices etc, on everything that they buy (except rent, accepted).

fungus pudding
19-04-2015, 02:37 PM
First, I really like your idea of having some bank rules enforced that made it easier to start up or expand a business. You shouldn't have to buy a house and demonstrate paying some of it off first, as a prerequisite. Although I guess that's showing a bit of get-up-and-go.

You and FP appear to have similar ideas on a CGT, yes it's OK as long as every homeowner has to pay too. Of course, you realise that this will make it very hard to sell as an idea to the nation, hence it'll stay on the back-burner. Take your own house out of it, and it's fairer. We all know it'll be fairer, because homeowners don't get to claim their interest costs as an expense,


Nobody claims their expenses from anybody. Silly terminology. They pay tax on profit and interest cost reduces their profit Homeowners get a benefit that they are not taxed on - hence there is nothing to deduct interest from. Nevertheless, if a CGT is brought in on property it should be on all property to avoid encouraging mansion building and to level the advantage owners have and tenants do not. Then again - they could always make rents tax deductible, which of course would drive rents higher .... and whoops there we go again. Another possible CGT consequence. It's a tricky thing to design a CGT scheme properly. Certainly we wouldn't want to copy Australia or the Poms' dreadful scheme.

elZorro
19-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Nobody claims their expenses from anybody. Silly terminology. They pay tax on profit and interest cost reduces their profit Homeowners get a benefit that they are not taxed on - hence there is nothing to deduct interest from. Nevertheless, if a CGT is brought in on property it should be on all property to avoid encouraging mansion building and to level the advantage owners have and tenants do not. Then again - they could always make rents tax deductible, which of course would drive rents higher .... and whoops there we go again. Another possible CGT consequence. It's a tricky thing to design a CGT scheme properly. Certainly we wouldn't want to copy Australia or the Poms' dreadful scheme.

Point taken FP, but we both know the tax situation: landlords effectively pay about 2/3rd the rate of interest of ordinary homeowners, as they can claim all of the interest as an expense in their books, and will generally be paying tax on the second income at around 33% or less. Of course the rental will often generate a trading loss each year, which reduces the final tax that would be paid on their primary income. I guess the rule for CGT would be: if you are allowed to claim interest on an asset as an expense, it falls within the CGT criteria. This excludes your own home, homes in trusts, artworks, collectibles etc.

My point is about the difference between ordinary homeowners and landlords, regarding capital gains. You pointed out that homeowners are in turn, better off than renters. Not by much over the last few years, and who knows what is around the corner. It all depends what parts of the cycle you get in and get out. Landlords tend to get the timing better by acting over longer terms. Owning your own home isn't a business, but buying another to rent out to someone, is.

fungus pudding
19-04-2015, 03:59 PM
Point taken FP, but we both know the tax situation: landlords effectively pay about 2/3rd the rate of interest of ordinary homeowners, as they can claim all of the interest as an expense in their books, and will generally be paying tax on the second income at around 33% or less. Of course the rental will often generate a trading loss each year, which reduces the final tax that would be paid on their primary income. I guess the rule for CGT would be: if you are allowed to claim interest on an asset as an expense, it falls within the CGT criteria. This excludes your own home, homes in trusts, artworks, collectibles etc.

My point is about the difference between ordinary homeowners and landlords, regarding capital gains. You pointed out that homeowners are in turn, better off than renters. Not by much over the last few years, and who knows what is around the corner. It all depends what parts of the cycle you get in and get out. Landlords tend to get the timing better by acting over longer terms. Owning your own home isn't a business, but buying another to rent out to someone, is.

The landlord earns the rent less the interest. He/she doesn't earn or own the interest bit - someone else does, and that someone else pays tax on it.

Major von Tempsky
19-04-2015, 06:07 PM
Hmmm, first poll post Northland by-election on TV tonight. National and Labour on 49% and 31% both unchanged from before the byelection, NZ First up 2 or 3 (forget which), John Key up a bit, Andrew Little down a bit.

Hardly the game changer that EZ and Daytr were representing the byelection result as....

elZorro
19-04-2015, 06:15 PM
The landlord earns the rent less the interest. He/she doesn't earn or own the interest bit - someone else does, and that someone else pays tax on it.

No, your argument doesn't wash, FP. You're saying that generally the two major figures in the profit/loss accounts for landlords are Rental Income (Cr), and Interest Expense (Dr). As well as inflation and appreciation paying off the asset for landlords over time, the interest cost and maintenance expenses will initially exceed any income, often resulting in a tax refund from the govt. This is normally offset against PAYE or other income tax due by the landlord, from other activities in the same year.

Normally in a trading activity, the taxes and tax refunds carry on through each stage until the end-user, in this case the renter, is stuck with the full cost on their tax-paid income. Yes, it's true that landlords' activities help keep banks afloat and that they, in turn, pay taxes on their substantial profits, if they can be pinned down properly that is.

But is it not also true that the game being played by many landlords is generally to keep overall interest costs close to rental returns, by buying more assets over time, not worrying about any capital repayments, just inflation and appreciation in heady markets sustained by more immigration? This plan works fine when everything is moving up, not so good when it's going the other way. A lot of rental houses came back on the market in the last downturn.

It's a business, sometimes a risky business, but it doesn't employ many in view of the capital used, it doesn't export anything, it sometimes slows the regeneration of housing stock, and the owners of these businesses don't work many hours, or end up paying any tax on their gains, or much tax while they are trading. A normal commercial business can be built from the ground up, will probably employ people (PAYE), and to be successful will need to reward the hardworking owner every year, and pay taxes, (income) plus collect and forward GST unless they are exporting. At the moment any capital gain in the business is also tax-free on sale, but you see the difference? The business will have needed to pay tax all the way through, or offer real potential, to be worth anything to a buyer. Not so with rental properties. They are worth what the market says they are worth, and other entrants to the rental market help set that price at every auction.

westerly
19-04-2015, 06:41 PM
Oh dear - you sound like the guy who told me once that Kiwis are the best builders in the world - he just never has seen any other place than NZ (and frankly had no clue of what qualifications and skills are required to set up a proper building (but the bungalows dominating the NZ landscape). Ah yes, this was after I showed him that the way he roofed houses inevitably resulted in leaks - but hey, this is why you guys need to even "treat" timber which is used inside of buildings - isn't it?

While we agree that qualifications are important for medical staff, and while I agree that most New Zealand medical staff has been adequately trained (at one time or another) - I have seen in this country as well incompetent but arrogant medical professionals, and none of these black sheep was trained abroad. I have seen as well outstanding medical professionals in other parts of the world - and believe me the chances to get a properly trained and skilled doctor or not just caring but qualified nurses are in many parts of the world at least as good (and some would say better) than here in New Zealand.

The medical training here might be adequate, the attitude and professionality of the staff sometimes is, and sometimes is not. Basic things like hygiene in NZ health facilities (particularly state owned) is often neglected. I have seen New Zealand cleaning staff whizzing though isolation wards without any protection for the (quite sick) patients. The health "professionals" around didn't care or choose not to notice. I have seen acute sick patients in need of isolation due to a break down of their immune system dropped into rooms where still the dishes of the last (infectious) patient were laying around. I have seen cleaning staff disinfecting dirt instead of removing it in hospital wards. Ever wondered why we breed in this remote island that many "superbugs"?

No reason for NZ too be particularly proud of its health system - and the fact that we don't accept often better trained health professionals from other countries has nothing to do with the desire for having a good health system. It is based on ignorance and protectionism.

Just lets take a quite obvious example - a qualified German doctor (or nurse) are for example not allowed to work in their trained profession in New Zealand. Do you really think that their training in Germany is worse than what the health professionals learn around here? Really?

The Medical Council of NZ on it's website says there are 12000 doctors in NZ, 40% of whom were trained overseas and originate from 100 countries.
It cannot be too difficult to practise in NZ
As for your comments, you seem to be an expert on building, health and hygiene and probably many other things but no where did I suggest NZ was superior to other countries in it's health system.
I stand by my comments on the need for competence to be proved before practicing medicine is permitted.
As for treated timber, radiata pine is a soft wood and is generally treated to prevent insect damage .when used internally.

westerly

fungus pudding
20-04-2015, 07:45 AM
No, your argument doesn't wash, FP. You're saying that generally the two major figures in the profit/loss accounts for landlords are Rental Income (Cr), and Interest Expense (Dr). As well as inflation and appreciation paying off the asset for landlords over time, the interest cost and maintenance expenses will initially exceed any income, often resulting in a tax refund from the govt. This is normally offset against PAYE or other income tax due by the landlord, from other activities in the same year.

Normally in a trading activity, the taxes and tax refunds carry on through each stage until the end-user, in this case the renter, is stuck with the full cost on their tax-paid income. Yes, it's true that landlords' activities help keep banks afloat and that they, in turn, pay taxes on their substantial profits, if they can be pinned down properly that is.

But is it not also true that the game being played by many landlords is generally to keep overall interest costs close to rental returns, by buying more assets over time, not worrying about any capital repayments, just inflation and appreciation in heady markets sustained by more immigration? This plan works fine when everything is moving up, not so good when it's going the other way. A lot of rental houses came back on the market in the last downturn.

It's a business, sometimes a risky business, but it doesn't employ many in view of the capital used, it doesn't export anything, it sometimes slows the regeneration of housing stock, and the owners of these businesses don't work many hours, or end up paying any tax on their gains, or much tax while they are trading. A normal commercial business can be built from the ground up, will probably employ people (PAYE), and to be successful will need to reward the hardworking owner every year, and pay taxes, (income) plus collect and forward GST unless they are exporting. At the moment any capital gain in the business is also tax-free on sale, but you see the difference? The business will have needed to pay tax all the way through, or offer real potential, to be worth anything to a buyer. Not so with rental properties. They are worth what the market says they are worth, and other entrants to the rental market help set that price at every auction.


The business, just like a property, will pay tax only on trading profit. Both can offset losses against other income. e.g a chemist who also owns the coffee bar down the road will offset losses fron one enterprise against gains from the other. (even within a business a grocer offsets losses on apples against gains on the carrots). I doubt if many business owner's pay tax on capital gained on goodwill.

Bjauck
20-04-2015, 10:53 AM
I think it is arguable whether owning a rental property is a business.

"An activity is a business for income tax purposes if the
nature of the activities is business-like, and the actions
of the taxpayer indicate an intention to make a profit.
The fundamental basis of a business is that it is an
activity conducted in an organised and coherent way
towards an end result. It is not necessary to show that
the activity has a reasonable prospect of making a profit.
However, a genuine intention to make a profit must be
present. These principles are established and supported
by the judgment in Grieve v CIR (1984) 6 NZTC
61,682." IRD Tax Information Bulletin: Volume Seven, No.3

It could be said that a landlord (especially in Auckland) can only have a genuine intent to make a profit if you include their expectations of (non-taxable) capital appreciation of the real estate. If you take out that expectation of house price appreciation, then proving a genuine intent to make a profit, based on rental income alone, may be difficult. In that case no expenses(including maintenance and mortgage interest) would be able to be deducted from taxable income.

fungus pudding
20-04-2015, 11:01 AM
I think it is arguable whether owning a rental property is a business.

"An activity is a business for income tax purposes if the
nature of the activities is business-like, and the actions
of the taxpayer indicate an intention to make a profit.
The fundamental basis of a business is that it is an
activity conducted in an organised and coherent way
towards an end result. It is not necessary to show that
the activity has a reasonable prospect of making a profit.
However, a genuine intention to make a profit must be
present. These principles are established and supported
by the judgment in Grieve v CIR (1984) 6 NZTC
61,682." IRD Tax Information Bulletin: Volume Seven, No.3

It could be said that a landlord (especially in Auckland) can only have a genuine intent to make a profit if you include their expectations of (non-taxable) capital appreciation of the real estate. If you take out that expectation of house price appreciation, then proving a genuine intent to make a profit, based on rental income alone, may be difficult. In that case no expenses(including maintenance and mortgage interest) would be able to be deducted from taxable income.


You are right, and the IRD used to send standard letter to landlords asking how and when they would show a profit, whether property was let to relatives etc, but they no longer bother. That's the way they should view purchases, getting to the purchasers' intentions, rather than talk of CGT.

Daytr
20-04-2015, 12:48 PM
Fungus, I assume you are an ACT supporter. i.e. minimalist government & market forces will level things out over time?
This is along the lines of Randism that Greenspan was a follower of & advocated throughout his reign as Fed chair & convinced the likes of Clinton to have less regulation & the market will balance itself. What it doesn't cater for is human nature. In market where you can have substantial leverage this creates bubbles & crashes.

Although Gareth Morgan is against a CGT on investment property he is promoting a far more comprehensive form of CGT on all property.
So Iceman to say he against is CGT is not correct, he wants a more comprehensive CGT to ensure there isn't tax avoidance.

fungus pudding
20-04-2015, 01:47 PM
Fungus, I assume you are an ACT supporter. i.e. minimalist government & market forces will level things out over time?
This is along the lines of Randism that Greenspan was a follower of & advocated throughout his reign as Fed chair & convinced the likes of Clinton to have less regulation & the market will balance itself. What it doesn't cater for is human nature. In market where you can have substantial leverage this creates bubbles & crashes.



I was quite a fan for the original ACT proposals promoted by Quigley and Douglas; not so much now although I see them as necessary for National to have a coalition partner. I support policies rather than parties. As far as bubbles and crashes go: run a mile from any system that tries to avoid them. It's the natural steam-letting of a healthy market. Gareth Morgan doesn't live in the real world. He promotes all sorts of ideas that would not gain one vote. Not much point in that.

Bjauck
20-04-2015, 02:20 PM
I was quite a fan for the original ACT proposals promoted by Quigley and Douglas; not so much now although I see them as necessary for National to have a coalition partner. I support policies rather than parties. As far as bubbles and crashes go: run a mile from any system that tries to avoid them. It's the natural steam-letting of a healthy market. Gareth Morgan doesn't live in the real world. He promotes all sorts of ideas that would not gain one vote. Not much point in that.

I agree. I think Politics involves "horse trading" and compromising ideals so that they can have a chance of being voted for. A cost of democracy, if you will. As a result, a less than ideal situation may be the result. Maybe what is "best" is not necessarily popular with the electorate at the time. Maybe a comprehensive tax on all gain, from income profit and capital profit, without an exception for owner-occupied housing is the way to go to try and smooth out bubbles and collapses. However it would probably not be within the "comfort zone" of the majority of the voting electorate.

I think a market collapse is like a physical collapse - it indicates a point where stresses reach such a point that the mechanism cannot continue its normal function. True, it is a natural reaction but it can cause discomfort to those involved.

Sgt Pepper
20-04-2015, 02:29 PM
I was quite a fan for the original ACT proposals promoted by Quigley and Douglas; not so much now although I see them as necessary for National to have a coalition partner. I support policies rather than parties. As far as bubbles and crashes go: run a mile from any system that tries to avoid them. It's the natural steam-letting of a healthy market. Gareth Morgan doesn't live in the real world. He promotes all sorts of ideas that would not gain one vote. Not much point in that.

FP

For someone who doesn't live in the real world Gareth has done quite well for himself do you not think?

Daytr
20-04-2015, 02:31 PM
Well you can have good policy which tries to contain bubbles in the first place. I agree if they happen its best to let the correction happen, something that will come back to haunt the US & Europe eventually. That doesn't mean however you allow holes in the tax system or massive increases in immigration or reductions in migration to create a housing bubble. What you are saying as we may as well not bother adjusting interest rates either, no mater what the economy is doing. Alan Greenspan thought the same thing, let the market sort it out & that didn't work out too well & globally 6 - 7 years later we are still paying the price & in the likes of Europe they could be for decades to come.

I don't agree with everything Gareth Morgan comes out with, but his policies are forward thinking & usually for the greater good.
So just to dispel what he offers by saying he doesn't live in the real world is trite at best.
John Key hardly lives in the 'real world' either.
Most leaders don't.

Sgt Pepper
20-04-2015, 02:44 PM
Well you can have good policy which tries to contain bubbles in the first place. I agree if they happen its best to let the correction happen, something that will come back to haunt the US & Europe eventually. That doesn't mean however you allow holes in the tax system or massive increases in immigration or reductions in migration to create a housing bubble. What you are saying as we may as well not bother adjusting interest rates either, no mater what the economy is doing. Alan Greenspan thought the same thing, let the market sort it out & that didn't work out too well & globally 6 - 7 years later we are still paying the price & in the likes of Europe they could be for decades to come.

I don't agree with everything Gareth Morgan comes out with, but his policies are forward thinking & usually for the greater good.
So just dispel what he offers by saying he doesn't live in the real world is trite at best.
John Key hardly lives in the 'real world' either.
Most leaders don't.

Daytr

I agree. What you find is that some right of centre posters are especially harsh and dismissive of any economist, high net worth individuals who are critical of any of Nationals policies. That such people, with sound economic credentials or personal wealth would dare to be critical is deemed as threatening.

fungus pudding
20-04-2015, 02:59 PM
FP

For someone who doesn't live in the real world Gareth has done quite well for himself do you not think?

He has indeed.

iceman
20-04-2015, 03:13 PM
Gareth doesn't agree with you Daytr http://garethsworld.com/blog/tax-and-welfare/capital-taxes-versus-capital-gains-taxes/



Although Gareth Morgan is against a CGT on investment property he is promoting a far more comprehensive form of CGT on all property.
So Iceman to say he against is CGT is not correct, he wants a more comprehensive CGT to ensure there isn't tax avoidance.

Daytr
20-04-2015, 03:29 PM
Iceman, Ahh no he doesn't & neither do I.
I am agreeing with his policy which is a capital gains tax on all housing & assets exactly as I suggested.

Daytr
20-04-2015, 04:12 PM
Key justifying troop deployment in Iraq saying there have been ISIS Kiwi sympathizers that have been prevented leaving the country & joining the fight.
I can understand that when he says he cant name people etc, but also to say he cant give numbers? Typical Key telling half a story to justify his actions. There is no good reason why he couldn't say that there have been 5 instances or 10 etc. Is it because there has only been 1? !
Quite apt that this is occurring on the 100th anniversary of another botched campaign, Gallipoli.
Until we stop killing 1000 Muslims to every Westerner or what ever the ratio is this cycle will never stop.

craic
20-04-2015, 04:32 PM
There is a very large farming community in this country who have made it plain, decades ago, that they will vote out any government that imposes a capital gains tax on property - farms, in other words. They have a God-given right to pass their farms on to their sons or whatever. And any party that suggests exclusions or the like, will equally suffer.

Daytr
20-04-2015, 04:39 PM
Craic, its a fair point re farming & to be honest I'm not sure how that is treated now.
If its sold for a profit I assume its selling of a business & tax is paid?
But yes it could be onerous for farmers paying as land appreciates faster than returns so it would need to 'managed' in regards policy.
However that god given right as you put it should have gone with the feudal system.

elZorro
20-04-2015, 08:47 PM
I think it is arguable whether owning a rental property is a business.

"An activity is a business for income tax purposes if the
nature of the activities is business-like, and the actions
of the taxpayer indicate an intention to make a profit.
The fundamental basis of a business is that it is an
activity conducted in an organised and coherent way
towards an end result. It is not necessary to show that
the activity has a reasonable prospect of making a profit.
However, a genuine intention to make a profit must be
present. These principles are established and supported
by the judgment in Grieve v CIR (1984) 6 NZTC
61,682." IRD Tax Information Bulletin: Volume Seven, No.3

It could be said that a landlord (especially in Auckland) can only have a genuine intent to make a profit if you include their expectations of (non-taxable) capital appreciation of the real estate. If you take out that expectation of house price appreciation, then proving a genuine intent to make a profit, based on rental income alone, may be difficult. In that case no expenses(including maintenance and mortgage interest) would be able to be deducted from taxable income.

Good point, BJauck. I bet that would make landlord's eyes water, if they couldn't claim expenses against their rental properties. Then they'd be no better off than normal homeowners and bach owners who don't rent their properties out most of the year.

But almost all of them are super-organised. I know one guy who holds down a full-time job, uses the work van for R&M and work computer for his rental accounts with the banks, cadges help from tradesmen for contras, does his own super-fast paint jobs etc. You can see how little this enterprise adds to the general economy, but it is being operated for untaxed future profit.

No, these types of operations are a special case, and I think the only sensible way to tax them is on the eventual sale, not each year as Gareth Morgan is suggesting. That way, the tax will generally be an expense to the owner, not a refund, the way property prices can duck and dive, but always trend upwards long term, and faster than inflation.

A business could always borrow for new buildings as it grows, and claim the interest costs (or rental) as expenses, so in theory there is no reason why the rates of any CGT would differ on the eventual sale of a business. The tax might be on goodwill, or on building/trading asset appreciation, or both.

elZorro
20-04-2015, 09:05 PM
There is a very large farming community in this country who have made it plain, decades ago, that they will vote out any government that imposes a capital gains tax on property - farms, in other words. They have a God-given right to pass their farms on to their sons or whatever. And any party that suggests exclusions or the like, will equally suffer.

Craic, I'm not sure if you agree with this or not. If a farm is sold onto a son, a new mortgage is raised and the son pays that off, with interest. There is a big tax being charged already, it goes to the banks. That's OK, but not tax paid to the govt? Sure it's great to have all that space around you, but the work can be hard and the weather often unforgiving. For the relatively few who own the farms in this country of ours, are they all there for the lifestyle, or is the prospect of a relatively large tax-free capital gain and a comfortable retirement, one of the key motivations? And what makes them so special that they deserve this benefit, when the majority of workers with and without their own homes have very few tax dodges they can use?

