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

Minerbarejet
08-02-2016, 06:44 AM
You remind me of half my teachers at school, they put me to sleep as well.
Well, that certainly explains a lot if we take this statement at face value.

Who was it said" Youth and Age have all the answers. The people in the middle have all the questions"

I trust your snoring during class does not interfere with the ongoing education of others.:)

Sgt Pepper
08-02-2016, 07:23 AM
I sat with a group of people of mixed races on Saturday and the consensus, regardless or race or political leaning, was that The performance at Waitangi was a disgrace and a complete turn-off for most people including Maori. The commentator who suggested in the Herald that it did more to bolster support for the TPP agreement than anything else is right.

There was one positive thing to arise out of this years Waitangi event. We were spared a speech by John Key, and for that we should all be grateful.

craic
08-02-2016, 09:30 AM
There was one positive thing to arise out of this years Waitangi event. We were spared a speech by John Key, and for that we should all be grateful.
Anyone who listens to speeches by prominent politicians is wasting their time.
1. They are seldom written by the politician.
2. Anything said is deigned for the greatest impact at that point.
3. In a western democracy, even politicians can change their minds, five minutes later.

The greatest example of that in recent times is the Labour Party decision to scrap support for the TPPA.

BlackPeter
08-02-2016, 09:34 AM
Your rhetoric is rather amusing at times.

Glad you like my posts and that they convince you. Remember - the definition of rhetoric is: "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.". Thank you for the compliment!



I neither support Labour or National but will decide at the next election who I will vote for. (a swinging voter)

I am not surprised. Given that the NZ political Left is long suffering under a group of political parasites who seem to pick every couple of elections a new party to infiltrate and control, so far leading however every time to the destruction of their new "political host" there would be for a voter following them no other choice than to swing every couple of terms their vote. Let me guess: Values Party, New Labour, Alliance, Green Party, Mana, Internet .... so many choices to pick from. Did I forget any other you did vote for in the past?

Interesting that you say you never voted for Labour. You probably should do this soon, they might not be much longer around. Labour is currently the new target for the hard left wing infiltration: Matt McCarten, David Cunliffe, Andrew Little; I do acknowledge that there are still a number of electable politicians in Labour (David Shearer being one of them, but I am thinking as well at the like of Kelvin Davis), but I don't think that they will have a chance against the left infiltration. RIP Labour.

While it is good for the political right to have a bunch of Left wingers destroying any serious opposition party to the left of the centre, it is sad for NZ. We would need a good and electable opposition party, which listens to what people want instead of telling them what they think would be best.


Your continual snide comments (pope Little, Aunt Helen, etc) do little to advance your arguments.


OK - no clue what you read into "Aunt Helen". If you or anybody else finds this term offensive, than I am happy to withdraw and apologise.

Re "Pope Andrew" - I am using this term, because Little seems to control more a religion than a political party. The party faithful are not anymore allowed to think by themselves, but required to think and support whatever their leader is telling them to believe. While I find this sickening, it is still some sort of amusing.

On a second thought - I agree. While many popes in history have been hypocrites and some have been criminals and while I do not share the faith of the most recent pope (Pope Francis), do I still think that he is an honest man who only wants the best for his organisation and probably for mankind (though "wanting the best" is not necessarily "doing the best" - another thing he might have in common with some Lefties). Taking this into consideration do I apologise for using the term pope in the context of Andrew Little. You are right - this was a thoughtless use of terms from my side.


As for unions, it is ok to have Federated Farmers, Chambers of Commerce, Employers & Manufacturers Assoc. and other lobby groups but not for workers to counteract these influential lobby groups,
Corporations of course are paragons of virtue. Volkswagon. Goldman Sachs, ( near $20 billion in fines) spring to mind, not forgetting our own Air NZ partially Govt. owned and fined $7.5 million for price fixing, and the local finance coy. debacle. By comparison NZ unions do well.


You are putting words into my mouth I never used. Of course are corporations and collectives not better (or worse) than unions ... and if too large and insufficiently controlled do they all have a tendency to abuse their powers. BTW - it is "Volkswagen";). The problem with unions is that they have often by law more rights than other organisations.

Example: If I ask a company to do some work for me and they than destroy my property, than I can sue them if they behave negligent or malicious. However if a union decides to destroy my products or business by going on strike (for whatever reason), than this is considered as "act of god" and there are no legal means to hold them responsible.

"By comparison NZ unions do well." Yes, Thank god we manage to keep them small. It's similar to cats - nothing wrong with the odd house cat, but if you allow them to grow to lions size, than they soon turn dangerous and nasty. I shudder to think what a powerful union movement would do to NZ - think Britain in the 1970'ies.

Daytr
08-02-2016, 09:58 AM
It explains that I get bored by mediocrity, so I'm not sure why I'm not catching up on my sleep now... ;-)


Well, that certainly explains a lot if we take this statement at face value.

Who was it said" Youth and Age have all the answers. The people in the middle have all the questions"

I trust your snoring during class does not interfere with the ongoing education of others.:)

Daytr
08-02-2016, 10:03 AM
BP I can understand how you can type with one eye closed, but two?
You must have a braille keyboard...

Minerbarejet
08-02-2016, 11:18 AM
BP I can understand how you can type with one eye closed, but two?
You must have a braille keyboard...Hows this for mediocrity.
This is an offensive statement, both to BP and the numbers of people afflicted by blindness.
Pull yer head in, Sonny

Daytr
08-02-2016, 01:57 PM
Really ! LOL.
I can understand people that are blind being offended by a comparison to BP, but that's where the offense ends... ;-)
You obviously don't credit blind people with a sense of humor. I do.


Hows this for mediocrity.
This is an offensive statement, both to BP and the numbers of people afflicted by blindness.
Pull yer head in, Sonny

macduffy
08-02-2016, 02:25 PM
Now, now! Let's keep the content and tenor of this thread at a level where other readers want to read it!

:mellow:

Minerbarejet
08-02-2016, 02:32 PM
Really ! LOL.
I can understand people that are blind being offended by a comparison to BP, but that's where the offense ends... ;-)
You obviously don't credit blind people with a sense of humor. I do.So,
obviously things aren't that mediocre around here after all.:D

Thought you were going for a lie down, all this effort must be getting too much for you.
Take as much time as you need, you dont want to fall asleep at school tomorrow.:)

winner69
08-02-2016, 03:29 PM
Twitterland all go on impending blowup in Labour ranks

A selection

@bryce_edwards: Hooton: “McCarten & his far-left friends are well on the way to reducing Labour to... one day be the junior partner in a Green-led Govt”

@bryce_edwards: Hooton: After Clark left, “Labour resembled a zombie bank”; “McCarten and his far-left friends saw an opportunity to be vulture investors”

@bryce_edwards: Hooton’s moderate centre of Labour: Phil Goff, David Shearer, David Parker, Stuart Nash, Clayton Cosgrove, Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis

@bryce_edwards: Hooton: “the moderate centre of the party… plan to launch an offensive against the party’s direction in May, they have no chance of success”

@couchexprt: @bryce_edwards they should just join the Nats so we can replace them with Corbyn/Sanders mold. #fixinequality

@bryce_edwards: Hooton: “1/3 of Labour MPs are appalled by the sharp shift to the left but the entrists in the unions and local branches are in control”

@bryce_edwards: Hooton writes of “1930s French Trotskyists”, 1960-70s “subversion of the UK Labour Party by Militant Tendency”; says now in happened in NZ

Was all this just a storm in a teacup

Liked the idea of a faction of the Labour Party only leading them to be the junior party in a Greens/Labour government

westerly
08-02-2016, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE=BlackPeter;606494]Glad you like my posts and that they convince you. Remember - the definition of rhetoric is: "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.". Thank you for the compliment!


Interesting that you say you never voted for Labour. QUOTE]

Interesting, My dictionary defines “rhetoric” as “ the art of persuasive speaking or writing: language intended to impress, especially seen as inflated. exaggerated, or meaningless. “
I rest my case.:)
Incidentally, nowhere have I said I have never voted Labour.

westerly

Daytr
08-02-2016, 04:27 PM
Fair enough Macduff. Reasonable as always.
I assure you there was no malice intended in my posts.


Now, now! Let's keep the content and tenor of this thread at a level where other readers want to read it!

:mellow:

elZorro
10-02-2016, 09:13 PM
Been away for a few days and busy since, but I was eventually impressed by the main incident at the Waitangi Day celebrations. It made a very good political point, it gained attention, it made National look feeble.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11585707

Andrew Little and especially Winston Peters handled the aftermath well.

Daytr
11-02-2016, 06:49 AM
According to the PM if we want growth in Northland we need to embrace mining. Northland in the main is pretty unspoilt and tourism is growing substantially. Certainly don't need an ugly mine or the environmental risk in what is a high rainfall area. National are stuck in the 1970s.
Where are the 10 bridges they promised? Where is the high speed broadband & better mobile coverage? How can you believe anything they say?
The biggest component of there poorly run campaign in the Northland bi-election was the 10 bridges. Promise broken. I believe we are getting two of the 10!

Daytr
11-02-2016, 07:08 AM
This is the sort of litigation we can look forward to in a TPPA world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=0

BlackPeter
11-02-2016, 07:33 AM
Been away for a few days and busy since, but I was eventually impressed by the main incident at the Waitangi Day celebrations. It made a very good political point, it gained attention, it made National look feeble.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11585707

Andrew Little and especially Winston Peters handled the aftermath well.

And here was I thinking that it is not possible to further drop the standards of the Left including their "Labour" appendix ... Thank You, EZ, you did prove me wrong!

So - just help me to understand - if a man would throw this "thing" at a woman - he probably would be charged with sexual harassment. If however a female left wing agitator is doing this to a man, than you call this a "very good political point"?

What was the point? The thing was probably even made in China?

As well - given that the Left had a full weekend to make a real point in Waitangi ... is the throwing of sex toys really the best thing they could come up with? Really?

I would have thought that you would be ashamed of your political comrades, but hey - looks like I was wrong again. Sounds like at least the perpetrator is ashamed of herself - and so it should be.

How low can you go, EZ?

Snapper
11-02-2016, 10:11 AM
This is the sort of litigation we can look forward to in a TPPA world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=0

Don't see any connection with the TPP at all. Can you enlighten me , please?

elZorro
11-02-2016, 06:38 PM
And here was I thinking that it is not possible to further drop the standards of the Left including their "Labour" appendix ... Thank You, EZ, you did prove me wrong!

So - just help me to understand - if a man would throw this "thing" at a woman - he probably would be charged with sexual harassment. If however a female left wing agitator is doing this to a man, than you call this a "very good political point"?

What was the point? The thing was probably even made in China?

As well - given that the Left had a full weekend to make a real point in Waitangi ... is the throwing of sex toys really the best thing they could come up with? Really?

I would have thought that you would be ashamed of your political comrades, but hey - looks like I was wrong again. Sounds like at least the perpetrator is ashamed of herself - and so it should be.

How low can you go, EZ?

BP, I stand by my words there. The big picture with John Key as PM is far more important. Gareth Hughes has it right.

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/speech/gareth-hughes-debate-prime-ministers-statement

Daytr
11-02-2016, 06:49 PM
Litigation to overturn government policy.


Don't see any connection with the TPP at all. Can you enlighten me , please?

macduffy
11-02-2016, 07:06 PM
Litigation to overturn government policy.

Not having read the thousand or so pages of the TPP Agreement could someone who has please explain: What court/s will have jurisdiction in these matters?

Daytr
11-02-2016, 08:46 PM
Its a good question. I have found the following interesting links. I believe its governed by what they term International Common Law. A bit like the law of the sea. And its resolution comes under the ISDS system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

http://itsourfuture.org.nz/eminent-jurists-say-no-to-investor-right-to-sue-in-tpp-2/

http://itsourfuture.org.nz/eminent-jurists-say-no-to-investor-right-to-sue-in-tpp-2/


Not having read the thousand or so pages of the TPP Agreement could someone who has please explain: What court/s will have jurisdiction in these matters?

Snapper
11-02-2016, 09:11 PM
"Litigation to overturn government policy.

Quote Originally Posted by Snapper View Post
Don't see any connection with the TPP at all. Can you enlighten me , please?"

My take on the article is that the litigation by the 29 states and various companies doesn't challenge legislation, it challenges a regulation by the EPA (as ordered by President Obama). A regulation by the executive arm of govt isn't legislation.

Daytr
11-02-2016, 09:32 PM
I would disagree with that. They are also challenging Obama Care, a far as I remember that went through the senate.


"Litigation to overturn government policy.

Quote Originally Posted by Snapper View Post
Don't see any connection with the TPP at all. Can you enlighten me , please?"

My take on the article is that the litigation by the 29 states and various companies doesn't challenge legislation, it challenges a regulation by the EPA (as ordered by President Obama). A regulation by the executive arm of govt isn't legislation.

Daytr
12-02-2016, 06:18 AM
This is a quite brilliant speech in parliament by Gareth Hughes. One of the best orators in the beehive & certainly leaves Little & Key for dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cpgO9pg-48

elZorro
12-02-2016, 07:26 AM
This is a quite brilliant speech in parliament by Gareth Hughes. One of the best orators in the beehive & certainly leaves Little & Key for dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cpgO9pg-48

I thought it was a great speech on paper too, a few parts could have been written a bit more tidily. But add all that up (what a double-dealing, slimy person we have as a PM (https://twitter.com/95bFMNews/status/695411859852103682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)), you wonder why Gareth wasn't delivering it with more oomph. He looked a bit tired, and the house was nearly empty. So all we have is the average video, the text behind it is very powerful though. There should be some useful election slogans in there.

If we want change, everyone who is concerned about NZ, needs to do something towards the 2017 elections.

fungus pudding
12-02-2016, 09:24 AM
if we want change, everyone who is concerned about nz, needs to do something towards the 2017 elections.

tina
.

BlackPeter
12-02-2016, 09:56 AM
BP, I stand by my words there. The big picture with John Key as PM is far more important. Gareth Hughes has it right.

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/speech/gareth-hughes-debate-prime-ministers-statement

Look EZ, not even sure, whether our view on John Key is so much different. You see him as an embarrassment. While we might still have a different view on the level of embarrassment, I do agree in principle.

Where our views seem to diverge is when we look at the available alternatives. I do see anything the disorganised pile of Leftish parties in NZ have to offer these days as far worse than a John Key run government ... and I think your problem is - as long as you consider the throwing of dildos as a major political victory, you might have problems to convince the majority of New Zealanders that Mana / Green / Labour / Internet have anything desirable to offer.

Yes, there are some good people (David Shearer, Kelvin Davis, perhaps Phil Goff and others) - but they have little to say.

Come the next election - National does not need to be good, it just needs to be better than the alternative - and this unfortunately is not difficult to achieve given the disgraceful behaviour of the Left.

If you want to see at any stage again a government with some Leftish participation back in government - what the Left needs to do is to improve its own act, embrace the Centre and to start listening to the people. Political posturing and throwing dildos at senior politicians is unlikely to cut the mustard, but they are of course welcome to continue on this path. This is a democracy after all. Just shouldn't complain later on that they have not been warned.

westerly
12-02-2016, 10:39 AM
This is a quite brilliant speech in parliament by Gareth Hughes. One of the best orators in the beehive & certainly leaves Little & Key for dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cpgO9pg-48

Pretty well sums up the results of Nationals 8 years.

westerly

elZorro
12-02-2016, 02:41 PM
Look EZ, not even sure, whether our view on John Key is so much different. You see him as an embarrassment. While we might still have a different view on the level of embarrassment, I do agree in principle.

Where our views seem to diverge is when we look at the available alternatives. I do see anything the disorganised pile of Leftish parties in NZ have to offer these days as far worse than a John Key run government ... and I think your problem is - as long as you consider the throwing of dildos as a major political victory, you might have problems to convince the majority of New Zealanders that Mana / Green / Labour / Internet have anything desirable to offer.

Yes, there are some good people (David Shearer, Kelvin Davis, perhaps Phil Goff and others) - but they have little to say.

Come the next election - National does not need to be good, it just needs to be better than the alternative - and this unfortunately is not difficult to achieve given the disgraceful behaviour of the Left.

If you want to see at any stage again a government with some Leftish participation back in government - what the Left needs to do is to improve its own act, embrace the Centre and to start listening to the people. Political posturing and throwing dildos at senior politicians is unlikely to cut the mustard, but they are of course welcome to continue on this path. This is a democracy after all. Just shouldn't complain later on that they have not been warned.

BP, I'm not sure where you're dragging this rubbish up from, but are you trying to say that there is no-one on the leftie side of Labour's ranks who has any chance at all? Even compared to the blithering idiots in National's ranks? National is holding itself in power with money, they buy votes with money, they conduct dirty politics in the social media, they contract in neoliberal lobbyists C-T to make it work. If they don't get enough cash in from big business, they take taxpayer borrowings and splash it around. How hard is that?

Conversely, Labour paid off a lot of old debt and ran the country superbly for nine years. You are just doing the C-T bidding by repeating that unfounded rubbish every chance you get - FP does it, too. Must be something in the water down on the Mainland.

BlackPeter
12-02-2016, 03:40 PM
BP, I'm not sure where you're dragging this rubbish up from, but are you trying to say that there is no-one on the leftie side of Labour's ranks who has any chance at all? Even compared to the blithering idiots in National's ranks? National is holding itself in power with money, they buy votes with money, they conduct dirty politics in the social media, they contract in neoliberal lobbyists C-T to make it work. If they don't get enough cash in from big business, they take taxpayer borrowings and splash it around. How hard is that?

