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

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 12:08 PM
FP, what definition did you apply to "Tax Haven" to come up with that response? A fairly loose one, I think. That's a lie, basically.

Just because we don't pop up on the list like BVI or Cayman Islands, doesn't mean we aren't doing our bit for foreign tax dodgers and money launderers.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11618057

And this site - they say that NZ isn't a tax haven, and then go on to describe how it all works very effectively as a tax haven, 'without the stigma'.

http://www.trust-nz.com/en-nz-as-offshore.html

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it eZ. Have a day off.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 12:21 PM
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it eZ. Have a day off.

I would, but there's so much going on out there in the nasty Nats political world. Now it looks like John Key and National were keen on the flag change partly because it helps them get funds from wealthy Chinese immigrants, who vividly remember British involvement in Hong Kong. They want the union jack gone from our flag.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11619417

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 12:39 PM
I would, but there's so much going on out there in the nasty Nats political world. Now it looks like John Key and National were keen on the flag change partly because it helps them get funds from wealthy Chinese immigrants, who vividly remember British involvement in Hong Kong. They want the union jack gone from our flag.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11619417

So do I along with a large number of Kiwis. So what? And reading what you do into raising money for a flag project is plainly ridiculous. No reason why he shouldn't campaign for something he believes in, and which he signalled many years ago, although it was long after Labour kicked it off. It's just plain paranoia when you look for something sinister in every action of Key or National. Have a long hot bath, add in some Epsom salts and stop worrying about what to worry about.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 12:52 PM
So do I along with a large number of Kiwis. So what? And reading what you do into raising money for a flag project is plainly ridiculous. No reason why he shouldn't campaign for something he believes in, and which he signalled many years ago, although it was long after Labour kicked it off. It's just plain paranoia when you look for something sinister in every action of Key or National. Have a long hot bath, add in some Epsom salts and stop worrying about what to worry about.

You have to have the last word, that's your problem, FP. So you see nothing wrong with a bit of stealthy fundraising for the flag change by top National Party members - we don't even know how much was raised or where it ended up, and we certainly don't know what deals were struck. Elsewhere in the country, Young Nats are engaging in illegal treating of tertiary students in a bid to bolster their numbers, and garner votes. At least they're open about it, but they'd better watch out in future, or it'll be reported to the Electoral Commission. They think they're a law unto themselves.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 12:55 PM
You have to have the last word, that's your problem, FP. So you see nothing wrong with a bit of stealthy fundraising for the flag change by top National Party members - we don't even know how much was raised or where it ended up, and we certainly don't know what deals were struck. Elsewhere in the country, Young Nats are engaging in illegal treating of tertiary students in a bid to bolster their numbers, and garner votes. At least they're open about it, but they'd better watch out in future, or it'll be reported to the Electoral Commission. They think they're a law unto themselves.

I think you'll find a cup of hot milo after the bath will be quite soothing.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 01:09 PM
I think you'll find a cup of hot milo after the bath will be quite soothing.

I've got some power hedge trimming to do first, FP. Maybe you should take it easy, after your hard work for the week.

More on the tax haven issue, from an economist.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/78729107/shamubeel-eaqub-panama-papers-show-nz-is-complicit-in-criminal-behaviour?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+9+ April+2016

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 01:22 PM
I've got some power hedge trimming to do first, FP. Maybe you should take it easy, after your hard work for the week.

You've got that wrong too. Only fools and horses work. You're not having a good day.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 01:59 PM
You've got that wrong too. Only fools and horses work. You're not having a good day.

I'm not a fool, FP. Maybe you are, for believing so much in the fake messiah, John Key. You want your cruisy position protected from CGT, that I understand. You shouldn't have to pay your fair share of taxes, after all, you're an important part of the productive economy. Any other goings on from National don't matter, as long as you're able to carry on as normal, collecting rent.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 02:08 PM
I'm not a fool, FP. Maybe you are, for believing so much in the fake messiah, John Key. You want your cruisy position protected from CGT, that I understand. You shouldn't have to pay your fair share of taxes, after all, you're an important part of the productive economy. Any other goings on from National don't matter, as long as you're able to carry on as normal, collecting rent.

As stated often, I have nothing against CGT as long as it's a properly designed scheme. I can assure you I have paid plenty of taxes throughout the years. Furthermore I do not regard Key as any sort of messiah. Just a damn sight better than any other party leader around at the moment - and in the foreseeable future. National have been particularly - and quite unfairly - harsh on property investors. Something I should but don't moan about.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 03:04 PM
As stated often, I have nothing against CGT as long as it's a properly designed scheme. I can assure you I have paid plenty of taxes throughout the years. Furthermore I do not regard Key as any sort of messiah. Just a damn sight better than any other party leader around at the moment - and in the foreseeable future. National have been particularly - and quite unfairly - harsh on property investors. Something I should but don't moan about.

You're happy with CGT as long as it includes the house you're living in, and if you can roll over investments as you sell them, thus avoiding CGT altogether in your lifetime. So, no to CGT - be honest FP.

You're paying taxes, but they'd have been a lot higher if you couldn't claim back all your interest and investment costs against income. And at the end of it all, you won't pay any tax on your capital gains, the biggest part of the return most likely.

If National have been 'harsh on property investors', that's because you all pushed the rules on depreciation. That small but valuable loophole (the how-to-do-it published in books) has been closed off. Not to mention baches that were occasionally rented, another rort.

So Key, who is not a statesman, is a liar and childish in the House, fondles ponytails for kicks, and has not put up one decent bill or law that we can look back on as positive, is better than any other leader around at the moment? I must say you're not putting the barrier up very high, and so I can only assume that it's because he's the only leader of the right-wing parties that you'd vote for.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 03:18 PM
You're happy with CGT as long as it includes the house you're living in, and if you can roll over investments as you sell them, thus avoiding CGT altogether in your lifetime. So, no to CGT - be honest FP.

You're paying taxes, but they'd have been a lot higher if you couldn't claim back all your interest and investment costs against income.

What a completely dopey remark. I don't know of any country that taxes on turnover rather than profit. Neither do you.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 03:26 PM
What a completely dopey remark. I don't know of any country that taxes on turnover rather than profit. Neither do you. Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income. That makes your proviso on CGT 'dopey'.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 04:22 PM
Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income.

Don't be silly. Businesses can't be taxed on turnover. It could not work. Even a simple example, say a one man band plumber with some plant and a van has costs like interest, depreciation, maintenance etc. and would be out of business in a week if those costs were treated as profit and taxed. Self employed cannot claim interest on money borrowed to buy a house, or on maintenance. Now be a good boy and go and have that shower.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 04:33 PM
Don't be silly. Businesses can't be taxed on turnover. It could not work. Even a simple example, say a one man band plumber with some plant and a van has costs like interest, depreciation, maintenance etc. and would be out of business in a week if those costs were treated as profit and taxed. Self employed cannot claim interest on money borrowed to buy a house, or on maintenance. Now be a good boy and go and have that shower.

If you take what I said out of context, as you seem determined to do, you can reach stupid conclusions. I'm not sure if that means you're stupid, or just conniving. I run a long-standing business with employees, so don't patronise me, FP.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 04:52 PM
If you take what I said out of context, as you seem determined to do, you can reach stupid conclusions. I'm not sure if that means you're stupid, or just conniving. I run a long-standing business with employees, so don't patronise me, FP.

Stop and think how your life might improve if you weren't driven by hatred and envy. There you go - nothing patronising about a bit of advice.

elZorro
09-04-2016, 05:06 PM
Stop and think how your life might improve if you weren't driven by hatred and envy. There you go - nothing patronising about a bit of advice.

I don't like the way this country is going, that's for sure. It could be so much better. I guess you're doing your bit to make sure it stays that way, you're just protecting your position. That doesn't mean you can accuse me of anything, hurl abuse at me repeatedly over the web. How about you destroy my arguments carefully, if you think you can, FP. Otherwise, just don't reply.

artemis
09-04-2016, 05:34 PM
Think about that in context. An employee pays taxes as they go, and don't get to claim back their own house interest or expenses maintaining their house, against that income. That makes your proviso on CGT 'dopey'.

They can claim interest and maintenance against the income produced by that house, if any. Same as any business owner.

Or are you suggesting home owners should be able to claim interest / maintenance regardless of income derived from the property, if any?

BlackPeter
09-04-2016, 05:46 PM
I don't like the way this country is going, that's for sure. It could be so much better. I guess you're doing your bit to make sure it stays that way, you're just protecting your position. That doesn't mean you can accuse me of anything, hurl abuse at me repeatedly over the web. How about you destroy my arguments carefully, if you think you can, FP. Otherwise, just don't reply.

Hmm - you mean the majority disagrees with you and this is not to your liking:p. I guess you are saying the people should stop thinking and just do what the Labour politburo suggests? Maybe they could, but please don't call this "good" or "better".

Sure - if we listen to your constant nagging, than the Labour party seems to push for a New Zealand occupied by a bunch of welfare dependant people without own opinion but shaped by the messages of the dear Labour Leader?

Not my view of good or better - and neither the view of a majority of New Zealanders. Lets hope that it stays this way for a long time to come. This country is great!

elZorro
09-04-2016, 06:00 PM
They can claim interest and maintenance against the income produced by that house, if any. Same as any business owner.

Or are you suggesting home owners should be able to claim interest / maintenance regardless of income derived from the property, if any?

Not at all, Artemis. FP has a misguided thought that if he ever has to register his commercial properties as liable to a CGT, then so should every home owner. Despite the fact that private homeowners cannot claim back any interest or expenses on their own property they're living in, unless they gain some income from part of it. Most don't, of course. That's why, in any CGT that might occur later, private homes would generally be exempt. You could argue the same for a bach that is never rented out. FP continues to trot out this plainly unacceptable line, thinking it will help National's argument about not levying a CGT.

fungus pudding
09-04-2016, 06:17 PM
Not at all, Artemis. FP has a misguided thought that if he ever has to register his commercial properties as liable to a CGT, then so should every home owner. Despite the fact that private homeowners cannot claim back any interest or expenses on their own property they're living in, unless they gain some income from part of it. Most don't, of course. That's why, in any CGT that might occur later, private homes would generally be exempt. You could argue the same for a bach that is never rented out. FP continues to trot out this plainly unacceptable line, thinking it will help National's argument about not levying a CGT.

Wrong again eZ. I can't be bothered going through it all again - you harped on and on about this when Cunliffe was embarrassing himself as your temporary god and I raised many points to think about. Suffice to say once again a CGT has many pros and cons. If I accept any politician's view on CGT it is Roger Douglas's.

Daytr
09-04-2016, 09:05 PM
What do you mean if?
They should have changed it 3 years ago when they were warned about this activity and again a year later.
We don't have the same level of governance or transparency as many of our Western peers so for Key to say we have full transparency is an out and out lie. We don't ask the right questions about the trusts to have any real level of transparency at all.


NZ is not a tax haven, but guess what eZ! If the govt. need to change the law - they will.

fungus pudding
10-04-2016, 07:24 AM
What do you mean if?
They should have changed it 3 years ago when they were warned about this activity and again a year later.
We don't have the same level of governance or transparency as many of our Western peers so for Key to say we have full transparency is an out and out lie. We don't ask the right questions about the trusts to have any real level of transparency at all.

I mean if the govt. need to change it they will. Just because you think they should, or more correctly just because of your hatred of Key, does not mean they need to. You can be fairly sure they will assess the situation over the next few weeks, which will be a great relief to you no doubt.

Daytr
10-04-2016, 08:06 AM
What part of the secrecy of these trusts don't you understand?
Can we confirm the assets hidden in these trust aren't tied to organizations that fund terrorism? Drug trade? Arms dealing?
So its got nothing to do with my view on Key, other than yet again his government has failed to act.
NZ is on the UN security council for god's sake! And yet here we are, a place where money can be hidden with no questions asked.

It makes me laugh that both you, Craic and BP etc imagine what I do & think, such as hating Key or being a lefty.
Whatever entertains you.

craic
10-04-2016, 11:40 AM
Entertains? When I want to be entertained by clowns, I go to a circus. You lot can't even get the paint right, you only know how to use red makeup


What part of the secrecy of these trusts don't you understand?
Can we confirm the assets hidden in these trust aren't tied to organizations that fund terrorism? Drug trade? Arms dealing?
So its got nothing to do with my view on Key, other than yet again his government has failed to act.
NZ is on the UN security council for god's sake! And yet here we are, a place where money can be hidden with no questions asked.