A CGT is all about fairness. At the least it should be simple to implement, and that doesn't mean having to look at it every year you have an asset in play.

blackcap
21-04-2015, 07:03 AM
To be fair and equitable a CGT needs to be inflation adjusted... and if that were the case then there would not be much tax gleaned from a CGT anyway.

craic
21-04-2015, 07:16 AM
Whether you agree or not, I was stating a reality, tax the farms for capital gains and they will vote you out, regardless o0f your persuasion. Both main parties know this and that is why they back off from the idea. The farming vote in this country is big enough to do this.
To be fair and equitable a CGT needs to be inflation adjusted... and if that were the case then there would not be much tax gleaned from a CGT anyway.

fungus pudding
21-04-2015, 07:22 AM
To be fair and equitable a CGT needs to be inflation adjusted... and if that were the case then there would not be much tax gleaned from a CGT anyway.

Some CGT systems do tax only above inflation rate. It's hard to judge a proposed CGT without knowing the finer details. I certainly think it would be a mistake to introduce a CGT without a repatriation clause.

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 08:09 AM
To be fair and equitable a CGT needs to be inflation adjusted... and if that were the case then there would not be much tax gleaned from a CGT anyway.

The tax system's remit is to revenue raise. It is not fair or equitable. Otherwise there would be an inflation adjustment for interest earned, for just one example.

I guess with an inflation indexed CGT, fewer assets when sold be affected. To compensate I guess the CGT rate would be higher than for a CGT with adjustment for inflation. For example you could levy the company tax rate on indexed CG or 10% on non-indexed CG.

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 08:26 AM
"I mean one of the reasons why probably haven't had a significant correction is because over the last 45 years there's a general view that housing prices are not over-valued relative to a whole lot of different factors." http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/271674/akl-house-market-not-over-valued-key

Interesting that JK does not think housing is over-priced. He is right. Within the context of financial and tax system that has a bias towards certain asset classes, he is right.

Within a financial system that favours loans for bricks and mortar over business. Within a low interest environment, people can borrow to the level that their income will allow. Within a country with a high immigration rate and no control on overseas buyers; Within areas where house building is difficult and expensive; Within those contexts, He is right on all counts: house prices are not over-priced when all those factors are taken into account! Whether it is good in the long term is not his responsibility. O wait! It is his responsibilty, He's Prime Minister:)

Daytr
21-04-2015, 09:14 AM
Exactly Bjauck, Key will say anything that is politically prudent, not what is necessarily the right thing, in fact with Key its very rare that the politically correct thing is the right thing. There are more & more calls for lower interest rates, however solely the Auckland property market is the reason we wont see them. Meanwhile Key is sitting on his hands in regards tools at his disposal.

fungus pudding
21-04-2015, 09:26 AM
Exactly Bjauck, Key will say anything that is politically prudent, not what is necessarily the right thing, in fact with Key its very rare that the politically correct thing is the right thing. There are more & more calls for lower interest rates,

Of course there is; just as there is always plenty of demand for higher rates. It simply depends which side of the fence you're on.

Sgt Pepper
21-04-2015, 09:42 AM
Of course there is; just as there is always plenty of demand for higher rates. It simply depends which side of the fence you're on.

I listened to BERLs chief economist Dr Ganesh Nana on the radio this morning. The sense of frustration amongst economists (Major Von Tempsky is the exception no doubt)) with the governments reluctance to step up is boiling over. Reminds me of the Muldoon era. If its like this in the public arena one can imagine the screaming matches in private. Good analogy would be the ground proximity alarms in aircraft...". PULL UP.. PULL UP NOW...

fungus pudding
21-04-2015, 10:01 AM
I listened to BERLs chief economist Dr Ganesh Nana on the radio this morning. The sense of frustration amongst economists (Major Von Tempsky is the exception no doubt)) with the governments reluctance to step up is boiling over. Reminds me of the Muldoon era. If its like this in the public arena one can imagine the screaming matches in private. Good analogy would be the ground proximity alarms in aircraft...". PULL UP.. PULL UP NOW...

I'm not too sure what you want the govt. to do. But be careful what you wish for - in case you get it. Think of Muldoon's rent freeze, and his claw-back tax; think also of Rowling's spec tax. All these things did more harm than good. And we know CGT doesn't work to lower prices. This sort of nonsense - runaway prices - happens from time to time in all markets, not just real estate. Panic not. The world will still be revolving for a few decades yet.

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 10:14 AM
I listened to BERLs chief economist Dr Ganesh Nana on the radio this morning. The sense of frustration amongst economists (Major Von Tempsky is the exception no doubt)) with the governments reluctance to step up is boiling over. Reminds me of the Muldoon era. If its like this in the public arena one can imagine the screaming matches in private. Good analogy would be the ground proximity alarms in aircraft...". PULL UP.. PULL UP NOW...

Maybe JK is in a WW1 frame of mind at the moment and his aircraft of state is from the less sophisticated Snoopy v. Red Baron era!

artemis
21-04-2015, 10:23 AM
... But is it not also true that the game being played by many landlords is generally to keep overall interest costs close to rental returns, by buying more assets over time, not worrying about any capital repayments, just inflation and appreciation in heady markets sustained by more immigration? This plan works fine when everything is moving up, not so good when it's going the other way. A lot of rental houses came back on the market in the last downturn. .... .

Depends what you mean by 'many landlords'. That is a stretch, considering that around 80% of residential rentals are owned by people with just one or two rental properties. And bear in mind that the 'heady markets sustained by more immigration' applies pretty much to one market ....

Daytr
21-04-2015, 11:18 AM
Really, who is calling for higher interest rates?


Of course there is; just as there is always plenty of demand for higher rates. It simply depends which side of the fence you're on.

Daytr
21-04-2015, 11:22 AM
There are plenty of things that can be done. Namely reign in immigration, at least temporarily.
Tax the bejeebers out of foreign property ownership if need be.
& I think you will find a CGT will have some impact, but may take a while to filter through.
But a comprehensive CGT on all property targets the hottest markets.
i.e. if your property is going up 20% pa then you will pay more in tax.
Someone's property that hasn't moved wont pay anything.


I'm not too sure what you want the govt. to do. But be careful what you wish for - in case you get it. Think of Muldoon's rent freeze, and his claw-back tax; think also of Rowling's spec tax. All these things did more harm than good. And we know CGT doesn't work to lower prices. This sort of nonsense - runaway prices - happens from time to time in all markets, not just real estate. Panic not. The world will still be revolving for a few decades yet.

slimwin
21-04-2015, 11:27 AM
Er what? You have no control if the value of your property goes up. That's decided by the council and sales in the area. Why should you pay more tax? This will force people to move if they can't then afford to live there.

Daytr
21-04-2015, 11:52 AM
You pay the same percentage, but because your house value has gained more i.e. you are better off you will pay more in tax.
Its like any tax, the more you earn or consume the more you pay.
Currently people are using that capital gain to buy investment property heating up the market.
If a portion of that capital gain is paid in tax then it helps take the heat out & if the market.
It could also mean that other taxes could be lowered creating a fairer tax system.

blackcap
21-04-2015, 12:17 PM
You pay the same percentage, but because your house value has gained more i.e. you are better off you will pay more in tax.
Its like any tax, the more you earn or consume the more you pay.
Currently people are using that capital gain to buy investment property heating up the market.
If a portion of that capital gain is paid in tax then it helps take the heat out & if the market.
It could also mean that other taxes could be lowered creating a fairer tax system.

Maybe, maybe not. I think you will find ultimately the tenants will bear the burden of this "tax" thus putting it on the people that can least afford to pay it. CGT in Australia has not taken the heat out of the market so I cannot see it doing so here.

Sgt Pepper
21-04-2015, 12:50 PM
I'm not too sure what you want the govt. to do. But be careful what you wish for - in case you get it. Think of Muldoon's rent freeze, and his claw-back tax; think also of Rowling's spec tax. All these things did more harm than good. And we know CGT doesn't work to lower prices. This sort of nonsense - runaway prices - happens from time to time in all markets, not just real estate. Panic not. The world will still be revolving for a few decades yet.

Story of the little red (economic) hen

"Who will help me stop this housing bubble?" said the little red economist hen

"Not I "said the international speculator," for I can borrow 100% of the cost of the houses and make lots of money"

"not I" said the Government Minister, "for I know that despite having massive mortgages, the newly wealthy feel good, spend money and vote National, I will not help"

"not I" said the Real Estate agent," for I make buckets of cash flicking property, I will not help!"

And so the little red economist hen was very sad.

Some time later the Housing market crashed and all the people lost a great deal of money and they became sad and very, very, angry.

"Who is to blame for this?" said the property investor.

" Not I "said the Government Minister" for No one told me it was possible "

"Not I" said the real estate man," an inevitable market correction"

" Its all Labours fault" said Major Von Tempsky

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 12:55 PM
Er what? You have no control if the value of your property goes up. That's decided by the council and sales in the area. Why should you pay more tax? This will force people to move if they can't then afford to live there.
Are you referring to council revaluations every few years? CGT would apply no doubt when the property is actually sold. If CGT applies on capital gains on property when sold, then the owners have no extra tax to pay until it is sold. Also A comprehensive CGT with no exemptions would likely be introduced with tax reductions in other areas. But if you are heavily invested in an expensive home, you would probably end up paying more tax when you sell it, especially if you have owned it for many years and have kept an interest-only mortgage. However I think owner-occupers will be safe, such a proposal would be deeply unpopular!

Capital gains tax will have the biggest burden on those who buy their properties with small deposits and enjoy the largest property price gains. In rising markets, their equity will increase the most and their capital gain will be large.

In addition, another tax advantage exists on owner-occupied housing: The benefit derived from buying one's own home - accommodation - is untaxed. Unlike the benefit derived from investing your money in a business, the stock market or lending your money to others.

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 12:56 PM
Little Red Economist Hen:I wish I had that as my bed-time story when I was a child!

fungus pudding
21-04-2015, 02:42 PM
Are you referring to council revaluations every few years? CGT would apply no doubt when the property is actually sold. If CGT applies on capital gains on property when sold, then the owners have no extra tax to pay until it is sold. Also A comprehensive CGT with no exemptions would likely be introduced with tax reductions in other areas. But if you are heavily invested in an expensive home, you would probably end up paying more tax when you sell it, especially if you have owned it for many years and have kept an interest-only mortgage. However I think owner-occupers will be safe, such a proposal would be deeply unpopular!

Capital gains tax will have the biggest burden on those who buy their properties with small deposits and enjoy the largest property price gains. In rising markets, their equity will increase the most and their capital gain will be large.



The same tax would apply whether fully paid for by owner's cash, or whether 100% financed. I've never heard of a CGT that applies only to equity.

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 05:10 PM
The same tax would apply whether fully paid for by owner's cash, or whether 100% financed. I've never heard of a CGT that applies only to equity.
I agree. Sorry I did not express myself well.

westerly
21-04-2015, 05:27 PM
opular!


In addition, another tax advantage exists on owner-occupied housing: The benefit derived from buying one's own home - accommodation - is untaxed. Unlike the benefit derived from investing your money in a business, the stock market or lending your money to others.

Ignoring the costs of owning a home; rates, insurance, maintenance, all of which are taxed at 15% And then why not extend this to all discretionary spending, which may have some benefit.
One of Gareth's ideas I cannot agree with. (happy to get rid of cats though. :) ) The neo right have succeeded in selling their low income tax mantra. Govts. now have to broaden the tax base or reduce expenditure to fund essential services.

westerly

Bjauck
21-04-2015, 06:57 PM
Ignoring the costs of owning a home; rates, insurance, maintenance, all of which are taxed at 15% And then why not extend this to all discretionary spending, which may have some benefit.
One of Gareth's ideas I cannot agree with. (happy to get rid of cats though. :) ) The neo right have succeeded in selling their low income tax mantra. Govts. now have to broaden the tax base or reduce expenditure to fund essential services.

westerly I agree with you to a point. However I think those who invest in housing and real estate, pay less in tax compared with those who invest in financial investments especially as a proportion of total returns over the life of the investment.

As far as the tax base versus government expenditure is concerned, liberal trust laws have not helped either...with people impoverishing themselves by settling their assets on trusts, from which they still benefit. The Government departments are delving further into those people with trusts claiming benefits.

elZorro
21-04-2015, 07:39 PM
To be fair and equitable a CGT needs to be inflation adjusted... and if that were the case then there would not be much tax gleaned from a CGT anyway.

I had a look at that issue a few days ago and posted it on here: the majority of house price increases over the last few years are not due to simple inflation, ie inflation adjusted house prices have still trended strongly upwards, especially in Auckland. In any case, the rate is low on a CGT, to try to take account of inflation. Fairly hard to do it any other way.

I see the point made today, that at least owning your own home provides a rent free situation, but of course many pay more in interest than they would pay in rent for the same property. You're also more tied to a particular location, you have to do the upkeep and/or pay for it all, and if things go wrong like leaky homes syndrome, you're in the lurch, it's your risk, not a landlord's. And I have to keep repeating the fundamental difference, you can't treat your expenses like interest and maintenance, as costs on a set of books. That's a huge difference, it really adds up. That's why a CGT on the family home is a no-go area, but I don't agree with Craic about farms. Those farms are like an investor who owns several blocks of flats. They make about the same sort of annual return on investment/valuation, not much on average. They are run with a set of books, costs help to defray income tax, some owners will be more aggressive about that than others.

Prof Jane Kelsey on the TPP. Might be sunk without trace.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11435695&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+2 2+April+2015

artemis
22-04-2015, 07:00 AM
I agree with you to a point. However I think those who invest in housing and real estate, pay less in tax compared with those who invest in financial investments especially as a proportion of total returns over the life of the investment.

As far as the tax base versus government expenditure is concerned, liberal trust laws have not helped either...with people impoverishing themselves by settling their assets on trusts, from which they still benefit. The Government departments are delving further into those people with trusts claiming benefits.

Why do you think owners of some asset classes pay more or less income tax than others? IRD says residential property does not have a tax advantage. Though commercial property does potentially have an advantage over residential property due to changes in depreciation of building / fitout.

Agree about trusts. NZ has up to half a million trusts according to the Law Commission's review of the law of trusts, which suggests that there has been a headlong rush into them. A lot of that will have been to protect assets from residential care costs, possibly also to qualify for subsidies like Working for Families, which as you say is no longer so easy or in the case of WfF no longer possible.

I suspect many trust settlors did not get good advice, whether from professionals or from their mates. I know my (ex) accountant tried to persuade me to set up a trust, but was unable to tell me why I needed one. I had already done my homework on trusts, plus was not interested in protecting assets from creditors and the government.

.

fungus pudding
22-04-2015, 07:26 AM
I had already done my homework on trusts, plus was not interested in protecting assets from creditors and the government.

.

Good on you for that sentence. Exactly my sentiments.

Bjauck
22-04-2015, 07:48 AM
Z..
I understand your point about the expenses of upkeep. That would counter, to an extent, the argument over tax on imputed rents on owner-occupied housing. However many of the expenses and risks are reflected in the property price and bolster the house's value. There is a risk when you buy shares and bonds. If a CGT is introduced why should there be an exemption for the family home when the family that rents, but invests its assets in businesses, shares and bonds would pay tax on its capital gains. In that situation there would be an even greater tax bias towards home ownership and away from tax paying and productive assets.

fungus pudding
22-04-2015, 08:16 AM
Z..
I understand your point about the expenses of upkeep. That would counter, to an extent, the argument over tax on imputed rents on owner-occupied housing. However many of the expenses and risks are reflected in the property price and bolster the house's value. There is a risk when you buy shares and bonds. If a CGT is introduced why should there be an exemption for the family home when the family that rents, but invests its assets in businesses, shares and bonds would pay tax on its capital gains. In that situation there would be an even greater tax bias towards home ownership and away from tax paying and productive assets.

There's little difference between tax on shares and property. Anyone who buys and holds shares long term will not normally be taxed on gains. The difference as far as I can see is share investors are nearly always traders.

craic
22-04-2015, 10:55 AM
CGT may be a great idea but everyone seems to forget that where taxes are collected on profits, losses are tax deductable. Quite simply, traders on the market gamble on prices and profit from others losses. All the government gets out of the deal is an expensive collection of public servants working the markets and probably costing more than any potential gain - that is why they haven't done it to date.
There's little difference between tax on shares and property. Anyone who buys and holds shares long term will not normally be taxed on gains. The difference as far as I can see is share investors are nearly always traders.

Bjauck
22-04-2015, 11:09 AM
There's little difference between tax on shares and property. Anyone who buys and holds shares long term will not normally be taxed on gains. The difference as far as I can see is share investors are nearly always traders.

I had referred to owner-occupied housing, which is untaxed now (apart from rates) and would probably remain untaxed if a CGT were introduced, which would further increase the tax-advantage in buying owner-occupied housing.

I don't know the statistics on the share traders vs. share investors. Even in NZ, I would suspect that most individuals who invest in shares would be long-term investors. Certainly in countries where a greater proportion of the population hold shares directly, a big majority of individuals would be investors as opposed to traders.

Disc: Share investor not a trader.

artemis
22-04-2015, 11:42 AM
.... I don't know the statistics on the share traders vs. share investors. Even in NZ, I would suspect that most individuals who invest in shares would be long-term investors......

Or run a separate trading account.

Sgt Pepper
22-04-2015, 11:56 AM
ref :John Key and the Waitress

I see from the news today that John Key may be having a cup of Nescafe at home with Bronagh and not patronising his local café for a while.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.
Warren Buffett (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html)

fungus pudding
22-04-2015, 12:20 PM
I had referred to owner-occupied housing, which is untaxed now (apart from rates) and would probably remain untaxed if a CGT were introduced, which would further increase the tax-advantage in buying owner-occupied housing.

I don't know the statistics on the share traders vs. share investors. Even in NZ, I would suspect that most individuals who invest in shares would be long-term investors. Certainly in countries where a greater proportion of the population hold shares directly, a big majority of individuals would be investors as opposed to traders.

Disc: Share investor not a trader.

Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.

BlackPeter
22-04-2015, 02:19 PM
Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.

Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares. If you buy it to trade, than you a a trader. If you buy it with the intention to invest (and benefit from the expected dividends), than you are an investor.

Nothing wrong if an investor is balancing their portfolio or e.g. selling shares if the circumstances change (i.e. a share getting too dear or a company making less profit than expected). No test of the share holding time in law.

I guess a different question is whether the IRD definition is practical (and testable), but this is a discussion for another day. Personally I would prefer a definition which is easier to test, but on the other hand - any arbitrary timebox results just in people playing games with the set limits ...

RGR367
22-04-2015, 03:03 PM
Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares. If you buy it to trade, than you a a trader. If you buy it with the intention to invest (and benefit from the expected dividends), than you are an investor.

Nothing wrong if an investor is balancing their portfolio or e.g. selling shares if the circumstances change (i.e. a share getting too dear or a company making less profit than expected). No test of the share holding time in law.

I guess a different question is whether the IRD definition is practical (and testable), but this is a discussion for another day. Personally I would prefer a definition which is easier to test, but on the other hand - any arbitrary timebox results just in people playing games with the set limits ...

Yeah, I'm with you too on this one as I guess I would not stayed as an investor if I cannot trade from time to time. You have to grab the money offered on the table and you have to remove the pain too if your selections were wrong.

winner69
22-04-2015, 03:13 PM
ref :John Key and the Waitress

I see from the news today that John Key may be having a cup of Nescafe at home with Bronagh and not patronising his local café for a while.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.


Warren Buffett (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html)

Bit weird eh .....and young girls as well as waitresses if you look at the gif on whaleoil

That punt girl must be traumatised - talking to Campbell and pony tailed by Key

Daytr
22-04-2015, 03:24 PM
That's because its not comprohensive including the family home & is to easy to elude. A comprehensive CGT would have an impact.As said econmics always have an impact.


Maybe, maybe not. I think you will find ultimately the tenants will bear the burden of this "tax" thus putting it on the people that can least afford to pay it. CGT in Australia has not taken the heat out of the market so I cannot see it doing so here.

Daytr
22-04-2015, 03:26 PM
Very weird. You would think his wife would have pointed out how ridiculous it was & to do it for years suggests a fixation .


Bit weird eh .....and young girls as well as waitresses if you look at the gif on whaleoil

That punt girl must be traumatised - talking to Campbell and pony tailed by Key

fungus pudding
22-04-2015, 04:22 PM
Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares.
No test of the share holding time in law.



Sure, but it can point to a pattern My point is that someone dabbling in flats doesn't often drop his holding because a better offering has just hit the market. They're not forever 'rebalancing'.

Bjauck
22-04-2015, 05:23 PM
Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.
Interesting stats from Quotable Value. They looked at length of time since previous sale of all houses sold. Average length of home ownership (for all owners not just landlords) varies between 4 and 6 years. That would be under the time period you mentioned. In property booms it is close to 4 years.
https://www.qv.co.nz/n/news-details/phoenix-78?blogId=65

elZorro
22-04-2015, 06:00 PM
ref :John Key and the Waitress

I see from the news today that John Key may be having a cup of Nescafe at home with Bronagh and not patronising his local café for a while.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.
Warren Buffett (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html)

It's fairly weird, all right.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67949918/prime-minister-john-key-pulled-waitress-ponytail

The actual story from the waitress is more involved. How he thought that two bottles of wine would do for an apology of sorts, is beyond me. He's not a kid, he's the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/22/exclusive-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress/

fungus pudding
22-04-2015, 07:06 PM
Interesting stats from Quotable Value. They looked at length of time since previous sale of all houses sold. Average length of home ownership (for all owners not just landlords) varies between 4 and 6 years. That would be under the time period you mentioned. In property booms it is close to 4 years.
https://www.qv.co.nz/n/news-details/phoenix-78?blogId=65


That is interesting and surprising. Most landlords I know, and I know plenty, just keep buying and rarely sell. As far as home-owners go, most of my acquaintances have been in same house for decades. I must only know boring types. I'll tell them that!

elZorro
22-04-2015, 09:27 PM
That is interesting and surprising. Most landlords I know, and I know plenty, just keep buying and rarely sell. As far as home-owners go, most of my acquaintances have been in same house for decades. I must only know boring types. I'll tell them that!