Conversely, Labour paid off a lot of old debt and ran the country superbly for nine years. You are just doing the C-T bidding by repeating that unfounded rubbish every chance you get - FP does it, too. Must be something in the water down on the Mainland.

Look EZ, neither party is going to change the population ... and in any population there are something like 30 to 40% left or hard left voters, about the same number of conservative voters (including hard right) and the balance are swing voters including liberals.

Neither the right nor the left is able to govern without the Liberal part of the population (unless they are all so centred that Left is able to work in a government together with the conservatives - as e.g. currently in Germany)

Nobody I know of on the Left side of NZ Labour and NZ Green is currently willing or able to work with the Liberals (I mean people with Liberal views, not necessarily the liberal party relics we have her in NZ) ... and this means, none of them will ever make it into any government (unless, of course, they change). Just think about the reasons why the NZ Green party never made it into any government and the Left side of Labour is left of Green.

No rocket science - just plain common sense.

Daytr
12-02-2016, 09:39 PM
Are you looking EZ? You have been told twice;-) I wonder where BP picked up that saying from...

winner69
13-02-2016, 10:41 AM
Just about finished reading the new chapters in The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman - John Perkins.
http://www.amazon.com.au/New-Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man-ebook/dp/B017MZ8EBM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455316522&sr=8-1&keywords=new+confessions+of+an+economic+hit+man

Found the original version fascinating - the new 'confessions' are even more fascinating. Nothing's changed and you have to wonder whether NZ is on the hit list

winner69
13-02-2016, 10:53 AM
NZvAU cricket test only good viewing if you Aussie - Khawaja hits yet another boundary

John Key jinxed NZ team by being 'honoured' to present the cap to mark BMacs 100th test

Major von Tempsky
13-02-2016, 10:53 AM
The NZ Left (and British and Australian and US) are congenitally, intellectually, unable to grasp the simple fact that to gain government they need to move their policies, and personnel to the right.

It's no good telling the majority of voters they are wrong and abusing them that doesn't gain their votes. It's no good smearing the existing centre right parties and personnel that won't gain their votes.

Nicky Hager has run out of tricks the majority just doesn't believe him anymore.

Time for you (EZ, Daytr, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) to have a fundamental rethink!

Daytr
13-02-2016, 12:30 PM
MVT the left have been in government for 8 years in the US! LOL
And if Trump wins the Republican nomination I think we will see another four years with either Sanders or Clinton winning.
With Sanders gaining strong popularity it suggests quite the opposite to what you suggest.
In Europe its the same. People are fed up with the bank bail outs, white collar crime and the growing disparity of wealth.

fungus pudding
13-02-2016, 01:24 PM
MVT the left have been in government for 8 years in the US! LOL
And if Trump wins the Republican nomination I think we will see another four years with either Sanders or Clinton winning.
With Sanders gaining strong popularity it suggests quite the opposite to what you suggest.
In Europe its the same. People are fed up with the bank bail outs, white collar crime and the growing disparity of wealth.
It's easy to throw around left right labels, but the democrats are near equivalent to national, while republicans have developed into a bunch of lunatic God bothering nutters.

Daytr
13-02-2016, 06:42 PM
There is some truth in what you say, however Obama's Medicare & environmental policy are certainly policies that are aligned to the left. The TPPA is something that is more aligned to the right & that's why he's struggling to get support for it from within his own party.
Sanders however who could be the next president is certainly a lefty .


It's easy to throw around left right labels, but the democrats are near equivalent to national, while republicans have developed into a bunch of lunatic God bothering nutters.

elZorro
13-02-2016, 06:54 PM
I think I should read that book, W69. By the way, did you go to the TPPA protest, or are you too comfortable? Mixed messages, that's what I'm seeing. :confused:

elZorro
14-02-2016, 10:16 AM
I think if I was voting in the states, I'd go for Bernie Sanders for president. This guy is a real veteran politician, formed his socialist-leaning views early, and stuck with them. Some great political advert ideas here too.

http://thestandard.org.nz/saunders-v-clinton-campaign-ads/

RGR367
14-02-2016, 11:00 AM
I think if I was voting in the states, I'd go for Bernie Sanders for president. This guy is a real veteran politician, formed his socialist-leaning views early, and stuck with them. Some great political advert ideas here too.

http://thestandard.org.nz/saunders-v-clinton-campaign-ads/

Take the quiz here http://www.isidewith.com/ and see who you support based on their stands about election issues. You might be supporting the comedian for all we know elZorro as per your sometime laughable stand on Labour Party/Little. :)
I ended up favouring Sanders by a mere 1 percent over Clinton as per the quiz. But I would vote for Hillary if I'm an american citizen as it's about time they need that "feminine touch". Of course, they could have a Trumping comedian this time to really mess the place up and it would not make any difference at all again. For my devilish side, I hope they put the comedian on the White House :D

blackcap
14-02-2016, 11:37 AM
Take the quiz here http://www.isidewith.com/ and see who you support based on their stands about election issues. You might be supporting the comedian for all we know elZorro as per your sometime laughable stand on Labour Party/Little. :)
I ended up favouring Sanders by a mere 1 percent over Clinton as per the quiz. But I would vote for Hillary if I'm an american citizen as it's about time they need that "feminine touch". Of course, they could have a Trumping comedian this time to really mess the place up and it would not make any difference at all again. For my devilish side, I hope they put the comedian on the White House :D

Thanks for the quiz link there. Interesting things to come from it. I seem to favour Trump, but I am moderately right of center and in the middle and happen to have Sanders as my number 1 on issues related to foreign policy and crime. You do have to put an American think cap on though as it is totally US based.

elZorro
14-02-2016, 12:23 PM
Take the quiz here http://www.isidewith.com/ and see who you support based on their stands about election issues. You might be supporting the comedian for all we know elZorro as per your sometime laughable stand on Labour Party/Little. :)
I ended up favouring Sanders by a mere 1 percent over Clinton as per the quiz. But I would vote for Hillary if I'm an american citizen as it's about time they need that "feminine touch". Of course, they could have a Trumping comedian this time to really mess the place up and it would not make any difference at all again. For my devilish side, I hope they put the comedian on the White House :D

I ended up with Hillary first and Bernie second, by a long shot over the others. Of course I did the short version, but I really liked the feel of the site, that's useful. 29mill people have used it to become more informed.

What are the chances that someone in NZ codes a site like that, well before the 2017 elections?

BlackPeter
14-02-2016, 01:22 PM
Take the quiz here http://www.isidewith.com/ and see who you support based on their stands about election issues. You might be supporting the comedian for all we know elZorro as per your sometime laughable stand on Labour Party/Little. :)
I ended up favouring Sanders by a mere 1 percent over Clinton as per the quiz. But I would vote for Hillary if I'm an american citizen as it's about time they need that "feminine touch". Of course, they could have a Trumping comedian this time to really mess the place up and it would not make any difference at all again. For my devilish side, I hope they put the comedian on the White House :D

Interesting website and quiz.

I went through the whole thing - and the outcome is ... (recommend EZ and westerly stop reading now, it would spoil their fun in rubbishing my posts):

They say I side 94% with the Democratic party, 92 % with the (US) Green party and 37% with the Republicans.

Not sure, whether this highlights how reasonable and liberal the US Democrats and Greenies are (as compared to our Left wing bunch), or whether this just indicates what Morons are standing in the US for the other side of the spectrum. Well, I guess I am less surprised (and actually happy) that I disagree with Trump (always felt that way), but I am somewhat surprised that I only seem to side on 20% of issues with Carson - I guess I don't know enough about his policies, but he appeared to be a reasonable sort of guy;

Obviously - maybe the webpage tells just everybody that they side with the Democrats (maybe some others might try - MvT, Craic, FP)? ... but I prefer the version that the US Democrats are just so much more agreeable and reasonable than our Lefties ...

Any chance we could apply to become the 52 nd US state ... I'd love to vote for them ... after doing due diligence,of course ....

BlackPeter
14-02-2016, 01:29 PM
I ended up with Hillary first and Bernie second, by a long shot over the others. Of course I did the short version, but I really liked the feel of the site, that's useful. 29mill people have used it to become more informed.

What are the chances that someone in NZ codes a site like that, well before the 2017 elections?

Actually - EZ, we had such a site in NZ for the 2014 elections (prepared by onenews): http://tvnz.co.nz/votecompass - quite useful ... and no, it didn't recommend me voting for Labour or NZ Green;). Does not seem to load today, but might work again closer to the elections?

elZorro
14-02-2016, 01:47 PM
Actually - EZ, we had such a site in NZ for the 2014 elections (prepared by onenews): http://tvnz.co.nz/votecompass - quite useful ... and no, it didn't recommend me voting for Labour or NZ Green;). Does not seem to load today, but might work again closer to the elections?

I remember that BP, it's not quite the same website, a bit simpler, better than nothing I guess.

I see you might be a closet socialist, BP. You should join up with your local LEC.:)

blackcap
14-02-2016, 02:35 PM
Interesting website and quiz.

I went through the whole thing - and the outcome is ... (recommend EZ and westerly stop reading now, it would spoil their fun in rubbishing my posts):

They say I side 94% with the Democratic party, 92 % with the (US) Green party and 37% with the Republicans...

I can actually understand that. National in NZ is about the equivalent of Democratic in America. US politics or US centre is far to the right of NZ centre. That is what JK understands and that is why National have done so well over here. Also it shows the difference in how NZ'ers think as opposed to Americans. I did have Republican as my top choices etc and was considered centre right, but in NZ I would probably be called far right for my views. Also to muddle the waters further Americans are generally far more conservative on social issues than we are and that would/may have skewed your stats BlackPeter :).

Snapper
14-02-2016, 11:12 PM
It looks like I'm voting Sanders followed by Bloomberg. Interesting result given I'm a centrist (ie National) voter here.

BlackPeter
15-02-2016, 07:25 AM
I remember that BP, it's not quite the same website, a bit simpler, better than nothing I guess.

I see you might be a closet socialist, BP. You should join up with your local LEC.:)

EZ - LEC?

Google comes as first proposal up with "Local Exchange Carrier", but that's probably not what you mean?

"Labour Enhancing Committee?" Actually - if it is that you mean, than this might be a worthwhile cause. Sounds however here in NZ like a s**tload of work. Some people might consider it as well a lost cause :p.

Anyway = let me know, if I can help in any way ...;)

winner69
15-02-2016, 07:55 AM
I think I should read that book, W69. By the way, did you go to the TPPA protest, or are you too comfortable? Mixed messages, that's what I'm seeing. :confused:

Dont live in auckland so no

elZorro
15-02-2016, 07:56 AM
EZ - LEC?

Google comes as first proposal up with "Local Exchange Carrier", but that's probably not what you mean?

"Labour Enhancing Committee?" Actually - if it is that you mean, than this might be a worthwhile cause. Sounds however here in NZ like a s**tload of work. Some people might consider it as well a lost cause :p.

Anyway = let me know, if I can help in any way ...;)

Not quite, BP. It's Labour's expression for the electorate teams working towards the next elections. The Local Electorate Committee.

You can help, even if you don't go to meetings, just donate to the party. :)

elZorro
15-02-2016, 07:58 AM
Dont live in auckland so no

Somewhere handy then? What about those Waiheke trips?

winner69
15-02-2016, 08:06 AM
Somewhere handy then? What about those Waiheke trips?

No no EZ - Goldcard used on Ferry to Days Bay for lunch at Cobar or Chocolate Dayz and the occasional walk around Somes Island

fungus pudding
15-02-2016, 08:59 AM
Interesting website and quiz.


Obviously - maybe the webpage tells just everybody that they side with the Democrats (maybe some others might try - MvT, Craic, FP)? ... but I prefer the version that the US Democrats are just so much more agreeable and reasonable than our Lefties ...



Looks like I'm a Hillary fan according to that test, which is who I would vote for over there - only because all the others would be even more disastrous. But I certainly don't like all her or all Democrat policies. You can't compare Democrats with Labour. They are more akin to our National party. We don't have anything like the republicans here.

Major von Tempsky
15-02-2016, 09:10 AM
Don't forget, DayTr et al, the survey which found that 72% of the British electorate thought they were middle class.

What that means is that you are never going to gain power unless you espouse middle class policies and middle class candidates.

You can't do it by targeting 20% of the electorate who are left wing/lower class and hoping to detach 30% of the middle class by appealing to them to vote for what you think they should vote for. They've been there (lower class) done that (left wing) and they have bettered themselves and climbed out of the cesspit. Their next hope is to become upper class not lower class again. Until they understand that Corbyn, Sanders & & are doomed to fail, substantially.

Sgt Pepper
15-02-2016, 09:33 AM
Looks like I'm a Hillary fan according to that test, which is who I would vote for over there - only because all the others would be even more disastrous. But I certainly don't like all her or all Democrat policies. You can't compare Democrats with Labour. They are more akin to our National party. We don't have anything like the republicans here.

As for me, somewhat surprisingly, I am a Republican, with Carly Fliorina 77%. As for National being nothing like the Republicans, wait to Judith C takes over

fungus pudding
15-02-2016, 09:44 AM
As for me, somewhat surprisingly, I am a Republican, with Carly Fliorina 77%. As for National being nothing like the Republicans, wait to Judith C takes over

That won't happen.

Daytr
16-02-2016, 06:06 AM
It might if these results keep coming in.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/two-thirds-still-against-flag-change-poll/ar-BBpvtQ3?li=AA59FU&ocid=iehp



That won't happen.

iceman
16-02-2016, 07:02 AM
The results of the flag referendum will have no effect on who will lead the National Party. Judith Collins will never do so.
We are not talking about the Labour Party here, which seems to think they fix their problems by changing Leaders while lurching ever further to the left from NZ voters !


It might if these results keep coming in.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/two-thirds-still-against-flag-change-poll/ar-BBpvtQ3?li=AA59FU&ocid=iehp

Sgt Pepper
16-02-2016, 07:12 AM
I see the Auditor-General is investigating the Saudi sheep farm fiasco. It must be a very nervous Murray McCully waiting the outcome( and John Key)

fungus pudding
16-02-2016, 07:55 AM
It might if these results keep coming in.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/two-thirds-still-against-flag-change-poll/ar-BBpvtQ3?li=AA59FU&ocid=iehp


What on earth has the referendum got to do with who will lead the National party?

Major von Tempsky
16-02-2016, 08:24 AM
I am going to vote for keeping the existing flag which will remain because it is backed by an unlikely coalition of left wing plus right wing.

I am also going to vote for keeping John Key if the issue ever arose and for continuing John Key as PM the next election and the one after.

And Winston Peters is on record that he would back National over Labour if it was a hung election.

Saudi sheep deal? Who cares? It's hardly a topic of conversation in middle NZ!

fungus pudding
16-02-2016, 09:02 AM
I am going to vote for keeping the existing flag which will remain because it is backed by an unlikely coalition of left wing plus right wing.



And I'll vote for the new one as I see a huge benefit in distinguishing ourselves from those fellas over the ditch. So if you promise me you won't vote, I might do the same and we'll cancel each other out. :t_up::t_up:

Daytr
16-02-2016, 06:41 PM
It should be obvious . Key will be responsible for the squandering of $30M of taxpayer money. Abject failure by the leader of the National Party.

At least the Nats give John Oliver plenty of material .

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11590035&ref=NZH_FBpage


What on earth has the referendum got to do with who will lead the National party?

Daytr
16-02-2016, 06:42 PM
Really? I never would have guessed ...


And I'll vote for the new one as I see a huge benefit in distinguishing ourselves from those fellas over the ditch. So if you promise me you won't vote, I might do the same and we'll cancel each other out. :t_up::t_up:

Sgt Pepper
16-02-2016, 08:20 PM
I am going to vote for keeping the existing flag which will remain because it is backed by an unlikely coalition of left wing plus right wing.

I am also going to vote for keeping John Key if the issue ever arose and for continuing John Key as PM the next election and the one after.

And Winston Peters is on record that he would back National over Labour if it was a hung election.

Saudi sheep deal? Who cares? It's hardly a topic of conversation in middle NZ!

Sorry to rain on your parade Major, maybe you don't care about millions of dollars of tax payers being potentially misdirected (or worse) but the Auditor General does. Of course if it had happened under a Labour Administration then my guess would be that you would have been interested

iceman
17-02-2016, 07:03 AM
I do agree with daytr and Sgt Pepper that the cost of the flag vote seems to be ridiculous. It should have been held alongside either local or parliamentary elections to reduce costs. But those screaming loudest now did not see anything wrong with $10m spent on "stop the asset sales" PROTEST, even though everyone knew it would make no difference to the partial privatisation process. At least the flag referendum will give Kiwis a voice.

This morning I read in the Herald that Kiwis are not welcome at backpacker hostels in Blenheim because of their rowdy and uneducated behaviour. Even though this is a big generalisation, I am not surprised that the Asian and European travelers, many staying long term and working in orchards, do not appreciate that behaviour.
One of the hostel owners (a Kiwi) saying the foreigners are more interested in doing a hard days work than Kiwis.