It makes me laugh that both you, Craic and BP etc imagine what I do & think, such as hating Key or being a lefty.
Whatever entertains you.

Daytr
10-04-2016, 12:41 PM
So those of the right, what's your thoughts on Anne Tolley's plan to revamp child services?

macduffy
10-04-2016, 01:14 PM
No doubt there will be some rather disappointed that NZ doesn't figure in The Guardian's editorial on tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/fallout-from-panama-papers-revelations-so-far-country-by-country

;)

Sgt Pepper
10-04-2016, 01:21 PM
No doubt there will be some rather disappointed that NZ doesn't figure in The Guardian's editorial on tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/fallout-from-panama-papers-revelations-so-far-country-by-country

;) Be patient. There is much more to come

Daytr
10-04-2016, 01:23 PM
Interesting and cynical way of putting it.
Lets hope we aren't a significant player, although according to the head of the organization that leaked the files it is highly likely that not only will their be criminal activity hidden in these NZ based trusts, but also NZ companies and high wealth individuals as well.
But its missing the point.
The point is we wouldn't know, because NZ doesn't ask enough of the right questions to have the level of transparency required by a 1st world county and member of the UN security council.



No doubt there will be some rather disappointed that NZ doesn't figure in The Guardian's editorial on tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/fallout-from-panama-papers-revelations-so-far-country-by-country

;)

macduffy
10-04-2016, 03:20 PM
Interesting and cynical way of putting it.
Lets hope we aren't a significant player, although according to the head of the organization that leaked the files it is highly likely that not only will their be criminal activity hidden in these NZ based trusts, but also NZ companies and high wealth individuals as well.
But its missing the point.
The point is we wouldn't know, because NZ doesn't ask enough of the right questions to have the level of transparency required by a 1st world county and member of the UN security council.

The point I was making was that amongst the 11 million - or whatever the number was - leaked papers, the Guardian hadn't found cause to include NZ in their list of countries mentioned in the editorial. Perhaps that puts our concern into perspective?

elZorro
10-04-2016, 03:37 PM
The point I was making was that amongst the 11 million - or whatever the number was - leaked papers, the Guardian hadn't found cause to include NZ in their list of countries mentioned in the editorial. Perhaps that puts our concern into perspective?

Perhaps we shouldn't have made a stand on apartheid either, from here.

macduffy
10-04-2016, 03:50 PM
Perhaps we shouldn't have made a stand on apartheid either, from here.

You seem to be missing my point that NZ doesn't seem to figure prominently as an "offender" in this matter. New Zealand's leading opposition to apartheid was well known internationally. Do you really see NZ taking that lead on this issue?

craic
10-04-2016, 04:02 PM
So those of the right, what's your thoughts on Anne Tolley's plan to revamp child services?

After 30 years of dealing with the results the only way is to revamp the parents. Anyone who goes into that line of work is mad. You will be given a whole bible of what you cannot do and just when you think that you have that off by heart, you will be given lessons on the sanctity of the tangata whenua and how they must be seen as the supreme authority in all matters. Meanwhile the left, the right and the centre will tell you where you are going wrong and how they would deal with the problem if they were in power, carefully ignoring the reality that they WERE in power, several times, and failed, several times.

elZorro
10-04-2016, 04:22 PM
You seem to be missing my point that NZ doesn't seem to figure prominently as an "offender" in this matter. New Zealand's leading opposition to apartheid was well known internationally. Do you really see NZ taking that lead on this issue?

Yes, why shouldn't we? We're high up in the table of less corrupt countries, so if we want to preserve that position, we should act. In Iceland, one in 33 of the population protested about their PM using a tax haven. That in turn caused him to step down, at least for the meantime. Maybe quite a few NZers are just lucky that their tax havens weren't on the books of a firm in Panama. A similar leak from Hong Kong would be interesting, I'm sure. How many tax dodgers are there, and how many trusts? This is amazing, that any worker lets the IRD take PAYE from wage packets, when those who can certainly afford to pay their share of income tax, have such an easy time hiding their income in any one of numerous overseas trust destinations. Those who are not quite at that level of chicanery invest in property assets in NZ, while trying hard to run at a loss, at least on paper.

tim23
10-04-2016, 05:20 PM
Note sure if some of you read Duncan Garners column in Dompost 2.4.16 about legacy. NZ today has been shaped predominately by Labour governments when you have a good think about it. You could add nuclear free, floating the dollar & GST as well to the ones Duncan mentions; Kiwisaver, Kiwi Bank, WFF etc. National could include Employments Contracts Act, benefit cuts, price & wage freeze, Think Big and the abolishing of the super scheme brought in the Kirk Labourer government, not to mention the flag failure...

Hmm - you mean the majority disagrees with you and this is not to your liking:p. I guess you are saying the people should stop thinking and just do what the Labour politburo suggests? Maybe they could, but please don't call this "good" or "better".

Sure - if we listen to your constant nagging, than the Labour party seems to push for a New Zealand occupied by a bunch of welfare dependant people without own opinion but shaped by the messages of the dear Labour Leader?

Not my view of good or better - and neither the view of a majority of New Zealanders. Lets hope that it stays this way for a long time to come. This country is great!

winner69
10-04-2016, 05:25 PM
@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (1/4): NAT 50%(+3), LAB 28%(-4), GRN 10%(+2), NZF 9%(-1), MAO 1%, ACT 1% #nzpol

Unfortunately we may as well save the cost of an election next year

Even the greens are laggards - wasted their opportunity to be the real opposition

winner69
10-04-2016, 05:27 PM
And this is why Labour is a lost cause

@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (3/4): Preferred PM: Key 39%(-1), Peters 10%(+1), Little 7%(-2) #nzpol

tim23
10-04-2016, 05:33 PM
Helen Clark polled below 2% at one stage and National well below 30% so its never a lost cause. Pride comes before a fall...
And this is why Labour is a lost cause

@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (3/4): Preferred PM: Key 39%(-1), Peters 10%(+1), Little 7%(-2) #nzpol

winner69
10-04-2016, 05:36 PM
This is interesting

@pitakakariki: @ColmarBruntonNZ Is the historical stuff still there somewhere?And is that Key's lowest PPM score since December 2012?

Note- TV1 didn't show the historical series as they usually do ....hmm

winner69
10-04-2016, 05:37 PM
Helen Clark polled below 2% at one stage and National well below 30% so its never a lost cause. Pride comes before a fall...

Hope not a lost cause - i don't want Nats/ Key inower any longer

elZorro
10-04-2016, 05:37 PM
@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (1/4): NAT 50%(+3), LAB 28%(-4), GRN 10%(+2), NZF 9%(-1), MAO 1%, ACT 1% #nzpol

Unfortunately we may as well save the cost of an election next year

Even the greens are laggards - wasted their opportunity to be the real opposition

W69, I think we're still 17 months away from an election, and while I can't understand how National gets away with it, I have to accept the poll results. Within limits. While National/Act and 'Not-National' are fairly evenly balanced, Labour has performed the poorest between polls, and I think Andrew Little has to take a share of the blame. He will not be replaced before the next election, that's for sure. But he needs to get some more media training, it's not that hard is it? 17 months of Labour acting as though they will win the 2017 election in coalition, not being on the back foot, and perception will be reality. No ums and arrs in front of the camera, Andrew.

Good PR will work, National have proven it. But they've had their three terms, they're corrupt liars, they have achieved nothing, they have to go.

tim23
10-04-2016, 05:42 PM
That's why I liked Garners column - I think hes kind of saying they have achieved nothing too!


W69, I think we're still 17 months away from an election, and while I can't understand how National gets away with it, I have to accept the poll results. Within limits. While National/Act and 'Not-National' are fairly evenly balanced, Labour has performed the poorest between polls, and I think Andrew Little has to take a share of the blame. He will not be replaced before the next election, that's for sure. But he needs to get some more media training, it's not that hard is it? 17 months of Labour acting as though they will win the 2017 election in coalition, not being on the back foot, and perception will be reality. No ums and arrs in front of the camera, Andrew.

Good PR will work, National have proven it. But they've had their three terms, they're corrupt liars, they have achieved nothing, they have to go.

elZorro
10-04-2016, 06:10 PM
That's why I liked Garners column - I think hes kind of saying they have achieved nothing too!

There are a lot of people comparing what this government has done, compared with the Clark Government under Labour. Don't forget what it was like during that time, NZ started to come to an even keel, we started feeling like we were living in a great country again.

Here's the full data from Colmar Brunton, including historical trends.

http://colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/160410-ONE-News-Colmar-Brunton-Poll-report-2-6-Apr-2016-prelim.pdf

W69 is right, John Key is becoming less popular over time, and of the people who are quite likely or very likely to vote in the next election, 13% won't say which way they would vote at the moment, or are undecided. That's higher than usual. People are starting to think a bit, but they're not sure about Andrew Little yet.

Just over 1000 people on landlines were surveyed in this poll. So they are older households, perhaps more conservative. Lots of younger households don't have landlines (http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-transport-comms-mr.aspx), or are unlisted. The error in the party vote is about +/- 3.1% for 3D certainty for National, and about +/- 2.5% for Labour. The percentages are also rounded up or down with no decimal point, we're not told the actual data.

Let's take a Labour-positive view of the results. National could have had 49.6% of the party vote +/-3.1%, so worst case is 46.5%.

Labour in best case is 28.4% +2.5% or 30.9%. Add 13% unknown/undecided votes and Labour could achieve 43.9%, that is statistically a small possibility. Add Greens, and a Labour/Green coalition would have power in 2017.

This poll was completed before the news about the tax havens was well known. It certainly didn't include the effect of the multiple articles about NZ's need to do something about it, and John Key's inappropriate response.

elZorro
11-04-2016, 06:48 AM
I've had a look at the 8 months report on the Government Books (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/monthend/pdfs/fsgnz-8mths-feb16.pdf). While they had a higher than expected tax take to produce a $300 mill surplus on operations, they also deferred over $500mill of predicted costs into the next annual year, and expect the tax take to drop away in the next quarter.

Our financial instruments held by ACC, Super Fund, also showed losses, which are on the capital side, but they are still important. A big loss of $5.1bill. So adding all that in, NZ's net worth dropped by $4.6bill over the last 8 months. Great going.

The NZ Govt is now spending more than $2,500mill on finance costs (interest) every 8 months, on a debt of over $84bill. That looks like 4.4% interest on average. $3,750mill on interest costs a year, that would pay for 150 flag referendums.

BlackPeter
11-04-2016, 07:19 AM
Interesting poll ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78754432/National-support-hits-50-per-cent-Labour-and-Little-fall-in-new-poll?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines&bid=30981464

Maybe its time Labour starts to listen instead of just telling people what they think is best for them ...?

elZorro
11-04-2016, 07:54 AM
Interesting poll ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78754432/National-support-hits-50-per-cent-Labour-and-Little-fall-in-new-poll?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines&bid=30981464

Maybe its time Labour starts to listen instead of just telling people what they think is best for them ...?

Labour's spending a lot of time listening. There's nothing wrong with virtually any of the policies they put forward at the last election, it's just National are so organised and well funded that they're a tough nut to crack.

Which party would be better for NZ as a whole? No question, that's Labour.

BlackPeter
11-04-2016, 08:15 AM
Labour's spending a lot of time listening. There's nothing wrong with virtually any of the policies they put forward at the last election, it's just National are so organised and well funded that they're a tough nut to crack.

Which party would be better for NZ as a whole? No question, that's Labour.

Well, EZ - obviously everybody is entitled to their own opinion, just looks like that not too many other New Zealanders share your political views. Obviously nothing wrong with that, as we all know - the majority is not always right. However given that this is a democracy might it be an impediment for Labour to move back into government.

Interesting to note that not even Labour voters support Little ... only 7% of all voters (i.e. just a meagre quarter of all Labour supporters) want to see him as future PM.

Do you really think that trying force such an inept leader down our throats is evidence for Labours listening skills?