FP, I've been trying to find out what proportion of residential rentals are owned by investors with just one rental property. It has been suggested by someone on here it's 80%, but I cannot find that data anywhere. You're suggesting that serious investors just keep adding to their portfolios, in which case I think the 80% figure is unrealistic.

Anyway, in 2012 the Reserve Bank had a look at the performance of various investments since 1989, and concluded that owning a farm(s) had been the best bet. They also covered some of the tax implications of investments. Since we've had a big payout year in 2014, and farm prices usually tend to be sticky afterwards, the data is probably still relevant. Residential rental property was next, and towards the tail was commercial property.

http://www.reservebank.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2012/2012sep75_3watson.pdf

Minerbarejet
23-04-2015, 04:33 AM
It's fairly weird, all right.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67949918/prime-minister-john-key-pulled-waitress-ponytail

The actual story from the waitress is more involved. How he thought that two bottles of wine would do for an apology of sorts, is beyond me. He's not a kid, he's the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/22/exclusive-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress/
Looks like the media is going to turn this into "ponytailgate" but as usual nobody will be following it too closely.:)

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 05:19 AM
Looks like the media is going to turn this into "ponytailgate" but as usual nobody will be following it too closely.:)
Pulling someone's hair is a physical assault. There is a fine line between one person's idea of a "bit of fun" and another person's feeling of being bullied - especially when the person "having fun" is of high rank!

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 05:30 AM
That is interesting and surprising. Most landlords I know, and I know plenty, just keep buying and rarely sell. As far as home-owners go, most of my acquaintances have been in same house for decades. I must only know boring types. I'll tell them that!
I was surprised too. Especially when I had read somewhere (sorry no link) that Americans have owned their houses on average for 12 years when they sell.

elZorro
23-04-2015, 06:19 AM
Pulling someone's hair is a physical assault. There is a fine line between one person's idea of a "bit of fun" and another person's feeling of being bullied - especially when the person "having fun" is of high rank!

Brent Edwards on RadioNZ with his take. http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201751511

Metiria Turei was quoted elsewhere:


Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said this morning Mr Key's hair-pulling was "weird".
"New Zealanders know you can't walk into a cafe and start tugging on someone's hair, especially if they've told you they don't like it," Mrs Turei said.
She said Mr Key should be held to the same standards as the rest of New Zealanders.
"A lot of New Zealanders know what it's like to feel as if you're not taken seriously in a job. As politicians our job is to make people feel safe at work, not bullied.
"This is another case of National men behaving badly. We should expect higher standards of behaviour from our Prime Minister, not this weird hair pulling.
"It's a sign of how out of touch John Key has become when he can't even monitor how inappropriate his personal behaviour is, and when people are not comfortable with how he is behaving."


The Parnell waitress is in good company. A few years back at least, John Key gave away 240 bottles of the same Pinot Noir as Christmas gifts. He owns about a 10% share in an Otago vineyard, through a blind trust.

http://www.3news.co.nz/opinion/patrick-gower/john-key-and-his-vineyard-investments-2010052616#axzz3Y4HY29PO



During the last election campaign, some politically minded wags had great fun adding a long nose to John Key's images, but that didn't do enough damage to sway the vote. None of the lies were apparently important enough, or proven. By 2017 I can imagine hordes of sprouting ponytails on the hoardings, or maybe National will try it alone and just run the election on their superior policies and results. That'll be fun also.

artemis
23-04-2015, 06:38 AM
FP, I've been trying to find out what proportion of residential rentals are owned by investors with just one rental property. It has been suggested by someone on here it's 80%, but I cannot find that data anywhere. You're suggesting that serious investors just keep adding to their portfolios, in which case I think the 80% figure is unrealistic.

Yep that was me.

Survey of Family Income and Employment (SOFIE) data, Scobie, Gibson and Le (2007)

fungus pudding
23-04-2015, 07:17 AM
FP, I've been trying to find out what proportion of residential rentals are owned by investors with just one rental property. It has been suggested by someone on here it's 80%, but I cannot find that data anywhere. You're suggesting that serious investors just keep adding to their portfolios, in which case I think the 80% figure is unrealistic.




I think it's correct. By serious I mean those who are building towards making a living, if not already doing so. However the market is dominated by 'dabblers' who own 1 house or perhaps a house converted to a couple of flats. The majority of these people are probably not traders either. Many can't handle the game - it's not all beer and skittles - and get out early, but probably most hold for a few rounds of renovation before it dawns on them what a mug's game it is..

BlackPeter
23-04-2015, 07:35 AM
Pulling someone's hair is a physical assault. There is a fine line between one person's idea of a "bit of fun" and another person's feeling of being bullied - especially when the person "having fun" is of high rank!

Have to agree with that, assuming the story is true.

I think the test should be whether it is o.k. for anybody else to fumble with John Keys hair or other attachments to his body without his consent? If it is o.k. - where is the queue for all of us to join? If it is however not o.k. to fumble with John Keys attachments, than why is it o.k. if the PM treats other people that way? Not sure - maybe the PM has special fumbling rights related to the hair of young female citizens (maybe a relict from the medieval "ius primae noctis") - or maybe he is just another bully inappropriately exercising his power over quite powerless victims.

I guess - how would you react if an important client of your employer is treating you that way (and you don't like it)?

Not sure, whether this should smolder through to the next election - and John Key demonstrated errors of judgement followed by weak excuses before. So again - IF the story is true, than this might be an excellent opportunity for National to review whether they have leadership potential in their ranks with a better sense of judgement and less bullish behaviour?

I could think about a number of candidates fitting that bill (pun not intended).

iceman
23-04-2015, 07:47 AM
Yes once again they do that. If this woman was as humiliated and hurt as she claims, she should have gone straight to her employer, who could have dealt with it immediately. But as the employer is on record saying, "she has strong political views" and it is hard not to see her writing about this on the Left's Daily Blog (or whatever its called) as simply and purely a political play. Key has been stupid to do this but she will not get much sympathy outside of Labour/Greens supporters and the hysterical and useless media. The media will milk this like they did Dotcon and the spies for all its worth while NZ gets on with doing their daily business as usual.


Looks like the media is going to turn this into "ponytailgate" but as usual nobody will be following it too closely.:)

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 08:30 AM
Yes once again they do that. If this woman was as humiliated and hurt as she claims, she should have gone straight to her employer, who could have dealt with it immediately. But as the employer is on record saying, "she has strong political views" and it is hard not to see her writing about this on the Left's Daily Blog (or whatever its called) as simply and purely a political play. Key has been stupid to do this but she will not get much sympathy outside of Labour/Greens supporters and the hysterical and useless media. The media will milk this like they did Dotcon and the spies for all its worth while NZ gets on with doing their daily business as usual.
There could well be a political element to timing as well. This issue may have been brought up now as a counter to forthcoming images of JK standing shoulder to shoulder with the Australians, Royalty and servicemen in honouring the centenary of the Gallipoli slaughter.

craic
23-04-2015, 08:31 AM
I totally agree with this post and it is a feature of the weakness of the left that they will run with this nonsense all the way to the next election and run into the same brick wall that they have hit in the last two.
Yes once again they do that. If this woman was as humiliated and hurt as she claims, she should have gone straight to her employer, who could have dealt with it immediately. But as the employer is on record saying, "she has strong political views" and it is hard not to see her writing about this on the Left's Daily Blog (or whatever its called) as simply and purely a political play. Key has been stupid to do this but she will not get much sympathy outside of Labour/Greens supporters and the hysterical and useless media. The media will milk this like they did Dotcon and the spies for all its worth while NZ gets on with doing their daily business as usual.

iceman
23-04-2015, 08:46 AM
If that is the case, which I well believe it maybe, then her actions (joined by stupid media) are more disgraceful than Key's pulling on her hair. The Gallipoli commemorations are not about John Key or any other politician.


There could well be a political element to timing as well. This issue may have been brought up now as a counter to forthcoming images of JK standing shoulder to shoulder with the Australians, Royalty and servicemen in honouring the centenary of the Gallipoli slaughter.

westerly
23-04-2015, 08:51 AM
I totally agree with this post and it is a feature of the weakness of the left that they will run with this nonsense all the way to the next election and run into the same brick wall that they have hit in the last two.

Just copying the right an their continual attacks on Cunliffe for his "man apology" Cunliffe 's comment was political, John's actions a bit odd?

westerly

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 09:21 AM
If that is the case, which I well believe it maybe, then her actions (joined by stupid media) are more disgraceful than Key's pulling on her hair. The Gallipoli commemorations are not about John Key or any other politician.
Unfortunately Gallipoli came about because of politics and politicians and its commemorations have been a focus of political protest in the past. War and its resultant casualties are intertwined with politics.

Daytr
23-04-2015, 09:27 AM
Iceman/Bjauck?, If, if, if. Do you have anything to back up your claims?
We know she went to Key's security quite some time ago & confronted Key himself directly. Its not like it was done a couple of times as a joke. It kept happening for months on end. She may have strong views, possibly brought about by being bullied by the prime minister.
If all she is saying is correct! Well Key has apologized & sent wine hasn't he?
How can any of this be blamed on her.
Its like blaming a victim of rape for being raped. Disgraceful.

This is the sort of thing the media will make a field day out of & he deserves everything he gets, for being a bully & an idiot.
I wonder if any other fetishes will be revealed .... ?

winner69
23-04-2015, 09:37 AM
daytr ....the peace gift was wine .... JK2012 Pinot or something

Methinks it was actually yours and mine wine he gave away

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 09:37 AM
Iceman/Bjauck?, If, if, if. Do you have anything to back up your claims?
Whoa! I did not make any claims. However, I do question allegations, no matter how truthful they may sound. I did wonder at the timing of the complaint about the hair pulling. If it had been going on for a long time, why bring it up now, on the eve of the centenary of Gallipoli? Serendipity or not?

craic
23-04-2015, 10:18 AM
OK for the lefties who want to pursue this red herring - answer the following questions - in order.

1. When was the last time he "pulled" her hair?
2. When did he apologise?
3 Does she still work at the same place?
4 When did the Keys last use this cafe?

elZorro
23-04-2015, 10:24 AM
Yes once again they do that. If this woman was as humiliated and hurt as she claims, she should have gone straight to her employer, who could have dealt with it immediately. But as the employer is on record saying, "she has strong political views" and it is hard not to see her writing about this on the Left's Daily Blog (or whatever its called) as simply and purely a political play. Key has been stupid to do this but she will not get much sympathy outside of Labour/Greens supporters and the hysterical and useless media. The media will milk this like they did Dotcon and the spies for all its worth while NZ gets on with doing their daily business as usual.

Iceman, sounds like the employers own several cafes in Auckland, so might not be on hand most of the time. And these days, a job is a job. I know my daughter would have reacted in a similar way, she happens to have leftie views too, but does that make it all right for John to be excused? National have been using social media ruthlessly since 2004. Now they'll have to ask Crosby-Textor how to get themselves out of this debacle.

I seem to remember that the 'hysterical and useless media' helped National get back in for the last three elections, by and large. They helped form popular opinion, it happened to be on National's side. But since "Dirty Politics", the media have been taking a more measured approach, and so John Key will get a robust treatment over this set of incidents. Calling it "weird" or "odd" as most people do, is being polite to the PM.

It's ackshually fairly creepy, and I'm surprised many of the National/ACT/strongly right posters on here don't just admit it. He's only the figurehead for the party, not the party itself.

blackcap
23-04-2015, 10:27 AM
This poor girl has I think been gotten too by some of the hard core lefties and been asked/pressured to spout this story at about this time. It happened a long time ago, yes Key is stupid for pulling ponytails, but the timing of this just beggars belief.

Daytr
23-04-2015, 10:29 AM
Bjauck, that's the claim if refer. "There could well be a political element to timing as well."
What has someone being bullied have anything to do with Gallipoli?

Daytr
23-04-2015, 10:36 AM
A red herring, would perhaps suggest Key didn't do this. He did & that's the only pertinent point.
Would there be any good timing for Key for this to come out?
I would suggest Key would be grateful that 1) he is out of the country visiting Gallipoli & 2) that he can evoke national patriotism to sweep aside this childish & bullying behavior.

Please explain to me that this coming out & the timing around Gallipoli has any connection & how?
What is your point?

Did it or didn't it happen & on multiple occasions?

Craic, not for the first time you make bad assumptions around who is a lefty.
Didn't the Northland bi-election teach you anything?
How many typically National supporters voted against Key & his National.
I can tell you it was a lot. Many people I have spoken to since have said the same thing.
They weren't voting for NZF, they were voting against Key & National.




OK for the lefties who want to pursue this red herring - answer the following questions - in order.

1. When was the last time he "pulled" her hair?
2. When did he apologise?
3 Does she still work at the same place?
4 When did the Keys last use this cafe?

Daytr
23-04-2015, 10:40 AM
Haha what I did hear is that it wasn't a great vintage.
High acidity, more a bullying violation of the palate than being a cheeky tickling of the taste buds.
More gorse than gooseberry & was possibly corked. ;-)


daytr ....the peace gift was wine .... JK2012 Pinot or something

Methinks it was actually yours and mine wine he gave away

Sgt Pepper
23-04-2015, 10:58 AM
OK for the lefties who want to pursue this red herring - answer the following questions - in order.

1. When was the last time he "pulled" her hair?
2. When did he apologise?
3 Does she still work at the same place?
4 When did the Keys last use this cafe?

Craic
don't be a hypocrite, if Andrew Little had been the centre of attention you would have been in boots and all, admit it.

elZorro
23-04-2015, 11:11 AM
Sgt Pepper, a NZ Herald article, Ponygate could easily go to court.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11436981

I'm expecting some very good political cartoons will be out in the next day or so.

craic
23-04-2015, 11:45 AM
Just answer the questions I posed Daytr
A red herring, would perhaps suggest Key didn't do this. He did & that's the only pertinent point.
Would there be any good timing for Key for this to come out?
I would suggest Key would be grateful that 1) he is out of the country visiting Gallipoli & 2) that he can evoke national patriotism to sweep aside this childish & bullying behavior.

Please explain to me that this coming out & the timing around Gallipoli has any connection & how?
What is your point?

Did it or didn't it happen & on multiple occasions?

Craic, not for the first time you make bad assumptions around who is a lefty.
Didn't the Northland bi-election teach you anything?
How many typically National supporters voted against Key & his National.
I can tell you it was a lot. Many people I have spoken to since have said the same thing.
They weren't voting for NZF, they were voting against Key & National.

craic
23-04-2015, 11:48 AM
The only time I have mentioned Andrew Little on this forum, I made a positive comment on the man - get your facts right.
Craic
don't be a hypocrite, if Andrew Little had been the centre of attention you would have been in boots and all, admit it.

Daytr
23-04-2015, 12:14 PM
Craic,

The questions are irrelevant imo.
Do you know & if so please explain what relevance the questions have?

winner69
23-04-2015, 12:19 PM
Jeez ...#ponytailgate has escalated into #glucinagate with reference to the behaviour of the Herald reporter

John in the all clear

Sgt Pepper
23-04-2015, 01:02 PM
The only time I have mentioned Andrew Little on this forum, I made a positive comment on the man - get your facts right.

Craic
You know exactly what I mean. If the complaint had been about Andrew Little pulling the ponytail of a waitress in a café you would have been all over it.
Well I am off to work now. I work at a large hospital, I wont be pulling any ponytails for sure, if I did I would be fired.

iceman
23-04-2015, 01:08 PM
EZ come on. Because they own several cafes in Auckland they can't be contacted. I am sure a simple voice or txt message would get their attention. But that's not what she wanted.
If you have read my posts, I have not excused Key. To the contrary, I said it was stupid. But to absurdly compare it to rape like Daytr did belittles rape victims and I wont partake in that conversation any further.

Daytr seems to be very angry and personally attacks just about every poster that has a view different to his. The timing of this smells of dirty red politics


Iceman, sounds like the employers own several cafes in Auckland, so might not be on hand most of the time. And these days, a job is a job. I know my daughter would have reacted in a similar way, she happens to have leftie views too, but does that make it all right for John to be excused?

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 01:30 PM
Bjauck, that's the claim if refer. "There could well be a political element to timing as well."
What has someone being bullied have anything to do with Gallipoli?
I said there could be a political element to timing, not "there is.." I am raising a reasonable question not making a claim as I am not in a position to make a claim. FWIW I am a swinging voter :) who voted for JK last time but a few elections previously voted Labour. There has been no evidence yet that the ponytail pulling revelation was timed deliberately. Actually the more I hear of this saga the more I think the victim has been manipulated (and not just by John Key).

Do you accept without question, as to motive and fact, every story and claim you hear? To raise a question does not mean you are making a counter-claim.

westerly
23-04-2015, 03:13 PM
Reading the latest on this in the Herald I am starting to almost feel sorry for John. (almost) Everyone with an agenda to push is rubbing their hands with glee.
Men will need to show some solidarity soon or risk becoming of minor importance in the scheme of things.

westerly

BIRMANBOY
23-04-2015, 04:17 PM
So what's your agenda? That men are needing to band together so they don't lose their superior position? LOL ....For your information that's trying to shut the stable door after the gelding already bolted. The future holds no need for men....artificial insemination, vibrators, robots for heavy physical work and wars. John , bless his heart, is just trying to hold his position on the slippery slope of masculine power and politics. Go John...give that cheeky lass a little pull for every last one of us manly men:p
Reading the latest on this in the Herald I am starting to almost feel sorry for John. (almost) Everyone with an agenda to push is rubbing their hands with glee.
Men will need to show some solidarity soon or risk becoming of minor importance in the scheme of things.

westerly

elZorro
23-04-2015, 05:08 PM
So what's your agenda? That men are needing to band together so they don't lose their superior position? LOL ....For your information that's trying to shut the stable door after the gelding already bolted. The future holds no need for men....artificial insemination, vibrators, robots for heavy physical work and wars. John , bless his heart, is just trying to hold his position on the slippery slope of masculine power and politics. Go John...give that cheeky lass a little pull for every last one of us manly men:p

Yep, just what I expected from you, BB.

neopoleII
23-04-2015, 06:16 PM
according to Whale oil..... this young lady has alot of affiliations on FB to extreme left wing blogs.
her face book account which showed all her links to these left wing blogs and their bloggers has now been taken off line.
also it seems that she said nothing during her "extreme torment" from the PM to her boss and instead
went to a left wing blog "once the PM was totally hooked" and spilled the story......
and now it is mainstream news that the PM has bullied and assaulted a young lady in full view and acceptance of his wife!
so this could be seen as an attack towards mrs key more so than at the PM.
having said that...... what makes a man pull a girls ponytail over and over?
it it bullying?, assault? sexual? or just some friends.... friendly acquaintances..... have some simple fun?
if it was a bad thing ...... wouldnt she say so at the beginning? or slap his hand? or say no.
or play along for several months with the help of left wing bloggers and then hit the media?

seems like a honey trap to me.......
silly mr key for falling for it........ silly mrs key for watching it happen and not slapping her husband.

just another day of dirty politics...... how long will this be dragged out?
what happened to the naked man running away from mrs kings house?
naked man running vs ponytail pull......
mmm.... lets see what happens.

fun and games

elZorro
23-04-2015, 06:55 PM
NeopoleII, John Armstrong didn't laugh it off, either.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11436987

John Key has a childish manner in many ways, he's a bit like this in the House. He's not a statesman. Should he even stay on as PM?

neopoleII
23-04-2015, 07:07 PM
""He's not a statesman. Should he even stay on as PM? ""

if you want a statesman.... winston is the man.
as for staying PM...... i dont care ... i didnt vote for him.

but who else is there?...... PM duo and plus 1 via a greens labour unity?
PM 1 and plus more via a labour winston unity?
or 3 co PMs via a green labour winston unity?

my guess is like the weather..... after a storm, broken things get fixed and things seem better for everyone.

would like to see the left accuse the PM of assault and go through the process of laying charges and entering court.
would be perfect timing for a snap election.

and then..... i still wont vote for him.
but he would win.

Bjauck
23-04-2015, 07:07 PM
NeopoleII, John Armstrong didn't laugh it off, either.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11436987

John Key has a childish manner in many ways, he's a bit like this in the House. He's not a statesman. Should he even stay on as PM?
Pity John Oliver and Last Week Tonight is off air. He'd love to get stuck into this situation. As would Bremner Bird and Fortune & Clark and Dawe & Micallef. Where is NZ satire?

elZorro
23-04-2015, 07:52 PM
Pity John Oliver and Last Week Tonight is off air. He'd love to get stuck into this situation. As would Bremner Bird and Fortune & Clark and Dawe & Micallef. Where is NZ satire?

I take it these are UK shows? I used to really enjoy the rubber puppet show that often featured Helen Clark, Winston, Bolger etc, it was great. You'd think that with Weta nearby we could have more of that. Probably no funds.

Good item by Dita De Boni.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11436896

Public Eye was the show I think.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/public-eye-1988

Daytr
23-04-2015, 11:11 PM
Iceman, I didn't compare it to rape. I said blaming the victim which has been done on here, is similar to blaming the victim in a rape case.
So you may want to read posts a little more closely before suggesting such things.
So I'm saying its no ones fault but John Key's & certainly not the victim's fault which has been suggested on this thread!
Despite what you think I don't get angry at all, so I'm not sure where you get that from either.
Not putting up with piffle is not the same as getting angry.

What timing? I keep reading that this could be something that is timed to make Key look bad?
What has it been timed with?
Is any time a good time for this to come out for Key?