Then on radio yesterday we hear about 300 people being "imported" into Hawkes Bay for working in orchards and another 600 jobs coming up, most likely to be filled with foreign seasonal workers. Meanwhile we have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay.
What is happening to our youth and their work ethic ? Have they had it so easy for too long with all the benefits and free student loans that they can't be bothered working anymore ??

craic
17-02-2016, 07:31 AM
Overseas backpackers are individuals who have invested a great deal in travelling across the world, in many cases to expand their knowledge and experience, before settling down into careers, probably in their own country. NZ backpackers will have a high percentage of waifs and strays and displaced locals and, ipso facto, a much higher percentage of problems.

elZorro
17-02-2016, 07:44 AM
I do agree with daytr and Sgt Pepper that the cost of the flag vote seems to be ridiculous. It should have been held alongside either local or parliamentary elections to reduce costs. But those screaming loudest now did not see anything wrong with $10m spent on "stop the asset sales" PROTEST, even though everyone knew it would make no difference to the partial privatisation process. At least the flag referendum will give Kiwis a voice.

This morning I read in the Herald that Kiwis are not welcome at backpacker hostels in Blenheim because of their rowdy and uneducated behaviour. Even though this is a big generalisation, I am not surprised that the Asian and European travelers, many staying long term and working in orchards, do not appreciate that behaviour.
One of the hostel owners (a Kiwi) saying the foreigners are more interested in doing a hard days work than Kiwis.

Then on radio yesterday we hear about 300 people being "imported" into Hawkes Bay for working in orchards and another 600 jobs coming up, most likely to be filled with foreign seasonal workers. Meanwhile we have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay.
What is happening to our youth and their work ethic ? Have they had it so easy for too long with all the benefits and free student loans that they can't be bothered working anymore ??

Are you trying to say that historic Labour policy has wrecked the work ethic of our youth? Maybe their parents have protected them too much from life's brutal realities. First we have to consider what a young single person's unemployment benefit is, and that won't allow them to be very mobile. They probably couldn't run a car on it, to get themselves to work in a rural area. The 'free student loans' you talk about are possibly a disincentive to doing hard, low paid, semi-skilled graft in an orchard, because they've just been trained in some higher skills, and orchard work isn't going to look great on their CVs. Of course they have to start paying interest and the loans back, as soon as they start work. So I guess those loans aren't really "free" after all.

Daytr
17-02-2016, 07:55 AM
Iceman there are big differences between the current referendum than the first. Mainly, nearly 400k signatures were collected to petition for a referendum. So if you want to blame around 20% of the voting public for squandering $9M, so be it, however I would suggest that's democracy in action. However the latest referendum has been forced on us by one man, John Key.

Re the backpackers, having been one in the UK we used to think the Poms were lazy. But it has to be put into context. We were there for a short time, working hard & playing hard, knowing we weren't dog it for the rest of our lives. So its quite a different ethic. In NZ its hard to compete with the Island labor as their physical attributes are superior to the average Kiwi for certain work. You only have to look at the ABs for that. You are Also comparing some people in NZ who are toward the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum of NZ versus people who are being paid far more here than they would in their own country. So the comparison is never going to be fair.


I do agree with daytr and Sgt Pepper that the cost of the flag vote seems to be ridiculous. It should have been held alongside either local or parliamentary elections to reduce costs. But those screaming loudest now did not see anything wrong with $10m spent on "stop the asset sales" PROTEST, even though everyone knew it would make no difference to the partial privatisation process. At least the flag referendum will give Kiwis a voice.

This morning I read in the Herald that Kiwis are not welcome at backpacker hostels in Blenheim because of their rowdy and uneducated behaviour. Even though this is a big generalisation, I am not surprised that the Asian and European travelers, many staying long term and working in orchards, do not appreciate that behaviour.
One of the hostel owners (a Kiwi) saying the foreigners are more interested in doing a hard days work than Kiwis.

Then on radio yesterday we hear about 300 people being "imported" into Hawkes Bay for working in orchards and another 600 jobs coming up, most likely to be filled with foreign seasonal workers. Meanwhile we have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay.
What is happening to our youth and their work ethic ? Have they had it so easy for too long with all the benefits and free student loans that they can't be bothered working anymore ??

iceman
17-02-2016, 08:43 AM
Iceman there are big differences between the current referendum than the first. Mainly, nearly 400k signatures were collected to petition for a referendum. So if you want to blame around 20% of the voting public for squandering $9M, so be it, however I would suggest that's democracy in action. However the latest referendum has been forced on us by one man, John Key.

Re the backpackers, having been one in the UK we used to think the Poms were lazy. But it has to be put into context. We were there for a short time, working hard & playing hard, knowing we weren't dog it for the rest of our lives. So its quite a different ethic. In NZ its hard to compete with the Island labor as their physical attributes are superior to the average Kiwi for certain work. You only have to look at the ABs for that. You are Also comparing some people in NZ who are toward the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum of NZ versus people who are being paid far more here than they would in their own country. So the comparison is never going to be fair.

No EZ I did not say that historic Labour Party policy is ruining our youth's ethics to work. But I fear our society is. My wife is a primary school teacher in a low decile school and I fear for the future of the children being taught there, with main focus on rubbish that will never help them in life. But apparently it is politically correct. Now we have some parties wanting the teachers to focus on feeding the kids lunch etc, rather than teach them.

daytr I am not sure agree with you about comparisons not being fair. If we have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay, a good share of those should be told to go and pick apples. No excuses. And many of the apple pickers in Nelson/Marlborough are Europeans, not the low wage people from the Islands you refer to.
I have an interest in a tourism business in northern Europe where we seasonally use 20 something European guides in fairly low paid jobs. They are generally very well educated with a very high work ethic and happy to work in low paid but jobs during their summer holidays from Uni.

artemis
17-02-2016, 10:49 AM
..... If we have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay, a good share of those should be told to go and pick apples. No excuses.....

There's a good chance some of them are told to go pick apples. And very likely they apply for jobs. Probably some will be taken on. And if they are not, well that is the choice of the employer who does not need an excuse.

If i managed an orchard I would not choose 'high maintenance' employees to get the crop harvested in the short window. Just sayin'.

westerly
17-02-2016, 11:15 AM
There's a good chance some of them are told to go pick apples. And very likely they apply for jobs. Probably some will be taken on. And if they are not, well that is the choice of the employer who does not need an excuse.

If i managed an orchard I would not choose 'high maintenance' employees to get the crop harvested in the short window. Just sayin'.

If you have 6.5% unemployment in Hawkes Bay which probably includes Gisborne not all will be young people.
This excerpt from a seasonal work site possibly clarifys why the orchards struggle for labour.

"Apple thinning will begin mid to late November and will run until Christmas. Apple harvesting will begin mid February and will run until the end of April. Most of the jobs require that you have your own transport. The worksites are rural and a long way from the available accommodation. "

westerly

craic
17-02-2016, 11:50 AM
I don't think that Gisborne is in Hawkes Bay. Wairoa maybe but that's as much as we can cope with.

westerly
17-02-2016, 05:15 PM
I don't think that Gisborne is in Hawkes Bay. Wairoa maybe but that's as much as we can cope with.

Not according to the Dept. of Labour stats. You will just have to cope a little bit better Craic :)

Daytr
17-02-2016, 05:22 PM
That's exactly it, the employer will choose the best option available for their business and if imported labour is the better option & available then that's what they will go for.


There's a good chance some of them are told to go pick apples. And very likely they apply for jobs. Probably some will be taken on. And if they are not, well that is the choice of the employer who does not need an excuse.

If i managed an orchard I would not choose 'high maintenance' employees to get the crop harvested in the short window. Just sayin'.

Daytr
17-02-2016, 05:29 PM
National had a crisis meeting today according to the press re the flag referendum disaster. Maggie Barry called it apparently & I wouldn't trust her for a minute. Knives out for Key? Key playing it down of course, as he does everything.

fungus pudding
17-02-2016, 06:26 PM
National had a crisis meeting today according to the press re the flag referendum disaster. Maggie Barry called it apparently & I wouldn't trust her for a minute. Knives out for Key? Key playing it down of course, as he does everything.

Hardly a crisis. It's a referendum and it will proceed.

Daytr
17-02-2016, 06:58 PM
So what was the meeting that Barry organized then?
They are starting to panic as they know its a loser.


Hardly a crisis. It's a referendum and it will proceed.

777
17-02-2016, 07:02 PM
Does it matter whether it is a loser or not. Hardly an issue.

Unless of course you want to make it one.

neopoleII
17-02-2016, 07:09 PM
""That's exactly it, the employer will choose the best option available for their business and if "exporting their manufacture" is the better option & available then that's what they will go for.""
sounds like a capitalist comment to me....... with a few changed words.
personally i would employ NZers first and if necessary make eligible workers not currently working but available for work take these jobs if its viable.
but "some of us" think that there is a sizable portion of working age people in NZ that don't want to work, don't have to work, and get a benefit for their stand against work.
the big difference is...... the current government is trying to get them to work....... the opposition it "seems" is helping them do as they do...... or help these folks get a "living wage" for menial work.
so as the poster implies..... the employer is looking for reliable workers for a stated wage.... to get a job done, and will employ legally, people from over seas that wish to work.

makes one wonder if our minimum wage is too high?

blackcap
17-02-2016, 07:23 PM
makes one wonder if our minimum wage is too high?

Agree with you wholeheartedly. Comparatively we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Like I said earlier my 20 yo cousins from Holland could not believe the $14.50 or is it $14.75 they were getting. They thought it was absurd, but saying that were happy to work long hours for it on their holiday. I think $12 p/h would work better for NZ as the minimum wage but I do not think that is going to happen again.

Daytr
17-02-2016, 07:28 PM
More than a few changed words you changed the entire context.
Best you don't use quotation marks when you are changing the quote.
All I was stating is what is happening and in particular in seasonal orchard type work.
Minimum wage is too high, perhaps if they were paid better wages for these sorts of jobs they would attract local labour.

elZorro
17-02-2016, 07:56 PM
So what was the meeting that Barry organized then?
They are starting to panic as they know its a loser.

Did you see that Judith Collins was off that email list? She didn't know anything about it. There's a split in the National ranks I think. Cripes, I think they should drop Key soon, they'll need to do it well before the next election. For a kickoff, they can't use his profile on the election hoardings, as that would promote some kind of anarchy. ;)

Daytr
17-02-2016, 07:59 PM
Wasting $30M of taxpayer money, might not be an issue for the National party, but I think it is for most people.


Does it matter whether it is a loser or not. Hardly an issue.

Unless of course you want to make it one.

777
17-02-2016, 08:29 PM
Wasting $30M of taxpayer money, might not be an issue for the National party, but I think it is for most people.

That is history, nothing about today's wishful thinking on your part.

Daytr
17-02-2016, 08:55 PM
What is history? Or do you think the flag referendum is over before its done? If so I would agree with you, but unfortunately Key's vanity project is still chewing up taxpayer cash every day.


That is history, nothing about today's wishful thinking on your part.

RGR367
17-02-2016, 10:04 PM
What is history? Or do you think the flag referendum is over before its done? If so I would agree with you, but unfortunately Key's vanity project is still chewing up taxpayer cash every day.

I'm neither a Labour Party alarmist nor a National Party apologist so I don't know where to place myself since I believe that changing the flag is a better option than sticking with the current one. It would have been a lot cheaper though had we convinced the NZRU to give up their logo and make that our flag :p

craic
17-02-2016, 10:05 PM
From the middle of the situation in Hawkes Bay - most of the competent pickers contract - so much per bin. Most of the regular contract pickers get out to the orchards by one means or another. Those pressured into orchard work are useless to the orchardists. They stuff around, throw sickies and are of little value. There are regulars, often retired people, who are highly valued and go back each season to the same employer. One lady I knew was out on the street with a sugar sack, various other gear and two pre-school kids, every morning before seven, waiting to be picked up. After work she bottled large amounts of fruit and vegetables for the off season.

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 06:01 AM
What is history? Or do you think the flag referendum is over before its done? If so I would agree with you, but unfortunately Key's vanity project is still chewing up taxpayer cash every day.

If you think the Lefties are going to care about a paltry $26 million mate, think again. They love chewing up taxpayer cash, absolutely love it. They despise the system because it's 'unequal', so yearn for its destruction under a mountain on debt.

"Oh my goodness gracious me, the government is chewing through all of our taxpayer cash on this flag referendum. We could solve poverty in NZ if only we weren't doing a flag referendum. Flag referendum. Flag referendum".

$26 million?? Making a big song and dance about it is like screaming 'look at this huge sand dune!!!!' while pointing at 26 grains of sand piled together on a beach.

elZorro
18-02-2016, 06:10 AM
If you think the Lefties are going to care about a paltry $26 million mate, think again. They love chewing up taxpayer cash, absolutely love it. They despise the system because it's 'unequal', so yearn for its destruction under a mountain on debt.

"Oh my goodness gracious me, the government is chewing through all of our taxpayer cash on this flag referendum. We could solve poverty in NZ if only we weren't doing a flag referendum. Flag referendum. Flag referendum".

$26 million?? Making a big song and dance about it is like screaming 'look at this huge sand dune!!!!' while pointing at 26 grains of sand piled together on a beach.

This isn't about $26million anymore, Logen, or even about the flag. Something's up with the National Party MPs.

http://thestandard.org.nz/back-stabbers/

And I wouldn't mention debt mountains too much either, if you just go back and read the data, you'll see it was Labour that reduced our historic debt, giving National the room to build it back up again, so as to stay in power. They are still unable to truthfully balance the books, as though reporting a loss each year is one of their aims. I think they've forgotten that these are the Crown books, not a private company where tax minimisation and tax-free capital gains is everything to a RWNJ (right-wing nut job).

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 06:32 AM
I
This isn't about $26million anymore, Logen, or even about the flag. Something's up with the National Party MPs.

http://thestandard.org.nz/back-stabbers/

And I wouldn't mention debt mountains too much either, if you just go back and read the data, you'll see it was Labour that reduced our historic debt, giving National the room to build it back up again, so as to stay in power. They are still unable to truthfully balance the books, as though reporting a loss each year is one of their aims. I think they've forgotten that these are the Crown books, not a private company where tax minimisation and tax-free capital gains is everything to a RWNJ (right-wing nut job).

Why can't I mention debt mountains? We have a debt mountain which has built up under the current government / global approach to staving off financial armeggedon, and I honestly believe it would be bigger under a Labour government.

There was a little thing in 2007 / 2008 which will be called by history 'The Small Global Financial Crisis' or GFCI. Or 'the end of the party'. Around the same time, we had a change of govt. The National government of John Keynes has borrowed and spent, as any good socialist government would. Benefits have been increased, not reduced. The middle class has been very happy and content because all this spending has blown up the Auckland housing market into an enormous all-consuming bubble, which now must be propped up at all costs.

To say that if Labour had won the 2008 election that they would have been happily banking surpluses and paying off debt is laughable. What a joke.

Would an administration headed by Andrew Little would be running big surpluses? What would Andrew Little do to reduce our debt position? Introduce 3 years free tertiary education? Slash benefits? Promote the growth of the mining industry? Ban dairy farming? Tell China that their economy must not slow down and their debt mountain must not implode?

Please do not tell me you are going to blame all our woes on National while offering up Labour as some panacea for a utopian bright and prosperous future.

iceman
18-02-2016, 06:36 AM
From the middle of the situation in Hawkes Bay - most of the competent pickers contract - so much per bin. Most of the regular contract pickers get out to the orchards by one means or another. Those pressured into orchard work are useless to the orchardists. They stuff around, throw sickies and are of little value. There are regulars, often retired people, who are highly valued and go back each season to the same employer. One lady I knew was out on the street with a sugar sack, various other gear and two pre-school kids, every morning before seven, waiting to be picked up. After work she bottled large amounts of fruit and vegetables for the off season.

That's exactly the point I was making craig. Why do we have such large number of "unemployed" people in an area that is importing large numbers of people to work in a thriving local industry ? Of course some are not able to do this work, but I am sure many are. But they either do not want to or are "unemployable".
Some of the statements on here are nothing but excuses for not working and staying on benefits.

Daytr you say they should pay decent wages to attract local labour. They do ! According to a friend who is an orchardist, a reasonably able apple picker can make $200 per day during harvesting season. Many very experienced pickers earn quite a bit more than that. Of course slower pickers or beginners earn less, starting basically at the reasonably decent minimum wage
This is not an issue about them not being paid well, it is about people that don't want to work and prefer to sit at home receiving benefits. And I repeat that I know many of the unemployed can't do this job, but many can and should. Beggars can't be choosers.

elZorro
18-02-2016, 07:27 AM
I

Why can't I mention debt mountains? We have a debt mountain which has built up under the current government / global approach to staving off financial armeggedon, and I honestly believe it would be bigger under a Labour government.

There was a little thing in 2007 / 2008 which will be called by history 'The Small Global Financial Crisis' or GFCI. Or 'the end of the party'. Around the same time, we had a change of govt. The National government of John Keynes has borrowed and spent, as any good socialist government would. Benefits have been increased, not reduced. The middle class has been very happy and content because all this spending has blown up the Auckland housing market into an enormous all-consuming bubble, which now must be propped up at all costs.

To say that if Labour had won the 2008 election that they would have been happily banking surpluses and paying off debt is laughable. What a joke.