If yes, than I don't think National needs to worry too much about the next handful of elections, though it obviously would be better for the country to have a capable opposition instead of the sad bunch of naggers, bad-mouthers, mud-throwers and day-dreamers we have to endure these days.

iceman
11-04-2016, 08:15 AM
Our financial instruments held by ACC, Super Fund, also showed losses, which are on the capital side, but they are still important. A big loss of $5.1bill. So adding all that in, NZ's net worth dropped by $4.6bill over the last 8 months. Great going.


Imagine what the loss would have been if the Government had borrowed more to invest into the Superfund, like you and your party wanted :ohmy:

EZ are you serious when you say there was nothing wrong with any of Labour's policies at the last election ? Have you forgotten that nearly 3/4 of voters voted against it ?

westerly
11-04-2016, 08:16 AM
You seem to be missing my point that NZ doesn't seem to figure prominently as an "offender" in this matter. New Zealand's leading opposition to apartheid was well known internationally. Do you really see NZ taking that lead on this issue?

More likely NZ is a small country in a remote part of the world and despite our opinion we are of importance on the world stage, in reality we are not newsworthy. (Unless the antics of our PM are a little unusual) The majority of the world population would have no knowledge of NZ

westerly

Daytr
11-04-2016, 11:46 AM
Hi Macduff, well the Guardian is only one source (however one of the better media outlets around) and plenty of others, including the group that has released the documents is suggesting NZ has had a reasonable part to play in all this. Its early days and NZ will be one of many countries that are no doubt caught up in an unravelling scandal that has already seen one prime minister resign and pressure on another, being Cameron.
The fact is that NZ does not insist on the same level of scrutiny that our peer nations do. Its being suggested that NZ has been identified as a soft target by those wanting to set up these offshore trusts. Sure we may not be waiving a tax haven banner like the Cayman Islands, however we may only be one notch down.
One thing I am sure of, much more will come of this.
I have been waiting for Winston Peters to say the line...
This is not the wine box, its the whole bloody vineyard! LOL


You seem to be missing my point that NZ doesn't seem to figure prominently as an "offender" in this matter. New Zealand's leading opposition to apartheid was well known internationally. Do you really see NZ taking that lead on this issue?

Daytr
11-04-2016, 11:55 AM
They are not mad, they are saints, well if you believe in saints.
Its certainly a vocation & you aren't in it for the money, that's for sure.
I know people who work in these care positions and I take my hat off to them.
Anyway I was going to say, on the face of it I like what National is proposing.
However I just hope its not a wolf in sheep's clothing, like much of the 'environmental' policy and its not just an attempt to save money or outsource responsibility. It appears they have learnt something from the SERCO debacle,. Not before time.


After 30 years of dealing with the results the only way is to revamp the parents. Anyone who goes into that line of work is mad. You will be given a whole bible of what you cannot do and just when you think that you have that off by heart, you will be given lessons on the sanctity of the tangata whenua and how they must be seen as the supreme authority in all matters. Meanwhile the left, the right and the centre will tell you where you are going wrong and how they would deal with the problem if they were in power, carefully ignoring the reality that they WERE in power, several times, and failed, several times.

macduffy
11-04-2016, 12:37 PM
Hi Macduff, well the Guardian is only one source (however one of the better media outlets around) and plenty of others, including the group that has released the documents is suggesting NZ has had a reasonable part to play in all this. Its early days and NZ will be one of many countries that are no doubt caught up in an unravelling scandal that has already seen one prime minister resign and pressure on another, being Cameron.
The fact is that NZ does not insist on the same level of scrutiny that our peer nations do. Its being suggested that NZ has been identified as a soft target by those wanting to set up these offshore trusts. Sure we may not be waiving a tax haven banner like the Cayman Islands, however we may only be one notch down.
One thing I am sure of, much more will come of this.
I have been waiting for Winston Peters to say the line...
This is not the wine box, its the whole bloody vineyard! LOL

Fair enough, Daytr. My point though, was that it would be straining things somewhat to suggest that NZ could take a leading position, as it did in the apartheid issue, in stamping out tax havens around the world. Sure, the All Blacks rule, Helen Clark is (almost) universally admired, and we have a good reputation in many fields - but to suggest that the world will sit up, take notice and follow our lead - whatever it might be in this matter - while there are much bigger targets in the UK, Iceland, Russia etc taking the spotlight, is wishful thinking in my opinion.

elZorro
11-04-2016, 01:05 PM
Fair enough, Daytr. My point though, was that it would be straining things somewhat to suggest that NZ could take a leading position, as it did in the apartheid issue, in stamping out tax havens around the world. Sure, the All Blacks rule, Helen Clark is (almost) universally admired, and we have a good reputation in many fields - but to suggest that the world will sit up, take notice and follow our lead - whatever it might be in this matter - while there are much bigger targets in the UK, Iceland, Russia etc taking the spotlight, is wishful thinking in my opinion.

MacDuffy, perhaps you could try a bit of research here (http://thestandard.org.nz/key-changed-the-law-to-turn-nz-into-a-tax-haven/). I had a feeling that Labour wouldn't have left a tax haven in place in 2008. Sure enough, they didn't.

When Labour modified the overseas trust rules in 2008, they left a PIE fund or effective interest rate for foreign owned trusts, of 28% tax. This was far from a tax haven, and I don't think there would have been much money flowing into this area at all. But, it had established a mechanism for something else.

2008, and on the back of good work by Crosby-Textor and accompanying BS, National got back in power. By 2010 John Key was openly stating that he wanted the tax rate on these foreign trusts changed. The new tax rate he wanted was 0%. In other words, it was tax-free, nil, no tax at all. He sent a small think-tank off to produce a report that agreed with him, and then they quietly, somehow, snuck it in as a law change in September 2011.

Edit: Labour, the Greens, NZ First opposed the bill, but didn't have the numbers by a long way.

Of course we can now see that enormous amounts of funds have flooded in, some of which have propped up the GDP figures indirectly, and also funded the National Party with donations I'm sure. And John Key had the cheek to say the rules hadn't changed since the Clark Government. One big rule did change. From a sensible tax rate, to none at all. That's the hypocrisy and utter lying that National should be known for, by now.

Don't believe anything John Key says without checking up on it, that's my advice. We are now a tax haven, no doubt about that.

westerly
11-04-2016, 01:27 PM
Imagine what the loss would have been if the Government had borrowed more to invest into the Superfund, like you and your party wanted :ohmy:

EZ are you serious when you say there was nothing wrong with any of Labour's policies at the last election ? Have you forgotten that nearly 3/4 of voters voted against it ?

Yeah, they dropped 3.54%. Considering the annual return since inception is 9.05% perhaps they are not doing so bad.
And for some unknown reason they pay tax, $2.9b over the last 5 years. John an Bill holding out their hands again but contributing nothing.
The fund has averaged nearly 11% over the last 5 years, perhaps National should have invested more instead of zero.

westerly

elZorro
11-04-2016, 04:40 PM
Yeah, they dropped 3.54%. Considering the annual return since inception is 9.05% perhaps they are not doing so bad.
And for some unknown reason they pay tax, $2.9b over the last 5 years. John an Bill holding out their hands again but contributing nothing.
The fund has averaged nearly 11% over the last 5 years, perhaps National should have invested more instead of zero.

westerly

Yes, the Nats were lucky ahead of the GFC that Labour left them those good investment funds, had paid off most of the external debt, and had good policy settings that, by and large, had to be left in place. Even now, Labour and other lobbyists are forcing National to make small concessions in policy that make sense. But that hasn't stopped National from selling down assets, defraying costs, pruning back govt departments, experimenting badly with privatisation, and the usual right-wing tricks of playing with the statistics. But one of the worst ideas must have been John's uncunning plan to turn NZ into a Tax Haven. You arrogant sod, John.

We should all be marching on Parliament about this. John can't get away with letting one person carry out a study on it. We won't forget this, it won't get swept under the carpet.

elZorro
11-04-2016, 06:02 PM
Here's John Key being grilled by Guyon Espiner on RadioNZ this morning, about our tax haven. He's certainly on the back foot, wish we had video of this.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201796508/pm-responds-to-criticism-over-handling-of-panama-papers

All of a sudden, he doesn't seem to know too much about the trusts and how they work. He's certainly not going to show us his tax records though. The last question was "have you used any trusts in countries that might be considered tax havens?" to which he replied timidly through the phone.."I don't believe so". Guyon quickly pointed out that the answer wasn't a 'no'.

I'm most disappointed Guyon didn't ask the other obvious question. Why did he instigate the change in the tax rate on these foreign-owned trusts from 28% to.. 0%? In other words, he applied no tax. John Key set up our status as a Tax Haven.

John Key's stuck in this right up to his neck, maybe we can get him booted out over it.

iceman
11-04-2016, 06:26 PM
Yeah, they dropped 3.54%. Considering the annual return since inception is 9.05% perhaps they are not doing so bad.
And for some unknown reason they pay tax, $2.9b over the last 5 years. John an Bill holding out their hands again but contributing nothing.
The fund has averaged nearly 11% over the last 5 years, perhaps National should have invested more instead of zero.

westerly

The point I was making is that posters like you and EZ complain about Key/English beings stupid not to borrow money to invest in the Superfund and then also complain and blame them when the Fund loses money, which of course it will do on occasions despite being very well managed.
It is this sort of constant negative rubbish that has turned voters off Labour and sadly Labour doesn´t understand it.
They have been flat out releasing policy ideas recently, such as legislating interest rates, free tertiary education, universal benefits, no TPP, you name it. But noone is listening and they continue to go down in the polls with Little just above margin of error as preferred PM.

But like EZ keeps reminding us, they have good policy and good people so no need to change anything. Just wait for NZ to wake up and realise their brilliance. Doh

elZorro
11-04-2016, 06:59 PM
The point I was making is that posters like you and EZ complain about Key/English beings stupid not to borrow money to invest in the Superfund and then also complain and blame them when the Fund loses money, which of course it will do on occasions despite being very well managed.
It is this sort of constant negative rubbish that has turned voters off Labour and sadly Labour doesn´t understand it.
They have been flat out releasing policy ideas recently, such as legislating interest rates, free tertiary education, universal benefits, no TPP, you name it. But noone is listening and they continue to go down in the polls with Little just above margin of error as preferred PM.

But like EZ keeps reminding us, they have good policy and good people so no need to change anything. Just wait for NZ to wake up and realise their brilliance. Doh

Great stuff, Iceman. All you're doing is poking the borax at Labour, and anyone who might vote Labour. I see you haven't leapt to the defence of John Key over HavenGate, or whatever it'll be called. That's because it's indefensible. If we find out for sure that JK has been dodging tax, (I bet he has) just like all his mates, you'd probably still vote National, you're that blinkered.

John Key and National are only staying in power through these elections because they have more cash, and most people don't ask any real questions about politicians.

winner69
11-04-2016, 07:21 PM
Here's John Key being grilled by Guyon Espiner on RadioNZ this morning, about our tax haven. He's certainly on the back foot, wish we had video of this.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201796508/pm-responds-to-criticism-over-handling-of-panama-papers

All of a sudden, he doesn't seem to know too much about the trusts and how they work. He's certainly not going to show us his tax records though. The last question was "have you used any trusts in countries that might be considered tax havens?" to which he replied timidly through the phone.."I don't believe so". Guyon quickly pointed out that the answer wasn't a 'no'.

I'm most disappointed Guyon didn't ask the other obvious question. Why did he instigate the change in the tax rate on these foreign-owned trusts from 28% to.. 0%? In other words, he applied no tax. John Key set up our status as a Tax Haven.

John Key's stuck in this right up to his neck, maybe we can get him booted out over it.

John Key's foreign 'bosses' might be getting a bit worried eh EZ

They will not be pleased - seeing he has done so well for so long

neopoleII
11-04-2016, 07:24 PM
talking about taxes etc..... whats up with this?
""Tax exemption
Salaries, grants and allowances paid by the United Nations are normally exempt from income tax.""

https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=SAL

makes you wonder where and how helen is depositing her salary.
as for trusts....... i have always disliked them....... they seem like a nether world entity that exists but are untouchable for all the wrong reasons in my opinion.
If you cant stand behind your name or next to your partner......... with trust.... then you need to hide or defend with a nether world trust.
and it seems that all governments support trusts.....

elZorro
11-04-2016, 07:53 PM
talking about taxes etc..... whats up with this?
""Tax exemption
Salaries, grants and allowances paid by the United Nations are normally exempt from income tax.""

https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=SAL

makes you wonder where and how helen is depositing her salary.
as for trusts....... i have always disliked them....... they seem like a nether world entity that exists but are untouchable for all the wrong reasons in my opinion.
If you cant stand behind your name or next to your partner......... with trust.... then you need to hide or defend with a nether world trust.
and it seems that all governments support trusts.....