EZ come on. Because they own several cafes in Auckland they can't be contacted. I am sure a simple voice or txt message would get their attention. But that's not what she wanted.
If you have read my posts, I have not excused Key. To the contrary, I said it was stupid. But to absurdly compare it to rape like Daytr did belittles rape victims and I wont partake in that conversation any further.

Daytr seems to be very angry and personally attacks just about every poster that has a view different to his. The timing of this smells of dirty red politics

Daytr
23-04-2015, 11:15 PM
Or perhaps she felt intimidated as it was the Prime Minister & after complaining to police (Key's guards) & Key himself, nothing was one.
Whaleoil, now there's a credible neutral source. ;-)
Its just plain weird if you ask me.


according to Whale oil..... this young lady has alot of affiliations on FB to extreme left wing blogs.
her face book account which showed all her links to these left wing blogs and their bloggers has now been taken off line.
also it seems that she said nothing during her "extreme torment" from the PM to her boss and instead
went to a left wing blog "once the PM was totally hooked" and spilled the story......
and now it is mainstream news that the PM has bullied and assaulted a young lady in full view and acceptance of his wife!
so this could be seen as an attack towards mrs key more so than at the PM.
having said that...... what makes a man pull a girls ponytail over and over?
it it bullying?, assault? sexual? or just some friends.... friendly acquaintances..... have some simple fun?
if it was a bad thing ...... wouldnt she say so at the beginning? or slap his hand? or say no.
or play along for several months with the help of left wing bloggers and then hit the media?

seems like a honey trap to me.......
silly mr key for falling for it........ silly mrs key for watching it happen and not slapping her husband.

just another day of dirty politics...... how long will this be dragged out?
what happened to the naked man running away from mrs kings house?
naked man running vs ponytail pull......
mmm.... lets see what happens.

fun and games

Minerbarejet
24-04-2015, 03:22 AM
Maybe its a case of the wag dogging the tail:)

elZorro
24-04-2015, 06:21 AM
This whole incident has been interesting, in terms of how the media can be used to defuse such things. It didn't take long for a plan to form. The article was the lead item in the Herald yesterday.

(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11436978)http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1504/S00213/abhorrent-reaction-from-rosie-cafe-owners.htm


http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/23/update-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress-part-2-dirty-politics/

For a bit of balance, here's what Redbaiter wrote, and I think it confirms that the waitress, being an employee, young and on a low wage most likely (hospitality never seems to pay high wages), was also politically aware and is a leftie, good on her.

http://truebluenz.com/2015/04/23/amanda-bailey-personal-details-on-facebook-page-suggest-her-politics-are-hard-left/

Daytr
24-04-2015, 12:48 PM
We have a bit of debate around climate change on this thread & there appears to be some doubters about man made climate change.
Latest on temperature rise from Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-17/this-has-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record

elZorro
24-04-2015, 07:41 PM
We have a bit of debate around climate change on this thread & there appears to be some doubters about man made climate change.
Latest on temperature rise from Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-17/this-has-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record\

There is a climate change thread somewhere, with MVT as one climate change denier.

It's getting to be a tough argument for these people, with the steadily melting icecaps and warming oceans.

Anyway back to Ponygate: Bryce Edwards has another huge collection of links on it.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nz-politics-daily-ongoing-ponytailgate-scandal

winner69
24-04-2015, 08:06 PM
Hey EZ, I'm really enjoying the UK elections

Labour being demolished in Scotland and may in a few weeks might just have to form a coalition of sorts with the Tories. See what I mean about the world not really being left/right but those who have a lot to lose (insiders with influence) working together to keep what they got

Labour in NZ wouldn't want to end up like Labour in Scotland. Some of the reasons for the change exist in NZ so they better be careful.

Great article. Things must be getting bad when high ranking Labour members are yelled at in the streets called “a traitor to Scotland” and worse still being denounced as a 'red Tory'

Its a long weekend so have a read
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/rage-against-the-labour-party-from-disillusionment-to-meltdown-in-scotland

elZorro
24-04-2015, 08:35 PM
Hey EZ, I'm really enjoying the UK elections

Labour being demolished in Scotland and may in a few weeks might just have to form a coalition of sorts with the Tories. See what I mean about the world not really being left/right but those who have a lot to lose (insiders with influence) working together to keep what they got

Labour in NZ wouldn't want to end up like Labour in Scotland. Some of the reasons for the change exist in NZ so they better be careful.

Great article. Things must be getting bad when high ranking Labour members are yelled at in the streets called “a traitor to Scotland” and worse still being denounced as a 'red Tory'

Its a long weekend so have a read
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/rage-against-the-labour-party-from-disillusionment-to-meltdown-in-scotland

I did have a look now W69, will be busy over the weekend. I noted:


“The Labour party I was taught about by my grandpa and my dad, I just don’t see that anymore,” Mhairi Black said. “The Labour party I was taught about had big names, intellectual giants, names I would take pride in like the Tony Benns, the Keir Hardies, even the Dennis Skinners. You do not see that level of imagination or hope, that passion, anymore.” For her, the SNP now occupies the space as the party of social justice.


I think that's what we need too, some great Labour leaders to step up, maybe Andrew Little will be one of them.

The skids have been put under John Key, that's a big start for Labour, JK has been clever in keeping everything on keel for six years, but Ponygate is a telling blow to his perceived character, and we won't be seeing his face on all the hoardings in 2017, I'm picking.

winner69
24-04-2015, 08:58 PM
I think I see you in this EZ, somewhere

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-inequality-tower

elZorro
24-04-2015, 09:40 PM
I think I see you in this EZ, somewhere

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-inequality-tower

You know what W69, I won a copy of that book in a Labour Party fundraiser, and I haven't read it yet. It's a great analogy, and I haven't seen that website or other work from the artist, so thanks.

This redistribution of wealth in NZ, sounds like it increased with that Treasury document that consumed Roger Douglas. Many people say it was the making of NZ, but of course they are in the top tier now. If things had worked out how they were supposed to, we'd have a strong export market, we wouldn't be price takers, anyone who wanted a job would have one, and the tax system would be fairer. GST was a scary start at 10%, CGT should have followed, but instead National just put up the GST rate twice. That can't have helped. And then heaps of firms started sacking people as they restructured etc. 2008-2009 was another wakeup, and bad for those at the lower end of the economy.

If National have the answers for this, they are finding it hard to show it in the stats, but they are doing well with their media bites and propaganda. Usually.

Three terms in, three terms out, I hope.

Daytr
24-04-2015, 11:21 PM
Love that EZ, " Back to Ponygate" ! haha
This went so global its embarrassing. The Washington Post headline. "New Zealand’s ponytail-pulling prime minister becomes national embarrassment"
This might be a big call, but I think this weird fetish of Key's could bring him down.
He will never live this down & he is so easily made a laughing stock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/22/new-zealands-ponytail-pulling-prime-minister-becomes-national-embarrassment/


\

There is a climate change thread somewhere, with MVT as one climate change denier.

It's getting to be a tough argument for these people, with the steadily melting icecaps and warming oceans.

Anyway back to Ponygate: Bryce Edwards has another huge collection of links on it.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nz-politics-daily-ongoing-ponytailgate-scandal

stoploss
25-04-2015, 06:14 AM
You know what W69, I won a copy of that book in a Labour Party fundraiser, and I haven't read it yet. It's a great analogy, and I haven't seen that website or other work from the artist, so thanks.

This redistribution of wealth in NZ, sounds like it increased with that Treasury document that consumed Roger Douglas. Many people say it was the making of NZ, but of course they are in the top tier now. If things had worked out how they were supposed to, we'd have a strong export market, we wouldn't be price takers, anyone who wanted a job would have one, and the tax system would be fairer. GST was a scary start at 10%, CGT should have followed, but instead National just put up the GST rate twice. That can't have helped. And then heaps of firms started sacking people as they restructured etc. 2008-2009 was another wakeup, and bad for those at the lower end of the economy.

If National have the answers for this, they are finding it hard to show it in the stats, but they are doing well with their media bites and propaganda. Usually.

Three terms in, three terms out, I hope.
EZ, please note Labour introduced GST and raised it in 1989 . National have only lifted the rate once .

fungus pudding
25-04-2015, 07:16 AM
We have a bit of debate around climate change on this thread & there appears to be some doubters about man made climate change.
Latest on temperature rise from Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-17/this-has-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record


All of which adds nothing to the debate. Whether climate change is anthropological or cyclical is the question, and in spite of various theories, we just don't know.

elZorro
25-04-2015, 07:30 AM
EZ, please note Labour introduced GST and raised it in 1989 . National have only lifted the rate once .

Thanks for that stoploss, I knew about the first and third changes to GST, and presumed the middle one. My mistake.

From Wikipedia:

The Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments_of_New_Zealand) from 26 July 1984 to 2 November 1990. It enacted major social and economic reforms, including reformation of the tax system. The economic reforms were known as Rogernomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics) after Finance Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance_Minister) Roger Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Douglas). According to one political scientist:"Between 1984 and 1993, New Zealand underwent radical economic reform, moving from what had probably been the most protected, regulated and state-dominated system of any capitalist democracy to an extreme position at the open, competitive, free-market end of the spectrum."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-1)The government also enacted nuclear-free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand%27s_nuclear-free_zone) legislation, which led to the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) suspending its treaty obligations to New Zealand under the ANZUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS) alliance. The government was led by David Lange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lange) for most of its time in power, and lasted for two three-year terms. Lange and Douglas had a falling out that divided the party. It was defeated in 1990, but the next National government kept most of the reforms.


When GST first came in at 10% on 1 October 1986, there were personal income tax changes designed to balance it out. I did the maths for my own situation at that stage and found I'd be about even. I realised that if I was on a big income, there would be a lot more money in my pocket, ready to spend on GST-levied goods presumably. I actually raised this question remotely with David Lange via a radio station, asking if he'd honour his pledge to pay back any extra personal income from 1 October. He batted the question away, instead referring me to social services (guessing I was unemployed I think). A few months later I was in Wellington and saw David Lange in an upmarket retail store, speedily buying a large, colourful gumball machine complete with gumballs. I presume he kept the income.

Yes, Labour put the GST rate up, not long before they left office after two terms, in 1990. It stayed at that rate for 20 years, left in place by both parties, until National put it up again in 2010. Following so hard after the GFC, it has to be seen as an admission of defeat in getting solid businesses and investment operations to pay their full share of tax, or more likely the intention is for the status quo. There is no doubt that employees pay their share, it's taken off them before they see anything, by pay clerks and at tills throughout the country, and on almost every invoice they pay.

Retailers in 1986 were forced to keep their old margins on the GST exclusive portion, and add on GST at 10%. So they handled 10% more cash, but had the same net profit. This could have been the start of the ruthless discounting that has slashed retailer margins on most goods, and that impacts on wages in the sector, and general profitability. I much prefer B2B sales or exporting, where both sides can ignore the effect of GST, as long as we can remember it's part of our bank balances.

fungus pudding
25-04-2015, 08:39 AM
Thanks for that stoploss, I knew about the first and third changes to GST, and presumed the middle one. My mistake.

From Wikipedia:


When GST first came in at 10% on 1 October 1986, there were personal income tax changes designed to balance it out. I did the maths for my own situation at that stage and found I'd be about even. I realised that if I was on a big income, there would be a lot more money in my pocket, ready to spend on GST-levied goods presumably. I actually raised this question remotely with David Lange via a radio station, asking if he'd honour his pledge to pay back any extra personal income from 1 October. He batted the question away, instead referring me to social services (guessing I was unemployed I think). A few months later I was in Wellington and saw David Lange in an upmarket retail store, speedily buying a large, colourful gumball machine complete with gumballs. I presume he kept the income.

Yes, Labour put the GST rate up, not long before they left office after two terms, in 1990. It stayed at that rate for 20 years, left in place by both parties, until National put it up again in 2010. Following so hard after the GFC, it has to be seen as an admission of defeat in getting solid businesses and investment operations to pay their full share of tax, or more likely the intention is for the status quo. There is no doubt that employees pay their share, it's taken off them before they see anything, by pay clerks and at tills throughout the country, and on almost every invoice they pay.

Retailers in 1986 were forced to keep their old margins on the GST exclusive portion, and add on GST at 10%. So they handled 10% more cash, but had the same net profit. This could have been the start of the ruthless discounting that has slashed retailer margins on most goods, and that impacts on wages in the sector, and general profitability. I much prefer B2B sales or exporting, where both sides can ignore the effect of GST, as long as we can remember it's part of our bank balances.

Your last paragraph is total bollocks. GST replaced a complex sales tax that levied various rates on all sorts of goods. Some goods were exempt, e.g. schoolbooks or anything that could be argued educational, other products were taxed at 10% or 20% and I think there were a couple of other rates; maximum was 40%. Rackets were rife. I remember helping a friend unpack a consignment of novelty 'pepper and salt shakers' which were exempt as food related, but they were actually toys. It was a horrible system and GST by comparison was brilliant. Many goods under our sales tax system were right out of reach for many, particularly electronics, stereos, TVs etc. That's why prices fell. Also it got rid of the nonsense of travellers returning from say Australia, with a transistor radio or camera buried in the bottom of a suitcase hoping to avoid getting caught. Believe it or not two of the most popular items brought in and not always declared, were match-box toys and Lego blocks. It was pathetic and made NZ a laughing stock - comparable only to Russia in those days. GST helped the masses as well as the retailers.

P.S. What I started off to say is my friend's toyshop increased his number of transactions, made more profit, yet handled less cash.

Daytr
25-04-2015, 09:54 AM
Well you don't know.
I would suggest its common sense.
If you clear forests & deplete the oceans, the lungs of the planet & meanwhile continue to add accumulative carbon emissions year on year at an ever increasing rate for around 150 years, you will impact the climate. Not only is it common sense, its also backed up by the majority of government scientists & renowned scientists around the world. Its pleasing that climate change deniers are swiftly becoming a minority & eventually like the dinosaurs, the baby boomer (I would suggest the majority of climate change deniers) generation will die out & the now youth who overwhelmingly understand the impact of man made climate change will be in positions of power to make change. Change is a foot now thank goodness, with the likes of Apple leading from the front, China making massive changes that makes the US an embarrassment & Europe also turning to alternative energy in a big way. One visit to China & breathe the smog should reinforce the issue for any non believer.


All of which adds nothing to the debate. Whether climate change is anthropological or cyclical is the question, and in spite of various theories, we just don't know.

fungus pudding
25-04-2015, 10:09 AM
Well you don't know.


True. Neither do you, or anyone else. They may think various things, or hold various theories based on modelling, and they may be right, but they do not know.

elZorro
25-04-2015, 10:25 AM
FP, that's the nature of science. They put up a null hypothesis and try to shoot it down with data, if for example the data supports the idea that anthropological climate change is likely happening, it's then a matter of how strong is that data, what is the significance of it. It's becoming increasingly strong, we'd probably never be able to say it's certain. But should that stop us doing anything about it?


Regarding GST: what you're saying might be true for some special items. What about labour for services, what about fuel, both big costs each week? There was no special tax on the former, and the old taxes stayed in place on the latter, it just went up by 10% for endusers, the public. Not for businesses of course, they claimed it back.

Daytr
25-04-2015, 10:49 AM
Well as I said I will leave it common sense and scientific opinion.
And I think they do know & I think there is enough science & knowledge around the accumulative effect of human activity that it will impact the climate.
Every action has a reaction, its foolish imo not to accept that.
We know trees/plants create oxygen, so does the ocean. We know we are emitting carbon into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate that is accumulative. The filters that remove this carbon from the atmosphere are being removed/reduced by man.
So the filters are decreasing, meanwhile the amount of carbon that needs filtering is increasing.
Its simple math.

BlackPeter
25-04-2015, 11:16 AM
Well you don't know.
I would suggest its common sense.
If you clear forests & deplete the oceans, the lungs of the planet & meanwhile continue to add accumulative carbon emissions year on year at an ever increasing rate for around 150 years, you will impact the climate. Not only is it common sense, its also backed up by the majority of government scientists & renowned scientists around the world. Its pleasing that climate change deniers are swiftly becoming a minority & eventually like the dinosaurs, the baby boomer (I would suggest the majority of climate change deniers) generation will die out & the now youth who overwhelmingly understand the impact of man made climate change will be in positions of power to make change. Change is a foot now thank goodness, with the likes of Apple leading from the front, China making massive changes that makes the US an embarrassment & Europe also turning to alternative energy in a big way. One visit to China & breathe the smog should reinforce the issue for any non believer.

With all due respect - may I suggest that the recent post sounds a little bit like throwing a lot of unrelated (or very loosely related) issues into one pot and subsequently delivering the silver bullet? Given that mankind has only limited resources I would suggest it is important to differentiate and attack (if attack is needed) only the real problems? So - lets see, whether we can entangle the knot and identify the different threads (in no particular order):

Air pollution - this is (in the majority) a man made problem - no contest here. Air pollution is particularly bad in many "emerging" economies (i.e. industrialised areas of China, India, Russia, South East Asia) and, if people in these areas want to have a good and healthy life, they need to so something about it. Air pollution is however only weakly related to the so called "climate change". The first is typically caused by often unfiltered industrial and traffic related particles (or just people burning down healthy bush to generate higher profits for a few), the later is (mainly) caused by releasing CO2 into the air. Many of the particles polluting the air would, if cleanly burned, create further "climate changing" CO2. And yes, many "air polluting" processes generate CO2 as well as particles.

Clearing forests - yes, we certainly have here a (reducing-) plant and animal diversity problem (this is a real problem, but has not a lot to do with climate change) ... and to a degree we are as well reducing the capacity of the planet to reduce atmospheric CO2 (at least for a time ..). However in the big picture not really a huge contributor to "climate change", given that all plants have a tendency to die at some stage and release the very CO2 they captured back into the atmosphere (unless you propose to bury all these forests and turn them into coal).

Depleting oceans - again, yes we do have a problem of reducing diversity. However - I have not heard yet, that this reduces the capability of the oceans to convert CO2. Algae life is blooming ...

And now climate change - yes, the climate always changed and it will continue to do so. I don't think that anybody is contesting that. As well - there are undoubtedly components to todays climate change which are caused by man. I haven't heard people denying that either. I guess where the disagreement seems to start is when people claim to understand the system well enough to predict how the climate will develop over the next 100 years - and even what impact man made climate change will have. I have not yet seen any reliable scientific prediction of a complicated system, which was able to forecast any future state over 10 years, but here we say that we know how the climate will look like in 100 years. Quite ridiculous - isn't it?

So - what do we know?

The climate in 100 years will be
a) warmer
b) as today or
c) colder

Sea levels in 100 years will be
a) higher
b) as they are today or
c) lower

Well - whatever it is - we do know, that the globe and life on it survived as well already much colder temperatures (like the ice ages) as well as much warmer temperatures as today (look at he "high-time" of the dinosaurs ... great plant life, mammals started to develop - and insects and reptiles thriving). Just out of interest: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere peaked at that stage (200 million years ago) at about 20 fold of what it is today.

If mankind finds out that the climate (in the moderate and arctic zones) is getting warmer, than they will have lots of opportunities to move (over centuries) into the currently cooler zones of this globe. Remember - they found dinosaur bones in basically all parts of this globe - and there is plenty of space in the subarctic regions of e.g. America (Canada & Alaska), Siberia, Europe and Asia - as well as in Antarctica) to house our grand-grand-grand-grand-children (if that's what is needed). BTW - the tropical regions used to be quite well populated during this time as well, i.e. not very likely that they would heat up further.

If we are however at the brink of a new Ice age (supported by some scientists), than any man made global warming would just mitigate the natural cooling down.

Now - different to some others, I do not pretend to have the answer. However what I am saying is:

I think we agree that it is overdue that mankind does something about pollution. We managed to screw up already too many once great places to live. If this cleaning up results as well in a reduction of CO2 output, than so be it.

I think we agree as well that it would be essential that people find a more sustainable way to live. This includes (reduction of) pollution, (reduction of) energy consumption, if economical and sensible use of "regenerable" energy sources. If this more sustainable living results as well in a reduction of CO2 output, than great - but in my view not the most important outcome.

However - I do not think that the so called man made climate change is the biggest threat for mankind since god created man (or was it the other way around?) ... and we might not agree on that.

I know that our resources are limited - and all the money we spend at current to
- fly thousands of climate change priests annually around the globe to attend absolutely useless talk feast (called conferences)
- create hugely complicated bureaucratic nightmares (like dealing with CO2 credits) to allow some crooks to make still more money out of peoples fear
- create bureaucratic nightmares to castrate our economical development (the so called EPA springs to mind)

would be in my view better spend to prepare for eventualities (pick a,b, and c in the examples above). One of them will come, this is a fact, not a believe.

Lets use our resources to better prepare for all options instead of building up another religion (as in "if you do not believe in climate change you shall go to hell"). We know that religions did enough damage over the last handful of millennia (and they still do), no need for another religion of the "climate change believers".

What can we do here in New Zealand?

build better (wind resistant and insulated) houses
reduce our land consumption - more people in apartment buildings reduces land as well as energy footprint
avoid to build new buildings too close to the water (any water)
avoid to build new houses into steep hills
ensure we have good irrigation systems - plenty of water in New Zealand, just often at the wrong place (and sometimes at the wrong time - storage!).
And yes - keep sustainably using our resources.

Just common sense - isn't it? Do we really need to beat each other up - or could we work together to make this a better place?

fungus pudding
25-04-2015, 11:52 AM
FP, that's the nature of science. They put up a null hypothesis and try to shoot it down with data, if for example the data supports the idea that anthropological climate change is likely happening, it's then a matter of how strong is that data, what is the significance of it. It's becoming increasingly strong, we'd probably never be able to say it's certain. But should that stop us doing anything about it?