Would an administration headed by Andrew Little would be running big surpluses? What would Andrew Little do to reduce our debt position? Introduce 3 years free tertiary education? Slash benefits? Promote the growth of the mining industry? Ban dairy farming? Tell China that their economy must not slow down and their debt mountain must not implode?

Please do not tell me you are going to blame all our woes on National while offering up Labour as some panacea for a utopian bright and prosperous future.

Logen, It's 'John Key' I think. Having looked at the data, I can say that Labour would have helped us through the GFC better than National. For a kickoff, they wouldn't have given away tax breaks as a big bribe to middle and upper income earners. Those settings were about right before they changed them. National instead raised GST, which is a progressive tax affecting lower income people more, by proportion. We wouldn't have had some of our state assets sold off, so the govt would have more reliable income now.

Labour would have boosted the manufacturing sector with the R&D tax credits scheme and other proposals, these would be paying off by now. National scrapped those immediately in 2008, like the short-term idiots that they are.

National got right behind dairying as their panacea, look how that's worked out now. Even when it was going well, the whole sector's ability to defray profits into the future meant there was not enough income tax being paid to balance their government books. Even as they shed jobs in the public sector.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/77001277/pattrick-smellie-how-low-can-dairy-go?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+18 +February+2016

Daytr
18-02-2016, 07:42 AM
Open the other eye mate. I'm not a Labour voter, well not in the norm, but they balanced the budget year on year, lowered the level of government debt considerably. Meanwhile National have trebled it. This government beat a record from the most consecutive deficits & who's record did they beat?
You guessed it a previous national government.

And yes people obviously do care & that's why National is having a mini implosion. The latest a leaked Maggie Barry email.
The rot is setting in.
Its like the start of a Shakespearean play that's about to unfold.



If you think the Lefties are going to care about a paltry $26 million mate, think again. They love chewing up taxpayer cash, absolutely love it. They despise the system because it's 'unequal', so yearn for its destruction under a mountain on debt.

"Oh my goodness gracious me, the government is chewing through all of our taxpayer cash on this flag referendum. We could solve poverty in NZ if only we weren't doing a flag referendum. Flag referendum. Flag referendum".

$26 million?? Making a big song and dance about it is like screaming 'look at this huge sand dune!!!!' while pointing at 26 grains of sand piled together on a beach.

craic
18-02-2016, 07:46 AM
An awful lot of "would haves" in there - that is wishful thinking at its height. Labour "were" in government once. Why did they not do the things they "would have" then?

elZorro
18-02-2016, 08:15 AM
An awful lot of "would haves" in there - that is wishful thinking at its height. Labour "were" in government once. Why did they not do the things they "would have" then?

Craic, you know they (Labour) did steadily make changes, not so fast that they left everyone behind. R&D tax credits were in place for a financial year as they left office. John Key is also into incremental change, but not the sort of policies I like to see.

Steadily bankrupt the Crown books with debt
Steadily increase inequality
Steadily sell off state assets
Steadily reduce the state sector's influences
Steadily increase corruption in government dealings
Steadily undermine workers rights

craic
18-02-2016, 08:32 AM
That's exactly why Labour got re-elected in the last two elections. All smoke and mirrors.

elZorro
18-02-2016, 12:27 PM
That's exactly why Labour got re-elected in the last two elections. All smoke and mirrors.

Yes, that's right Craic, National are doing it with smoke and mirrors, and money. Lots of it.

fungus pudding
18-02-2016, 01:14 PM
Yes, that's right Craic, National are doing it with smoke and mirrors, and money. Lots of it.

Oh dear! It must be painful to be so miserable, especially with at least four more years at least for you to suffer.

artemis
18-02-2016, 01:30 PM
From the middle of the situation in Hawkes Bay - most of the competent pickers contract - so much per bin. Most of the regular contract pickers get out to the orchards by one means or another. Those pressured into orchard work are useless to the orchardists. They stuff around, throw sickies and are of little value. There are regulars, often retired people, who are highly valued and go back each season to the same employer. One lady I knew was out on the street with a sugar sack, various other gear and two pre-school kids, every morning before seven, waiting to be picked up. After work she bottled large amounts of fruit and vegetables for the off season.

That's a great story, and a fantastic role model to those littlies. Long days, hard work, and children to look after as well. Not much fun there but clearly that didn't stop her. I hope she came into calmer waters over time.

Totally agree about forcing people to work - maybe good for them but spare a thought for the employer who really really doesn't want workers who don't want to be there.

BlackPeter
18-02-2016, 02:37 PM
Craic, you know they (Labour) did steadily make changes, not so fast that they left everyone behind. R&D tax credits were in place for a financial year as they left office. John Key is also into incremental change, but not the sort of policies I like to see.

Steadily bankrupt the Crown books with debt
Steadily increase inequality
Steadily sell off state assets
Steadily reduce the state sector's influences
Steadily increase corruption in government dealings
Steadily undermine workers rights


Yes, that's right Craic, National are doing it with smoke and mirrors, and money. Lots of it.

EZ - not sure how to put that, but you sound frustrated. If that's representative for the mood in Labour ... not a good position to be in to win any election. The voting public does not like frustrated (and sore ...) losers, they normally go for the "winners".

I am sure that the average National MP is not more or less good / evil, (in-)competent, (dis-)honest or (des-)interested in the common good than the average Labour MP. Yes, there may be some idiots and some crooks on both sides, but actually - I honestly believe that most MP's (whatever colour) want only the best for the country.

And actually - I think that we just established that there is hardly any difference between the National politics and what the Democrats in the US want to do. Are the US Democrats as well such an evil bunch?

Obviously - different political colours see different ways to achieve "the best for the country", and there might be as well slightly different definitions of what "the best" is.

If history teaches us only one thing, than it is that neither the left nor the right have the "correct" answer. If one of them would, than we would have already this paradise on Earth implemented somewhere at a place near to us (following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest), and everybody would go there.

The best solution is normally somewhere in the middle (hint - that's where the Liberals are :p) - and given that it is hard to hit the eye, is the political balance in democracies typically moving somewhere around the middle.

However - there is no entitlement for any opposition to get after x number of years back into government, no matter how lousy their efforts have been during the opposition time. What the Left in our country could do is to provide a credible and positive, united and forward looking alternative vision for our country. If it is good enough, than people might even vote for it. And given your marks on Nationals efforts - how hard can it be to offer something better?

Why don't you just try to do this instead of constant nagging and negative comments related to Nationals performance? The voting public wants a beauty contest instead of the usual mud slinging.

fungus pudding
18-02-2016, 02:51 PM
EZ - not sure how to put that, but you sound frustrated. If that's representative for the mood in Labour ... not a good position to be in to win any election. The voting public does not like frustrated (and sore ...) losers, they normally go for the "winners".

I am sure that the average National MP is not more or less good / evil, (in-)competent, (dis-)honest or (des-)interested in the common good than the average Labour MP. Yes, there may be some idiots and some crooks on both sides, but actually - I honestly believe that most MP's (whatever colour) want only the best for the country.

And actually - I think that we just established that there is hardly any difference between the National politics and what the Democrats in the US want to do. Are the US Democrats as well such an evil bunch?

Obviously - different political colours see different ways to achieve "the best for the country", and there might be as well slightly different definitions of what "the best" is.

If history teaches us only one thing, than it is that neither the left nor the right have the "correct" answer. If one of them would, than we would have already this paradise on Earth implemented somewhere at a place near to us (following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest), and everybody would go there.

The best solution is normally somewhere in the middle (hint - that's where the Liberals are :p) - and given that it is hard to hit the eye, is the political balance in democracies typically moving somewhere around the middle.

However - there is no entitlement for any opposition to get after x number of years back into government, no matter how lousy their efforts have been during the opposition time. What the Left in our country could do is to provide a credible and positive, united and forward looking alternative vision for our country. If it is good enough, than people might even vote for it. And given your marks on Nationals efforts - how hard can it be to offer something better?

Why don't you just try to do this instead of constant nagging and negative comments related to Nationals performance? The voting public wants a beauty contest instead of the usual mud slinging.

Very good post and hard to disagree with any of it; but unfortunately it will have no effect on its target who seems to spend his entire life in a negative frame of mind, convinced that National and Key are evil, and the key to happiness and contentment for all is simply for the majority to stop being stupid and elect the equally negative Labour party.

craic
18-02-2016, 02:56 PM
Sorry el Zorrow. Winston Peters grabbed all your mirrors - and broke half of them. And Labour doesn't have anyone who moves fast enough to generate smoke.
Yes, that's right Craic, National are doing it with smoke and mirrors, and money. Lots of it.

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 04:41 PM
Logen, It's 'John Key' I think. Having looked at the data, I can say that Labour would have helped us through the GFC better than National. For a kickoff, they wouldn't have given away tax breaks as a big bribe to middle and upper income earners. Those settings were about right before they changed them. National instead raised GST, which is a progressive tax affecting lower income people more, by proportion. We wouldn't have had some of our state assets sold off, so the govt would have more reliable income now.

Labour would have boosted the manufacturing sector with the R&D tax credits scheme and other proposals, these would be paying off by now. National scrapped those immediately in 2008, like the short-term idiots that they are.

National got right behind dairying as their panacea, look how that's worked out now. Even when it was going well, the whole sector's ability to defray profits into the future meant there was not enough income tax being paid to balance their government books. Even as they shed jobs in the public sector.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/77001277/pattrick-smellie-how-low-can-dairy-go?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+18 +February+2016

As I understand it, the rationale behind the tax cuts were that they were designed to boost the economy, stimulate growth, & thereby increase crown revenue. And to reward their supporters.

As I understand it, if I'm a poor person and I buy a dingy I will pay much less in GST than if I am Richie Rich and I race out and buy a big flash boat. 15% of a much larger purchase = a much larger return to the crown. Wealthy people tend to spend more on big ticket purchases.

The manufacturing sector was claimed for ages to be in 'crisis', then starting expanding at a record pace.

John Keynes has increased public sector numbers, actually.

National got in behind dairying?? What is this new industry called dairying of which you speak? National introduced dairying in 2008? Come on mate, have you never heard that hoary old chestnut about the rural sector being the backbone of the nation? Next you'll be telling me that National have kicked off something called 'Fieldays' out at Ruakura, and have imported millions of sheep which are now wandering over our 'farms'. Primary industries are our bread and butter?? Astonishing new information!!

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 04:54 PM
Open the other eye mate. I'm not a Labour voter, well not in the norm, but they balanced the budget year on year, lowered the level of government debt considerably. Meanwhile National have trebled it. This government beat a record from the most consecutive deficits & who's record did they beat?
You guessed it a previous national government.

And yes people obviously do care & that's why National is having a mini implosion. The latest a leaked Maggie Barry email.
The rot is setting in.
Its like the start of a Shakespearean play that's about to unfold.

Is this all coming from Whaleoil?? Why does he love Judith Collins so much??

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 05:11 PM
I'm not a Labour voter, well not in the norm, but they balanced the budget year on year, lowered the level of government debt considerably. Meanwhile National have trebled it.

I'm not disputing National have trebled it. So from where we are now - and forgetting that there was a GFC and the Christchurch Earthquakes / Rebuild - what would you be doing differently? What would you do starting today that would not stall the economy and pop the housing ponzi scheme?
Start hiking taxes into the teeth of the storm? Start slashing welfare payments? Go hell for leather mining gold on crown land and National parks?
What's Maggie Barry's solution?

We have $4 billion in new roading projects and Auckland rail loop de loop coming up. John Keynes needs to pump more borrowed money into the economy to fill the looming hole in the GDP figures. So is it:

a) Cancel this infrastructure spending, and tank the economy. Then boo and hiss at the govt.
b) Borrow the money and spend it. Then boo and hiss at the govt.

We have already had a record year of immigration - 65,000 new 'Kiwi's' have lobbed up on our shores. That'll keep wages artificially low and place more demand on housing - keeps the ponzi scheme going. Is this:

a) Great for the country. We must have multiculturalism at all costs. I employ people, and I don't want to pay more for workers. This solves the problem Who cares if the roads get congested - we are spending billions to sort it. What housing crisis?
b) Terrible for the country. But I can't say anything about it as I'll quickly be branded a racist or a xenophobe.

elZorro
18-02-2016, 05:15 PM
As I understand it, the rationale behind the tax cuts were that they were designed to boost the economy, stimulate growth, & thereby increase crown revenue. And to reward their supporters.

As I understand it, if I'm a poor person and I buy a dingy I will pay much less in GST than if I am Richie Rich and I race out and buy a big flash boat. 15% of a much larger purchase = a much larger return to the crown. Wealthy people tend to spend more on big ticket purchases.

The manufacturing sector was claimed for ages to be in 'crisis', then starting expanding at a record pace.

John Keynes has increased public sector numbers, actually.

National got in behind dairying?? What is this new industry called dairying of which you speak? National introduced dairying in 2008? Come on mate, have you never heard that hoary old chestnut about the rural sector being the backbone of the nation? Next you'll be telling me that National have kicked off something called 'Fieldays' out at Ruakura, and have imported millions of sheep which are now wandering over our 'farms'. Primary industries are our bread and butter?? Astonishing new information!!

I think you've deliberately got the wrong end of the stick, L9F. National have been pushing the dairying line hard, until the payout started to go sour.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/invest-in-dairy/10089963/Dairy-farming-in-NZ-the-politicians-views

Since we all should know that the trickle-down theory is a crock, a lie, the tax cuts did only one thing. More money in the hands of the already wealthy. It didn't stimulate the economy as well as many other methods would have. High dairy payouts did to some extent (suppliers), but that didn't mean that dairy farmers threw income tax dollars at the govt, that was all worked out as per usual. Of course now they're looking for a bit of govt assistance, on the taxpayer. Maybe the taxpayer will get a share of their eventual tax-free capital gains?

Indirectly, everyone who gets on the landlord bandwagon strips a bit more enthusiasm from lower paid people, they take their cut plus wait for the capital gain in theory. Labour was trying to ensure that more people bought their own homes, that there were plenty of manufacturing jobs around. National has undercut the chances of many new enterprises getting established or growing further, because they are keener on supporting large fat-cat businesses. There are all sorts of roadblocks put up for partnership funding.

So yes, I'm miserable thinking about that, the waste of seven years, but that doesn't mean I'm not hopeful for the future. A future where John Key and the National Party get to sit on the opposition benches, where they belong.

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 05:55 PM
I think you've deliberately got the wrong end of the stick, L9F. National have been pushing the dairying line hard, until the payout started to go sour.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/invest-in-dairy/10089963/Dairy-farming-in-NZ-the-politicians-views

Since we all should know that the trickle-down theory is a crock, a lie, the tax cuts did only one thing. More money in the hands of the already wealthy. It didn't stimulate the economy as well as many other methods would have. High dairy payouts did to some extent (suppliers), but that didn't mean that dairy farmers threw income tax dollars at the govt, that was all worked out as per usual. Of course now they're looking for a bit of govt assistance, on the taxpayer. Maybe the taxpayer will get a share of their eventual tax-free capital gains?

Indirectly, everyone who gets on the landlord bandwagon strips a bit more enthusiasm from lower paid people, they take their cut plus wait for the capital gain in theory. Labour was trying to ensure that more people bought their own homes, that there were plenty of manufacturing jobs around. National has undercut the chances of many new enterprises getting established or growing further, because they are keener on supporting large fat-cat businesses. There are all sorts of roadblocks put up for partnership funding.

So yes, I'm miserable thinking about that, the waste of seven years, but that doesn't mean I'm not hopeful for the future. A future where John Key and the National Party get to sit on the opposition benches, where they belong.

I think you have a very blinkered view - you are looking through red tinted glasses. 'National have been pushing the dairying line hard' is just empty hyperbole. Fonterra and dairy farmers are not new. Everyone from the Labour government who signed the free trade agreement with China onwards has seen China as the land of unlimited wealth and opportunity. We have all this arable land and they have a billion people needing protein. White gold will make us rich!!

No-one saw a day when China would be struggling under a debt mountain, it's growth slowing, its stock market tanking. This day wasn't supposed to come. Asset bubbles never pop. Good times never end. (And if we all vote Labour we will be living in Utopia, the streets will be paved with gold, there will be no hunger or unhappiness!!)

You may have noticed that in Australia suddenly all their iron ore and coal isn't worth nearly so much as it was. Mining is the backbone of their economy. They have plenty of minerals. Farming is the backbone of our economy. We have plenty of grass and rivers.

This is not about Labour, or National, or Labor, or the Liberals. It is crazy that you think that the NZ economy isn't totally interconnected and reliant on the big international economies. When they rise, we rise. When they fall, we fall.

The part where you talk about the waste of seven years......so it's seven barren years, in your view? The workings of a town like Nelson or Taihape or whatever.....everything didn't just go on as usual for everyone? They suffered daily privations at the hands of Key and his devils? The only way you could form such a narrow and insular view of everything is if you were up to your eyeballs in politics every day, like some beltway muppet. Take a break from politics and fretting over Judith Collins and Andrew Little and other such power mad weirdo's, and you'll find that the world doesn't stop spinning.

The stuff about you being miserable thinking about the seven terrible years, and then filled with hope for the promise of a glorious new Labour dawn.......geez, it just reads like a political pamphlet. I hope you are not serious.

Logen Ninefingers
18-02-2016, 06:02 PM
Since we all should know that the trickle-down theory is a crock.