I don't like trusts either, accountants seem to like them, so that's not a great recommendation is it? I believe in standing by your good name and your spouse, too.

Regarding a post at the UN, I didn't know that generally their salaries are exempt from tax. The difference there is that Helen Clark applied for a job and won it, despite fierce competition. All of those rules and perks were laid out already, she accepted the terms.

However, John Key worked his way up to be the National Party leader within a short period of time, didn't do his groundwork (so obvious now) and has become PM. It's not a highly paid job, the hours are long, and he's supposed to pay tax on his income in NZ. He could behave like many ministers before him, and buy farms, forestry blocks, houses, commercial buildings etc, thus defraying his income with interest and trying to ensure a net capital gain over the period, until he steps down. John's more likely to be playing the markets, and he won't want to be doing that openly. A foreign trust or overseas vehicle would be perfect for that. Hence, IMO, the extreme evasion with the questioning from Guyon.

jonu
11-04-2016, 09:27 PM
I don't like trusts either, accountants seem to like them, so that's not a great recommendation is it? I believe in standing by your good name and your spouse, too.

Regarding a post at the UN, I didn't know that generally their salaries are exempt from tax. The difference there is that Helen Clark applied for a job and won it, despite fierce competition. All of those rules and perks were laid out already, she accepted the terms.

However, John Key worked his way up to be the National Party leader within a short period of time, didn't do his groundwork (so obvious now) and has become PM. It's not a highly paid job, the hours are long, and he's supposed to pay tax on his income in NZ. He could behave like many ministers before him, and buy farms, forestry blocks, houses, commercial buildings etc, thus defraying his income with interest and trying to ensure a net capital gain over the period, until he steps down. John's more likely to be playing the markets, and he won't want to be doing that openly. A foreign trust or overseas vehicle would be perfect for that. Hence, IMO, the extreme evasion with the questioning from Guyon.

El Z, Key has said publicly he has two trusts, one a blind trust (ie one he has nothing to do with the running of, as H Clarke did before him) and another which he probably holds his personal assets in eg house. Both are based here. I think you are getting out of hand with all this baseless innuendo.

As I recall Key also donates his PM salary to charity, if I remember correctly from when he was first elected.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 06:05 AM
El Z, Key has said publicly he has two trusts, one a blind trust (ie one he has nothing to do with the running of, as H Clarke did before him) and another which he probably holds his personal assets in eg house. Both are based here. I think you are getting out of hand with all this baseless innuendo.

As I recall Key also donates his PM salary to charity, if I remember correctly from when he was first elected.

Jonu, there are other "vehicles" besides trusts that can be used, apparently. Could a blind trust in NZ be linked to another trust or vehicle, for example? John did say he uses the 'best people' for his tax affairs. Now you and I both know that's a reference not to their ethical position, but more on tax minimisation help 'within the rules'. He has to insulate himself from investments that would otherwise appear on the register. He surely knows a lot more about trusts than he's letting on.

Finally, that is a very old folk tale about John Key giving away his PM salary. He might donate a portion of it to charity, who knows. But he has never confirmed he's giving it all away, and yet people like yourself continue to trot that out as though it's the truth? Prove it, that'll be interesting.

craic
12-04-2016, 07:09 AM
One of the biggest charities in the country, The Labour Party, seems to be a little short on donations lately. But then its financial woes match it obvious drop in goodwill.

jonu
12-04-2016, 07:34 AM
Jonu, there are other "vehicles" besides trusts that can be used, apparently. Could a blind trust in NZ be linked to another trust or vehicle, for example? John did say he uses the 'best people' for his tax affairs. Now you and I both know that's a reference not to their ethical position, but more on tax minimisation help 'within the rules'. He has to insulate himself from investments that would otherwise appear on the register. He surely knows a lot more about trusts than he's letting on.

Finally, that is a very old folk tale about John Key giving away his PM salary. He might donate a portion of it to charity, who knows. But he has never confirmed he's giving it all away, and yet people like yourself continue to trot that out as though it's the truth? Prove it, that'll be interesting.

El Z, I recall him saying it (about his salary) when he was first elected. I don't know if he still does.

As for the trusts, all you have brought up is more baseless innuendo. I actually don't like Key. I think he is a moral jellyfish. But I think it unfair to sling mud in desperation.

winner69
12-04-2016, 07:44 AM
Like you and me Key will get a tax rebate on his donations to charites as well

elZorro
12-04-2016, 08:10 AM
El Z, I recall him saying it (about his salary) when he was first elected. I don't know if he still does.

As for the trusts, all you have brought up is more baseless innuendo. I actually don't like Key. I think he is a moral jellyfish. But I think it unfair to sling mud in desperation.

Maybe it's unfair, but I haven't seen JK so rattled since "Dirty Politics". There's something going on. Compare with Andrew Little, he's going to show us his tax return, no problem.

jonu
12-04-2016, 08:15 AM
Maybe it's unfair, but I haven't seen JK so rattled since "Dirty Politics". There's something going on. Compare with Andrew Little, he's going to show us his tax return, no problem.

Perhaps we should all go around with our tax returns taped to our foreheads. and lists of our personal indiscretions while we are at it. Where does it stop El Z?

RGR367
12-04-2016, 10:26 AM
Maybe it's unfair, but I haven't seen JK so rattled since "Dirty Politics". There's something going on. Compare with Andrew Little, he's going to show us his tax return, no problem.

Unfortunately, most of us as will not be mentioned in those Panama papers. So will elZorro be unmasked and willing to show us his tax return too :p

elZorro
12-04-2016, 12:29 PM
Unfortunately, most of us as will not be mentioned in those Panama papers. So will elZorro be unmasked and willing to show us his tax return too :p

My tax return at the moment would be a very dismal affair. I told you all manufacturing is mostly in the doldrums since the GFC and National got in, and Glass Earth put me off investing in the sharemarket.

Now I passed Politics101 a long time ago (no bull) and of the very few things I remember, it was that politicians are our representatives, and have to be almost purer than the driven snow. That's why some of them step down at least temporarily, after even minor scrapes like buying wine on their ministerial credit cards. So it is proper that an MP would be able to back up their word and produce a tax return if they were asked. You know we'll never get one out of John Key, because it won't line up with what he's saying most likely.

He is a pathological liar, that's what I think at the moment. Filter everything he says, because he just makes stuff up on the fly.

winner69
12-04-2016, 01:23 PM
. I told you all manufacturing is mostly in the doldrums since the GFC and National got in, and Glass Earth put me off investing in the sharemarket.

.

Found this interesting chart. Has NZ GDP per capita over the years broken down into 'tradables' which in this case is the Primary Industries (agriculture, forestry and fishing) and Manufacturing sectors. All other industry sectors are in Rest

Seems primary industries and manufacturing were in the decline before Nats took over ... and hasn't been doing too badly over the last few years

craic
12-04-2016, 01:27 PM
The truth, based on your last post is that he is a winner and you are a loser. You can't make it in manufacturing because you can't produce a product that people want to buy at a price they are willing to pay. And you are scared of the sharemarket because YOU made a mistake with whatever Glass Earth was. If that is the kid of thinking that is the Labour party, then I am happy to see them in back paddock.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 01:40 PM
The truth, based on your last post is that he is a winner and you are a loser. You can't make it in manufacturing because you can't produce a product that people want to buy at a price they are willing to pay. And you are scared of the sharemarket because YOU made a mistake with whatever Glass Earth was. If that is the kid of thinking that is the Labour party, then I am happy to see them in back paddock.

I think you're too keen on making stuff up as well, Craic. What has my situation (which a few years back was extremely good, thanks - I paid a lot of taxes) got to do with the Labour Party? I just happen to vote for them, and I help out in a local electorate. You're straying so far off the thread it's not funny.

What do you think about John Key's fabrications? Is it proper for a PM? Should he be booted out for lying?

elZorro
12-04-2016, 01:51 PM
Found this interesting chart. Has NZ GDP per capita over the years broken down into 'tradables' which in this case is the Primary Industries (agriculture, forestry and fishing) and Manufacturing sectors. All other industry sectors are in Rest

Seems primary industries and manufacturing were in the decline before Nats took over ... and hasn't been doing too badly over the last few years

W69, are you reading the same graph as me? In about 2008, primary industries manufacturing took a steep dive and didn't start pulling back up until 2013-2014, probably helped by a higher milk payout. Even now, it hasn't reached the level it was at when Labour were in power. Yet National is supposedly the friend of the farmer and anyone in the primary sector! I don't happen to be in that area of manufacturing, but some of our output gets used there. We also export.

That graph does imply that anyone stuck in the primary manufacturing sector with all of their capital, has been doing worse than in other areas of the economy. No wonder everyone's piled into the housing/commercial sector, but does it mean that National presided over an unbalanced economy for the last seven years, and did they do much to correct it?

winner69
12-04-2016, 02:08 PM
W69, are you reading the same graph as me? In about 2008, primary industries manufacturing took a steep dive and didn't start pulling back up until 2013-2014, probably helped by a higher milk payout. Even now, it hasn't reached the level it was at when Labour were in power. Yet National is supposedly the friend of the farmer and anyone in the primary sector! I don't happen to be in that area of manufacturing, but some of our output gets used there. We also export.

That graph does imply that anyone stuck in the primary manufacturing sector with all of their capital, has been doing worse than in other areas of the economy. No wonder everyone's piled into the housing/commercial sector, but does it mean that National presided over an unbalanced economy for the last seven years, and did they do much to correct it?

I was seeing the decline starting in 2003 and that recent years have been the most positive since

jonu
12-04-2016, 03:58 PM
What do you think about John Key's fabrications? Is it proper for a PM? Should he be booted out for lying?

Details please El Z? Fabrications...Lies! You have jumped from baseless innuendo to some pretty serious accusations now. Is it just because the man won't present you with his tax return, which last time I looked in our democracy, was his right.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 05:35 PM
Details please El Z? Fabrications...Lies! You have jumped from baseless innuendo to some pretty serious accusations now. Is it just because the man won't present you with his tax return, which last time I looked in our democracy, was his right.

Jonu, you could try linking up the dots. Andrew Little has called JK's bluff, and JK backed out of the situation with a typical smart-arsed comment in the House. He didn't answer the question though. He's a very slippery eel. Quite a few members of the press seem to have figured all this out, though. They'll wait for their chance.

jonu
12-04-2016, 05:43 PM
Jonu, you could try linking up the dots. Andrew Little has called JK's bluff, and JK backed out of the situation with a typical smart-arsed comment in the House. He didn't answer the question though. He's a very slippery eel. Quite a few members of the press seem to have figured all this out, though. They'll wait for their chance.

If that's all you've got El Z I would be apologising and retracting real quick if I were you. None of that equates to fabrications and lies. Slander is a very expensive mistake to make.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 06:32 PM
If that's all you've got El Z I would be apologising and retracting real quick if I were you. None of that equates to fabrications and lies. Slander is a very expensive mistake to make.

John Key told all of us very recently that the foreign trust settings were unchanged from when Labour was in power. One of the settings relates to the tax rate levied. John Key made sure that rate was dropped from 28% (sensible) to 0% in September 2011. It was rammed through despite opposition from Labour, NZ First, the Greens. They just didn't have the numbers to stop it. Did John think no-one would bother to look back at the record? That's the precise time when we started to become a tax haven. John Key did it.

jonu
12-04-2016, 07:39 PM
John Key told all of us very recently that the foreign trust settings were unchanged from when Labour was in power. One of the settings relates to the tax rate levied. John Key made sure that rate was dropped from 28% (sensible) to 0% in September 2011. It was rammed through despite opposition from Labour, NZ First, the Greens. They just didn't have the numbers to stop it. Did John think no-one would bother to look back at the record? That's the precise time when we started to become a tax haven. John Key did it.