Regarding GST: what you're saying might be true for some special items. What about labour for services, what about fuel, both big costs each week? There was no special tax on the former, and the old taxes stayed in place on the latter, it just went up by 10% for endusers, the public. Not for businesses of course, they claimed it back.

There's plenty of reason for not polluting the show apart from the possible effects on climate. That does not mean we should have unproven AGW theories rammed down our throats.
Ass far as tax goes, any consumption tax is part of a businesses cost - not their profit. With GST that means an input claim. Surely you don't see anything wrong with that - or would you prefer it to be cumulative for the end user? As far as fuel, services etc go, I made no comment. My point was simply that you were spouting through a hole in your head about retailers handling 10% more cash, or whatever it was you stated.

elZorro
25-04-2015, 11:59 AM
BP, here is just one article that puts some numbers behind the data. It's the extremely rapid rate of change of CO2 levels that is alarming, and of course you have to remember the scientists heading out to look at the methane flares off our coast. Most likely their work will show the methane reaching the atmosphere, this is just some of the long-stored methane hydrates melting back out of warming oceans. Antarctica and the Greenland Ice shelves have melted before, the sea level rise from such an event would see a lot of people on the move worldwide.

http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/19/rising-sea-levels-related-high-co2/

winner69
25-04-2015, 12:57 PM
EZ, you'll love this. The flow chart of how John Key brain works is really good

Can Labour capitalise on knowing this?

https://manoferrors.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/actually-before-i-go/

BlackPeter
25-04-2015, 01:00 PM
BP, here is just one article that puts some numbers behind the data. It's the extremely rapid rate of change of CO2 levels that is alarming, and of course you have to remember the scientists heading out to look at the methane flares off our coast. Most likely their work will show the methane reaching the atmosphere, this is just some of the long-stored methane hydrates melting back out of warming oceans. Antarctica and the Greenland Ice shelves have melted before, the sea level rise from such an event would see a lot of people on the move worldwide.

http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/19/rising-sea-levels-related-high-co2/

Sure - while I am not sure whether the article provides the best set of data to prove man made global warming (the graph appears to show quite regular CO2 peaks all 110,000 years or so). Yes, looks like CO2 is currently peaking again and this is likely (or I give you certain) aggravated by human activity. Funny thing is - all these previous peaks have been reached rather fast - and than CO2 levels dropped again.

Just wondering - wouldn't it be more constructive to try to understand why the CO2 levels always dropped again after reaching the previous peaks? I put to you that the system is just much more complex than any climate scientist so far is able to comprehend.

Humans tend to think in linear extrapolation. If a share was worth $1 last year and $1,50 today, than for sure it must be $2 next year this time ... right? Well, obviously both of us know that this is nonsense, but unfortunately even senior people tend often to default to this thinking ... and yes, the trend is your friend - until it is not.

What I am saying is - the system is more complicated. There are as well scientists (actually the NASA sitting in that regard on the fence) who say that the increased water in the atmosphere will (in form of clouds) reflect more sunlight (that's what clouds do). This is a fact - and no scientist so far can tell you which of the effects will be stronger. It is however likely that this is a closed feedback curve (higher temperature - more clouds - lower temperatures - less clouds - higher temperatures ...).

Again - I am not saying, that there is no problem. I just don't know when the effects of this feedback will set in (I am sure, they will) and put to you that all the believers don't know either. Otherwise they wouldn't be believers. As well - there are hundreds of other feedback cycles impacting on the climate none of us yet fully understands.

Same as on the stock market - nobody knows whether a particular share will go up or down, and so I'd prefer if we would not put our limited resources into the "we believe in global warming" bucket and on top of that pretending that we understand the system, which we don't, but better prepare in a sensible way for all eventualities.

elZorro
25-04-2015, 01:24 PM
EZ, you'll love this. The flow chart of how John Key brain works is really good

Can Labour capitalise on knowing this?

https://manoferrors.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/actually-before-i-go/

Yes, that's interesting W69, scarily for John, there aren't too many decision boxes at all, and nowhere does it mention research, or swotting up on any facts. It's true he's put on the spot in front of cameras all the time, he has the sound bites down pat.

It would be good to lure JK into comments from the RHS of his decision-making "Say what you think", and then hang him out to dry for a bit. He's done that once or twice.

craic
25-04-2015, 02:17 PM
Yes, that's interesting W69, scarily for John, there aren't too many decision boxes at all, and nowhere does it mention research, or swotting up on any facts. It's true he's put on the spot in front of cameras all the time, he has the sound bites down pat.

It would be good to lure JK into comments from the RHS of his decision-making "Say what you think", and then hang him out to dry for a bit. He's done that once or twice.

In the not too distant future there will be a poll, and this poll, will show little change in John Key's popularity, and all those who whoop and holler over the hair pulling incident and any other scrap of rubbish that they can find might want to look in the mirror and see if they can see the steam rising off their imagination.

Daytr
25-04-2015, 02:32 PM
BP, if enough people don't believe in man's activity is not creating climate change then nothing will be done to try & prevent or mitigate against it.
Air pollution is only one very visible aspect, most of the other very key aspects are not so visible or promoted.
You mention a tree will die anyway & emit carbon if it is felled by Man or naturally.
There is a fundamental difference. That tree may have lived for 50 - 500 years & if it died naturally is likely to replaced by another tree that will do the same filtering the atmosphere for decades or centuries to come. The decomposing tree emitting carbon will decompose over time, again years. If it is felled by man, then quite often it is burnt to clear the land releasing the carbon in an instant & that tree is unlikely to be replaced. Now multiply that around the world where deforestation is happening in the big tracts of forest in Asia & South America. NZ itself for the first time in a very long time has started felling more trees than it is replacing. Its no coincidence that this new trend started in 2009 shortly after Key's National was elected.

Amongst your emitters you miss the US which is one of the largest in the world & has done very little to date to reduce even the rate of rising rate of emissions. Developing countries are obviously a problem in this regard, however they have a far more valid excuse as they are just that developing. China is making huge strides in this area putting the US to shame, by planting massive numbers of trees & switching more & more to alternative energy & not buying brown coal etc & converting to gas, nuclear & green energy sources.

In regards the Ocean, you failed to recognize the demise of the largest living organisms/living systems on the planet, the coral reefs. I'm not expert in this area, but plankton I understand also makes a huge contribution to oxygenating or decarbonizing the sea. Salination of the oceans is also a problem being caused by one of the very ways you describe as a mitigant. Irrigation takes fresh water that would not only fill water tables & natural aquifers, but also fresh water that needs to flow down stream & eventually into the ocean. Fresh water into the ocean may seem like a waste to some, but its a very important part of the cycle.

One obvious area NZ has contributed & increased its emissions is with the intensification of dairy. And it not only impacted our emission levels but also the quality of our water & put a strain on water resources. This is one area NZ could take action among others including better protection of our forests.

Mitigation will obviously be required, however there are some very obvious things that can be done to reduce the impact man's activity without creating economic destruction. I would suggest there is a very strong push from some big corporates to protect the current way of doing things, as its profitable for them & change isn't. However, that change such as solar as an example, can be profitable for someone else, or even them if they were wiling to adapt & change.

Here is an article from Nat Geo in regards oxygenation levels of the ocean & how they are rapidly depleting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150313-oceans-marine-life-climate-change-acidification-oxygen-fish/

EZ, also raises a good point in regards methane & the plumes that are popping up on a far more regular basis. Billions & billions of tons of methane is trapped under the perma frost in the Northern Hemisphere & if that ice melts it will be rapidly be released. It has already begun with numerous methane plumes being reported in the likes of Siberia.

We, being man, are part of an ecosystem & we are the dominant species & in the last 300 or so years have increased our range & efficiency of activity. Whereas before there were whole continents largely unaffected by deforestation, over fishing & the like. This has only increased in speed & spread in the last 100 years. We are part of nature so to exclude what we do as not natural as a lot seem to do, is illogical.
If we keep taking from one, i.e. the filters & the lungs of the planet & keep adding to the pollution, we have to expect a reaction.
I love nature & the fine balance of life on this planet as I'm sure many do & I would not just want to accept the inevitable & mitigate but to actively try & protect & prevent.

Its take around 3 billion years for Earth to develop to a level of sustainable & finely balanced life which is beautiful & in a blink of an eye man could destroy that. Perhaps it recovers naturally over the next thousands or millions of years. I would like to see our very special way of life continue for much longer & for other generations to enjoy.

fungus pudding
25-04-2015, 02:46 PM
In the not too distant future there will be a poll, and this poll, will show little change in John Key's popularity, and all those who whoop and holler over the hair pulling incident and any other scrap of rubbish that they can find might want to look in the mirror and see if they can see the steam rising off their imagination.

You could always start a poll on whether his popularity will rise by 2% or fall by 2% or stay within 40 to 44%. (currently 42%) . I'd go with 40 to 44%

Sgt Pepper
25-04-2015, 03:11 PM
You could always start a poll on whether his popularity will rise by 2% or fall by 2% or stay within 40 to 44%. (currently 42%) . I'd go with 40 to 44%

FP

This event may cause John Key to reflect on whether the public /media scrutiny involved as Prime Minister is worth it. All these things can take a toll. He is very close, for instance, to David Cameron, and at current polling it seems highly unlikely the Conservatives will be able to retain power in the UK. Paula Bennett, Michael Woodhouse and Judith Collins,with an eye on their personal political ambitions, will be privately delighted with the difficulties John Key has encountered . Interesting times.
, .

elZorro
25-04-2015, 04:44 PM
Sure - while I am not sure whether the article provides the best set of data to prove man made global warming (the graph appears to show quite regular CO2 peaks all 110,000 years or so). Yes, looks like CO2 is currently peaking again and this is likely (or I give you certain) aggravated by human activity. Funny thing is - all these previous peaks have been reached rather fast - and than CO2 levels dropped again.

Just wondering - wouldn't it be more constructive to try to understand why the CO2 levels always dropped again after reaching the previous peaks? I put to you that the system is just much more complex than any climate scientist so far is able to comprehend.

Humans tend to think in linear extrapolation. If a share was worth $1 last year and $1,50 today, than for sure it must be $2 next year this time ... right? Well, obviously both of us know that this is nonsense, but unfortunately even senior people tend often to default to this thinking ... and yes, the trend is your friend - until it is not.

What I am saying is - the system is more complicated. There are as well scientists (actually the NASA sitting in that regard on the fence) who say that the increased water in the atmosphere will (in form of clouds) reflect more sunlight (that's what clouds do). This is a fact - and no scientist so far can tell you which of the effects will be stronger. It is however likely that this is a closed feedback curve (higher temperature - more clouds - lower temperatures - less clouds - higher temperatures ...).

Again - I am not saying, that there is no problem. I just don't know when the effects of this feedback will set in (I am sure, they will) and put to you that all the believers don't know either. Otherwise they wouldn't be believers. As well - there are hundreds of other feedback cycles impacting on the climate none of us yet fully understands.

Same as on the stock market - nobody knows whether a particular share will go up or down, and so I'd prefer if we would not put our limited resources into the "we believe in global warming" bucket and on top of that pretending that we understand the system, which we don't, but better prepare in a sensible way for all eventualities.

BP, I think the models are starting to fit the records quite well, not sure how far back they go. Looks to me like the story is that when CO2 levels go high, the planet warms, ice melts and the sea floods large areas that were generating CO2, then it all cools off and settles back over millions of years. But we have been tampering with the system, bringing on the next big meltdown more quickly, if we're not careful.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/collapse-antarcticas-glaciers-ice-melt-sooner-than-thought-scientists-warn

BlackPeter
25-04-2015, 04:54 PM
In the not too distant future there will be a poll, and this poll, will show little change in John Key's popularity, and all those who whoop and holler over the hair pulling incident and any other scrap of rubbish that they can find might want to look in the mirror and see if they can see the steam rising off their imagination.

actually - an article worthwhile to reflect on in NBR:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/dont-laugh-winston-plan-be-pm?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NBR%2520Heads%2520Up%2520-%2520Weekend%2520Review%2520Edition

The gist of the story? Winston Peters has next election a good chance to become king maker (again). If the numbers are right, than it is him and only him to determine whoever will rule the country after the next election. And if this is the case ... why shouldn't he sell his vote to the highest bidder as he did before? Given that he is clearly interested in the PM position (and the knighthood which comes with it after retirement) - why not ask for the PM position (at least for a part of the term) when he goes into the negotiations? This would give him the chance to retire as PM and it would be for whoever wins the bidding war an amazing opportunity to build up a new PM, growing under Winstons wings.

Question is - which party (or group of parties) would offer more to buy Winston's support in such a situation - the PM position would be obviously only the beginning ...

BlackPeter
25-04-2015, 05:29 PM
...
Its take around 3 billion years for Earth to develop to a level of sustainable & finely balanced life which is beautiful & in a blink of an eye man could destroy that. Perhaps it recovers naturally over the next thousands or millions of years. I would like to see our very special way of life continue for much longer & for other generations to enjoy.

Hi Daytr, we certainly agree on that, and we agree as well on the requirement of a more sustainable lifestyle.

It is just that I am a bit worried that too much focus on the fad of the decade (global warming and CO2) might direct our focus away from the real danger. Now - I don't know, whether this is radioactive pollution (which actually could make the planet uninhabitable, other than global warming which would only require a lot of of us to move ...), whether this is an overdose of man made chemicals including but not limited to fertilizer (which could significantly reduce the planets ability to sustain our species in the numbers we grew to), whether this is the reduction of biodiversity up to the point where we destroy one or several for our life essential organism(s) who's importance we didn't understood, or whether this is something else. I am pretty sure it won't be the rising CO2 levels - but that's unfortunately the theme today's preachers picked to make their money with ...

Just look at all the stupid decisions people made already due to the fear of looming global warming: Remember the bio fuel fad? It resulted in the disappearance of cheap food for the poor and increased world hunger. Remember the advance of the solar panels (knowing that until 2010 every solar panel manufactured had a negative energy balance - it took more energy to produce them, than they would ever return during their life time)? Solar panels have been an additional source of CO2 into the atmosphere - not to forget the environmental damages of mining all the rare earths you need to produce them.

Ah well, give it another 10 or 20 years and I am sure people will have another favorite worry, that's just how humans work ...

Daytr
25-04-2015, 06:11 PM
Well its certainly only one, but imo a major component is emissions so we will have to agree to disagree on the size of the contribution growing CO2 emissions is contributing to climate change. Its also an issue if we want to, we can do something about.
Climate change/global warming will be the very real issue & not just a fad.
Many issues will result from our unsustainable lives, climate change being one of them.
However many species will also become extinct & eating fish etc will be come a luxury.
Waste is also a major factor.

In regards solar panels what you say in regards panels prior to 2010 is quite incorrect.
In 2010 solar was compared to coal powered electricity, obviously the highest form of emission energy production.
Solar including its manufacture produces 20 times less emissions to that of coal. As gas produces half the emissions of coal approximately again solar is substantially lower being only 10 times less emission intensive & this was back in 2010 & solar has improved markedly since then. In some climates those ratios are much higher still.
When comparing you need to compare it to the alternative ways of producing electricity.
Hydro production will create some emissions also & it would be interesting to know if solar is higher or lower than solar in regards emissions.

Just because stupid decisions are made & there are a lot of people/corporates who will use a green image to do some pretty horrific things, selling as environmentally friendly when its quite the opposite, it doesn't mean the right things shouldn't be done & government policy encourage that.

elZorro
26-04-2015, 07:36 AM
Well its certainly only one, but imo a major component is emissions so we will have to agree to disagree on the size of the contribution growing CO2 emissions is contributing to climate change. Its also an issue if we want to, we can do something about.
Climate change/global warming will be the very real issue & not just a fad.
Many issues will result from our unsustainable lives, climate change being one of them.
However many species will also become extinct & eating fish etc will be come a luxury.
Waste is also a major factor.

In regards solar panels what you say in regards panels prior to 2010 is quite incorrect.
In 2010 solar was compared to coal powered electricity, obviously the highest form of emission energy production.
Solar including its manufacture produces 20 times less emissions to that of coal. As gas produces half the emissions of coal approximately again solar is substantially lower being only 10 times less emission intensive & this was back in 2010 & solar has improved markedly since then. In some climates those ratios are much higher still.
When comparing you need to compare it to the alternative ways of producing electricity.
Hydro production will create some emissions also & it would be interesting to know if solar is higher or lower than solar in regards emissions.

Just because stupid decisions are made & there are a lot of people/corporates who will use a green image to do some pretty horrific things, selling as environmentally friendly when its quite the opposite, it doesn't mean the right things shouldn't be done & government policy encourage that.

Skimming through the SST this morning, Rod Oram's article on our export sector mentioned that the dairy sector can't keep doubling the dairy herd every 20 years like they have been doing, to boost returns. They need to aim for $15/kg milksolids, not the $4.70 they are getting. For your argument Daytr, methane emissions from the cows we do have, must be getting significant.

Rod also pointed out major errors in what the government is telling us in their speeches, compared to the actual data. They have even redone the GDP stats in a different way, to make it look better (against advice from Statistics NZ), until international conventions forced it to be changed back. We are not meeting export income targets set by National, and any change in high-value exports has been minimal. But internal tourism income, which makes us poorer overall compared to other jobs we should encourage, is up 12% over 2010-2014.

We just don't have enough reporters looking in detail at the data, calling out these lies that we are being fed by the government. Good on you, Rod.

Gordon Campbell late last year, 19 Reasons why we shouldn't vote back National. (http://werewolf.co.nz/tag/rod-oram/feed/)

elZorro
28-04-2015, 06:02 AM
John Key lampooned on US comedy show:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68080709/pm-john-key-lampooned-on-us-comedy-show

I think this is also quite damaging for brand JK, it'll be interesting to see if he still gets mobbed for selfies.

Daytr
28-04-2015, 12:39 PM
Ahhh yep that's pretty damning & on a very popular US show.
I obviously don't like Key, but these are people who just see it for what it is.
A creepy, weird repetitive act by the prime minister of NZ.
His credibility is shot & he's an international laughing stock.
What he does in the bedroom is his business, in public its everyone's business.

Major von Tempsky
28-04-2015, 08:45 PM
Desperation sets in on the Left.

Can't you find any substantial targets to attack?

One of my grandchildren has rather fat cheeks so occasionally I would put my fingers each side and gently squash them together saying jocularly "Fatcheeks". The last time she said "Don't do that Grandpa!", "No, not fatcheeks!".

So I no longer do. So this means I am creepy, weird, should be prosecuted, and disqualified from holding public office?

You guys need to get a sense of proportion, get a life.
The public opinion polls show barely any discernible effects (in fact the movement such as it is, could well be due to other factors.)
If you are at all realistic you'll know you are flogging a dead horse - well more like a dead hamster actually!

Sgt Pepper
28-04-2015, 09:13 PM
Desperation sets in on the Left.

Can't you find any substantial targets to attack?

One of my grandchildren has rather fat cheeks so occasionally I would put my fingers each side and gently squash them together saying jocularly "Fatcheeks". The last time she said "Don't do that Grandpa!", "No, not fatcheeks!".

So I no longer do. So this means I am creepy, weird, should be prosecuted, and disqualified from holding public office?

You guys need to get a sense of proportion, get a life.
The public opinion polls show barely any discernible effects (in fact the movement such as it is, could well be due to other factors.)
If you are at all realistic you'll know you are flogging a dead horse - well more like a dead hamster actually!

Ok then Major
a challenge, next time you go to a restaurant or café start pulling some pony tails and see how amused the staff member is. I am sorry this ridiculous behaviour doesn't seem to offend you. Of course if a Labour , NZ first or Green MP had offended you would have defended them as well. YEAH.....RIGHT!

777
28-04-2015, 09:50 PM
Ponygate will still not see the left get in in 2017. Just watch Little make an idiot of himself when Key returns. The public are over it all now but the left will try to milk it as far as they can unaware of this.

Key was wrong and he knows it. He apologized. The end.

There are far more important things to be concerned with than this crap much as some of you thrive on it.

Daytr
28-04-2015, 11:52 PM
Well its not just wrong, its obvious its a fetish as he's done on multiple occasions to other girls etc.
MVT, as Sgt Pepper said, you like Bob Jones either deliberately miss the point or don't get it.
This is not his grand daughter who you are teasing. This is an adult that is serving you food & had asked directly & indirectly that it stop.

Its not the first time Key has lacked good judgment. Another bad call is still hanging over him as well Mike Sabin, you know the guy he gave the Chair of the judiciary committee to, whilst he was under investigation. And there are multiple others. But that's ok, he's just laid back.
I bet you one thing. Sabin's not being charged with pulling a ponytail.

fungus pudding
29-04-2015, 05:21 AM
I see Key has dropped as preferred PM in latest poll. :(That will have the socialists salivating. He's down 0.04 percent to 64.06.:p Still National are up as preferred party naturally, so it's not all bad.:D

iceman
29-04-2015, 06:23 AM
And Little down and Winston up, as predicted, after the former effectively handed over the role of Opposition Leader by gifting Northland to the latter. When is the incompetence at Labour going to stop !


I see Key has dropped as preferred PM in latest poll. :(That will have the socialists salivating. He's down 0.04 percent to 64.06.:p Still National are up as preferred party naturally, so it's not all bad.:D

elZorro
29-04-2015, 06:40 AM
Ponygate will still not see the left get in in 2017. Just watch Little make an idiot of himself when Key returns. The public are over it all now but the left will try to milk it as far as they can unaware of this.

Key was wrong and he knows it. He apologized. The end.

There are far more important things to be concerned with than this crap much as some of you thrive on it.

Saw John Key on TV this morning, and he'd failed to specifically mention women's rights while in Saudi Arabia. A tricky issue at the best of times over there, but with his recent background, JK would have no leg to stand on.