I don't think it was ever intended to be 'trickle-down'. It was designed to get people spending and to boost money circulation through the economy & stimulate economic growth. Economic growth. If your economic growth slows down, everyone starts to fret.
Just like $4 billion of borrowed money for infrastructure is intended to pump money into the economy, keep the wheels turning.

Daytr
18-02-2016, 06:43 PM
Wealthy people may spend more than poorer people because they can afford to & there is nothing wrong with that.
However wealthy people earn a hell of a lot more than they spend so a reduction in income or company tax versus a GST favors the wealthy over the poor and only exacerbates the wealth divide.

elZorro
18-02-2016, 09:21 PM
L9F, sorry I don't have time to reply in detail for a few days. So my quick answer is that of course there is some merit in your points. But Labour does have a slightly more jaded view of dairying and farming's role in the economy, along with rental property owners, and I think that's the correct position. And I don't think Labour can fix everything, but they certainly tried a lot harder than National have. You didn't reply to all my points of course, the ones where you know I'm right, like how good Kiwibuild will be, how R&D tax incentives will work wonders, and the absolute fairness of a capital gains tax some day. If you don't agree on paper, that's because you probably have a massive chip/vested interest. That's not my problem, it doesn't make me deluded in my beliefs.

Logen Ninefingers
19-02-2016, 06:46 AM
L9F, sorry I don't have time to reply in detail for a few days. So my quick answer is that of course there is some merit in your points. But Labour does have a slightly more jaded view of dairying and farming's role in the economy, along with rental property owners, and I think that's the correct position. And I don't think Labour can fix everything, but they certainly tried a lot harder than National have. You didn't reply to all my points of course, the ones where you know I'm right, like how good Kiwibuild will be, how R&D tax incentives will work wonders, and the absolute fairness of a capital gains tax some day. If you don't agree on paper, that's because you probably have a massive chip/vested interest. That's not my problem, it doesn't make me deluded in my beliefs.

Labour have a 'slightly more jaded view' of dairying. Damning them with faint praise?

Not sure that R & D tax credits will work the wonders that are being sought. Whether our Great Leap Forward propelled by the bounty of R & D tax credits will pay for the huge costs associated with gifting 3 years free tertiary education to all......I'm highly doubtful.

Capital Gains Tax - yes, it probably is fair. People essentially 'buy' a house through a huge bank loan, never get within decades of being freehold i.e. never actually owning it, and then flick it on for a huge capital gain. It's gaming the system to make windfall profits.

Capital Gains Tax - the evidence from other countries, including Australia, that do have comprehensive CGT on property is that the sellers just add the amount of the tax to their asking price, and this just adds to prices going up. So anyone arguing that CGT will help stop a bubble getting bigger are wrong.

Kiwibuild:
http://www.privatebuyer.co.nz/property-blog/why-labours-kiwibuild-policy-will-create-higher-house-prices/
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/kiwibuild_good_for_big_business_and_bad_for_small_ businesses.html

elZorro
19-02-2016, 08:09 AM
Labour have a 'slightly more jaded view' of dairying. Damning them with faint praise?

Not sure that R & D tax credits will work the wonders that are being sought. Whether our Great Leap Forward propelled by the bounty of R & D tax credits will pay for the huge costs associated with gifting 3 years free tertiary education to all......I'm highly doubtful.

Capital Gains Tax - yes, it probably is fair. People essentially 'buy' a house through a huge bank loan, never get within decades of being freehold i.e. never actually owning it, and then flick it on for a huge capital gain. It's gaming the system to make windfall profits.

Capital Gains Tax - the evidence from other countries, including Australia, that do have comprehensive CGT on property is that the sellers just add the amount of the tax to their asking price, and this just adds to prices going up. So anyone arguing that CGT will help stop a bubble getting bigger are wrong.

Kiwibuild:
http://www.privatebuyer.co.nz/property-blog/why-labours-kiwibuild-policy-will-create-higher-house-prices/
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/kiwibuild_good_for_big_business_and_bad_for_small_ businesses.html

R&D credits are just a small but useful push for the business sector. It worked fine for the one year it was in place. Meanwhile National have handed out free multimillion grants to big business, many of whom are listed overseas companies, and just happen to do some design work over here in the meantime. Or they'll sometimes fund outfits that would otherwise go belly up.

No tertiary education course fees for three years, we used to be able to afford that, and more. What happened?

CGT, at least we agree on that. But there is no possible guarantee that it will simply push up house and farm prices. It would make ownership more sticky perhaps. It would eventually be an important part of the tax income for govt, like GST. Only fairer.

Kiwibuild: I read your links, those are rightwing views and not completely correct at all. Isn't there the fact that govt receives income tax, GST, from all business enterprise in NZ, so they have the ability to make houses cheaper than anyone? Meanwhile tens of thousands of people get on-the-job training in many different areas. Unemployment goes down, govt tax income goes up, the whole economy is boosted, we get more economical housing stock built. The building trade won't do this by themselves, it has to be a govt driven initiative.

National has control of the immigration numbers, go and have a look at net immigration vs house prices in NZ. Straight line correlation. If we keep getting net immigration at high levels, ultimately we need more houses or other accommodation, but the govt could halt net immigration and house prices would stall straight away.

But they don't want to pull another prop away from their make-believe economic miracle, that is the situation.

fungus pudding
19-02-2016, 08:42 AM
Labour have a 'slightly more jaded view' of dairying. Damning them with faint praise?

Not sure that R & D tax credits will work the wonders that are being sought. Whether our Great Leap Forward propelled by the bounty of R & D tax credits will pay for the huge costs associated with gifting 3 years free tertiary education to all......I'm highly doubtful.

Capital Gains Tax - yes, it probably is fair. People essentially 'buy' a house through a huge bank loan, never get within decades of being freehold i.e. never actually owning it,


From the context you obviously mean the property is debt free. The term for such is unencumbered or simply mortgage free. 'Freehold' refers to land tenure and in simple terms mean it is not leasehold. It is a common misnomer, but the great majority of residential properties in NZ are freehold, even though a high proportion carry a mortgage. E.g. Take a mortgage on your property and it still remains freehold.

Logen Ninefingers
19-02-2016, 04:41 PM
From the context you obviously mean the property is debt free. The term for such is unencumbered or simply mortgage free. 'Freehold' refers to land tenure and in simple terms mean it is not leasehold. It is a common misnomer, but the great majority of residential properties in NZ are freehold, even though a high proportion carry a mortgage. E.g. Take a mortgage on your property and it still remains freehold.

Yes, sorry - was applying my own definition of freehold there. I was meaning that the dwelling occupier who had taken out the mortgage was not 'free' of the 'hold' that the bank had over them.

fungus pudding
19-02-2016, 08:19 PM
Yes, that's right Craic, National are doing it with smoke and mirrors, and money. Lots of it.

There's no way in the world I'd want to upset you eZ, so I'll refrain from posting the latest political poll results. Just to ease you into it, both major parties, National and the Greens, are up, while the minor parties are stable or down a bit.

P.S. if an election was held tomorrow National would be returned, but we all knew that - didn't we!

iceman
19-02-2016, 09:36 PM
So today the Australian PM has announced he is reversing Helen Clark's agreement to shaft Kiwis in Australia. Thanks to John Key, they now have a chance again in Aus

Daytr
20-02-2016, 08:01 AM
Is any part of your post correct?
Wasn't the changes made by Oz after National was elected?
I'm asking as I was living in Oz at the time not here, but I didn't think it was that long ago.
Also I don't think NZ agreed to anything, it was just forced on us.
This new agreement doesn't change anything really. Kiwis that were already living there before the original change were unaffected anyway as far as I remember. I could have easily become an Australian citizen, but chose not to.



So today the Australian PM has announced he is reversing Helen Clark's agreement to shaft Kiwis in Australia. Thanks to John Key, they now have a chance again in Aus

Daytr
20-02-2016, 08:14 AM
Interesting text to the PM from a journalist, but of course it was unsolicited...
Read it, doesn't sound like a one way conversation.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/pm-to-release-ponytail-text/ar-BBpGGEz?li=AA59FU&ocid=iehp

Its not been a good week for Key.

iceman
20-02-2016, 08:57 AM
Is any part of your post correct?
Wasn't the changes made by Oz after National was elected?
I'm asking as I was living in Oz at the time not here, but I didn't think it was that long ago.
Also I don't think NZ agreed to anything, it was just forced on us.
This new agreement doesn't change anything really. Kiwis that were already living there before the original change were unaffected anyway as far as I remember. I could have easily become an Australian citizen, but chose not to.

Like with so many other things you have said on here, it is clear you were not living in NZ when Helen Clark was PM.
This should help you http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11592608

fungus pudding
20-02-2016, 09:58 AM
Interesting text to the PM from a journalist, but of course it was unsolicited...
Read it, doesn't sound like a one way conversation.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/pm-to-release-ponytail-text/ar-BBpGGEz?li=AA59FU&ocid=iehp

Its not been a good week for Key.

Huh? A week away staying with Aussie P.M and their families. A score on treatment of Kiwis in Australia. A further lift in the polls. How's your week compare! (Rhetorical - please don't answer)

RGR367
20-02-2016, 10:47 AM
Just wondering whether NZ has a group like this already and that our political parties are already using them http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-speak-at-town.html

Daytr
20-02-2016, 10:58 AM
What I do know is that Clark was very well respected in Australia. So she refused to pay around $1bln to the Aussies. I would call that a win.


Like with so many other things you have said on here, it is clear you were not living in NZ when Helen Clark was PM.
This should help you http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11592608

Daytr
20-02-2016, 11:02 AM
Sorry FP, no matter how influential you think you are you cannot direct people how to respond.
Perhaps this is a bad habit you have picked up from your leader, Key.
I'll tell you what my week didn't include. A crisis meeting arranged by my colleagues or press around a text from a journalist in regards a ponytail pulling incident.


Huh? A week away staying with Aussie P.M and their families. A score on treatment of Kiwis in Australia. A further lift in the polls. How's your week compare! (Rhetorical - please don't answer)

fungus pudding
20-02-2016, 11:11 AM
Sorry FP, no matter how influential you think you are you cannot direct people how to respond.
Perhaps this is a bad habit you have picked up from your leader, Key.
I'll tell you what my week didn't include. A crisis meeting arranged by my colleagues or press around a text from a journalist in regards a ponytail pulling incident.

Tell us more about this crisis meeting. Sounds intriguing.
BTW - I suspect you are a NZ citizen as I am. If so, Key is our leader, not just my leader.

iceman
20-02-2016, 12:02 PM
What I do know is that Clark was very well respected in Australia. So she refused to pay around $1bln to the Aussies. I would call that a win.

Now I am confused. There have been many comments made on this thread about how bad that agreement was for Kiwis in Australia. Now you are saying, after learning that Clark signed it, that it is a good thing.
Which one is it ? I would guess that most Kiwis living in Australia will be pleased that Key has managed to partly reverse Clark's abandonment of them !

Daytr
20-02-2016, 12:22 PM
He's our PM. Your leader, not mine.
Perhaps ask that trustful soul Maggie Barry what the crisis meeting was about.


Tell us more about this crisis meeting. Sounds intriguing.
BTW - I suspect you are a NZ citizen as I am. If so, Key is our leader, not just my leader.

Daytr
20-02-2016, 12:30 PM
So with a billion dollar gun to your head what would you have signed?
Under the reciprocal deal NZ could have been liable for those funds.
And when I was living in Australia, I thought some of those changes made sense as we wouldn't like it if a large number of Aussies came here to claim benefits.

I haven't criticized the agreement Key has made, however I don't see that its much different from the status quo.
Under Key's reign NZers have been held in detention centers, something he has been very slow to act on.
I would also suggest the slight positive change is more to do with a new more conciliatory PM in Australia than anything Key has done.
But yes its a positive? & I never said it wasn't .
Lets face I Key needs a win, so any so small one will do I suppose.


Now I am confused. There have been many comments made on this thread about how bad that agreement was for Kiwis in Australia. Now you are saying, after learning that Clark signed it, that it is a good thing.
Which one is it ? I would guess that most Kiwis living in Australia will be pleased that Key has managed to partly reverse Clark's abandonment of them !

winner69
20-02-2016, 05:34 PM
Rod Drury really admires our PM

@roddrury: That was a career highlight. Masterclass in negotiation watching @johnkeypm in action. https://t.co/pSUAC36v45

winner69
23-02-2016, 08:19 PM
I think John Key will get on fine with President Rubio

blackcap
24-02-2016, 06:19 AM
I think John Key will get on fine with President Rubio

Haha that is the funniest thing I have read all day :) Though on betfair Trump is at 1.95 and Rubio at 2.20 so the pundits think Trump has a slightly better chance to be the nominee. That said Rubio probably has a better chance of beating Clinton than Trump does.... will be interesting come November.

craic
24-02-2016, 07:20 AM
I back horses - not because I like horses - I get a kick out of beating the odds now and then. If the US Presidency was a horse race, I would be backing Trump. There hasn't been a successful candidate for the US presidency who hasn't been treated as a joke by the great unwashed, apart from Obama and that was because is was black and the great unwashed see themselves as black in spirit, at least. Remember Regan? Second-rate bit cowboy actor? Remember Kennedy? Irish catholic rich boy whose immediate predecessors left the mafia for dead? And so it goes, all the way back. Now they have an American who is making an unapologetic stand for the country that most Americans believe should be America. Kennedy was the last one to do it with the Cuban missile crisis.

winner69
24-02-2016, 07:28 AM
Haha that is the funniest thing I have read all day :) Though on betfair Trump is at 1.95 and Rubio at 2.20 so the pundits think Trump has a slightly better chance to be the nominee. That said Rubio probably has a better chance of beating Clinton than Trump does.... will be interesting come November.

Follow the money blackcap ..........

They have too much to lose if Trump or Clinton make it - Rubio is their man

And John Key will get on fine with him

blackcap
24-02-2016, 07:35 AM
They have too much to lose if Trump or Clinton make it - Rubio is their man



Tend to agree with you there... though cannot work out why they are not giving Sanders more of an opportunity to beat her. So many things against Clinton that Sanders is not using and its a bit late now. Still a Rubio vs Clinton runoff would be fun, I would prefer a Trump vs Sanders showdown though admit this has little chance of happening.

fungus pudding
24-02-2016, 08:02 AM
Tend to agree with you there... though cannot work out why they are not giving Sanders more of an opportunity to beat her. So many things against Clinton that Sanders is not using and its a bit late now. Still a Rubio vs Clinton runoff would be fun, I would prefer a Trump vs Sanders showdown though admit this has little chance of happening.

Anyone know the latest on Michael Bloomberg?

blackcap
24-02-2016, 08:13 AM
Anyone know the latest on Michael Bloomberg?

The market gives him about a 60-1 chance of being the next president, a 500 -1 chance of being the Republican candidate so
I think he is still running as an independent.

blackcap
24-02-2016, 05:20 PM
Trump is on a roll. Wins Nevada by a huge margin. Could be an interesting couple of weeks coming up in USA.

fungus pudding
26-02-2016, 12:08 PM
“Winston peters out… Northland relieved”


http://www.m2now.co.nz/weather-watch-perfectly-describes-cyclone-winston-winston-peters-out-northland-relieved/

Weather Watch Perfectly Describes Cyclone Winston.

iceman
27-02-2016, 05:08 AM
“Winston peters out… Northland relieved”


http://www.m2now.co.nz/weather-watch-perfectly-describes-cyclone-winston-winston-peters-out-northland-relieved/

Weather Watch Perfectly Describes Cyclone Winston.

LOL. That's a good one FP :t_up:

Daytr
27-02-2016, 07:22 AM
I've been waiting for the cyclone related jokes. Took longer than I thought.
Believe you me Northland was relieved in March 2015 and since has started to boom.
Never have we had so much attention and investment.
Pity the government can't live up to its promises though.
The roads are still 3rd world including State Highways.
And no sign of any of the bridges they promised.
I'm not aware of any one of them being replaced.
They are cannon fodder when they come back in 2017 with broken promises like that.

fungus pudding
27-02-2016, 08:08 AM
I've been waiting for the cyclone related jokes. Took longer than I thought.
Believe you me Northland was relieved in March 2015 and since has started to boom.
Never have we had so much attention and investment.
Pity the government can't live up to its promises though.
The roads are still 3rd world including State Highways.
And no sign of any of the bridges they promised.
I'm not aware of any one of them being replaced.
They are cannon fodder when they come back in 2017 with broken promises like that.

They certainly deserve a thrashing over that one alright. But now they've got Winston First - hardly do them any good. Great opposition MP, but useless at anything but stirring. Still he might hold it in the next general election, will be interesting. Will also be interesting to learn more about Sabin who held the seat, and what he was charged with.

craic
27-02-2016, 08:16 AM
"Vote for us we will fix your roads" They didn't vote for 'us' - and they didn't get their roads fixed - what's the problem? I seem to remember Tauranga jumping on the same bandwaggon a few years ago and quickly finding that they had made a mistake.

fungus pudding
27-02-2016, 08:48 AM
"Vote for us we will fix your roads" They didn't vote for 'us' - and they didn't get their roads fixed - what's the problem? I seem to remember Tauranga jumping on the same bandwaggon a few years ago and quickly finding that they had made a mistake.