Still no fabrication or lies. Also Key was saying that the necessary questions weren't asked under Labour either. This is what hasn't changed. Are you saying taxing dodgy money from overseas suddenly makes it OK?

El Z your obvious frustration at Labour's inability to get any traction against Key shouldn't result in you making baseless claims in this forum.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 09:17 PM
Still no fabrication or lies. Also Key was saying that the necessary questions weren't asked under Labour either. This is what hasn't changed. Are you saying taxing dodgy money from overseas suddenly makes it OK?

El Z your obvious frustration at Labour's inability to get any traction against Key shouldn't result in you making baseless claims in this forum.

Read this link carefully. (http://thestandard.org.nz/key-changed-the-law-to-turn-nz-into-a-tax-haven/)Foreign investors can set up a trust in NZ, invest in a fund run from NZ that in turn invests only in foreign assets or financial instruments, but after JK's 'new tax rate', they'll pay no tax on that income. NZers who invested in the same fund, will have to pay tax at the PIE rate (28%). The extra advantage that hasn't changed I guess, is that foreign investors don't necessarily get their trust details bandied about, unless they are unlucky enough to be resident in a country we have a tax treaty with, and someone asks IRD in the correct way. No treaty, no details are passed on, full stop. In which case they'll probably not document their trust if they think they can get away with it, or they'll invest somewhere else.

When the tax rate was 28%, there would have been hardly any takers for these PIE funds. Then came the JK difference (NO TAX) and suddenly the money came flooding in. The settings were OK when Labour set it up, because the fair tax rate discouraged that type of investor. Maybe the trust rules need looking at too, but it's the combination of the trust rules and the new zero tax rate that constitutes a haven.

Since a trustee for a foreign trust has to produce a utilities bill and a passport to prove they are resident in NZ, but then only needs to state that the settlor is foreign based, with no further details provided, what is to stop a NZ fraudster from setting themselves up in a foreign trust here? The massive advantage is that they can then effectively invest in one of these foreign equity PIE funds, and pay no tax on the returns. As soon as the tax rate for one side is 28%, the other 0%, the obvious is going to happen.

jonu
12-04-2016, 09:42 PM
Read this link carefully. (http://thestandard.org.nz/key-changed-the-law-to-turn-nz-into-a-tax-haven/)Foreign investors can set up a trust in NZ, invest in a fund run from NZ that in turn invests only in foreign assets or financial instruments, but after JK's 'new tax rate', they'll pay no tax on that income. NZers who invested in the same fund, will have to pay tax at the PIE rate (28%). The extra advantage that hasn't changed I guess, is that foreign investors don't necessarily get their trust details bandied about, unless they are unlucky enough to be resident in a country we have a tax treaty with, and someone asks IRD in the correct way. No treaty, no details are passed on, full stop. In which case they'll probably not document their trust if they think they can get away with it, or they'll invest somewhere else.

When the tax rate was 28%, there would have been hardly any takers for these PIE funds. Then came the JK difference (NO TAX) and suddenly the money came flooding in. The settings were OK when Labour set it up, because the fair tax rate discouraged that type of investor. Maybe the trust rules need looking at too, but it's the combination of the trust rules and the new zero tax rate that constitutes a haven.

Since a trustee for a foreign trust has to produce a utilities bill and a passport to prove they are resident in NZ, but then only needs to state that the settlor is foreign based, with no further details provided, what is to stop a NZ fraudster from setting themselves up in a foreign trust here? The massive advantage is that they can then effectively invest in one of these foreign equity PIE funds, and pay no tax on the returns. As soon as the tax rate for one side is 28%, the other 0%, the obvious is going to happen.

Yes El Z, at least now you are back on topic. Your post articulates the argument about the overseas trusts well. Still no lies and fabrications.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 10:13 PM
Yes El Z, at least now you are back on topic. Your post articulates the argument about the overseas trusts well. Still no lies and fabrications.

John Key said we had a tax treaty agreement with Malta the other day. Turns out we don't (http://www.lowtax.net/information/malta/malta-double-tax-treaties.html), but Malta was also mentioned a lot in the Panama Papers. He just made it up, then he said (when tackled on it by Corin Dann) that this was the advice he'd been given. That's either a fabrication or a lie also. Who in their right mind would give false details to the PM when they know he's going to answer questions in the House? He will never say he just made a mistake and adjust the record, he'll carry it right through. The USA, UK, Australia and another 57 countries have double-tax treaties with Malta, we don't. Maybe John was thinking about his time in Merrill Lynch. Anyway, he was wrong, he made up his own facts, as he often does.

We should now have a reporter ask JK who the staffer was that gave him the wrong facts, and then John would have to tell us another porkie.

jonu
12-04-2016, 10:28 PM
John Key said we had a tax treaty agreement with Malta the other day. Turns out we don't (http://www.lowtax.net/information/malta/malta-double-tax-treaties.html), but Malta was also mentioned a lot in the Panama Papers. He just made it up, then he said (when tackled on it by Corin Dann) that this was the advice he'd been given. That's either a fabrication or a lie also. Who in their right mind would give false details to the PM when they know he's going to answer questions in the House? He will never say he just made a mistake and adjust the record, he'll carry it right through. The USA, UK, Australia and another 57 countries have double-tax treaties with Malta, we don't. Maybe John was thinking about his time in Merrill Lynch. Anyway, he was wrong, he made up his own facts, as he often does.

We should now have a reporter ask JK who the staffer was that gave him the wrong facts, and then John would have to tell us another porkie.

Why would he bother lying about that? Being wrong about something doesn't make it a lie. I can see you are passionate in your views El Z but this sort of stuff doesn't do you or Labour any good.

elZorro
12-04-2016, 10:47 PM
Why would he bother lying about that? Being wrong about something doesn't make it a lie. I can see you are passionate in your views El Z but this sort of stuff doesn't do you or Labour any good.

He bothers to lie or make stuff up, because he's trying to singlehandedly defuse any situation he's in, without admitting any fault. He generally gets away with it, but don't forget, he's not a trader anymore. He's the PM of NZ, he has to uphold the standards of public office.

I'm writing as a concerned voter, not part of the Labour hierarchy, that's for sure. Labour ran a clean campaign in 2014, I expect they'll do so again for 2017.

Vernon Small on Key's assets. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/78778585/NZ-PM-John-Key-refuses-to-release-tax-records-what-do-we-know-of-his-assets

Some of the comments are interesting.

winner69
13-04-2016, 05:27 AM
"As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people" says Bernie Sanders

Little should be saying "as long as Wellington is bought and paid for by Key's American bosses, NZ can't build an economy that works for people"

Daytr
13-04-2016, 06:25 AM
I think National have been in power long enough to take responsibility for all matters pertaining to governing NZ.
This blaming a party that has ben in power for 8 years is ridiculous.
The fact is, it was brought to the government's attention three years ago & again a year later and try decided to do noting about these foreign trusts.
Just ask yourself why do foreign trusts exist at all?
And what business has someone in the prime minister's seat entering into a blind trust !


Still no fabrication or lies. Also Key was saying that the necessary questions weren't asked under Labour either. This is what hasn't changed. Are you saying taxing dodgy money from overseas suddenly makes it OK?

El Z your obvious frustration at Labour's inability to get any traction against Key shouldn't result in you making baseless claims in this forum.

Daytr
13-04-2016, 06:38 AM
This fiasco over the Kermadecs is a complete botch up by the government.
Why on earth wouldn't they have consulted with Māori?
Are they naïve, arrogant or just plain stupid.
Not for the first time National are seen to be ruling by the seat of their pants.
Do they actually think things through? They have done so many back flips in their time in government its clear they don't.

macduffy
13-04-2016, 06:59 AM
And what business has someone in the prime minister's seat entering into a blind trust !


Really? So what is a prime minister to do with his/her assets to avoid accusations of conflicts of interest involving those assets?

Oh, and Helen Clark had a blind trust when she was prime minister - according to the NZ Herald.

Daytr
13-04-2016, 07:12 AM
There are plenty of fund manager options available Macduff.
And this thing about two wrongs make a right doesn't wash.


Really? So what is a prime minister to do with his/her assets to avoid accusations of conflicts of interest involving those assets?

Oh, and Helen Clark had a blind trust when she was prime minister - according to the NZ Herald.

elZorro
13-04-2016, 07:24 AM
"As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people" says Bernie Sanders

Little should be saying "as long as Wellington is bought and paid for by Key's American bosses, NZ can't build an economy that works for people"

W69, I think this comment piece goes along with that. Very interesting observation by Tom.


What are democracy and social welfare, if not compromises accepted by the rich and powerful as a trade off to protect their stashes?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/78776917/foreign-trusts-the-defence-deconstructed?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+April+2016

And more about the Antipodes firm:
http://thestandard.org.nz/can-we-trust-john-key/

westerly
13-04-2016, 09:10 AM
Yes El Z, at least now you are back on topic. Your post articulates the argument about the overseas trusts well. Still no lies and fabrications.

If you want information on NZ foreign trusts this may help http://www.nexustrust.com/productandservice.htm

westerly

jonu
13-04-2016, 09:18 AM
If you want information on NZ foreign trusts this may help http://www.nexustrust.com/productandservice.htm

westerly

Thanks Westerly, but what I was looking for was the substance to El Z's slanderous accusations of fabrications and lies. As is often the case when things are debated in online forums and in the media, the goalposts are shifted slightly all the time, without points and accusations being proven. When someone is caught out they just jump to something else. Politicians are masters at it and so is El Z.

westerly
13-04-2016, 11:02 AM
Thanks Westerly, but what I was looking for was the substance to El Z's slanderous accusations of fabrications and lies. As is often the case when things are debated in online forums and in the media, the goalposts are shifted slightly all the time, without points and accusations being proven. When someone is caught out they just jump to something else. Politicians are masters at it and so is El Z.

Jonu, as you say politicians are masters at covering their tracks. The first qualification, and possibly the only one for a politician, is being adept at public speaking. If you call changing their mind subsequent to what they first said backtracking, forgetfulness, or even lying probably depends on whether you believe what they are saying is true or a cover up and your political allegiance. Just google backtracks or lies along with whoevers name and you get all sorts of views.

westerly

jonu
13-04-2016, 11:46 AM
Jonu, as you say politicians are masters at covering their tracks. The first qualification, and possibly the only one for a politician, is being adept at public speaking. If you call changing their mind subsequent to what they first said backtracking, forgetfulness, or even lying probably depends on whether you believe what they are saying is true or a cover up and your political allegiance. Just google backtracks or lies along with whoevers name and you get all sorts of views.

westerly

Westerly no doubt you have noticed MPs are very careful not to call each other liars outside the House. There is good reason for this. If El Z has proof of lies that would stand up in court he should state it with confidence (he hasn't yet); if not he should have his cheque book at the ready to pay out whoever he slanders by calling them a liar in a public forum.

westerly
13-04-2016, 12:12 PM
Westerly no doubt you have noticed MPs are very careful not to call each other liars outside the House. There is good reason for this. If El Z has proof of lies that would stand up in court he should state it with confidence (he hasn't yet); if not he should have his cheque book at the ready to pay out whoever he slanders by calling them a liar in a public forum.

Really? They do it inside and outside the House.

westerly

winner69
13-04-2016, 12:19 PM
@Dovil: Considering I know the PM trims his pubes, had a vasectomy and pees in his shower you'd think showing a tax return would be the least of it.

(From twitterland)

jonu
13-04-2016, 12:32 PM
Really? They do it inside and outside the House.

westerly

I think if you check the language they use outside the House you will find they are much more considered in their comments. They may use every euphemism possible but they wont use the word liar.

Sgt Pepper
13-04-2016, 01:52 PM
Apparently there are 70 heads of government mentioned in the Panama Papers which will be presumably be disclosed as investigators make there way through the vast amount of documentation which has been leaked. I note this afternoon, in response to a question the Prime Minister said " I have had no dealings with Panama"

Snow Leopard
13-04-2016, 04:14 PM
Why have I found out about this via the Guardian and not the NZ press (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/13/the-great-escape-inky-the-octopus-legs-it-to-freedom-from-new-zealand-aquarium)?

Why is the government not commenting?

What is John Key going to do about it or his he going to try and dismiss it with a joke?