Daytr: this longer-term research looks useful to reduce livestock emissions, being carried out at AgResearch. This is more like it, it's the sort of research they should get involved in.

http://www.nzresources.com/showarticle.aspx?id=7120&guid=30007120

Major von Tempsky
29-04-2015, 07:09 AM
Time for Daytr, El Zorro and the rest of the raving looney Left to find a different game....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11440058

Ponytail-gate fails to shake Prime Minister's ratings

5:00 AM Wednesday Apr 29, 2015


Key and National still riding high in polls and Winston Peters has gained support

elZorro
29-04-2015, 05:22 PM
Time for Daytr, El Zorro and the rest of the raving looney Left to find a different game....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11440058

Ponytail-gate fails to shake Prime Minister's ratings

5:00 AM Wednesday Apr 29, 2015


Key and National still riding high in polls and Winston Peters has gained support

MVT, I think if you look harder, that survey straddled the timing of the pony-gate saga, before the public were fully informed about it, or had time to digest the ramifications.

On Pundit the other day, more comment by Tim Watkin. There is a point raised further on, since no other waitresses have stepped up with similar complaints, is it possible JK singled out the Parnell waitress for attention after finding that she wasn't keen on National policies, or bowled over by his persona?

http://pundit.co.nz/content/has-john-key-tugged-off-more-than-he-realises

Today we hear news of a widening trade deficit. But that is apparently a sign of a strong economy? We can't keep buying more than we're selling forever though, can we?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/272350/economist-says-trade-deficit-will-widen

Daytr
29-04-2015, 06:02 PM
MVT you obviously went to the same kindergarten as Key & like him failed to graduate.
Blanketly labelling (quite incorrectly I might add) people & name calling, very mature.
Perhaps you should run for PM ! Its obviously the type of behavior that you enjoy.
Also a poll actually performed post the hair tugging episode & international laughing stock that followed might be a little more indicative if it has impacted Key's popularity. Just a small point.... But don't let anything get in the way of your fantasy.
Do you fall asleep at night counting John Key's tugs on a girl's ponytail perhaps?
As one commentator said when this ridiculous behavior broke. Those who like Key will justify the behavior no matter what. Those who don't like him will feast on it. So its the swing voters that are likely to be the only ones that really may show up in polling. Although it would be interesting to hear a woman's perspective on the whole thing.




Time for Daytr, El Zorro and the rest of the raving looney Left to find a different game....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11440058

Ponytail-gate fails to shake Prime Minister's ratings

5:00 AM Wednesday Apr 29, 2015


Key and National still riding high in polls and Winston Peters has gained support

elZorro
30-04-2015, 06:08 AM
Daytr, some people in USA have even animated JK's Ponygate saga for a news item.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJCqnInb1MM&feature=youtu.be

There's a lot of stuff posted on the web about it now, Micky Savage had this comment.

http://thestandard.org.nz/pillock-of-the-week/

And another from Mike Smith about the owners of the café.

http://thestandard.org.nz/hip-throw-to-the-lions/

It has just occurred to me that Ponygate could be a slower running version of Marilyn Waring's undoing of Robert Muldoon. Sir Robert was so incensed by her statement that she'd be crossing the floor, that he called a snap election, and he did this to camera, after having had one or two tipples in the evening. In a similar situation to now, where the PM was the undisputed figurehead and had been promoted as such, the outcome was inevitable.

westerly
30-04-2015, 10:19 AM
Time for Daytr, El Zorro and the rest of the raving looney Left to find a different game....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11440058

Ponytail-gate fails to shake Prime Minister's ratings

5:00 AM Wednesday Apr 29, 2015


Key and National still riding high in polls and Winston Peters has gained support

All that poll proves is any publicity is good publicity. However the rabid, righteous, right will milk it. :)

However I do feel threats of court action and union involvement is not doing Labour any favours. John has made a big enough fool of himself on his own and over reaction is not necessary.

westerly

elZorro
30-04-2015, 08:06 PM
All that poll proves is any publicity is good publicity. However the rabid, righteous, right will milk it. :)

However I do feel threats of court action and union involvement is not doing Labour any favours. John has made a big enough fool of himself on his own and over reaction is not necessary.

westerly

Fair enough Westerly. You do have to remember that Labour is a party that wants to look like NZ, on average. So 50% female in top positions etc if possible. The party also started solidly with views on workers' rights.

I for one, believe that if workers get a fair go, we all do well.

I have been keeping an eye on National's track record for income and spending lately.

Money raked in from 250,000 speeding fines when 4km/hr over rule imposed: $7mill extra approx.
Money available/granted to 57 big businesses for R&D over four years: $855mill

Placements for undergraduates in science, engineering, design for 400hrs, summer hols: just 240 countrywide @$6,400 each =$1.536mill
Emergency grant to Nepal, Sir Edmund Hillary's favourite charity country: $1mill from all of NZ, doubled to $2mill a few days later =50c p/p.

There is a pattern of major money heading out to minority big business in the way of grants and cosy deals, policies helping rocketing house prices, continued non-taxing of steady capital gains, and miserly redistributions to the majority.

elZorro
01-05-2015, 06:42 AM
Tony Alexander reckons they need 76,000 new homes in Auckland, and on the face of it, to remove the pressure on house prices there, he might be right.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/75245/bnz-chief-economist-says-auckland-housing-supply-shortage-four-times-larger?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+1+Ma y+2015

Paul Glass has an interesting article on our Rock-star economy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11440670&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+1+Ma y+2015

Daytr
01-05-2015, 01:52 PM
Yeah its interesting hearing that from someone in the investment community such as Devon.
He hits quite a few nails on the head, but misses quite a few others.
Like the massive increase in our government debt that there is no plan to start paying down & as he mentioned dairy & the implication is that huge boost to the economy is about to dry up & so is government tax receipts. Electricity prices are another issue for NZ & act as a tax on lower income whilst shareholders benefit at their expense. Allowing solar surplus to be bought at much more reasonable rates & giving support to the industry to make it more affordable would actually same money on infrastructure required to transmit power the length of the country which is so inefficient.
The Government's unwillingness to reign in immigration & the Auckland property market also means its difficult for the RBNZ to drop rates, again costing the rest of the country not only in interest costs but also export revenues as the Kiwi remains stubbornly high due to the yield in the NZD.
Economic managers my arse.
I'm off to the bank to borrow some money on an on-going basis with no plan of ever paying it back, in the mean time I'm going to sell the assets that underpin the cashflow to service that debt. Lets see how far I get.

elZorro
01-05-2015, 05:44 PM
Yeah its interesting hearing that from someone in the investment community such as Devon.
He hits quite a few nails on the head, but misses quite a few others.
Like the massive increase in our government debt that there is no plan to start paying down & as he mentioned dairy & the implication is that huge boost to the economy is about to dry up & so is government tax receipts. Electricity prices are another issue for NZ & act as a tax on lower income whilst shareholders benefit at their expense. Allowing solar surplus to be bought at much more reasonable rates & giving support to the industry to make it more affordable would actually same money on infrastructure required to transmit power the length of the country which is so inefficient.
The Government's unwillingness to reign in immigration & the Auckland property market also means its difficult for the RBNZ to drop rates, again costing the rest of the country not only in interest costs but also export revenues as the Kiwi remains stubbornly high due to the yield in the NZD.
Economic managers my arse.
I'm off to the bank to borrow some money on an on-going basis with no plan of ever paying it back, in the mean time I'm going to sell the assets that underpin the cashflow to service that debt. Lets see how far I get.

Daytr, you could always say to the bank that you have the option of increasing your prices to your more well-off clients, but of course the bank might argue that you'd lose hold of the company, and suffer bad press to boot. So I guess in the meantime your business policy will be to rip a whole lot of people off a bit, especially the less vocal and focussed ones. As to how you will address the needs of those clients while at the same time trying to levy income from your most asset-rich clients, you can probably put that in the too-hard basket. Love those cheap interest rates, and it's not your money paying the interest - bonus.

Major von Tempsky
02-05-2015, 09:13 AM
I see that Grant Robertson (sic) called John Key "weird and creepy" in the House.

Most people's reaction - Grant Robertson? HE of all people.

If Labour are to have any show of making it stick they need an MP who is straight and normal and well adjusted (do they have any?) to make such a charge.

Grant Robertson calls John Key weird and creepy - I'm still laughing. Talk about those in glasshouses not throwing stones!

winner69
02-05-2015, 09:16 AM
EZ, this is the sort of passion that Labour needs to generate somehow

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/01/scots-out-in-force-edinburgh-sturgeon-snp-election-labour

Next Friday will be compelling TV viewing

BlackPeter
02-05-2015, 09:23 AM
"The disappearing Mr Little" on NBR ...

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/disappearing-mr-little

food for thought?

elZorro
02-05-2015, 10:30 AM
EZ, this is the sort of passion that Labour needs to generate somehow

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/01/scots-out-in-force-edinburgh-sturgeon-snp-election-labour

Next Friday will be compelling TV viewing

I'm not following the UK elections very much, but I take it SNP and Labour could do some kind of a deal after the elections.

Over here, Bill English is getting the bad news out early before the budget.

Carefully massaged messages about how everything is going according to plan. I can't see how that is going to be the case, there will be lots of businesses out here in the provinces who won't be paying any income taxes, just about every farmer (not much new there), but every supplier to dairy farmers, and the service industries reliant on that income being spread about. There will be more unemployed, bigger costs on that side. A smaller PAYE return, these will add up to make it very hard to balance the budget, even next year. Note how they are still talking about tax cuts by 2017. This is the bribe they'll hope to use to stay in power, after making a mess of the country's finances for nine years. The govt controls a good third of the entire NZ economy (http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/99f91186d74.pdf). They're it, the big honcho. They haven't been able to make it work, because they are fundamentally clots, looking after themselves and their mates.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11441729&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+2+ May+2015

BlackPeter
02-05-2015, 10:54 AM
I'm not following the UK elections very much, but I take it SNP and Labour could do some kind of a deal after the elections.

...

They're it, the big honcho. They haven't been able to make it work, because they are fundamentally clots, looking after themselves and their mates.


Hi EZ, maybe this is Labours big problem? If National is really looking out only for the (give or take) 50% of the population voting for them, and Labour is only looking out for the (give or take) 20% of the population voting for Labour, than how do you ever plan to get into government?

Not trying to be facetious here ... while I personally feel that a National government is still the smaller evil for NZ, I agree that their performance is deteriorating. I definitely would want to see a strong and credible opposition keeping the government honest. Unfortunately Labour is denying this crucial service to our country - and I am not sure, why? I guess if things keep going as they are, than Winston Peters might soon be the leader of the opposition (and hey, he well might go next time with National assuming that the baubles of power might look prettier on the right than on the left).

elZorro
02-05-2015, 11:11 AM
Hi EZ, maybe this is Labours big problem? If National is really looking out only for the (give or take) 50% of the population voting for them, and Labour is only looking out for the (give or take) 20% of the population voting for Labour, than how do you ever plan to get into government?

Not trying to be facetious here ... while I personally feel that a National government is still the smaller evil for NZ, I agree that their performance is deteriorating. I definitely would want to see a strong and credible opposition keeping the government honest. Unfortunately Labour is denying this crucial service to our country - and I am not sure, why? I guess if things keep going as they are, than Winston Peters might soon be the leader of the opposition (and hey, he well might go next time with National assuming that the baubles of power might look prettier on the right than on the left).

BP, I couldn't get at the article from NBR you posted. But from my point of view, Andrew Little is tracking along OK. He's got time on his side.

You said that National is looking out for the 50% of voters who voted for them. A more correct view is that they obtained 50% of the party vote at the last election. They also lost the Northland by-election by a landslide. Every main election for the last 2-3 decades, 80% of the party vote has gone to National/Labour/NZFirst/Greens combined. How that proportion splits up, is decided by effective marketing and advertising spend from each of the main parties during the last three months before the election. Over the last three, even four elections, National has out-spent Labour, more recently by quite a lot. They also had the bonus of already being in power.

I'm pleased you're less happy with National now than you were. Think about that across the whole country, and by 2017 the old 'three terms in, three terms out' rule for the main party should apply. It'll show up first in more campaign funds being available for Labour, less for National. Then this will feed into aggressive but well-founded arguments from Labour's team, and I'm confident they'll take it out in 2017. They certainly have plenty of ammo for the next election.

Daytr
02-05-2015, 11:46 AM
With a post like that MVT its your true colors that are being exposed & just how out of date your views are.
Grant Robertson's sexual persuasion has no relevance & if John Key liked pulling ponytails in the bedroom with a consenting adult than neither would that. The difference is Key continued his behavior with someone who not only didn't consent but objected to it.



I see that Grant Robertson (sic) called John Key "weird and creepy" in the House.

Most people's reaction - Grant Robertson? HE of all people.

If Labour are to have any show of making it stick they need an MP who is straight and normal and well adjusted (do they have any?) to make such a charge.

Grant Robertson calls John Key weird and creepy - I'm still laughing. Talk about those in glasshouses not throwing stones!

Sgt Pepper
02-05-2015, 01:00 PM
I see that Grant Robertson (sic) called John Key "weird and creepy" in the House.

Most people's reaction - Grant Robertson? HE of all people.

If Labour are to have any show of making it stick they need an MP who is straight and normal and well adjusted (do they have any?) to make such a charge.

Grant Robertson calls John Key weird and creepy - I'm still laughing. Talk about those in glasshouses not throwing stones!

Major

What on earth are you going on about. You write like some Neanderthal who makes Archie Bunker seem liberal. Oh well, I guess that's what happens if you watch Fox News all day.

Sgt Pepper
02-05-2015, 01:37 PM
With a post like that MVT its your true colors that are being exposed & just how out of date your views are.
Grant Robertson's sexual persuasion has no relevance & if John Key liked pulling ponytails in the bedroom with a consenting adult than neither would that. The difference is Key continued his behavior with someone who not only didn't consent but objected to it.

Daytr

Absolutely right. The tenor of responses from MVT and others reflects that, underneath the insults and bravado they are getting seriously concerned at the prospect of National being returned in 2017. Perhaps its timely to reflect where we are in the political cycle.
I would like to make the following observations and predictions and would be interested in others opinions.
I believe John Keys enthusiasm for the job and determination to win the next election is being tested at a personal level. " Ponygate" is survivable but this has undermined confidence.

The Flag Referendum
There is no public appetite evident to change the flag and he runs a personal risk in being associated to such an extent with what will be a failure, and a rather expensive one at $26 million.
The Surplus
The elusive surplus is proving problematic as they attached so much of their credibility to its attainment. This may not be such a problem for the electorate at large, but the 2014 promise, pushed by John Key against Bill English advice of a second tranche of income tax cuts must be deeply regretted now and have Bill English privately seething.
National MPs Aspirations
On the basis of 3 terms in 3 terms out, younger, ambitious National MPs are contemplating their political careers. this can only serve to heighten tensions internally. This could well boil over in late 2016.
John Keys Post PM Career
He is without a doubt contemplating his post political aspirations, Ponygate will only serve to seek out a pathway. Accordingly I make the following scenario as a distinct possibility. John Key will announce his resignation to depart the leadership in late 2016. He will seek, and be appointed to the position of High Commisioner to London in early 2017 to replace Lockwood Smith

Daytr
02-05-2015, 01:47 PM
Sgt Pepper I wouldn't be surprised to see Key try & stay on for a 4th term.
In regards the flag referendum perhaps that is a signal that Key is looking to step down.
I see the changing of the flag as personal 'epitaph' or monument to himself that he would go down in history for.
I think there are quite a few NZers that wouldn't mind seeing a flag change, but don't want to squander that sort of money to achieve it & would rather see status quo than spend that kind of money.

Joshuatree
02-05-2015, 01:56 PM
The other scenario ;Judith Collins changes style and starts wearing a pony tail:).

craic
02-05-2015, 02:10 PM
Daytr


John Keys Post PM Career
He is without a doubt contemplating his post political aspirations, Ponygate will only serve to seek out a pathway. Accordingly I make the following scenario as a distinct possibility. John Key will announce his resignation to depart the leadership in late 2016. He will seek, and be appointed to the position of High Commisioner to London in early 2017 to replace Lockwood Smith

How much of your hard earned cash are you willing to wager on this prediction? I would be happy to match a reasonable wager with the assertion that John Key will lead the National Party into and through the next election.

elZorro
02-05-2015, 02:38 PM
How much of your hard earned cash are you willing to wager on this prediction? I would be happy to match a reasonable wager with the assertion that John Key will lead the National Party into and through the next election.

Craic, if you look at the 'combined wisdom of 8,000 punters' on ipredict, JK is ~60% likely to drop out of being leader of the National Party sometime in 2017. Do you mean that even if National loses, and JK is still the leader just after the election, that's the bet? Or does National have to win too?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1504/S00188/ipredict-new-zealand-weekly-economic-political-update.htm

winner69
02-05-2015, 03:57 PM
A problem no government in nz has dared tackled .....student loan debt

Currently $14 billion plus in NZ ...thats are big drag on the economy.

Not trillions as in the US
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/5/1/education/next-trillion-dollar-lending-crisis

fungus pudding
02-05-2015, 04:12 PM
How much of your hard earned cash are you willing to wager on this prediction? I would be happy to match a reasonable wager with the assertion that John Key will lead the National Party into and through the next election.

I agree, and now that NZ first are better established, at this early stage I'd pick a coalition of National, Act and NZ first as the next government. NZ1st will be far more useful to Key and National with Ron Marks back in the fold, and ultimately destined to replace Winston..

craic
02-05-2015, 04:15 PM
Craic, if you look at the 'combined wisdom of 8,000 punters' on ipredict, JK is ~60% likely to drop out of being leader of the National Party sometime in 2017. Do you mean that even if National loses, and JK is still the leader just after the election, that's the bet? Or does National have to win too?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1504/S00188/ipredict-new-zealand-weekly-economic-political-update.htm

The bet is as stated. I have no idea who will win the next election - but John Key will not resign or be deposed, prior to election night. I am not interested in the ipredict people. I gamble on the share market and on the TAB and I have a lot of fun. I started a TAB account with $100 three weeks ago and since then I have probably backed thirty horses. As of this minute, I have $86 in my account with one horse to run. An awful lot of fun for $14. But the market is much more profitable.

elZorro
02-05-2015, 06:06 PM
A problem no government in nz has dared tackled .....student loan debt

Currently $14 billion plus in NZ ...thats are big drag on the economy.

Not trillions as in the US
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/5/1/education/next-trillion-dollar-lending-crisis

Our daughter has one of those loans, still on the increase until she graduates. It's part of the negatives I feel about NZ, why couldn't we set procedures, economy and taxes up so that all of our tertiary students get the nearly free education they used to get? Sure, there would have been stricter entry standards than now. But the system used to work.

Your article shows that there can be fine-tuning to the repayments system, to make it more polite and complied with. Penalty interest is a bad start, if it's excessive. I have an employee who didn't complete uni a few years back, and is paying off his student loan by drip-feed via PAYE. I know he has enough money in the bank to pay it off in full, he doesn't spend anything much, literally. But the miserable sod will just pay it off bit by bit, he probably begrudges every cent, and knows it's an interest free loan.

winner69
02-05-2015, 08:14 PM
EZ, do Labour do this sort of stuff in nz
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/online-labour-modern-methods-southampton-marginal

Remember I told you about engagement, engagement, engagement ......

iceman
02-05-2015, 09:43 PM
Herein lies the idiocy of interest free student loans. They are a big mistake. There is no insentive to be responsible with regards to how much you borrow nor trying to pay it back as fast as possible. An election bribe gone seriously wrong costing the country BILLIONS and our young people a lot as well. There are no free lunches so we shouldn´t try to tell them that. But Helen saw no other way of winning the elction back then !


Our daughter has one of those loans, still on the increase until she graduates. It's part of the negatives I feel about NZ, why couldn't we set procedures, economy and taxes up so that all of our tertiary students get the nearly free education they used to get? Sure, there would have been stricter entry standards than now. But the system used to work.

Your article shows that there can be fine-tuning to the repayments system, to make it more polite and complied with. Penalty interest is a bad start, if it's excessive. I have an employee who didn't complete uni a few years back, and is paying off his student loan by drip-feed via PAYE. I know he has enough money in the bank to pay it off in full, he doesn't spend anything much, literally. But the miserable sod will just pay it off bit by bit, he probably begrudges every cent, and knows it's an interest free loan.

elZorro
03-05-2015, 09:17 AM
EZ, do Labour do this sort of stuff in nz
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/online-labour-modern-methods-southampton-marginal

Remember I told you about engagement, engagement, engagement ......

Many thanks for that W69, I think I should forward the article on. I think the same way, it's getting the cash in to do these jobs, that can be hard. You also need someone dedicated enough to work on door-door work, unpaid, for two years, and to be selected well in advance of the elections by the local party members, to allow that to happen.

Great Q&A programme today, dragged out some of the bad stuff National has been up to over the last year or so, put Andrew Little in a good light, gave me a few ideas.

Major von Tempsky
03-05-2015, 09:54 AM
The Flag Referendum

. _ It's a brilliant diversion and has no show of succeeding now that Anzsac and the RSA have given the signal. But it shows John Key is open to new ideas and the electorate is more conservative than he is.

The Surplus

It's a trap for Labour, all they can say is we will spend more heavily than National and take the country deep into Deficit!

National MPs Aspirations

On the basis of 3 terms in 3 terms out, younger, ambitious National MPs are contemplating their political careers. this can only serve to heighten tensions internally. This could well boil over in late 2016. _ Healthy tensions, healthy competition.

John Keys Post PM Career

He'll be there for a 4th term just like Keith Holyoake and rather better than Helen Clark. Get used to it.

winner69
03-05-2015, 09:56 AM
Many thanks for that W69, I think I should forward the article on. I think the same way, it's getting the cash in to do these jobs, that can be hard. You also need someone dedicated enough to work on door-door work, unpaid, for two years, and to be selected well in advance of the elections by the local party members, to allow that to happen.