Not quite that simple. They stated (Simon Bridges?) that their promises had been on the drawing boards for a while and they were budgeted in and would proceed regardless of election outcome. They will find out what Tauranga found out though and National will regain the seat - if not in 2017, it will be in 2020, by which time they will need it to ensure a fifth term. :t_up:

winner69
27-02-2016, 08:59 AM
Trump is on a roll. Wins Nevada by a huge margin. Could be an interesting couple of weeks coming up in USA.

But now Rubio has moved on from ignoring Trump and challenging him the tide had turned.

Rubio is the one - follow the money. They will get their way (unfortunately)

fungus pudding
27-02-2016, 09:21 AM
But now Rubio has moved on from ignoring Trump and challenging him the tide had turned.

Rubio is the one - follow the money. They will get their way (unfortunately)

What's unfortunate? Is Rubio any worse than Trump or Cruz? I doubt it.

blackcap
27-02-2016, 09:36 AM
But now Rubio has moved on from ignoring Trump and challenging him the tide had turned.

Rubio is the one - follow the money. They will get their way (unfortunately)

I don't know there winner... it might be too late. Trump is at 1.43 for the nomination, Rubio at 4.20 and thats right I am following this money. Problem for Rubio (Florida Senator) is that Trump is well ahead in the polls in Florida. If Rubio cannot keep Florida he is gone. Trump looks like he is going to clean up on Super Tuesday (Texas excluded where Cruz will win) and that should be about enough. I watched the debate on CNN last night and even then the media called it that Trump won. Weird but true. Problem for Cruz and Rubio is they are both attacking Trump and fanning the flames. Gives him even more air time.

winner69
27-02-2016, 09:37 AM
What's unfortunate? Is Rubio any worse than Trump or Cruz? I doubt it.

True - but of the two Trump is less of an 'unfortunate' outcome

craic
27-02-2016, 07:34 PM
Not quite that simple. They stated (Simon Bridges?) that their promises had been on the drawing boards for a while and they were budgeted in and would proceed regardless of election outcome. They will find out what Tauranga found out though and National will regain the seat - if not in 2017, it will be in 2020, by which time they will need it to ensure a fifth term. :t_up:

I doesn't matter. I was on of the "extra" staff appointed to cope with a new sentencing regime in The Dept. of Justice. Asked the Sec. for Justice face to face, when it would start. Reply "too late for this parliamentary session, probably early in the new year" It took eight years- and then was watered down. I can't remember who was in power but all that tomorrow means to politicians is that it won't happen yesterday. I would love to see the Swiss system here.

fungus pudding
27-02-2016, 07:45 PM
I doesn't matter. I was on of the "extra" staff appointed to cope with a new sentencing regime in The Dept. of Justice. Asked the Sec. for Justice face to face, when it would start. Reply "too late for this parliamentary session, probably early in the new year" It took eight years- and then was watered down. I can't remember who was in power but all that tomorrow means to politicians is that it won't happen yesterday. I would love to see the Swiss system here.

Allah forbid!

iceman
28-02-2016, 05:25 AM
I assume you mean the referendum system in Switzerland craig ? Audrey Young discussed referendums in the Herald yesterday and I think she makes good points http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11596250

craic
28-02-2016, 11:15 AM
My reason for supporting the Swiss referendum system is blindingly obvious From Audrey Young's article. Politicians, here and in Britain and other places behave very like football hooligans. Never mind the game, kick s**t out of the opposition. Any publicity is good publicity - Your guy is always right no matter how thick he is. Now tell me, without the aid of a search engine. What are the names of the main Swiss parties? - Who is the Swiss Prime Minister? and so on. They are primarily public servants who get on with running the country without the need for Punch and Judy booths. They can run a dozen referenda a year at miimal cost by our standards.

fungus pudding
28-02-2016, 11:28 AM
My reason for supporting the Swiss referendum system is blindingly obvious From Audrey Young's article. Politicians, here and in Britain and other places behave very like football hooligans. Never mind the game, kick s**t out of the opposition. Any publicity is good publicity - Your guy is always right no matter how thick he is. Now tell me, without the aid of a search engine. What are the names of the main Swiss parties? - Who is the Swiss Prime Minister? and so on. They are primarily public servants who get on with running the country without the need for Punch and Judy booths. They can run a dozen referenda a year at miimal cost by our standards.

Do you really trust NZers to familiarise themselves with the ins and outs of every topic? I don't. Most take a position based on the skimpiest information and all the logical argument in the world won't change it.

craic
28-02-2016, 11:38 AM
Do you really trust NZers to familiarise themselves with the ins and outs of every topic? I don't. Most take a position based on the skimpiest information and all the logical argument in the world won't change it.
It takes time to educate even football hooligans. Get rid of the colours and the banners and NZ would eventually calm down. And the Swiss have to get off their backsides and go to an office and vote. That would sort out a lot of the riff-raff.

winner69
28-02-2016, 01:24 PM
Bernie's son says 'it's all over for Dad'

Rubio v Clinton

Key will get on fine with President Rubio

fungus pudding
28-02-2016, 02:55 PM
Bernie's son says 'it's all over for Dad'

Rubio v Clinton

Key will get on fine with President Rubio

So Rubio will beat Trump?

Daytr
29-02-2016, 06:51 AM
So what you are saying is nothing changes. When they had the seat for over 40 years they neglected Northland and now they have lost the seat they are actually spending quite a bit of money, but for some bizarre reason not where they promised win or no win in their campaign


"Vote for us we will fix your roads" They didn't vote for 'us' - and they didn't get their roads fixed - what's the problem? I seem to remember Tauranga jumping on the same bandwaggon a few years ago and quickly finding that they had made a mistake.

Daytr
29-02-2016, 07:03 AM
Well it is doing us good as Northland is booming. Just need better roads and National to keep their mining agenda out of the province.
Northland is by far a National electorate and will return at some point, however National needed teaching a lesson for the neglect.
Sabin, last I heard he was appointed GM of Carrington Estate a massive Chinese resort in Northland.
No news on anything else that we are not allowed to now anything about.
One of the issues with name suppression (which has its place) is that there is no transparency


They certainly deserve a thrashing over that one alright. But now they've got Winston First - hardly do them any good. Great opposition MP, but useless at anything but stirring. Still he might hold it in the next general election, will be interesting. Will also be interesting to learn more about Sabin who held the seat, and what he was charged with.

Major von Tempsky
29-02-2016, 10:53 AM
If I were an American citizen, I would be swallowing hard, very hard, swallowing dead rats, and preparing to vote Hillary Clinton in to keep that raving lunatic Donald Trump out.
I see John Howard the ex Australian PM has come out against Trump this morning.
Pity the Republican alternatives have folded so easily.

BlackPeter
29-02-2016, 11:17 AM
If I were an American citizen, I would be swallowing hard, very hard, swallowing dead rats, and preparing to vote Hillary Clinton in to keep that raving lunatic Donald Trump out.
I see John Howard the ex Australian PM has come out against Trump this morning.
Pity the Republican alternatives have folded so easily.

I agree fully with your assessment of Trump, think however that he might be of the Republican candidates the best of a catastrophic bunch. Trump is in my view mainly a populist (think Winston) - he just says what he thinks the mainstream pub goer and retirement home inhabitant wants to hear. Don't think he has what it needs to be president, but so hadn't George W ...

What distinguishes him however from the other Republican candidates is that Trump just says what he thinks the public wants to hear, while the others are really anti-healthcare, pro-guns, anti-immigration and pro-waging-some-more-wars.

Yes - Clinton seems to be the only sort of acceptable alternative, though I don't think that she would improve a lot in the US of A (as preferred candidate of the "establishment"). She certainly won't rattle the cage ... but is as well least likely to further run the country down. Despite the amazing entertainment value of the US election campaign ... what a choice for the US electorate!

winner69
29-02-2016, 11:33 AM
The populus is warming to the likes of Corbyn, Trudeau, Trump because of their anti-establishment views. The majority are sick and tired what the present lot have done to them.

Over the next few years we will see change

Disappointingly doesn't seem to be anybody that fits the bill in NZ - at least not in Labour or Greens

Daytr
29-02-2016, 02:18 PM
Trump is saying what a lot of hard core Republicans want to hear, the majority (I hope) detest a lot of what he has to say.
Winner, James Shaw from the Greens seems like a breath of fresh air to me. Early days and we will see what he is like in an election year.
I see ACT are suddenly going to try and become Green and take away votes from the Green Party. Personally I can't see the two going hand in hand. They are only in government due to the rigging of the system, courtesy of National.

craic
29-02-2016, 03:51 PM
I think that Donald Trump will be the next US President. He will be greatly restricted by the powers within the system but will still be a forceful leader and will re-build American military and economic strength. It might be in our interests to be on the right side when that happens because, whether you like it or not, this country could be over run in five minutes by any of half a dozen countries in the region. No point in waiting 'till you fall in the water to put a lifejacket on. Invite the US navy to enjoy our hospitality now. As long as they don't go to Auckland -

RGR367
29-02-2016, 05:25 PM
Yeah, let them make the comedian reside on the White House and our generation might finally experience a world war. He's already showing some dictatorial streak for all to see.
We got China fully flexing their muscles now on the SouthEast Asia. The son of a dictator Marcos might become a vice president in the Philippines this year and might become the Commander-in-Chief of the Army eventually. Then the history of that place will be rewritten to show how wonderful martial law then to eventually oppose the move by China on their disputed islands by really calling on the USA for war. Those armaments lobbyist everywhere just love to test their wares on anywhere and Asia is a good place to show those fireworks again.
We got the NK dictator who can stand toe to toe with Trump when it comes to publicity and Trump might just send a detonating warhead when he gets too annoying for him. We also have that Syrian dictator with the backing of Russia and boy what an interesting times comes after the comedian is sworn to the office.
Of course this is just a convoluted way of seeing how things will unfold. And boy we know how s*** can happen :p

Major von Tempsky
29-02-2016, 05:31 PM
I see that a former Director of the CIA is saying that the military etc will choose to ignore some orders from Donald Trump if he became President and attempted to follow his policies through. Interesting times ahead.

blackcap
29-02-2016, 06:32 PM
I see that a former Director of the CIA is saying that the military etc will choose to ignore some orders from Donald Trump if he became President and attempted to follow his policies through. Interesting times ahead.

That would be a bit hypocritical considering the CIA and military are currently hitting targets like women and children (as collateral damage) so I think this is just a bit of scare mongering against Trump. Looks like Trump has the nomination sewn up ($1.30 on betfair) and it may be his if he has a good super Tuesday.

winner69
29-02-2016, 06:34 PM
KDS .....hmmm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11597567

elZorro
29-02-2016, 08:05 PM
KDS .....hmmm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11597567

What do you mean, W69, are you sitting on the fence again? I had a look at the link, Bryce is being careful too.

I noticed JK didn't wear his domed flag badge today on TV. iPredict (well the few people left on there with NZ connections and any money tied up) think the new flag is a goner. Will this be an enduring blow to his ego? - maybe. No problem, he must have heaps of other important changes he's made to life in NZ, for the betterment of all of us.

Daytr
29-02-2016, 08:54 PM
Interesting article Winner and I think its reasonably accurate in the main.
One of the main reasons Key has held his popularity for so long is due to an ineffective leader in Little.
Sorry Ez, just calling it how I see it.

elZorro
29-02-2016, 10:22 PM
Interesting article Winner and I think its reasonably accurate in the main.
One of the main reasons Key has held his popularity for so long is due to an ineffective leader in Little.
Sorry Ez, just calling it how I see it.

I'm beginning to agree. We didn't see him strolling down the beach or going on a big hiking trip over Christmas, or coming up with some short pithy one-liners straight to camera. At least he's not making a fool of himself, I suppose. Andrew, get some training..

Labour's redoing their website, but didn't think about leaving all the old stuff going until the new one had been written and tested. Amateurs at IT, I think.

Sgt Pepper
01-03-2016, 09:14 AM
What do you mean, W69, are you sitting on the fence again? I had a look at the link, Bryce is being careful too.

I noticed JK didn't wear his domed flag badge today on TV. iPredict (well the few people left on there with NZ connections and any money tied up) think the new flag is a goner. Will this be an enduring blow to his ego? - maybe. No problem, he must have heaps of other important changes he's made to life in NZ, for the betterment of all of us.

I have never seen John Key so irritated concerning the pending demise of his pet project. He obviously has much invested personally in this and seems genuinely hurt that the populace disagrees. I note how careful he is to decouple any link between a flag change and the future of the monarchy. If he believed that becoming a republic would pay political dividends for him this later day royal supporter would overnight become more republican then Robespierre of the French Revolution. A conviction politician he aint. A vain, shallow man who changes quicker than a Chameleon

macduffy
01-03-2016, 11:30 AM
A vain, shallow man who changes quicker than a Chameleon

Maybe. But what an appealing and successful, vain, shallow man! Seems to suit NZ voters!

craic
01-03-2016, 12:42 PM
It must be hard for you lefties being wrong all the time I mean, you keep telling us what a dickhead Keys is and how we all feel about him and then he wins two elections and continues to have results in polls showing that he is the most popular politician in the country. I think maybe if you looked hard enough, you might uncover another conspiracy? Why not try that line? everything else you do is failing.

fungus pudding
01-03-2016, 02:41 PM
It must be hard for you lefties being wrong all the time I mean, you keep telling us what a dickhead Keys is and how we all feel about him and then he wins two elections and continues to have results in polls showing that he is the most popular politician in the country. I think maybe if you looked hard enough, you might uncover another conspiracy? Why not try that line? everything else you do is failing.

Make that 3 elections.

macduffy
01-03-2016, 03:00 PM
Not strictly "If National Wins" but interesting to us "politically aware" types.

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/outsidethebox

winner69
01-03-2016, 04:03 PM
Minimum wage to $15.25 - good boost this year and no doubt again next year

Might see more spending (unlikely) boosting the economy ......offset by inevitable loss of jobs as small business struggle to increase wages by more than 3%

Boosting individuals incomes great initiative by government but should be done through tax I rekon

iceman
02-03-2016, 06:49 AM
Minimum wage to $15.25 - good boost this year and no doubt again next year

Might see more spending (unlikely) boosting the economy ......offset by inevitable loss of jobs as small business struggle to increase wages by more than 3%

Boosting individuals incomes great initiative by government but should be done through tax I rekon

But it is being done through tax in a way W69, with our generous WFF middle class welfare system !

craic
02-03-2016, 07:42 AM
I take it you mean that the hard working "middle class" who do most of the work and pay most of the taxes can expect to get a fair share in return as opposed to a welfare system where the idle and the useless can sit on their ar*es and expect to be supported by the taxes of the working classes?

Daytr
02-03-2016, 07:52 AM
Hardly a great initiative. They have begrudgingly raised it. A living wage would be a great initiative.
You are correct it will boost the economy and a living wage would do even more.
This BS that it would cost jobs. Net it would create jobs.
One of the effects of a widening wealth tap is it creates lazy capital.
Its one of the reasons why Western World growth is struggling.



Minimum wage to $15.25 - good boost this year and no doubt again next year

Might see more spending (unlikely) boosting the economy ......offset by inevitable loss of jobs as small business struggle to increase wages by more than 3%

Boosting individuals incomes great initiative by government but should be done through tax I rekon

fungus pudding
02-03-2016, 08:16 AM
Minimum wage to $15.25 - good boost this year and no doubt again next year

Might see more spending (unlikely) boosting the economy ......offset by inevitable loss of jobs as small business struggle to increase wages by more than 3%

Boosting individuals incomes great initiative by government but should be done through tax I rekon

Where did you get the 3% from? Seems like a massive generalisation that can't be anymore than a guess on someone's part.

fungus pudding
02-03-2016, 08:20 AM
I take it you mean that the hard working "middle class" who do most of the work and pay most of the taxes can expect to get a fair share in return as opposed to a welfare system where the idle and the useless can sit on their ar*es and expect to be supported by the taxes of the working classes?

It's the top income earners that pay most of the tax.

This is from Bill English in 2011. I don't think much has changed.

'Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair.'

777
02-03-2016, 08:44 AM
Where did you get the 3% from? Seems like a massive generalisation that can't be anymore than a guess on someone's part.


Increase of 50c/hr on $14.75 is 3.39%.

Maths 101.

fungus pudding
02-03-2016, 08:56 AM
Increase of 50c/hr on $14.75 is 3.39%.

Maths 101.

There are businesses that cannot afford that. I know of businesses where the proprietors earn less than the amount they must pay their staff. That's far more common than you might think. The point I was making in response to W69 is that some businesses struggle to pay anymore at all. The 3% doesn't come into it.

Sgt Pepper
02-03-2016, 09:13 AM
Oh dear, whats happening in Bill English old Clutha Southland electorate. A significant number of electorate agents, including its Chairman have resigned in the last two months.

winner69
02-03-2016, 09:35 AM
There are businesses that cannot afford that. I know of businesses where the proprietors earn less than the amount they must pay their staff. That's far more common than you might think. The point I was making in response to W69 is that some businesses struggle to pay anymore at all. The 3% doesn't come into it.

So true fp.

Increasing prices to recover not that easy in these low inflation times

I work with (for free) a guy with 22 employees (15 FTE). He pays himself stuff all for the effort he puts in. Paying everybody 50 cents an hour will means he probably will earn less.

He knows some will have to be lose their jobs

OK, some say a typical small/medium size NZ business that shouldn't even be in business but they keep the economy ticking over. For this guy that closing down is an option but then 22 people lose their jobs and several will probably not find new ones

westerly
02-03-2016, 10:05 AM
It's the top income earners that pay most of the tax.