Will the Labour party formulate a policy to prevent such happenings on their watch?

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

Major von Tempsky
13-04-2016, 05:06 PM
Ha! Ha! EZ quoting Bernie Sanders approvingly. Now all we need is for him to quote Jeremy Corbyn approvingly. Talk about the anti-Midas touch!

elZorro
13-04-2016, 05:50 PM
I think if you check the language they use outside the House you will find they are much more considered in their comments. They may use every euphemism possible but they wont use the word liar.

I think I'm on very safe ground.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

And, I think the link between John Key and the word "lies" or "lying" would be fairly strong over the internet. Who is he going to sue? All of us?

BlackPeter
13-04-2016, 06:13 PM
Why have I found out about this via the Guardian and not the NZ press (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/13/the-great-escape-inky-the-octopus-legs-it-to-freedom-from-new-zealand-aquarium)?

Why is the government not commenting?

What is John Key going to do about it or his he going to try and dismiss it with a joke?

Will the Labour party formulate a policy to prevent such happenings on their watch?

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

Oh dear ... now you've done it. EZ and his soul mates will regurgitate this unfortunate event until Inky comes home or Labour looses the next election (whatever comes first).

Not sure either how any responsible PM could allow such a terrible thing to happen. On the other hand, given that Inky is probably a Leftie (he used the sewer to escape), maybe the whole affair was just a political amnesty? Still concerning, given that he was incarcerated without having had his day in court first.

I suppose National is already briefing CT to start a campaign to limit larger public damage ...

BlackPeter
13-04-2016, 06:19 PM
I think I'm on very safe ground.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

And, I think the link between John Key and the word "lies" or "lying" would be fairly strong over the internet. Who is he going to sue? All of us?

Yak, need to clean my laptop screen after opening your link ... do you really read this junk? Remember - not everything on the internet is true or legal ...

elZorro
13-04-2016, 09:32 PM
Yak, need to clean my laptop screen after opening your link ... do you really read this junk? Remember - not everything on the internet is true or legal ...

It is a big list, some fibs/lies are bigger than others, sure.

Andrew Little has supplied his tax returns since 2010, from before he left the EPMU. Still no action on that from John Key, but he did spend all of Sunday checking with his two financial advisors, one in NZ and one in USA. So he didn't know for sure what was going on, and was a bit worried about it. It's all sorted now.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html

elZorro
14-04-2016, 08:51 PM
A blog on the Panama papers and an interesting comment about John Key, from Chris Trotter.

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/other-peoples-secrets-how-important-are.html

Gareth Vaughan had an article about wide gaps in our financial services industry in NZ, late last year. It has taken the Panama Papers to galvanise the govt into, well, getting one of their mates to file a report.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/78051/gareth-vaughan-wonders-whether-sign-saying-welcome-john-keys-south-pacific-money

winner69
16-04-2016, 03:23 AM
Weekend reading EZ

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

labour not trying trying to come up with a coherent alternative - as George says "the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century."

Labour too like National - that will never get them in power

elZorro
16-04-2016, 01:05 PM
Weekend reading EZ

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

labour not trying trying to come up with a coherent alternative - as George says "the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century."

Labour too like National - that will never get them in power

Very interesting article, W69. It sounds very accurate too. I'd much prefer a Keynesian approach to the neoliberal one, but as the article concludes, there has to be something in there about the environment too. If we grow the economy by whatever means is easiest at the moment, we'll end up with accelerated global warming, no-one wins. There's a lot there about the greedy few at the top, the mechanisms and the decades of combined effort that got them into the favoured position that they are in now. Knowing for sure that most of them pay hardly any tax, really rankles.

We'll need lots of lower cost, carbon neutral energy to dig ourselves out of the situation ahead. Maybe that's a core objective of any new political system.

macduffy
16-04-2016, 01:30 PM
There's a lot there about the greedy few at the top, the mechanisms and the decades of combined effort that got them into the favoured position that they are in now. Knowing for sure that most of them pay hardly any tax, really rankles.


Ah, yes! The greedy few. The rest of us are lily-white innocents.

;)

elZorro
16-04-2016, 02:07 PM
Ah, yes! The greedy few. The rest of us are lily-white innocents.

;)

I didn't say we were, but the main fact is that once people get to be really rich, they tend to pay other specialists to minimise their tax, that is the step they take, the step too far, as far as I'm concerned. Once governments ensure that this process is made easier, they are complicit, especially if they don't close loopholes down when they are noticed.

Most National MPs are wealthier than, say, Labour or Green MPs. In fact National MPs with their "stated wealth" are still making up the top ten wealthiest MPs at the moment. There is a rumour that John Key is worth a lot more than about $50mill. In which case, a conservative 10% return on even $50mill p.a. invested in equities or other decent investments, not property holdings, is $5mill, and taxed at about 33% is an eye-watering $1.65mill in taxes p.a.. I bet John's not paying that, hence he's not going to show us his tax returns. But the IRD expects anyone on wages earning over about $45,000 to be paying 33% PAYE, and businesses as well are effectively tied to the same rates once they pull money out of the firm. Remember SMEs, the "backbone of the economy" and major employers?

If John Key wants us to believe that he's not using tax havens or other means of tax minimisation that normal people don't access, then he has to prove it by releasing his tax returns. And yes, by comparison, the rest of us are innocents.

craic
16-04-2016, 04:10 PM
John Key does not have to prove anything - he is subject to the same rigorous examination by Inland Revenue as is every other taxpayer. He is not a fool so he knows that "Giving unto Caesar that which is etc." is the simple and effective way. and protects you from the allegations of lies by the left.




























































































'

westerly
16-04-2016, 04:14 PM
Weekend reading EZ

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

labour not trying trying to come up with a coherent alternative - as George says "the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century."

Labour too like National - that will never get them in power

No National on the surface is like Labour all the while implementing neo liberal policies in a slow and devious way. Labour has to pull back from centre right and move to the left. The younger generation need a helping hand in housing and leaving it to developers will never work.

westerly

elZorro
16-04-2016, 04:26 PM
John Key does not have to prove anything - he is subject to the same rigorous examination by Inland Revenue as is every other taxpayer. He is not a fool so he knows that "Giving unto Caesar that which is etc." is the simple and effective way. and protects you from the allegations of lies by the left.

I don't think you made the effort to read the article W69 posted, Craic. It spells it out, the neolibs set up the rules so they could dodge tax, thus more speedily bringing on more inequality. So John Key's just doing what almost everyone at the top is doing, most likely. He can prove me wrong, simply by furnishing his tax returns. It might be legal to do that, but is it morally acceptable? And is this the behaviour we expect from a PM? Or even an MP?

777
16-04-2016, 04:35 PM
I don't think you made the effort to read the article W69 posted, Craic. It spells it out, the neolibs set up the rules so they could dodge tax, thus more speedily bringing on more inequality. So John Key's just doing what almost everyone at the top is doing, most likely. He can prove me wrong, simply by furnishing his tax returns. It might be legal to do that, but is it morally acceptable? And is this the behaviour we expect from a PM? Or even an MP?

The most idiotic, inaccurate rant I have ever read on share trader. You live in a dreamworld eZ.

elZorro
16-04-2016, 04:48 PM
The most idiotic, inaccurate rant I have ever read on share trader. You live in a dreamworld eZ.

??? Prove I'm wrong. There have been books written about this, they'd back it up. This has been a long-term dream for the world's wealthy elite, and it's here.

BlackPeter
16-04-2016, 04:58 PM
I don't think you made the effort to read the article W69 posted, Craic. It spells it out, the neolibs set up the rules so they could dodge tax, thus more speedily bringing on more inequality. So John Key's just doing what almost everyone at the top is doing, most likely. He can prove me wrong, simply by furnishing his tax returns. It might be legal to do that, but is it morally acceptable? And is this the behaviour we expect from a PM? Or even an MP?

EZ, not sure about John Key, but your behaviour is clearly not morally acceptable. You throw mud and hope something sticks ... but it is you who sticks to the neck in some soft smelly brown mass, not John Key. You accuse John Key of something you are yourself. You call him a liar and a tax avoider. Given that you have not a shred of evidence to support your dirty allegations - what does this make you?

Put up or shut up ... anyway - daytr was long enough by his own on the ignore list. Up there you go ...

tim23
16-04-2016, 05:13 PM
I think that's way off the mark - hes right on the money, the poor don't have the means to avoid tax but the wealthy do - hardly seems moral does it?
The most idiotic, inaccurate rant I have ever read on share trader. You live in a dreamworld eZ.

fungus pudding
16-04-2016, 05:38 PM
I think that's way off the mark - hes right on the money, the poor don't have the means to avoid tax but the wealthy do - hardly seems moral does it?


You are way off the mark. Having money does not make anyone morally questionable. That is absurd. eZ is riddled with paranoia, envy and hatred. Surely you can do better than firing around ridiculous comments as he does. Applying logic will get you further.

elZorro
16-04-2016, 05:55 PM
Look, Tim23, if you or I ever get to a point where we have more money than we know what to do with, remember that one way we got there might have been to not pay any tax or employ anybody, if we can help it. Those sorts of things are for fools. In fact, I've been advised recently, that even working is for fools.

We must think a lot more about being rentiers, about unearned income. Once we get to this happy state, we must then go to the next level, where we hide all of the income in some tax haven or more property (take your choice, or do both), and not pay any tax on our income back to the NZ govt. They of course, are inefficient with it, and do not deserve our largesse. While we're at it, let's ensure the govt that we put into play keeps unemployment high, govt debt high, and that these settings stay in place for decades. In lieu of taxes, some hefty donations to this party, and some advertising/sponsorship in exchange for devt grants and other lobbied govt policies, will keep the whole thing going. Remember, votes from the hoi polloi can be bought, it's a very simple rule.

winner69
16-04-2016, 06:02 PM
Where does National get all their dosh from these days?

elZorro
16-04-2016, 06:15 PM
Where does National get all their dosh from these days?

Lots of different people, W69. Apparently, they'll go to golf days and pay $300 a ticket. Or evening meals at $1500 a pop, with 3-4 MPs present. What sort of people can afford this, you may ask? Not the sort that don't even own their own house yet, that's for sure. But National seems to find enough of them to easily fund their campaigns.

777
16-04-2016, 06:52 PM
I think that's way off the mark - hes right on the money, the poor don't have the means to avoid tax but the wealthy do - hardly seems moral does it?

Right on the money. eZ????

In his thinking, and obviously yours, National is for the rich and Labour is for the poor. Do you really believe that?

This is a great country for those that get off their arse. Those that do should not be knocked down by the likes of eZ.

777
16-04-2016, 07:07 PM
Look, Tim23, if you or I ever get to a point where we have more money than we know what to do with, remember that one way we got there might have been to not pay any tax or employ anybody, if we can help it. Those sorts of things are for fools. In fact, I've been advised recently, that even working is for fools.

We must think a lot more about being rentiers, about unearned income. Once we get to this happy state, we must then go to the next level, where we hide all of the income in some tax haven or more property (take your choice, or do both), and not pay any tax on our income back to the NZ govt. They of course, are inefficient with it, and do not deserve our largesse. While we're at it, let's ensure the govt that we put into play keeps unemployment high, govt debt high, and that these settings stay in place for decades. In lieu of taxes, some hefty donations to this party, and some advertising/sponsorship in exchange for devt grants and other lobbied govt policies, will keep the whole thing going. Remember, votes from the hoi polloi can be bought, it's a very simple rule.

You have just succeeded in bettering your previous posting as an idiotic rant. You hate success, full stop.

tim23
16-04-2016, 08:32 PM
Not atall - clearly we all can't succeed, if everyone was motivated you still get a gap. I like Labour because they are more inclusive for the greater good if you like. Good advice for you would be to read Duncan Garners Dompost column last weekend and you will draw the conclusion that NZ today is strongly shaped by Labour governments. 616337]Right on the money. eZ????

In his thinking, and obviously yours, National is for the rich and Labour is for the poor. Do you really believe that?