Great Q&A programme today, dragged out some of the bad stuff National has been up to over the last year or so, put Andrew Little in a good light, gave me a few ideas.

Rewards are greater for that woman and Labour in the UK as winning seats mean everything (no MMP)

But the basic premise remains ......engagement and even more engagement from passionate people will help Labour, esp if they get those who are not sharing in the growing wealth of this country on side.

elZorro
03-05-2015, 10:08 AM
The Flag Referendum

. _ It's a brilliant diversion and has no show of succeeding now that Anzsac and the RSA have given the signal. But it shows John Key is open to new ideas and the electorate is more conservative than he is.

The Surplus

It's a trap for Labour, all they can say is we will spend more heavily than National and take the country deep into Deficit!

National MPs Aspirations

On the basis of 3 terms in 3 terms out, younger, ambitious National MPs are contemplating their political careers. this can only serve to heighten tensions internally. This could well boil over in late 2016. _ Healthy tensions, healthy competition.

John Keys Post PM Career

He'll be there for a 4th term just like Keith Holyoake and rather better than Helen Clark. Get used to it.

This is more like it MVT, are you prepared to have a wager on that?

Daytr
03-05-2015, 11:56 AM
Student loan issues are multi faceted. The cause is the growing cost of tertiary education which prevents some socio economic groups from even considering attending & that needs addressing. We have gone along way down the path of a flawed American model. A lot of work that was previously available to union students are now taken by foreign labour, so it doesn't help students trying to pay for their education & then there is the interest free issue which devoids responsibility. A low interest rate say at least the official cash rate probably makes sense or perhaps the rate of a 1 year fixed mortgage.

Daytr
03-05-2015, 12:01 PM
The latest from Bill English. Apparently Kiwis care more about winning the rugby world cup than achieving a surplus. Perhaps they do, however as National have no control or input into the former perhaps they should actually deliver what they have promised for years & actually have responsibility for being the latter. Does English think the NZ public are idiots & buy this baloney!

elZorro
03-05-2015, 01:21 PM
The latest from Bill English. Apparently Kiwis care more about winning the rugby world cup than achieving a surplus. Perhaps they do, however as National have no control or input into the former perhaps they should actually deliver what they have promised for years & actually have responsibility for being the latter. Does English think the NZ public are idiots & buy this baloney!

Yes, they do. Note they have been saying the same thing in several different ways, for the last few weeks, and they'll keep doing it, until everyone is brainwashed. This method has always worked before. By 2017 we'll all have forgotten what a budget surplus looks like. It never existed, it was never promised.

Daytr
03-05-2015, 02:47 PM
Well they might but they are wrong.

Agree MVT's comedy routine is far better than homophobic slurs!

Sgt Pepper
03-05-2015, 03:24 PM
I agree, and now that NZ first are better established, at this early stage I'd pick a coalition of National, Act and NZ first as the next government. NZ1st will be far more useful to Key and National with Ron Marks back in the fold, and ultimately destined to replace Winston..


The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
― Voltaire (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5754446.Voltaire)

fungus pudding
03-05-2015, 03:41 PM
The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
― Voltaire (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5754446.Voltaire)


Who on earth would want to believe that?

craic
03-05-2015, 04:38 PM
Who on earth would want to believe that?

The bottle says "Wild Turkey Bourbon" but I'm not too sure of the mixture - it was months ago but confusing the human brain with MIND is a crime. I cannot allow the idea that Brain is is our ultimate reasoning power. Mind is universal and open to all who who would have the courage to use it - brain is just a switchboard. Brain is this laptop that I am using - Mind is google and other similar systems. It is the universally available body of knowledge and information that is available to everyone who chooses to learn how to use it.

westerly
03-05-2015, 05:47 PM
Yes, they do. Note they have been saying the same thing in several different ways, for the last few weeks, and they'll keep doing it, until everyone is brainwashed. This method has always worked before. By 2017 we'll all have forgotten what a budget surplus looks like. It never existed, it was never promised.

National is a conservative party ,basically a do nothing when in power party unless it will assist it's core group of supporters, business and farming interests.
At present, a majority outside of those core areas of support are doing OK. And on the back of John's popularity and a Press happy to help they have been comfortably returned at election time.
But
Housing is becoming an area of concern as people start to realize their children and grandchildren have little hope of ever owning a house, jobs are starting to become more and more technical and not everybody is suited to computer programming. Govt. services are being reduced as the drive to cut expenditure continues. Low interest rates penalize savers, reward borrowers, while the thought of any major downturn in house prices must give Bill English nightmares.The downturn in dairy prices must cause highly indebted farmers sleepless nights. Nick Smith and several other National mps are looking past their use by date.
Labour probably do not need to do much at present , if they can formulate policy nearer to their core values , eliminate the more contentious items, and present a more unified party National may be history at the next election

westerly

elZorro
03-05-2015, 06:03 PM
National is a conservative party ,basically a do nothing when in power party unless it will assist it's core group of supporters, business and farming interests.
At present, a majority outside of those core areas of support are doing OK. And on the back of John's popularity and a Press happy to help they have been comfortably returned at election time.
But
Housing is becoming an area of concern as people start to realize their children and grandchildren have little hope of ever owning a house, jobs are starting to become more and more technical and not everybody is suited to computer programming. Govt. services are being reduced as the drive to cut expenditure continues. Low interest rates penalize savers, reward borrowers, while the thought of any major downturn in house prices must give Bill English nightmares.The downturn in dairy prices must cause highly indebted farmers sleepless nights. Nick Smith and several other National mps are looking past their use by date.
Labour probably do not need to do much at present , if they can formulate policy nearer to their core values , eliminate the more contentious items, and present a more unified party National may be history at the next election

westerly

That's a good synopsis, although I'm not sure the majority are doing OK, they might be in a holding pattern. I have no doubt that Labour are becoming more unified and focussed. They're holding regional planning meetings around the country, putting a lot of resources into it. Maybe they'll still put a CGT on the backburner, never mind, it'll keep.

Now I need to remind Fungus Pudding of what I said before the election. See post..
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=502113&viewfull=1#post502113

FP probably voted ACT, but the effect was the same as voting National. He helped bump up house prices in Auckland. Yet he always says the govt should stay out of the housing market, out of most things. Does that make him a hypocrite?

iceman
03-05-2015, 08:35 PM
That I totally agree with. I have a daughter at Uni at the moment and I think we have some serious issues with our University education in NZ.
It needs a serious rethink if we want to be World class and just making it easier with interest free student loans or lowering standards (some based on race) are not solutions that will get us anywhere as a country. Making it too easy is setting our young people up for failures when they get to the real World



Student loan issues are multi faceted. The cause is the growing cost of tertiary education which prevents some socio economic groups from even considering attending & that needs addressing. We have gone along way down the path of a flawed American model. A lot of work that was previously available to union students are now taken by foreign labour, so it doesn't help students trying to pay for their education & then there is the interest free issue which devoids responsibility. A low interest rate say at least the official cash rate probably makes sense or perhaps the rate of a 1 year fixed mortgage.

winner69
03-05-2015, 08:46 PM
A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand.

For seven years Bill has said here will be a government surplus. Never achieved but always close or next year. That's the consistent narrative - perception is that government doing a pretty good job in balancing books.

You never hear much from Bill about the rising government debt, now over $60 billion and up from $30 billion when he took over. Treasury still planning to borrow in 2019. No narrative here so perception is probably that increasing levels of government debt is not a problem.

EZ - if they want to get anywhere Labour need to undermine this consistent narrative. More than the spasmodic bleating about broken promises and all that but a real consistent 'narrative' of their own that not only undermines Bill's one but also is an alternative way forward (even if it says deficits are good if the spend s owing to make NZ a better pace). State the narrative, keep hammering on about it and the punters perceptions might just change.

Maybe there isn't that alternative narrative, if not Labour are gone for good. from a while ago. Maybe perception is brainwashing

But Bill doing a great job with that surplus

craic
03-05-2015, 09:26 PM
My three offspring seem to be different. The eldest bypassed Uni altogether and and set up a business, now worth millions. The second left from the fourth form and got an apprenticeship which he completed before going overseas into the financial markets, computers and the rest and eventually, a degree and a top job - Goldman Sachs paid him back all his fees after he graduated and the youngest got his degree in Auckland while he worked. nothing like effective parental guidance for overcoming the vagries of the state.

iceman
03-05-2015, 09:36 PM
That´s great craig. Of course some do well and I am saitisfied with my own daughter´s progress. My comments are about general standards and goals which I believe are ridiculously low, from what I have seen and heard in the last 2 years.


My three offspring seem to be different. The eldest bypassed Uni altogether and and set up a business, now worth millions. The second left from the fourth form and got an apprenticeship which he completed before going overseas into the financial markets, computers and the rest and eventually, a degree and a top job - Goldman Sachs paid him back all his fees after he graduated and the youngest got his degree in Auckland while he worked. nothing like effective parental guidance for overcoming the vagries of the state.

craic
03-05-2015, 09:59 PM
Sorry Iceman, that Wild Turkey affects my comprehension and I probably didn't read your post properly. But Ithink the problem is widespread and fundamental. I have always been struck by the lack of basic education here. I have no educational qualifications but a fairly good education by Christian Brothers and the like but here I found Primary teachers who could not spell or do simple mathematics and this left me quite confused for a year or two. Before computers, I had a very large and varied collection of books taking up one wall of our living area and my kids were taken weekly to the library. I rarely saw books in homes of friends. My grandson who has qualified to enter St Pauls Collge in London next year has to go along every saturday morning to learn Latin to be up with other entrants. Learning Latin here would be akin to heresy.

elZorro
04-05-2015, 06:15 AM
Posted by W69:

A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand.

For seven years Bill has said here will be a government surplus. Never achieved but always close or next year. That's the consistent narrative - perception is that government doing a pretty good job in balancing books.

You never hear much from Bill about the rising government debt, now over $60 billion and up from $30 billion when he took over. Treasury still planning to borrow in 2019. No narrative here so perception is probably that increasing levels of government debt is not a problem.

EZ - if they want to get anywhere Labour need to undermine this consistent narrative. More than the spasmodic bleating about broken promises and all that but a real consistent 'narrative' of their own that not only undermines Bill's one but also is an alternative way forward (even if it says deficits are good if the spend is going to make NZ a better place). State the narrative, keep hammering on about it and the punters perceptions might just change.

Maybe there isn't that alternative narrative, if not Labour are gone for good.

There's quite a bit of truth in that, I think the Greens always offer a sensible alternative when they criticise National. Perhaps Labour are looking for the narrative for this non-event budget surplus, but I think that if R&D tax credits had been left in place in 2009, if the KiwiBuild project had started, if SMEs had been supported instead of big business, if the tax breaks to the wealthiest hadn't occurred, we would have a budget surplus again by now, it would have been there with the higher dairy payout last year. We'd have more employed, we'd be on our way to exporting nirvana with more niche manufactured products. Would we have needed a GST increase? I'd certainly prefer a CGT over that.

Audrey Young has an article on Grant Robertson, not altogether flattering. But I think the very last sentence is the narrative Labour needs, and it's accurate.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11442658&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+4+Ma y+2015

(Grant Robertson said) National's failure in meeting the (budget surplus) target, more broadly reflected a failure to grow and diversify the economy.

fungus pudding
04-05-2015, 07:02 AM
There's quite a bit of truth in that, I think the Greens always offer a sensible alternative when they criticise National. Perhaps Labour are looking for the narrative for this non-event budget surplus, but I think that if R&D tax credits had been left in place in 2009, if the KiwiBuild project had started, if SMEs had been supported instead of big business, if the tax breaks to the wealthiest hadn't occurred, we would have a budget surplus again by now,


That assumes that higher taxes mean higher revenue, and we all know, as Labour proved, the opposite can happen and often does. Think Laffer curve.

Sgt Pepper
04-05-2015, 08:55 AM
That assumes that higher taxes mean higher revenue, and we all know, as Labour proved, the opposite can happen and often does. Think Laffer curve.

No doubt there is a point where governments can optimise revenue without diminishing returns as in a stagnant economy.The trouble is Peoples expectations of governments are outstripping any governments ability to pay for it.
I used to sit on the Board of directors for a health insurance company. The industry tried several times to persuade governments of the merit of introducing tax deductions for health insurance premiums in order to take pressure off policy holders and consequently retain coverage rates and divert patients away from the public system. Both Labour and National refused .

elZorro
04-05-2015, 08:56 AM
That assumes that higher taxes mean higher revenue, and we all know, as Labour proved, the opposite can happen and often does. Think Laffer curve.

Yes, you've mentioned that before FP. But the Laffer model only implies that if you increase taxes too much, eventually the effort made to circumvent the taxes makes the increase null and void. Except that even at current rates, tax accountants still have plenty of work. Trusts are still out there, even if most of them are a sham, and good capital is flying into housing, farms, property, mainly because it's a way of minimising tax in the meantime, and making a tax-free gain later. It's not because it's a great investment on paper in the official short-medium term, it can't be.

But you didn't answer my other question, was that bad policy of National, to fuel the housing prices further? Who did it really help?

fungus pudding
04-05-2015, 09:41 AM
Yes, you've mentioned that before FP. But the Laffer model only implies that if you increase taxes too much, eventually the effort made to circumvent the taxes makes the increase null and void. Except that even at current rates, tax accountants still have plenty of work. Trusts are still out there, even if most of them are a sham, and good capital is flying into housing, farms, property, mainly because it's a way of minimising tax in the meantime, and making a tax-free gain later. It's not because it's a great investment on paper in the official short-medium term, it can't be.

But you didn't answer my other question, was that bad policy of National, to fuel the housing prices further? Who did it really help?

Of course it was. It's complete nonsense. We all know that, just as we know lowering taxes stimulates the economy - raising them stifles it. (apart from shifting activity to the black economy) Subsides rarely end up where intended. In the case of housing grants, the vendor, not the purchaser, will benefit.

Daytr
04-05-2015, 01:29 PM
Education is different these days & I was probably part of the first era when this change started coming about. I was the first year not to have UE in 1986 & we were internally assessed instead Kids these days are taught about how to solve or how to learn/think rather than necessarily & repetitively learn the three RRRs etc. This is good & bad & suits some kids & not others. I wouldn't right off the entire education system as I see some very smart & brilliant kids coming through & in general kids are getting more education than they were say 30 years ago However at a university level I think it does need to be held to a high standard as this is where you get 'qualified' to be somebody. Its not to say there shouldn't b other levels of education& curse as there are at techs etc, however when I comes to a professional qualification standards need to be maintained. One of the major costs to a student particularly in Auckland comes back to our other pet topic, accommodation.

Daytr
04-05-2015, 02:27 PM
GST does exactly this, taxes the masses that spend far more of their earnings than others that earn more. Same with high electricity prices, they act like a tax on the poor, again stifling the economy to pay dividends to the middle class & above.
All they need to do is make the tax dodgers, the super wealthy, lawyers & corporates that dodge tax with offshoring & all our Government revenue issues go away.

Back to Ponytail gate. Key's latest BS. I would have done the same if it was a man. Does anyone actually believe that? A
man with a pony tail & you want to pull it over & over & when you are told to stop, continue? The guy has no credibility. She (the waitress) threatened to punch Key in the face. Do you think he would have carried on doing it if a 6'2" man had threatened him with the same?


Of course it was. It's complete nonsense. We all know that, just as we know lowering taxes stimulates the economy - raising them stifles it. (apart from shifting activity to the black economy) Subsides rarely end up where intended. In the case of housing grants, the vendor, not the purchaser, will benefit.

artemis
04-05-2015, 02:35 PM
GST does exactly this, taxes the masses that spend far more of their earnings than others that earn more................


I assume you mean lower income people spend a higher proportion of their income, thus pay proportionally more GST than higher income people.

That would hardly ever be the case for people who are paying rent or mortgages as neither of these attract GST. And as we are frequently told, many lower income people spend a high proportion of their income on housing.

fungus pudding
04-05-2015, 02:46 PM
GST does exactly this, taxes the masses that spend far more of their earnings than others that earn more. Same with high electricity prices, they act like a tax on the poor,

Electricity is no different than shoes, bicycles, visits to the dentist or going to the movies. The consumer pays for all these things. That's hardly acting like a tax.
The big hole in govt. tax revenue is the black economy - small traders and service industries not declaring all, or in some cases, any of their earnings.

Sgt Pepper
04-05-2015, 03:40 PM
Electricity is no different than shoes, bicycles, visits to the dentist or going to the movies. The consumer pays for all these things. That's hardly acting like a tax.
The big hole in govt. tax revenue is the black economy - small traders and service industries not declaring all, or in some cases, any of their earnings.

Many years ago, one of my lecturers at Otago University, a Canadian, told the class that one of the provincial governments had an effective, but brutal way of dealing with tax evasion. If I thought FP was evading tax, I would report you to the tax authorities. If a tax audit collected unpaid tax , the person reporting it would receive 10% of the sum involved!

Daytr
04-05-2015, 03:42 PM
Except hat NZ electricity prices are among the highest in the world. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay for power, but the way electricity market is structured & protected by government, means NZ gets 'taxed' by paying higher power bills.

Daytr
04-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Good point, but proportionally lower income people still pay more in GST than higher income people.


I assume you mean lower income people spend a higher proportion of their income, thus pay proportionally more GST than higher income people.

That would hardly ever be the case for people who are paying rent or mortgages as neither of these attract GST. And as we are frequently told, many lower income people spend a high proportion of their income on housing.

fungus pudding
04-05-2015, 04:31 PM
Except hat NZ electricity prices are among the highest in the world.

That's interesting. Evidence?

elZorro
04-05-2015, 05:43 PM
Electricity is no different than shoes, bicycles, visits to the dentist or going to the movies. The consumer pays for all these things. That's hardly acting like a tax.
The big hole in govt. tax revenue is the black economy - small traders and service industries not declaring all, or in some cases, any of their earnings.

Except that our govt, the state, owns a great deal of these electricity generating assets, (less than before National was in), paid for by taxes from previous generations. So the state is in a good position to make a profit from the sale of energy. There is a massive markup on gas, for one. Electricity, often generated by hydro for about 3c, is sold for 25c per kwHr. Great markup. GST gets added on top, another clear 15%.

Unfortunately FP is partly right, the energy consumed by households is about $2,000 p.a. each, 1.5mill homes, (http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/eman/hew/ehome/energyuse.html) it's only $3bill or so of costs (but homes only use about 13% of all energy). The black economy might be as big as $7bill of more taxes due, per year. It's every "No sale" press on a cash register, the cashies by tradies, it all adds up. I can't see how it applies to businesses with many staff though.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/9137684/IRD-has-tough-task-winning-the-war-against-the-black-economy

I like Sgt Pepper's idea, people who forward a clue about such practices get 10% of the IRD's return. If it has been done before and was electable, Labour should try it as a policy.

artemis
04-05-2015, 05:50 PM
Good point, but proportionally lower income people still pay more in GST than higher income people.

How do you know that? My point about rent and mortgages stands.

westerly
04-05-2015, 06:59 PM
Of course it was. It's complete nonsense. We all know that, just as we know lowering taxes stimulates the economy - raising them stifles it. (apart from shifting activity to the black economy) Subsides rarely end up where intended. In the case of housing grants, the vendor, not the purchaser, will benefit.

"Subsides" rarely do end up where intended.:) "Lowering taxes stimulates the economy" although frequently quoted is up for debate, studies in the US having shown the opposite is true.

westerly

fungus pudding
04-05-2015, 07:04 PM
Except that our govt, the state, owns a great deal of these electricity generating assets, (less than before National was in), paid for by taxes from previous generations. So the state is in a good position to make a profit from the sale of energy. There is a massive markup on gas, for one. Electricity, often generated by hydro for about 3c, is sold for 25c per kwHr. Great markup. GST gets added on top, another clear 15%.

Unfortunately FP is partly right, the energy consumed by households is about $2,000 p.a. each, 1.5mill homes, (http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/eman/hew/ehome/energyuse.html) it's only $3bill or so of costs (but homes only use about 13% of all energy). The black economy might be as big as $7bill of more taxes due, per year. It's every "No sale" press on a cash register, the cashies by tradies, it all adds up. I can't see how it applies to businesses with many staff though.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/9137684/IRD-has-tough-task-winning-the-war-against-the-black-economy

I like Sgt Pepper's idea, people who forward a clue about such practices get 10% of the IRD's return. If it has been done before and was electable, Labour should try it as a policy.

Why not get them to promote it as policy then? That should finish them off once and for all - put a dying party out of its misery.

elZorro
04-05-2015, 07:17 PM
Why not get them to promote it as policy then? That should finish them off once and for all - put a dying party out of its misery.

Well we all know National or ACT wouldn't do it, FP, most of their core voters will be running some kind of a tax dodge, surely. Legal or not.

It's probably not the sort of policy you'd campaign with. Very good idea though, it would put some tape over the no-sale buttons around the country, and force those offering cash jobs to have a harder think about it, when they try it on with new customers.

You have to put it in the perspective of possible Labour voters, who often don't own their own homes, do all their own handyman work, have little spare cash, get taxed on every bit of income (overtaxed if it's casual), and a lot of their household spending. Their opportunities for tax dodging are very limited, so they would see the idea as very fair.

It is also the IRD's job to be fair, as they say.

Bill English on The Nation, transcript. Some tough questions he needed to bat away, and although he's on very shaky ground, he did sound plausible. He's good, I'll give him that. National's handling of the economy hasn't been as impressive.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1505/S00015/lisa-owen-interviews-finance-minister-bill-english.htm

artemis
05-05-2015, 06:33 AM
Black economy - I see IRD has started a cashies pilot campaign of 'it's not OK' in some Auckland suburbs.