This is from Bill English in 2011. I don't think much has changed.

'Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair.'

Load of political fog: http://pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change

westerly

craic
02-03-2016, 02:47 PM
And another grand payout. I have just had a call from a nice man who informed me that I have been chosen for a $6,000 grant from the govt. Mr Key has decided to award a grant to ??? people who are not bankrupt, pay their bills on time and have half-a-dozen other Saint-like qualities. I lasted long enough to work out that it was a dastardly left wing plot to get my bank a/c numbers. The slight indian accent did it. Cowboys on the right, Indians on the left. By the way, just been to "Dad's Army" the movie. A load of rubbish in my view.

Daytr
02-03-2016, 08:22 PM
A household earning $110k pays net no tax?
How is the average family earning this amount getting approximately $30k plus back income support etc?
Sounds like a very dodgy figure to me.
If he is saying that all people earning under $110k as a whole net don't pay tax that's a very different thing.




It's the top income earners that pay most of the tax.

This is from Bill English in 2011. I don't think much has changed.

'Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair.'

fungus pudding
02-03-2016, 11:07 PM
A household earning $110k pays net no tax?
How is the average family earning this amount getting approximately $30k plus back income support etc?
Sounds like a very dodgy figure to me.
If he is saying that all people earning under $110k as a whole net don't pay tax that's a very different thing.

House hold income or combined income Not personal income. Assuming two people earning 50k the tax would be around 16k.

Daytr
03-03-2016, 06:26 AM
Is it assuming that? That's obviously the lowest combination which would not a count for 1.3M households.
So someone earning $110k is net contributing tax. And if they are the only income in that household they still are.
I also suggest it assumes they have children & they get the government benefits related to having kids.
So as suggested its a dodgy statistic, in fact its just down right inaccurate & its an example of National's agenda of looking after the wealthy at the expense of the rest.
1.3M households! A statistic about as dodgy as English's technical budget surplus last year.

Daytr
03-03-2016, 06:32 AM
Another way of looking at what English said is that there are a lot of people who don't earn enough and rely on government benefits.
A good argument for the living wage rather than our ridiculously low minimum wage.
The differential between working and being on government benefits isn't wide enough.

elZorro
03-03-2016, 07:00 AM
I thought the Left had already demolished this argument on this thread about a year back. English is talking only about income tax. What about GST, fuel, ciggies, gaming levies, power sales profits, and the numerous other ways taxes are collected directly and indirectly off these people? As well, it can be argued that landlords and businesses that don't pay high wages are effectively funnelling the effort of such families into their own income, concentrating it, and unless they're very clever, they usually have to pay tax on some of that eventually.

Unless they keep buying the right sort of assets of course.

craic
03-03-2016, 08:56 AM
[QUOTE=elZorro;609964]I thought the Left had already demolished this argument on this thread about a year back.
Only in the eyes of the left . The majority demonstrate their disagreement by continuing to support the Prime Minister and the government.

fungus pudding
03-03-2016, 10:43 AM
I thought the Left had already demolished this argument on this thread about a year back. English is talking only about income tax. What about GST, fuel, ciggies, gaming levies, power sales profits, and the numerous other ways taxes are collected directly and indirectly off these people? As well, it can be argued that landlords and businesses that don't pay high wages are effectively funnelling the effort of such families into their own income, concentrating it, and unless they're very clever, they usually have to pay tax on some of that eventually.

Unless they keep buying the right sort of assets of course.

It's most unlikely the lower paid will contribute as much in GST and excise taxes etc. as wealthy or higher paid individuals. I couldn't help laughing when I read the left had demolished this argument on this thread. Thanks for the laugh.

westerly
03-03-2016, 05:58 PM
It's most unlikely the lower paid will contribute as much in GST and excise taxes etc. as wealthy or higher paid individuals. I couldn't help laughing when I read the left had demolished this argument on this thread. Thanks for the laugh.

Cackle as much as you like, English was being very mischievious with his analysis of who pays the most tax.

westerly

fungus pudding
03-03-2016, 06:37 PM
Cackle as much as you like, English was being very mischievious with his analysis of who pays the most tax.

westerly
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7416899/Figures-suggest-wealthy-carry-tax-burden

elZorro
03-03-2016, 07:23 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7416899/Figures-suggest-wealthy-carry-tax-burden

FP, I have to repeat, you're talking only about income tax again. What about GST? Are you saying that the wealthiest 10% pay 90% of the GST, for example? I didn't think so.

Anyway, here are some more accurate tables on this page from Treasury.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2014/execsumm/07.htm

westerly
03-03-2016, 07:38 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7416899/Figures-suggest-wealthy-carry-tax-burden

You are bottom dredging now FP :)

westerly

iceman
03-03-2016, 08:47 PM
FP, I have to repeat, you're talking only about income tax again. What about GST? Are you saying that the wealthiest 10% pay 90% of the GST, for example? I didn't think so.

Anyway, here are some more accurate tables on this page from Treasury.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2014/execsumm/07.htm

EZ I must be missing something. Where in that document can I find numbers on who pays how much GST. Of course high income earners pay most of the GST. What the document does say is how much each income group pays in income tax but I see nothing about how much they get back from Government in various subsidies.

So nothing you or westerly have posted/said has refuted Bill English's claim ! EZ, you Lefties need to do better. This is why the country is not listening to you (incl Labour/Little) !!

elZorro
03-03-2016, 09:04 PM
EZ I must be missing something. Where in that document can I find numbers on who pays how much GST. Of course high income earners pay most of the GST. What the document does say is how much each income group pays in income tax but I see nothing about how much they get back from Government in various subsidies.

So nothing you or westerly have posted/said has refuted Bill English's claim ! EZ, you Lefties need to do better. This is why the country is not listening to you (incl Labour/Little) !!

Treasury don't have a table for who pays what GST, but about a year ago I had a go at estimating it and put the data up on this thread.

The data above shows that all those of working age on under $80,000 pay 50% of the income tax, and they make up 88% of the working age population. It's highly unlikely that the same proportions apply to GST. Since the poor spend nearly everything they have each week, much of it attracts GST (exclude rent, sure). Why Lefties get upset about Bill's handling of the stats is that he didn't clearly qualify that he'd singled out Income Tax, and that it was only PART of the big picture.

fungus pudding
04-03-2016, 08:21 AM
Why Lefties get upset about Bill's handling of the stats is that he didn't clearly qualify that he'd singled out Income Tax, and that it was only PART of the big picture.

For your sake eZ I will again post English's comments, where almost anyone with the slightest comprehension ability will be able to see that he was talking specifically about income tax. Study the text and you might be able to pick that up yourself. (Here's a hint to assist. Income tax means income tax.)

'Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair.'

craic
04-03-2016, 11:59 AM
And I see that the govt. books are back in surplus - life must be very stressful over on the left side.

westerly
04-03-2016, 12:55 PM
For your sake eZ I will again post English's comments, where almost anyone with the slightest comprehension ability will be able to see that he was talking specifically about income tax. Study the text and you might be able to pick that up yourself. (Here's a hint to assist. Income tax means income tax.)

'Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair.'

http://pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change ( I suggest you read it ) and from Rosenberg.
"…the rich list represents about 0.01% of households who own 5-10% of all household wealth. This is roughly equivalent to what the bottom 50% of the population own. Yet the bottom 50% are more likely to be paying tax on every dollar they earn while some of our richest individuals are ducking on paying tax.”

“According to information released to us last month by IRD, 50% of the wealthiest kiwis dodge their tax responsibilities.”

“In annual samples of 184 ‘high wealth individuals’ between 2009 and 2011, IRD found that only 49.5% of them reported personal incomes of more than $70,000 (the top tax bracket). This indicates that some of our wealthiest individuals are skirting on their tax contribution.”

westerly

blackcap
04-03-2016, 12:57 PM
“According to information released to us last month by IRD, 50% of the wealthiest kiwis dodge their tax responsibilities.”

“In annual samples of 184 ‘high wealth individuals’ between 2009 and 2011, IRD found that only 49.5% of them reported personal incomes of more than $70,000 (the top tax bracket). This indicates that some of our wealthiest individuals are skirting on their tax contribution.”

westerly

Big difference between wealth and income though. I can own a $20m mansion and live in it earning no income. So I do not see what the problem is?

fungus pudding
04-03-2016, 01:22 PM
http://pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change ( I suggest you read it ) and from Rosenberg.
"…the rich list represents about 0.01% of households who own 5-10% of all household wealth. This is roughly equivalent to what the bottom 50% of the population own. Yet the bottom 50% are more likely to be paying tax on every dollar they earn while some of our richest individuals are ducking on paying tax.”

“According to information released to us last month by IRD, 50% of the wealthiest kiwis dodge their tax responsibilities.”

“In annual samples of 184 ‘high wealth individuals’ between 2009 and 2011, IRD found that only 49.5% of them reported personal incomes of more than $70,000 (the top tax bracket). This indicates that some of our wealthiest individuals are skirting on their tax contribution.”

westerly

It indicates no such thing. It's possible to be asset rich and cash or income poor. In fact it's common.

Jay
04-03-2016, 03:13 PM
It indicates no such thing. It's possible to be asset rich and cash or income poor. In fact it's common.

Especially at present in Auckland with the housing values - e.g. Retired people on Super only or little else in the way of income

fungus pudding
04-03-2016, 03:36 PM
Especially at present in Auckland with the housing values - e.g. Retired people on Super only or little else in the way of income

Mate of mine on super and a bit of investment income in Auckland reckons he will get 1.8 mill for his house which he wants to sell because he can't pay the rates.

craic
04-03-2016, 03:43 PM
Mate of mine on super and a bit of investment income in Auckland reckons he will get 1.8 mill for his house which he wants to sell because he can't pay the rates.

If he sells at that and comes to Napier he can get four or five houses and live happily ever after on the rents. We are fifteen minutes from town centre on a rural block and we could live easily on the pension. It's tougher for some with a mortgage, especially individuals who have lost a partner but I would consider Auckland living, insanity.

fungus pudding
04-03-2016, 04:40 PM
If he sells at that and comes to Napier he can get four or five houses and live happily ever after on the rents. We are fifteen minutes from town centre on a rural block and we could live easily on the pension. It's tougher for some with a mortgage, especially individuals who have lost a partner but I would consider Auckland living, insanity.

Prices will drive thousands if retirees out of Aucklaxbd in the next few years. It will also drive out a few industries to centers where they can find staff who can afford to live in smaller cities but nit in Auckland.

westerly
04-03-2016, 05:57 PM
It indicates no such thing. It's possible to be asset rich and cash or income poor. In fact it's common.

The IRD were targeting "high net worth " individuals not retired pensioners living in houses with valuations making rates expensive. Half of Bills transfers to the supposedly non tax paying, some $12b, goes to those on NZ Super.
High rates are a problem throughout NZ and weren,t National going to do something about cutting back Council spending? Probably distracted by the effort put into changing the flag.

westerly

Sgt Pepper
04-03-2016, 07:38 PM
It indicates no such thing. It's possible to be asset rich and cash or income poor. In fact it's common.

My sister retired to Wanaka some years ago and observed that many are in the position of being asset rich but cash poor as indeed you describe. Tax is a complex subject, but I am of the opinion that middle to high income earners who are in receipt of a salary do have a genuine grievance with an analysis of the proportion of the total tax take they pay. Surprisingly though I suspect if you canvass people about the tax they pay on their income per year many wold have no idea thanks to PAYE. I believe income tax should be applied as thinly and as evenly as possible.
Some tax reform ideas, in no particular order


All tax payers must be sent a statement of the tax they have paid at the end of the financial year.

Savings accounts and all dividends should be tax free

GST should be raised to 20%

Income tax should attract the highest rate if you work over 65 and elect to take NZ Super

Abolish all charitable tax deductions, including Church donations

Offer salary earners option of opting out of PAYE and having 1 annual tax payment .

Of course no government will ever implement any of this

fungus pudding
04-03-2016, 08:01 PM
My sister retired to Wanaka some years ago and observed that many are in the position of being asset rich but cash poor as indeed you describe. Tax is a complex subject, but I am of the opinion that middle to high income earners who are in receipt of a salary do have a genuine grievance with an analysis of the proportion of the total tax take they pay. Surprisingly though I suspect if you canvass people about the tax they pay on their income per year many wold have no idea thanks to PAYE. I believe income tax should be applied as thinly and as evenly as possible.
Some tax reform ideas, in no particular order


All tax payers must be sent a statement of the tax they have paid at the end of the financial year.

Savings accounts and all dividends should be tax free

GST should be raised to 20%

Income tax should attract the highest rate if you work over 65 and elect to take NZ Super

Abolish all charitable tax deductions, including Church donations

Offer salary earners option of opting out of PAYE and having 1 annual tax payment .

Of course no government will ever implement any of this



Of course they won't. Raising GST and dropping income tax to a low flat rate makes sense, but socialists hate the idea and would change it if they ever regain power. Pity because the boost to employment and the economy would be immense.
Dividends and bank interest are income. There would be huge distortions if they were not taxed.
Super to abate if over 65 with additional income would be a disincentive to building up an income for retirement. And remember the superannuation surtax?
What would be the point of annual tax payment? It would need to be in advance so as to not disadvantage the IRD. That means estimating earnings. Messy.
Any deadbeat can look at their annual tax on the IRD website - no point in sending them details. If they need that they aren't very interested.
Charitable donations that are tax exempt aren't all bad. A lot of the work charities do and do well would need to be picked up by the govt. if donations dried up. It's a trade off. Not perfect, but nothing is.

Daytr
05-03-2016, 08:02 AM
So in summary the more you earn the more tax you pay, however a lot less now than in the 1970s and 80s.
I remember when the highest income tax rate was 60% (I think it was) under Muldoon.
However wealthy also have more avenues to not pay tax and if all 'income' was assessed the percentage wealthy people pay would be considerably lower.

So already wealthy people who are doing well, want more of the cake. At who's expense? Those who can least afford it?

SGT Pepper, what is your argument for raising GST? It would hurt consumption and the lowest income people the most.
GST should be removed off basic staples such as fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, bread etc. Perhaps it could he applied for only those with a community services card.

Why abolish tax deductible Charitable donations. At a time where more and more services are needed to be supplied by others where the government won't they need every advantage they can get. Scrutinize charities more for sure as some seem to be just money making machines paying a ridiculous amount in administration. Churches I agree with you, however if they want to have a separate charitable trust for specific good works then fine, again as long as its scrutinized. I chair a charitable trust and none of the board charges a cent or claims costs. Our time, skills and quite often materials are all donated which are not tax deductible.

I must admit when I saw your post I thought someone had hacked your account ' ;-)

Daytr
05-03-2016, 08:08 AM
FP dropping income tax and raising GST would boost employment and the economy? How?
GST is a consumption tax. GST raised would hurt consumption and stifle growth.
We need to extend CGT on property to all investment properties.

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 08:31 AM
FP dropping income tax and raising GST would boost employment and the economy? How?
GST is a consumption tax. GST raised would hurt consumption and stifle growth.
We need to extend CGT on property to all investment properties.

The higher tax on income is raised the less likely people will expand businesses or strive for more. It drives tax avoidance schemes - legitimate, but not beneficial to the economy. There are even people who won't work overtime because their paye withholding tax is higher and they don't want to wait to get it back. Unbelievable but it's true.
A consumption tax won't harm consumption if people are allowed to keep their earnings, but in any event it's better to encourage earning and savings, and clobber the taxpayer a bit when spending.
CGT is complex and has a whole set of problems. There are better ways.

Daytr
05-03-2016, 09:02 AM
NZ income tax is relatively low, clamp down on tax avoidance and problem sold.
Tax avoidance needs to be shamed, not celebrated as it is here.
More money in the hands of the already wealthy crates lazy capital.
Its part of the reason we are seeing lethargy in the global economy .
A CGT is only made complex by compromise and politics.

blackcap
05-03-2016, 09:10 AM
NZ income tax is relatively low, clamp down on tax avoidance and problem sold.
Tax avoidance needs to be shamed, not celebrated as it is here.

Are you talking about tax mitigation here? Or actual avoidance? Because as far as I know and talking to my peers etc, avoidance is not celebrated at all.

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 09:23 AM
Are you talking about tax mitigation here? Or actual avoidance? Because as far as I know and talking to my peers etc, avoidance is not celebrated at all.

Avoidance is legal and practised by almost everyone. In its simplest form putting money in bonus bonds avoids taxable interest. Perfectly legal and hardly frowned upon.
Tax evasion is not celebrated as you put it.

Daytr
05-03-2016, 09:24 AM
Mitigation is a nice way of putting it, but yes, or more taking advantage of loopholes, so in my view, not a legal one, that's avoidance, as you are circumventing the intent of the law.

blackcap
05-03-2016, 10:05 AM
Avoidance is legal and practised by almost everyone. In its simplest form putting money in bonus bonds avoids taxable interest. Perfectly legal and hardly frowned upon.
Tax evasion is not celebrated as you put it.

I think you are confusing mitigation (legal) with avoidance there FP... at Uni (a while back admittedly) we were taught that mitigation is legal, avoidance is the "grey" area, and evasion is illegal. Excerpt from stuff article seems to back that up. Your example about the bonus bonds in my book is mitigation which is what every citizen has a duty to do.