This is a great country for those that get off their arse. Those that do should not be knocked down by the likes of eZ.[/QUOTE]

tim23
16-04-2016, 08:35 PM
I never said those with money are morally questionable but clearly some are but that's okay by you. As for ridiculous comments - take a look in the mirror. QUOTE=fungus pudding;616330]You are way off the mark. Having money does not make anyone morally questionable. That is absurd. eZ is riddled with paranoia, envy and hatred. Surely you can do better than firing around ridiculous comments as he does. Applying logic will get you further.[/QUOTE]

elZorro
16-04-2016, 08:52 PM
You have just succeeded in bettering your previous posting as an idiotic rant. You hate success, full stop.

777, I don't hate success. For me, success is paying my way first as an employee, then as an employer, and earning foreign exchange through exporting efforts. I own property, but I use it, I don't rent it out. This means that any income I earn will generally attract tax, which I'm happy to pay. I don't go out of my way to invest in areas I'm not interested in, or arranging my affairs inside trusts, just to minimise tax. But many do, and they are now getting to the point of crippling NZ's tax base -helped along by National's policy settings, which they are using to bankrupt the Crown while ensuring they stay in power with what are effectively backhanders.

It's a shambles that Labour will have to inevitably fix up for the rest of us, just so National can get back in and do the same all over again. The Crown has lost about $4.9billion in capital in the last 8 months - have a look at the Crown Net Worth chart sometime, 777, and then get back to us about how the Crown can be going backwards, while the chosen few are getting richer every year.

777
16-04-2016, 09:13 PM
Ez where would all your mates live if there were no property was rented out. Trusts pay taxes, although your Labour brethren would have you believe not. Get real. If there is a shambles developing, and I don't believe there is, then there is not a a hope in hell of Labour having enough ability to fix it. They are simply a bunch of twats with do direction or ability to do anything except to take a negative approach to life in general. Just look at them, they can't even find a party leader that works, nor is there anyone else to try. Nash and Ardhern are not capable although certain areas of the media are trying to promote them.

This country needs two strong parties but unfortunately it only has one, and a bunch of misfits who know jack all about responsibility to run a country.

Dedication is one thing but you are on a hiding to nothing. Give up while you are behind.

elZorro
16-04-2016, 09:20 PM
Ez where would all your mates live if there were no property was rented out. Trusts pay taxes, although your Labour brethren would have you believe not. Get real. If there is a shambles developing, and I don't believe there is, then there is not a a hope in hell of Labour having enough ability to fix it. They are simply a bunch of twats with do direction or ability to do anything except to take a negative approach to life in general. Just look at them, they can't even find a party leader that works, nor is there anyone else to try. Nash and Ardhern are not capable although certain areas of the media are trying to promote them.

This country needs two strong parties but unfortunately it only has one, and a bunch of misfits who know jack all about responsibility to run a country.

Dedication is one thing but you are on a hiding to nothing. Give up while you are behind.

Perhaps you are not well read, 777. I have history on my side. You do not.

777
16-04-2016, 09:41 PM
Perhaps you are not well read, 777. I have history on my side. You do not.

How do you know? More rubbish but at least your posting are getting shorter. Your history to me is this thread. Whoppity do.

winner69
17-04-2016, 07:45 AM
Lots of different people, W69. Apparently, they'll go to golf days and pay $300 a ticket. Or evening meals at $1500 a pop, with 3-4 MPs present. What sort of people can afford this, you may ask? Not the sort that don't even own their own house yet, that's for sure. But National seems to find enough of them to easily fund their campaigns.

Wonder how much foreign money surreptitiously finds its way into National's coffers?

Or is that used to influence the influencers?

craic
17-04-2016, 08:00 AM
What is foreign money? Would the Labour party reject donations in US dollars? - in Australian dollars? - in Chinese currency? Most of the major banks here are foreign owned. The sharemarket is open to foreign investment and Kiwis can invest their cash in dozens of other countries. Maybe a less emotive accusation wondering "how much foreign money surreptitiously fins it way into National coffers?" would help.

elZorro
17-04-2016, 09:11 AM
Wonder how much foreign money surreptitiously finds its way into National's coffers?

Or is that used to influence the influencers?

We'd have no way of knowing. However many of the National MPs are independently wealthy. For them, being an MP is more about status and power, than an income stream. One of the local National MPs has been informed by head office that he can't fund his own campaign by simply writing out a cheque as per usual, he'll need to actually make a public attempt at fundraising. How dreary for him.

Daytr
17-04-2016, 09:20 AM
I suggest you re-read what you write. "A bunch of twats" ! And much of the rest of your post is so one eyed , its hard to take you seriously.
Grow up.


Ez where would all your mates live if there were no property was rented out. Trusts pay taxes, although your Labour brethren would have you believe not. Get real. If there is a shambles developing, and I don't believe there is, then there is not a a hope in hell of Labour having enough ability to fix it. They are simply a bunch of twats with do direction or ability to do anything except to take a negative approach to life in general. Just look at them, they can't even find a party leader that works, nor is there anyone else to try. Nash and Ardhern are not capable although certain areas of the media are trying to promote them.

This country needs two strong parties but unfortunately it only has one, and a bunch of misfits who know jack all about responsibility to run a country.

Dedication is one thing but you are on a hiding to nothing. Give up while you are behind.

777
17-04-2016, 09:47 AM
So it is OK for you and eZ to be one eyed but not anyone that does not agree with you and you tell me to grow up. You are a laugh a minute.

Daytr
17-04-2016, 09:55 AM
Am I one eyed? I criticize both parties.
You only have to look back over the last few political posts I have made where I have criticized Little's leadership and given National credit over their proposed changes to Child Services.
I am waiting for a party to step forth with long term policy that benefits NZ as a whole.
Not the shortism we are seeing from the current government .
Calling a political party a bunch of twats is not only unintelligent, its generalist & ridiculous in this case.

elZorro
17-04-2016, 11:56 AM
How do you know? More rubbish but at least your posting are getting shorter. Your history to me is this thread. Whoppity do.

What I meant is that the last few decades of political history have been recorded in books, in Wikipedia, on the web in other areas, and in statistical records held by the state. You just need to access those, and you might have a different opinion.

I found it strange that you mentioned "Labour brethren" when of course history also records that it's National that has/had strong links with Brethren Church members. That helped cost National the knife-edge 2005 election, after they were on a roll after employing Crosby-Textor the year before. They still employ them, arguably the world's best neoliberal campaign advisors. What's the common theme here? The National Party generally accesses bigger pools of funds, and uses that to buy votes with better advice, better marketing, better spin. And the funders are after the status quo, thanks, or more of the same.

craic
17-04-2016, 12:07 PM
And all Labour can do to counter the successful management of National by National is to waste its limited resources on backing a new loser at very regular intervals.

Sgt Pepper
17-04-2016, 12:14 PM
We'd have no way of knowing. However many of the National MPs are independently wealthy. For them, being an MP is more about status and power, than an income stream. One of the local National MPs has been informed by head office that he can't fund his own campaign by simply writing out a cheque as per usual, he'll need to actually make a public attempt at fundraising. How dreary for him.

EZ
The poor man, does he actually have to man the sausage stand instead of going out sailing.!
By the way, down here in the south all quiet lately in the Clutha Southland electorate, resignations from National office holders etc. I eagerly await developments.

Daytr
17-04-2016, 12:30 PM
I hardly call successful management wracking up debt! Anyone can do that!
SERCO appointment was that good management ?
The teachers payroll disaster that went on for years.
The constant restructuring of DOC & they still can't get it right.
The squandering of $28M or whatever it was on a flag referendum.
CHC earthquake recovery project has been mismanaged and far too slow.
They haven't even spent a third of the $18billion allocated yet.
Why because I would make the government debt blowout further.
They have 60k extra people piling into the country every year putting stress on resources and infrastructure and all they do is spend billions on motorways.
Labour have a far better record in managing the economy than National do.
Unfortunately the current lot don't seem to be able to convey a plan hat people will buy into.
A decent opposition would tar National to shreds.



And all Labour can do to counter the successful management of National by National is to waste its limited resources on backing a new loser at very regular intervals.

craic
17-04-2016, 12:53 PM
Maybe if you stopped elevating your own opinion to the status of infallibility and went instead to opinion of the majority of NZ voters you would see that you are probably wrong. Even the All Blacks might be '" torn to shreds by a decent opposition". The fact is National is the best team on the park now and your inability to see that is a problem for you.

Daytr
17-04-2016, 01:33 PM
Not unlike you Craic to make a personal jibe. Seems to be the modus operandi of the right.
I would rather have a party that was stagnant than one that charges off with random policy that hasn't been thought through.
I have lost count the number of back flips National have made under Key.

tim23
17-04-2016, 02:31 PM
I concur, "a bunch of twats" that's plain stupid - too many gins last night? They are not a bunch of misfits either, just people dedicated to trying to make NZ even better. Mind you probably thought Clark & Cullen & co were misfits too, suspect the only misfit is you.
I suggest you re-read what you write. "A bunch of twats" ! And much of the rest of your post is so one eyed , its hard to take you seriously.
Grow up.

tim23
17-04-2016, 02:33 PM
A typically Tory view - for some silly reason you think you are born to rule as I keep saying NZ today has been shaped more from Labour than National policies, even you might be able to figure that out?
Maybe if you stopped elevating your own opinion to the status of infallibility and went instead to opinion of the majority of NZ voters you would see that you are probably wrong. Even the All Blacks might be '" torn to shreds by a decent opposition". The fact is National is the best team on the park now and your inability to see that is a problem for you.

tim23
17-04-2016, 02:40 PM
They just have an opinion - but at least don't resort to childish comments like "misfits" & "twats" - which private school did you attend?
So it is OK for you and eZ to be one eyed but not anyone that does not agree with you and you tell me to grow up. You are a laugh a minute.

elZorro
17-04-2016, 06:07 PM
Thanks for adding a bit of pushback on the name-calling, Tim23. Cold, hard facts are all that is needed to win an argument about politics in NZ. You just can't compare the last 9 year term under Labour, with the 7 years we've had under National, without getting a bit grumpy about what we've lost out on.

The press are still mostly helping National out, but again, it's easy to deconstruct their arguments.

http://thestandard.org.nz/opinion-pieces-on-labour/

In the news today, we are being warned by scientists about the ongoing perils for our aquifer water from having the equivalent of 100 million humans defecating, without a proper sewage system, into our waterways. The dairy boom and quick bust was promoted under National as a major policy, and they are still working on irrigation systems to assist dairy farmers in regions that didn't formerly suit dairying, like Canterbury.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71734277/nz-irrigation-and-its-guilty-secrets.html

tim23
17-04-2016, 07:28 PM
Just watched Sunday Jonathan Coleman in denial re obesity reminded me of ex MP Katherine Rich from Food Council saying that people weren't influenced by marketing by alcohol companies - really Katherine? That's why Steinlager are involved with the All Blacks and of course we know that All Blacks tell you how to vote on polling day and which flag to choose... p
Thanks for adding a bit of pushback on the name-calling, Tim23. Cold, hard facts are all that is needed to win an argument about politics in NZ. You just can't compare the last 9 year term under Labour, with the 7 years we've had under National, without getting a bit grumpy about what we've lost out on.

The press are still mostly helping National out, but again, it's easy to deconstruct their arguments.

http://thestandard.org.nz/opinion-pieces-on-labour/

In the news today, we are being warned by scientists about the ongoing perils for our aquifer water from having the equivalent of 100 million humans defecating, without a proper sewage system, into our waterways. The dairy boom and quick bust was promoted under National as a major policy, and they are still working on irrigation systems to assist dairy farmers in regions that didn't formerly suit dairying, like Canterbury.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71734277/nz-irrigation-and-its-guilty-secrets.html

Daytr
18-04-2016, 06:21 AM
We can add the giving away of our water to corporations & foreign interests to the list of botch ups by National.
And just look at the list of directors behind these companies making a motza by bottling & shipping off our free water from our purest sources.
Jenny Shipley of course, is there a trough she isn't at? I can't believe she may have been considered for the GG gig.
Orivida all over it of course as is their involvement in the dodgy practice of ancient Kauri export.
But according to Nick Smith its ok and we shouldn't be charging for this precious resource!
Just who are these clowns working for!

elZorro
18-04-2016, 07:16 AM
We can add the giving away of our water to corporations & foreign interests to the list of botch ups by National.
And just look at the list of directors behind these companies making a motza by bottling & shipping off our free water from our purest sources.
Jenny Shipley of course, is there a trough she isn't at? I can't believe she may have been considered for the GG gig.
Orivida all over it of course as is their involvement in the dodgy practice of ancient Kauri export.
But according to Nick Smith its ok and we shouldn't be charging for this precious resource!
Just who are these clowns working for!