Good thing too. Our small property maintenance business often unsuccessfully quotes against possible tax avoiders. Maybe they can somehow manage to be profitable charging $20 an hour and paying tax on it. Unlikely. (Right, back to finalising the GST return!)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/68261007/ird-in-cashies-crackdown

winner69
05-05-2015, 08:14 AM
EZ, recall what I said "A consistent narrative and perception go hand in hand."

Great example is Nick Smith talking on the Auckland Housing Accord and how successful it is. Same words every time.

Load of bollocks but gee a hell of a story.

But Labour seem unable to counter it

fungus pudding
05-05-2015, 08:54 AM
Well we all know National or ACT wouldn't do it, FP, most of their core voters will be running some kind of a tax dodge, surely. Legal or not.



That's an absurd claim.
Incidentally it is not the IRD's job to be fair. If I remember correctly the fair trading mob stopped them from using that slogan. Rationale being their job is to collect taxes as set by the government of the day - fair or not.

craic
05-05-2015, 09:19 AM
The sad reality for the consumer is that trades and services have priorities and people must wait. Cash? - the service is there immediatly. I want a truckload of builders mix? the trucks are fully tied up supplying some roading project. Cash? the builders mix is ther that evening AFTER the deliveries to the roading contractors. Most smart people have a network of tradesmen/supliers but they all pay the 15% tax on the money they get when they spend it . Just adjust the methods of taxation and the problem will be solved - no one had=s ever managed to survive eating banknotes.

Daytr
05-05-2015, 10:37 AM
It was reported on National radio about a week ago. I can't remember if they said that NZ electricity prices were the highest or 2nd highest in the OECD.


That's interesting. Evidence?

Daytr
05-05-2015, 10:44 AM
Well, most low income people spend all their income. Rent or housing is typically no more than 30% of income, obviously might depend where you live. The remaining 70% is generally spent. Many medium income & above also have mortgages as well. How many medium income & above spend 70% of their income on GST related products & services?


How do you know that? My point about rent and mortgages stands.

fungus pudding
05-05-2015, 12:12 PM
It was reported on National radio about a week ago. I can't remember if they said that NZ electricity prices were the highest or 2nd highest in the OECD.

Not even close.

Daytr
05-05-2015, 02:05 PM
What isn't? You asked me for a source, I provided it.
What's yours to say its not even close?


Not even close.

fungus pudding
05-05-2015, 02:59 PM
What isn't? You asked me for a source, I provided it.
What's yours to say its not even close?

Google world electricity prices or something like that. I looked a while ago and we were somewhere between 30 to 40th. I can't be bothered checking now. Don't believe what you hear on National radio.

elZorro
05-05-2015, 05:43 PM
Google world electricity prices or something like that. I looked a while ago and we were somewhere between 30 to 40th. I can't be bothered checking now. Don't believe what you hear on National radio.

What's wrong with National Radio FP, too balanced?

I had a look at electricity prices, you're probably both wrong.

http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/international-comparisons

If there are 33 OECD countries, NZ pays above average for electricity, but not by much. We have lower taxes on it than most. Mind you, we also have a lot more older hydro than most, so it should be cheaper than many other countries.

In 2013 we paid an equivalent of US$0.187 per kwHr, the average in the OECD was 0.175 per kWHr. Germany is the highest, they pay about twice what we do. Norway and USA are very low, about 1/2-2/3 our rate.

jonu
05-05-2015, 07:46 PM
What's wrong with National Radio FP, too balanced?

I had a look at electricity prices, you're probably both wrong.


Aint that the beauty of politics!

elZorro
06-05-2015, 05:56 AM
Aint that the beauty of politics!

I was just stirring, Jonu..:)

FP is right about the IRD slogan, they'd stopped using it by 2000. Article about it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10566

There's a short story on TV1 about tax dodging, coming up soon.

More about energy, Maui still has a few billion dollars worth of gas left, at retail. Note: one GJ is 277.777 kWHr, and the price per kwHr for gas is about the same as bulk electricity, 7-9c a unit, plus the daily fee. That represents over a 500% markup from wholesale, retail is $25.00 per GJ. That should be enough to cover the costs of compressing and pumping it.


NZResources 6/5/2015 — Oil and Gas
Government puts extended life value on Maui

Government officials have said the mature Maui offshore gasfield should be able to keep pumping gas past 2030.
Radio New Zealand said their comments came as Shell Todd Oil Services (STOS) sought approval from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to keep running Maui for another 35 years.
The comments follow several assertions in the past that Maui would soon run dry.
In applying for the right to keep on pumping gas, STOS said Maui still had 18% of New Zealand's gas reserves and 20% of its production.
Officials of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment produced more details of Maui's capacity at the inquiry into the EPA approval process.
They said Maui still contains 466 petajoules of gas, a 50% increase on estimates a year earlier - almost two and a half times NZ's total annual usage.
The Government said that pumped out judiciously, it would last for at least another 15 years.
Radio NZ said Ministry officials did not put a monetary value on the gas but the wholesale price for natural gas was around $5.50 a gigajoule. That means Maui's estimated reserves of 466 Pj would be worth $2.5 billion, minus the cost of extracting gas and getting it to market.
Maui was discovered in the 1960s and has been producing gas since 1979 but it needs a marine consent to keep on operating under a new law governing New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone.
Source: radionz.co.nz




The IRD man (on TV) said that cashies are illegal, they undermine the vast majority of businesses who are straight up, and most NZers want to see every business paying the correct tax, just like they do. The point was made that big overseas owned businesses like Google and others get away with too much, the IRD man said they spend a lot of time on that, too.

There are surely times when we don't need to get too PC. When some roading work with asphalt was being done just down the road, I asked the contracting crew for enough material to patch three small holes in a shared driveway that was adjacent. Two guys turned up with a small roller and did the job in five minutes, once they'd finished their main job. I gave them a pack of beer, they were happy about that, we all did well.

artemis
06-05-2015, 06:21 AM
Well, most low income people spend all their income. Rent or housing is typically no more than 30% of income, obviously might depend where you live. The remaining 70% is generally spent. Many medium income & above also have mortgages as well. How many medium income & above spend 70% of their income on GST related products & services?


Also depends on family composition and house size as well as location. So on an after tax income of $600 pw most would be paying rent of $180 pw? That could be true for a small rental in the provinces. But suggest you check out the Tenancy Service market rents site and you will see that $180 pw is not even in the ballpark for most of New Zealand. The rents there are based on actual bonds received in the previous 6 months. Where did you get your 'typically' information?

Daytr
06-05-2015, 01:55 PM
Artemis, Well most families have a double or partial double income these days.
So income into a house is usually more than one income.

Daytr
06-05-2015, 01:59 PM
So I give you an actual source & a very good source of independent media being Radio NZ & you give me or something.
Well that just proves its then. The world according to FP. haha

There is actually a file on the NZ Gov website that compares global electricity prices using a purchasing power model, but for some reason I can't open it on my PC. I'm happy to be proven wrong but not going to just accept, of I read it somewhere & so its rubbish.
My own personal comparison is to Australia & NZ electricity is a lot more expensive.
I used to be horrified when coming home & visiting my mother & seeing what the power bill she was trying to pay out of her pension.


Google world electricity prices or something like that. I looked a while ago and we were somewhere between 30 to 40th. I can't be bothered checking now. Don't believe what you hear on National radio.

elZorro
06-05-2015, 05:32 PM
Who was that offering a wager on the 2017 election, namely that JK would see National through the process? Someone should take the other side. Quickly :)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1505/S00062/john-key-to-quit-before-next-election-ipredict.htm

Greg Harris, simultaneously writing an article and touting for work.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/68277974/government-targets-property-investors-for-increased-tax-scrutiny?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+6 +May+2015

elZorro
07-05-2015, 05:34 PM
An interesting timeline of just a small part of the grants process from Callaghan Innovation.

A big pdf file that I posted earlier, shows that in 2014, 57 big companies in NZ had been granted up to $15mill each by the taxpayer, over four years. These grants are for 20% of R&D spend, and are made to encourage R&D growth of each of the companies. If all of these grants are picked up, it will cost the taxpayers of NZ $885mill, less whatever tax is returned from the activities.

The board of Callaghan Innovation was announced by MP Steven Joyce in early 2013.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/callaghan-innovation-board-announced

One of the directors is Craig Richardson. He is a director of Jade Software , which is majority overseas owned. He is also the CEO of Wynyard Group, which was spun out of Jade Software and publicly listed as WYN on our exchange. As both firms have access to ready cash from investors should they need it, it might be considered excessive that both companies were recipients of $15mill grants that started on the same date:

1st October 2013, running until 30th September 2016, with a right of renewal. Jades' is for "R&D Growth" and Wynyard's is labelled "Growth Grant".

Roll forward to April 2014, when Jade Software announced a $14.9mill repayment to its shareholders, because they couldn't find anything useful to invest their Wynyard windfall into. Jade (NZ) had been losing money since 2009, but suddenly had a profit, thanks to the sharemarket.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/jade-software-returns-149-mln-share-buyback-after-wynyard-float-bd-155341

Wynyard Group is showing an increasing ability to shed money, they lost $22mill in 2014, about twice what they lost the year before.


As a result of the company’s decision to accelerate its global expansion by bringing forward planned investment in sales and marketing personnel, partner sales channels, and product development, Net Loss for the year increased to $22.2m (2013 $11.2m¹).
At 31 December 2014, Wynyard’s cash at bank was $23.3 million which, together with receivables, was on plan.


Now I'm wondering if $30mill of taxpayers money on offer to these two businesses, would be better spent on 4,687 undergraduate summer holiday jobs under another of Callaghan's areas. Currently only 240 student spots are available across the country, each year. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10065820/Callaghan-sectors-funds-cut-in-Budget)Students missing out on these spots have to compete for jobs in all sorts of areas, most not applicable to their chosen careers.

W69, you were saying we should watch out for the TPPA, being pushed by National. Here are two videos from Auckland Uni about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC-2x-mm83g&feature=youtu.be

westerly
07-05-2015, 06:53 PM
How Labour can win the next election
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/

westerly

elZorro
07-05-2015, 09:05 PM
How Labour can win the next election
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/

westerly

I'm sure Chris has some of the answers, but not all of them. So far this year, John Key has been doing enough to win Labour some votes. Andrew Little will turn out to be a statesman, he's close now. I think NZ wants to see some smart, sensible policies that look like they'll work. They are being fed into head office at a good rate, by solid Labour supporters.

Here's another company that could uplift $15mill of grants over three years, Kakapo Research and Devt Ltd.

It says here that this is a firm with 14 staff, they're consultants/programmers and perhaps working inside some secret place like Treasury, writing a leading risk handling package to trade securities etc.

http://www.kakapo.co.nz/about/about.html

So they'll need to spend $75 mill on R&D over 3 years, claim back $15mill, but it means they'll spend over $1.78 mill on R&D per staff member per year? They must be very good. David Cunliffe asked questions in Parliament (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11416353)about Kakapo and 4RF, Jade, ikeGPS, Magic Pulse (Kitomba (http://www.kitomba.com/nz/pricing/)) regarding their $15mill grants. Batted away by Steven Joyce, it's in the Hansard.

Endace has a $15mill grant limit. Overseas owned now, has already had heaps of grants from NZ taxpayers. Scott Tech, Rakon (lost share value), PEB,FPH, FPA (Haier) Gallagher Group, Dynamic Controls (was a big NZ manufacturer, now mostly offshore, registered in Netherlands) (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1153701/shareholdings) and are USA listed (http://dynamiccontrols.com/en/news/112-nz528-million-grant-recognises-rad-potential), WETA - all have grants too. Dynamic Controls was our biggest contract electronic manufacturer, bought by Invacare (US) in 1993, they have registered the holding company in the Netherlands for some reason.
(http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/netherlands-tax-haven-fortune-500-companies)
A 2010 article about FRST grants, the forerunner of Callaghan Innovation. All these firms were again funded in at least the 2013-2014 year, for three years ahead. Yet during this time, the numbers of staff manufacturing goods of this type in NZ has dropped. This taxpayer cash has been used, in many cases, to help cover R&D in NZ (often for overseas owners), while at the same time manufacturing continues to move offshore.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/4447733/Funding-paves-way-for-local-innovators

Enough already. What scarce funds we should have available, given the govt's deficit, should be spent on encouraging 20 or 100 times more smaller firms to get ready to export - they will be 5-20 years away from looking like these more established firms, but at least they'll do all their work in NZ, they'll be owned by NZers, they'll pay their taxes here, they'll export goods and services from here, they won't be listed companies, they'll refund those grants to the govt if the business is sold to other buyers within say 5 years of drawing them down.

The National govt doesn't appear to have learnt any lessons from previous funding rounds, or more likely they are happy to accelerate the process. Under this system, NZ manufacturing jobs in the tech sector have dropped, tax income has dropped, production per capita dropped for several years, and the economy has not grown substantially (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/weak-dairy-prices-may-force-treasury-pull-back-economic-forecasts-b-172381?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+8+Ma y+2015)at all, reflected in growing Crown debt.

elZorro
08-05-2015, 06:50 AM
Gareth Morgan on his comprehensive property tax. He fails to mention why ordinary homeowners, who don't get to claim interest as a cost, would have to pay the same tax rate as an investor, who does reclaim the interest cost and some other expenses in their tax return. I think the CGT is fairer, who cares if there is a loophole on your own home? It is rarely a true investment, if all costs out of tax-paid income and labour put in, are considered.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11444349&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+8+Ma y+2015

fungus pudding
08-05-2015, 08:21 AM
Gareth Morgan on his comprehensive property tax. He fails to mention why ordinary homeowners, who don't get to claim interest as a cost, would have to pay the same tax rate as an investor, who does reclaim the interest cost and some other expenses in their tax return. I think the CGT is fairer, who cares if there is a loophole on your own home? It is rarely a true investment, if all costs out of tax-paid income and labour put in, are considered.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11444349&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+8+Ma y+2015

A gain is a gain. It should apply to everything if ever implemented, but with permitted repatriation. I wouldn't like to see homeowners taxed because they upgrade, downsize, transfer etc. Same with commercial, industrial and residential investment and business goodwill. An exit tax rather than a cgt based on transactions.

elZorro
08-05-2015, 09:06 AM
A gain is a gain. It should apply to everything if ever implemented, but with permitted repatriation. I wouldn't like to see homeowners taxed because they upgrade, downsize, transfer etc. Same with commercial, industrial and residential investment and business goodwill. An exit tax rather than a cgt based on transactions.

FP, repatriation means that any savvy investor or person with the means will simply buy/sell commercial building(s) or rentals as needed, get an agency to handle them, and retire on the weekly rental income, while never paying a tax on capital gains as each step is made. Except at the very end, which could be decades away. That is not a stable govt income, or one that can be put into a spreadsheet model. PAYE from ordinary employees heads into the govt coffers once a month. GST every 2 months to 6 months. Provisional taxes every 3-4 months. But a capital gains tax would be perhaps once in a lifetime?

A simple rule would be: If you have an asset that you've been able to claim interest and some costs on, against probable income from that asset and/or other income, and you sell it, then you pay a suitable CGT if appropriate at that point, before moving into another investment with the majority of the new funds. Think how simple this rule would be: it would remove a lot of work for tax accountants. It would also mean that if you owned a bach but didn't rent it out or claim interest costs etc, then it's outside the CGT rules.

FP, you had no comment on the Callaghan funds.

fungus pudding
08-05-2015, 09:35 AM
FP, repatriation means that any savvy investor or person with the means will simply buy/sell commercial building(s) or rentals as needed, get an agency to handle them, and retire on the weekly rental income, while never paying a tax on capital gains as each step is made. Except at the very end, which could be decades away.

You overlook the income tax an investor who actively trades pays.

artemis
08-05-2015, 10:24 AM
..... . Andrew Little will turn out to be a statesman, he's close now......

Nothing wrong with glass half full, but close, really? He looks and sounds grey, negative and rather awkward.

craic
08-05-2015, 10:27 AM
Labour looking sad in the UK ? Maybe an indicator for here?

winner69
08-05-2015, 10:33 AM
Labour looking sad in the UK ? Maybe an indicator for here?

Almost a wipeout eh craic

UKIP will get over 20% I the vote but only 2 members. Just as well the Brits dot have MMP, if so Labour would be a has been.

The world doesn't seem to want the Labours of this world .....just lie NZ

elZorro
08-05-2015, 11:47 AM
You overlook the income tax an investor who actively trades pays.

Yes, I did overlook that. That would be a simple matter of the same rules applying, but if the asset has only been held for under 5 years say, the rate is higher, closer to the current income tax figure, as less of the gain is from inflation. It could even be a sliding rate from the current income tax rate for active traders, through to the lower CGT rate once the asset is held for over 5 years or so. IRD would be able to put some numbers on a policy like that.

Artemis: Andrew Little will get there..

W69: Oops, not what I wanted to hear.

fungus pudding
08-05-2015, 12:43 PM
Yes, I did overlook that. That would be a simple matter of the same rules applying, but if the asset has only been held for under 5 years say, the rate is higher, closer to the current income tax figure, as less of the gain is from inflation. It could even be a sliding rate from the current income tax rate for active traders, through to the lower CGT rate once the asset is held for over 5 years or so. IRD would be able to put some numbers on a policy like that.



Generally speaking CGT schemes do not apply both CGT and income tax. If they did it would be goodnight to all builders and developers who often land bank for future developments and pay income tax on gains. CGT is complex - devil always in the detail, but try and find a scheme somewhere that works well. It ain't easy.

elZorro
08-05-2015, 01:36 PM
Generally speaking CGT schemes do not apply both CGT and income tax. If they did it would be goodnight to all builders and developers who often land bank for future developments and pay income tax on gains. CGT is complex - devil always in the detail, but try and find a scheme somewhere that works well. It ain't easy.

I didn't suggest charging both income tax and CGT on the transaction, as that would be crazy. But a sliding scale of rates would mean that it would be hard to circumvent the process of paying some kind of tax on the gain, and it's obvious that it's normally quite easy to do at the moment. You just have to state somewhere officially, that your intention all along was to invest for the future, and guess what, it didn't work out for some reason, and you have to sell a bit earlier than intended. As long as you don't do it too often.

A CGT along these proposed lines would be no different to the current situation for quickfire developers (approx income tax rate of CGT), people who own their own houses and even private baches (no CGT), but would have an effect on landlords and other property investors who intermittently rotate their investments. But after a few years of ownership (it's only levied on the capital gain) and by then it's a smaller percentage tax.

fungus pudding
08-05-2015, 03:46 PM
I didn't suggest charging both income tax and CGT on the transaction, as that would be crazy. But a sliding scale of rates would mean that it would be hard to circumvent the process of paying some kind of tax on the gain, and it's obvious that it's normally quite easy to do at the moment. You just have to state somewhere officially, that your intention all along was to invest for the future, and guess what, it didn't work out for some reason, and you have to sell a bit earlier than intended. As long as you don't do it too often.

A CGT along these proposed lines would be no different to the current situation for quickfire developers (approx income tax rate of CGT), people who own their own houses and even private baches (no CGT), but would have an effect on landlords and other property investors who intermittently rotate their investments. But after a few years of ownership (it's only levied on the capital gain) and by then it's a smaller percentage tax.

Shades of Rowling's spec tax in there. 'Good on you Wallace, you made my life worth living'.

elZorro
08-05-2015, 06:55 PM
Shades of Rowling's spec tax in there. 'Good on you Wallace, you made my life worth living'.

FP, are you talking about the Property Speculators Tax of 1973? here it is:

https://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/pib-review/pib-archived/archived-property-speculation/psta-1973-vol-75.html

This was withdrawn by 1979, and it was put in place when NZ had high inflation and a shortage of housing. Those penalty rates would have meant that very few speculators would have sold within 2 years of first owning a property, which I guess was the whole idea. After 2 years, no extra tax. It is a sliding scale as you say, but an onerous 90% to 60% tax rate. Nowadays the proposed tax rates are a lot lower, and the inflation rate generally is too.

The argument from property investors is that this was a failed scheme which increased property prices by 50%, (Olly Newland et al), but there's no way of knowing what the change would have been if the tax wasn't in place to curb some of the bubble.

FP, you say you did well during this time because of Bill Rowling's faulty policy, or would it be that you bought and held during this period, and it worked out well? It was nothing to do with Bill Rowling.


Third Labour Government of New ZealandFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#p-search)
The Third Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments_of_New_Zealand) from 1972 to 1975. During its time in office, it carried out a wide range of reforms in areas such as overseas trade, farming, public works, energy generation, local government, health, the arts, sport and recreation, regional development, environmental protection, education, housing, and social welfare.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-Power_1975-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-2) Māori also benefited from revisions to the laws relating to land, together with a significant increase in a Māori and Island Affairs building programme.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#cite_note-ReferenceA-3) In addition, the government encouraged biculturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biculturalism) and a sense of New Zealand identity. The government lasted for one term before being defeated a year after the death of its popular leader, Norman Kirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Kirk). It was the last of the traditional New Zealand Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) governments.


W69, the hardworking Labour hopeful, Rowenna, missed out with Southampton, Itchen. She held the Labour vote, but a lot of other voters dumped the Liberal Democrat party there, and some voted Conservative. Just enough.

winner69
08-05-2015, 07:41 PM
EZ, the world just doesn't like parties like Labour these days.

Johns mate David has outmaneuvered and outgunned Ed and Nick to govern alone. The rich insiders will be happy while inequality increases.

Labour NZ will probably go the same way in 2017 and we will get John et all for all another term.

Love this in The Mirror (definitely not one of Ruperts paper)

winner69
08-05-2015, 07:44 PM
The Mirror front page

Imagine this in NZ in 2017 .... how can we avoid that happening EZ