"Inland Revenue has clarified how it will distinguish between tax avoidance and legitimate "tax planning", following 18 months of consultation.

Chief tax counsel Martin Smith said Inland Revenue would apply the same principle used by the Supreme Court in the 2008 "Ben Nevis" case which concerned tax avoidance by a forestry venture.

"In short, an arrangement will be deemed to be a tax avoidance arrangement if the use of the Income Tax Act is not what Parliament contemplated, having regard to the commercial and economic reality of the arrangement," he said."

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 10:09 AM
Mitigation is a nice way of putting it, but yes, or more taking advantage of loopholes, so in my view, not a legal one, that's avoidance, as you are circumventing the intent of the law.

Tax mitigation is not a common term in this part of the world. We tend to use minimisation, avoidance and evasion. The first two are legal, evasion is not. Your view doesn't count. Tax is not about your view, it's about what is legal and what isn't. Nearly everyone avoids tax to some extent.

Sgt Pepper
05-03-2016, 10:17 AM
NZ income tax is relatively low, clamp down on tax avoidance and problem sold.
Tax avoidance needs to be shamed, not celebrated as it is here.
More money in the hands of the already wealthy crates lazy capital.
Its part of the reason we are seeing lethargy in the global economy .
A CGT is only made complex by compromise and politics.

Daytr
I was told many years ago that one Canadian Provincial government had a brutal but remarkably effective way to deal with tax evasion. If you knew/ or suspected any person was evading tax you reported this to the Canadian Inland Revenue. If tax evasion was subsequently discovered the person reporting reporting the evasion was PAID 10% of tax . Apparently there was very little tax evasion after this law was enacted

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 10:30 AM
I think you are confusing mitigation (legal) with avoidance there FP... at Uni (a while back admittedly) we were taught that mitigation is legal, avoidance is the "grey" area, and evasion is illegal. Excerpt from stuff article seems to back that up. Your example about the bonus bonds in my book is mitigation which is what every citizen has a duty to do.

"Inland Revenue has clarified how it will distinguish between tax avoidance and legitimate "tax planning", following 18 months of consultation.

Chief tax counsel Martin Smith said Inland Revenue would apply the same principle used by the Supreme Court in the 2008 "Ben Nevis" case which concerned tax avoidance by a forestry venture.

"In short, an arrangement will be deemed to be a tax avoidance arrangement if the use of the Income Tax Act is not what Parliament contemplated, having regard to the commercial and economic reality of the arrangement," he said."

I'm not confusing anything. Admittedly the line between avoidance and evasion is blurry, not helped by the way the terms get bandied about, but avoiding tax through a legal scheme is .... guess what? Legal
The problem with Ben Nevis is it was tax evasion disguised as tax avoidance.

P.S. My apologies blackcap. I'll retract some off that. It's a long time since I was involved in this stuff and am mixing definitions. You are right. There are tax avoidance schemes that are illegal. Generally where an arrangement is made that has the sole purpose of circumventing tax. There is also avoidance that we all practise and is legal. I'm having to dig into the depths of my brain - difficult because of the rubbish that's been tipped in on top.

westerly
05-03-2016, 10:54 AM
Tax mitigation is not a common term in this part of the world. We tend to use minimisation, avoidance and evasion. The first two are legal, evasion is not. Your view doesn't count. Tax is not about your view, it's about what is legal and what isn't. Nearly everyone avoids tax to some extent.

Minimisation,avoidance,and evasion.( and nearly everyone avoids tax to some extent) If you are on a wage and maybe have a bank account more likely a credit card, like many, those three words are irrelevant. Tax disappears before you see the cash.

westerly

blackcap
05-03-2016, 11:39 AM
I'm not confusing anything. Admittedly the line between avoidance and evasion is blurry, not helped by the way the terms get bandied about, but avoiding tax through a legal scheme is .... guess what? Legal
The problem with Ben Nevis is it was tax evasion disguised as tax avoidance.

P.S. My apologies blackcap. I'll retract some off that. It's a long time since I was involved in this stuff and am mixing definitions. You are right. There are tax avoidance schemes that are illegal. Generally where an arrangement is made that has the sole purpose of circumventing tax. There is also avoidance that we all practise and is legal. I'm having to dig into the depths of my brain - difficult because of the rubbish that's been tipped in on top.

No worries FP, I am getting confused by myself as well and like I said we were taught that at Uni but that was a good while ago and may not apply anymore. You are right, I think it is minimisation here and not mitigation. But yeah avoidance can be both so that is where the problem lies. I know I minimise my taxes where possible, do not evade but i am sure we all have tried to avoid at times too if that makes sense. I firmly believe it is our duty to avoid (where legal) tax and use the minimisation techniques to the fullest extent possible.

Sgt Pepper
05-03-2016, 11:56 AM
from stuff news

National MP Todd Barclay: What on earth is going on in Bill English's old Clutha Southland electorate office? Barclay has so far lost not one, not two, but three electorate officials. To loosely paraphrase an old Oscar Wilde quote, to lose one staff member might be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness - but three? What the heck?

What IS going on indeed, in this bluest of blue seats???

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 12:12 PM
from stuff news

National MP Todd Barclay: What on earth is going on in Bill English's old Clutha Southland electorate office? Barclay has so far lost not one, not two, but three electorate officials. To loosely paraphrase an old Oscar Wilde quote, to lose one staff member might be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness - but three? What the heck?

What IS going on indeed, in this bluest of blue seats???

If you really want to know why don't you join that branch of the party? They'd welcome your subscription.

Sgt Pepper
05-03-2016, 01:26 PM
If you really want to know why don't you join that branch of the party? They'd welcome your subscription.

That's true but apparently there is currently no one in Gore or Queentown who can process yoor application. Besides I sold all my Queenstown properties last year

Daytr
05-03-2016, 01:31 PM
Northland was one of the very blue seats to remember until Winston caused the greatest swing in NZs political history.
Still blue, just not National's shade of blue.


from stuff news

National MP Todd Barclay: What on earth is going on in Bill English's old Clutha Southland electorate office? Barclay has so far lost not one, not two, but three electorate officials. To loosely paraphrase an old Oscar Wilde quote, to lose one staff member might be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness - but three? What the heck?

What IS going on indeed, in this bluest of blue seats???

777
05-03-2016, 02:07 PM
Short lived may it be.

He got elected on his popularity not that of NZ First. He sticks it to other politicians and people like that. Look at the USA at the moment.

Daytr
05-03-2016, 03:30 PM
Actually he got elected because people in the North had been neglected by National for over 40 years and they were fed up.
The Sabin resignation didn't help either of course.

777
05-03-2016, 03:43 PM
In your dreams maybe. The next election will prove it one way or another. They were electing an MP, not a government, as in all by-elections. And he had popularity that no one else had.

An over statement to say it was " the greatest swing in NZs political history". The last change in government would beat that hands down simply because a swing against an incumbent government at a general election is more of an indicator than what shows up in any by-election.

fungus pudding
05-03-2016, 03:44 PM
Actually he got elected because people in the North had been neglected by National for over 40 years and they were fed up.
The Sabin resignation didn't help either of course.

And more importantly - it was a by-election, and they seldom favour the sitting govt.

Daytr
05-03-2016, 06:50 PM
No its not in my dreams, its in National's nightmares.
It was the biggest swing in a single seat in NZs political history! Fact!
Not bad for an old codger. ;-)
National completely disrespected the electorate and their campaign was a complete disaster.
As the votes reflect.


In your dreams maybe. The next election will prove it one way or another. They were electing an MP, not a government, as in all by-elections. And he had popularity that no one else had.

An over statement to say it was " the greatest swing in NZs political history". The last change in government would beat that hands down simply because a swing against an incumbent government at a general election is more of an indicator than what shows up in any by-election.

janner
05-03-2016, 07:40 PM
Daytr
I was told many years ago that one Canadian Provincial government had a brutal but remarkably effective way to deal with tax evasion. If you knew/ or suspected any person was evading tax you reported this to the Canadian Inland Revenue. If tax evasion was subsequently discovered the person reporting reporting the evasion was PAID 10% of tax . Apparently there was very little tax evasion after this law was enacted

Could be applied into many areas..

Hence the STASI..

craic
06-03-2016, 08:59 AM
Fifty/sixty years ago, young females who hung around with overseas seamen - and there were droves of them - could get five pounds for turning in a deserter - and there were hundreds of them too - to the police. The shipping companies paid the bounty. They got their money back when the jumper was repatriated as DBS (displaced British seaman) after his month in prison. He was usually found work on a ship and paid the DBS rate of one shilling per month. Sometimes the Ladies of the Wharf would entice a love-struck sailor to stay, and then report him. Often they would get a good kicking from their associates for this. I was reported and picked up but I had jumped in Sydney and stowed away to here. The police let me go as I had not offended under the NZ Shipping and Seamans act. The message is quite simply, a reward system will do as much harm as good. You will need an army of investigators to run around after nothing.

elZorro
07-03-2016, 07:11 AM
That's an interesting background, Craic! It'll make most of us look pretty boring.

You were saying that the govt books are back in the black. Sort of. For the first 7 months they've taken in more then they spent, but they're still expecting a small deficit for the financial year. And because the govt has equity investments, they lost $3billion on those recently.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1603/S00161/nz-govts-7-mth-operating-surplus-beats-forecast.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+7+Ma rch+2016

You have to ask the question, this far out from the GFC, a housing boom in progress, why are National still pleased to be just getting close to balancing the books? Which generation is going to pay for the govt's borrowing over the last seven years?

craic
07-03-2016, 08:00 AM
elZorro, you should watch "Posh Pawn" on one of the channels to learn that even the most successful people and businesses borrow money as a growth strategy, it is a fundamental principle of economic management. It only becomes a problem when you get an outfit like Labour who use the resource to buy votes and favours. Most NZ families will borrow what amounts to several years salary to purchase a home. Some may also borrow to buy a car or a boat. Except that large group, mostly Labour supporters who will apply for a state house and then moan because it is not up to standard. I may have been an illegal immigrant, and many other things but I don't have a mortgage or any debt on my cars or boat and my children are all better off than I ever was. Oh! I forgot. I bought a chainsaw on tic last month, but that will be paid for this month from the several cords of wood I cut.

elZorro
07-03-2016, 11:30 AM
elZorro, you should watch "Posh Pawn" on one of the channels to learn that even the most successful people and businesses borrow money as a growth strategy, it is a fundamental principle of economic management. It only becomes a problem when you get an outfit like Labour who use the resource to buy votes and favours. Most NZ families will borrow what amounts to several years salary to purchase a home. Some may also borrow to buy a car or a boat. Except that large group, mostly Labour supporters who will apply for a state house and then moan because it is not up to standard. I may have been an illegal immigrant, and many other things but I don't have a mortgage or any debt on my cars or boat and my children are all better off than I ever was. Oh! I forgot. I bought a chainsaw on tic last month, but that will be paid for this month from the several cords of wood I cut.

Yes, I've seen that program once or twice, but it's hardly a convincing argument, is it?

Based on your premise, National should keep borrowing forever, it will never be an issue, it's just good economic management. A bit like Xero I suppose. Except in the government's case, no-one is going to come along and buy them out, fixing everything. Instead, a big part of the tax we now pay, will go towards paying interest on previous borrowings. It won't be spent on anything useful. National hasn't grown the economy widely like Labour was doing, they've instead sold of some of our income-producing assets. So whereas you bought a chainsaw because you have a quick ROI, National would have sold half of the chainsaw to the neighbour, and run the risk of it being no good next time they want to use it.

Major von Tempsky
07-03-2016, 11:41 AM
Sad, sad, sad. People who neither study economics nor reflect deeply enough.

When I studied economics a topic one week and in the textbooks was the fallacy that we are all doomed because of the National Debt and that it needs to be paid back. One immediate cogent point was to look at who owned the National Debt. It was mostly owned by Government Depts and Govt Trading Corporations and a large part by outfits investing to provide for pensions and retirements.

Occasionally in the economic cycle the Government or Reserve Bank may purchase National Debt to provide liquidity. The National Debt is recycled on terms and conditions by the Reserve Bank seeking to influence economic liquidity.

In any case I'm most surprised to see a Labour supporter criticizing the National Debt when it particularly balloons under Labour Governments seeking to finance extravagant promises!

elZorro
07-03-2016, 05:07 PM
Sad, sad, sad. People who neither study economics nor reflect deeply enough.

When I studied economics a topic one week and in the textbooks was the fallacy that we are all doomed because of the National Debt and that it needs to be paid back. One immediate cogent point was to look at who owned the National Debt. It was mostly owned by Government Depts and Govt Trading Corporations and a large part by outfits investing to provide for pensions and retirements.

Occasionally in the economic cycle the Government or Reserve Bank may purchase National Debt to provide liquidity. The National Debt is recycled on terms and conditions by the Reserve Bank seeking to influence economic liquidity.

In any case I'm most surprised to see a Labour supporter criticizing the National Debt when it particularly balloons under Labour Governments seeking to finance extravagant promises!

Prove your last sentence MVT.

westerly
07-03-2016, 07:26 PM
elZorro, you should watch "Posh Pawn" on one of the channels to learn that even the most successful people and businesses borrow money as a growth strategy, it is a fundamental principle of economic management. It only becomes a problem when you get an outfit like Labour who use the resource to buy votes and favours. Most NZ families will borrow what amounts to several years salary to purchase a home. Some may also borrow to buy a car or a boat. Except that large group, mostly Labour supporters who will apply for a state house and then moan because it is not up to standard. I may have been an illegal immigrant, and many other things but I don't have a mortgage or any debt on my cars or boat and my children are all better off than I ever was. Oh! I forgot. I bought a chainsaw on tic last month, but that will be paid for this month from the several cords of wood I cut.

I'm alright jack.

westerly

fungus pudding
07-03-2016, 07:46 PM
I'm alright jack.

westerly

We'll all be quite happy for you then. Chuffed in fact.

elZorro
07-03-2016, 08:40 PM
We'll all be quite happy for you then. Chuffed in fact.

I think he means "keep your hands off of my stack", ironically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds

Sgt Pepper
08-03-2016, 12:25 PM
In any case I'm most surprised to see a Labour supporter criticizing the National Debt when it particularly balloons under Labour Governments seeking to finance extravagant promises

my response

Robert David Muldoon

elZorro
09-03-2016, 05:40 AM
No response from MVT? well that would be because it was an utter lie, without basis. Just put out there in the hope that it might stick. In fact, the opposite is more like the truth.

What does everyone think about the idea of having to state your snapper count every time you go fishing? Is this the ultimate nanny state or what? Managed freshwater fisheries sometimes have DOC staff running surveys, and use those to build a picture based on licence numbers. But this is another thing altogether.

Despite their good name (http://www.nbr.co.nz/family-goodfellow), I see the hand of the Goodfellow family in this. Peter is still the president of the National Party, the family are big shareholders in Sanford, and that seems to be where this 'control freak' idea has turned up from. Nick Smith, who doesn't look to have ever gone fishing, is trying to make it sound like a good idea.

This is a great policy for losing National votes, so in that way, I'm all for it.

Meanwhile, Fonterra (http://thestandard.org.nz/fonterra-faces-liquidity-issues-as-rivers-of-white-oil-dry-up/) is in the news again, and not in a good way. Finally those draconian terms of trade I mentioned a while ago are getting a public airing. I think big firms heavily underestimate the value of goodwill from smaller suppliers. That goodwill is staring to disappear, some firms are not going to show up to help keep their gear running if they have to wait 3 months for payment. Fonterra must think their non-farming suppliers have high margins. Generally they don't, they've been screwed down in the first place before gaining the work, and are then reluctant to increase prices with a big customer.

craic
09-03-2016, 08:35 AM
The "loss" of National votes based on your conspiracy theory about the snapper catch reporting which is little more than a proposal for discussion is more than made up for by a leader who, when he delivers one of his blinding responses in the house, has to read it, word for word, from a sheet of paper, held high in his hand. Not many oppositions get this far in time without any sign of progress and polls that show that they are probably going backwards.

fungus pudding
09-03-2016, 09:22 AM
Despite their good name (http://www.nbr.co.nz/family-goodfellow), I see the hand of the Goodfellow family in this. Peter is still the president of the National Party, the family are big shareholders in Sanford, and that seems to be where this 'control freak' idea has turned up from..

That's no more than an absurd conspiracy theory. Unless you can cite evidence it's a fairly low character attack. Doesn't do you or your cause any favours.

elZorro
10-03-2016, 05:41 PM
That's no more than an absurd conspiracy theory. Unless you can cite evidence it's a fairly low character attack. Doesn't do you or your cause any favours.

I'm just pointing out that the term "Nanny State" can end up biting the National Party in the backside. And that many of the National MPs, and people in power within National, appear to have more than adequate financial resources.

Do you have a big ego and the cash to go with it? Join the National Party. They'll welcome you with open arms, even if you can't swing a hammer.

fungus pudding
10-03-2016, 05:50 PM
I'm just pointing out that the term "Nanny State" can end up biting the National Party in the backside. And that many of the National MPs, and people in power within National, appear to have more than adequate financial resources.

Do you have a big ego and the cash to go with it? Join the National Party. They'll welcome you with open arms, even if you can't swing a hammer.

You are slighting the name of someone as influencing the government without offering a shred of evidence.