Most of these clowns are in the property market too. A recipe for increasing property prices, to guarantee better results from a non-taxable gain, is to keep net immigration high. This has a flow-on effect in keeping wages lower. Of course setting up a tax haven here, makes sure that there is plenty of dodgy money looking for a tax-free investment too.

Gareth Morgan says the govt could easily be missing out on 25% of income tax.

http://thestandard.org.nz/what-tax-evasion-robs-us-of-in-nz/

elZorro
18-04-2016, 05:19 PM
W69, you were wondering where National's funding comes from. Here's one source, the biggest living funder for the National Party in 2014. The story was on One News tonight, and it has been covered by RNZ earlier in the day.

http://thestandard.org.nz/mccully-the-national-party-donation-and-the-niue-resort/

Again, there is some overlap between altruism and sheer commercial interests I think.

http://australia.etbtravelnews.com/180402/founder-scenic-hotel-group-recognised-new-years-honours-list/

Gibraltar Trust uses a Christchurch accountancy firm, and on their taxation page we see a coded reference:

http://www.allottreeves.co.nz/our_services/taxation_services/taxation

Wouldn't it just be great, if someone who is so generous to local causes would also be paying their normal taxes like the rest of us? Why do I get the feeling that these donations are in lieu of some otherwise payable taxes?

Shoot me down if you like, FP, Iceman etc, I probably deserve it.

winner69
18-04-2016, 06:00 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78650109/arrival-of-australian-political-lobbying-firm-in-nz-raises-questions-about-oversight

jonu
18-04-2016, 06:00 PM
Wouldn't it just be great, if someone who is so generous to local causes would also be paying their normal taxes like the rest of us? Why do I get the feeling that these donations are in lieu of some otherwise payable taxes?

Shoot me down if you like, FP, Iceman etc, I probably deserve it.

El Z this is true of any one who donates to a registered charity (local causes)....even you. We all get a tax rebate against what otherwise would have been payable taxes when we donate to charity. I think it is a great incentive to see ones philanthropic contributions to go where one would want them spent, rather than down the bottomless pit of the consolidated fund.

elZorro
18-04-2016, 06:09 PM
El Z this is true of any one who donates to a registered charity (local causes)....even you. We all get a tax rebate against what otherwise would have been payable taxes when we donate to charity. I think it is a great incentive to see ones philanthropic contributions to go where one would want them spent, rather than down the bottomless pit of the consolidated fund.

Maybe, except if this family should really be paying several million in taxes but instead diverts it through trusts so then they've freed up money for "donations", it's not quite the same, is it? Anyway, an undisclosed amount goes to National or more likely ACT, according to this 2014 interview.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/9725378/Hagamans-building-an-empire

craic
18-04-2016, 09:46 PM
And still the polls show that the left is up the creek without a paddle. All the conspiracy theories in the world don't add up to an argument that the public will buy.

elZorro
18-04-2016, 10:07 PM
And still the polls show that the left is up the creek without a paddle. All the conspiracy theories in the world don't add up to an argument that the public will buy.

Craic, this is not a conspiracy theory, it's real life. We just don't think about it that often.

jonu
18-04-2016, 10:21 PM
Maybe, except if this family should really be paying several million in taxes but instead diverts it through trusts so then they've freed up money for "donations", it's not quite the same, is it? Anyway, an undisclosed amount goes to National or more likely ACT, according to this 2014 interview.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/9725378/Hagamans-building-an-empire

NZ registered trusts pay tax too El Z. If they are using one of these "Panama Trusts" you might have something, if not you show little understanding of the tax system.

elZorro
18-04-2016, 10:28 PM
NZ registered trusts pay tax too El Z. If they are using one of these "Panama Trusts" you might have something, if not you show little understanding of the tax system.

Well, a clue might be in the name Gibraltar Trust. And that the tax accountants they use, state they have experience in minimising tax using trusts. So does that mean they're likely to be foreign trusts?

elZorro
19-04-2016, 06:27 AM
Jane Bowron had an interesting article yesterday.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/79012560/hopeless-comment-a-sign-of-a-tired-government

Daytr
19-04-2016, 07:01 AM
150,000 people protest Cameron's Torys and yet it hardly gets a mention in global media!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anti-austerity-protest-50000-london-david-cameron-resignation-trafalgar-square-a6987276.html

elZorro
19-04-2016, 07:38 AM
I think it is a great incentive to see ones philanthropic contributions to go where one would want them spent, rather than down the bottomless pit of the consolidated fund.

So who is this born-to-rule person who doesn't want to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, schools, just to use them when needed, and be a big-noter by 'donating' some of this shady tax money to causes which are probably aligned with their business interests?

Think carefully about the ramifications of this sentence of yours, Jonu. Actually you just parroted it, but if every wageworker refused to have PAYE deducted because it goes into a "consolidated fund", how long do you think it would be before your perfect world came crashing down?

iceman
19-04-2016, 07:58 AM
W69, you were wondering where National's funding comes from. Here's one source, the biggest living funder for the National Party in 2014. The story was on One News tonight, and it has been covered by RNZ earlier in the day.

http://thestandard.org.nz/mccully-the-national-party-donation-and-the-niue-resort/

Again, there is some overlap between altruism and sheer commercial interests I think.

http://australia.etbtravelnews.com/180402/founder-scenic-hotel-group-recognised-new-years-honours-list/

Gibraltar Trust uses a Christchurch accountancy firm, and on their taxation page we see a coded reference:

http://www.allottreeves.co.nz/our_services/taxation_services/taxation

Wouldn't it just be great, if someone who is so generous to local causes would also be paying their normal taxes like the rest of us? Why do I get the feeling that these donations are in lieu of some otherwise payable taxes?

Shoot me down if you like, FP, Iceman etc, I probably deserve it.

You are going completely bonkers EZ. Must be the complete failure of Labour/Little that is driving you mad. I think you need to take a break.
You make it sound like wealthy donors don't pay any tax and choose to direct money that should go to IRD to their chosen charities. If my family Trust donates $100 to a charity, it gets a $28 tax rebate and $72 come from the Trust's tax paid money.

Time to stop with all the conspiracy theories, noone is listening. Come up with some decent policies and someone may start listening to Labour, if its not too late.

fungus pudding
19-04-2016, 08:37 AM
So who is this born-to-rule person who doesn't want to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, schools, just to use them when needed, and be a big-noter by 'donating' some of this shady tax money to causes which are probably aligned with their business interests?

Think carefully about the ramifications of this sentence of yours, Jonu. Actually you just parroted it, but if every wageworker refused to have PAYE deducted because it goes into a "consolidated fund", how long do you think it would be before your perfect world came crashing down?

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of trust law, how charitable donations affect tax, what trusts are for etc. Your paranoia clouds your view about Key. You have no idea what he pays in tax although that doesn't stop you from claiming he's fiddling it as you did in post 10111. To claim property is somehow not 'a decent investment' is plain ignorance. (10111)
And in the same post your claim that someone earning around $45,000 pays 70% tax shows you have no idea how tax is applied. The tax on 45000 is actually 15%. The highest rate of 33% kicks in at 70,000. The total tax on 100,000 is 23%.
You really should learn a thing or two before you start throwing around preposterous allegations that seem to be aimed at anyone who has achieved a level of wealth.

Sgt Pepper
19-04-2016, 08:44 AM
So who is this born-to-rule person who doesn't want to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, schools, just to use them when needed, and be a big-noter by 'donating' some of this shady tax money to causes which are probably aligned with their business interests?

Think carefully about the ramifications of this sentence of yours, Jonu. Actually you just parroted it, but if every wageworker refused to have PAYE deducted because it goes into a "consolidated fund", how long do you think it would be before your perfect world came crashing down?

You make good points EZ
I work in the health service and know full well the disconnect between what the government expects us to deliver and the reality of what funding will provide. On a broader scale you meet some people who have a curious disengagement of their societal obligations to pay their share, yet you know full well that if they wake up in the night with chest pain and their coronary arteries are occluding they will be the first ones to scream for an ambulance and expect the health system to deliver!!

elZorro
19-04-2016, 10:35 AM
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of trust law, how charitable donations affect tax, what trusts are for etc. Your paranoia clouds your view about Key. You have no idea what he pays in tax although that doesn't stop you from claiming he's fiddling it as you did in post 10111. To claim property is somehow not 'a decent investment' is plain ignorance. (10111)
And in the same post your claim that someone earning around $45,000 pays 70% tax shows you have no idea how tax is applied. The tax on 45000 is actually 15%. The highest rate of 33% kicks in at 70,000. The total tax on 100,000 is 23%.
You really should learn a thing or two before you start throwing around preposterous allegations that seem to be aimed at anyone who has achieved a level of wealth.

FP, I might have got it a bit wrong. But not by much. The tax rate of 30% kicks in from $48,000 until $70,000, then after that it's capped at 33%. Not much higher though, than from $48,000 up, is it? And of course I assumed that other posters would know all about the scaled tax rate for lower incomes, I didn't need to spell it out.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/rates/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html

Now when someone is earning really big money, like say over a million p.a., they should be paying tax on almost all of it at 33% once it's in their own hands, not a company (28%), which you cannot deny. It's at this point, or earlier, that I assume the born-to-rule right-wing National/ACT types go and see their friendly tax accountant for advice. And yes, there will be some Labour voters there too, but a lot less in proportion. And any Labour types will probably use property as a tax offset, not a deliberate use of a tax haven.

We could do an informal poll, you right-wing guys seem determined to support any tax-dodging ideas, what would the correlation be I wonder?

777
19-04-2016, 11:27 AM
eZ have read about PIE rates of tax. Even you can earn investment income at 28c/$.

So someone runs a company and pays 28c/$. When they pay it out as a dividend it is taxed by the receiver of that dividend at their marginal tax rate.

Hardly dodging of tax.

elZorro
19-04-2016, 11:51 AM
eZ have read about PIE rates of tax. Even you can earn investment income at 28c/$.

So someone runs a company and pays 28c/$. When they pay it out as a dividend it is taxed by the receiver of that dividend at their marginal tax rate.

Hardly dodging of tax.

What are you talking about 777? I was making the point that the company tax rate is 28%, not 33%, but once the money goes out to shareholders personally, they'll probably need to pay the extra 5% anyway. Even the 28% paid at the company rate would be onerous enough for some shareholders.

Normal NZ company tax rate: 28%. Foreign Tax Haven tax rate: 0%.

fungus pudding
19-04-2016, 12:00 PM
FP, I might have got it a bit wrong. But not by much. The tax rate of 30% kicks in from $48,000 until $70,000, then after that it's capped at 33%. Not much higher though, than from $48,000 up, is it? And of course I assumed that other posters would know all about the scaled tax rate for lower incomes, I didn't need to spell it out.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/rates/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html

Now when someone is earning really big money, like say over a million p.a., they should be paying tax on almost all of it at 33% once it's in their own hands, not a company (28%), which you cannot deny. It's at this point, or earlier, that I assume the born-to-rule right-wing National/ACT types go and see their friendly tax accountant for advice. And yes, there will be some Labour voters there too, but a lot less in proportion. And any Labour types will probably use property as a tax offset, not a deliberate use of a tax haven.

We could do an informal poll, you right-wing guys seem determined to support any tax-dodging ideas, what would the correlation be I wonder?

I see 777 has explained to you that there is no tax advantage by channelling through a company. Dividends paid out attract tax at the recipients marginal rate - less imputed credit for tax the company has paid. I cannot understand your ignorance of such things when you have claimed to be an employer. Obviously you do not trade as a company so I presume you are a sole trader; even so you should know something of tax law. This idea that all high earners are tax dodgers is ridiculous. You were wrong about tax rates. Wrong about charitable donations. Wrong about company tax paid to individuals. You make ridiculous assumptions about political donations. The green eyed monster within will eat you up.

elZorro
19-04-2016, 12:39 PM
I see 777 has explained to you that there is no tax advantage by channelling through a company. Dividends paid out attract tax at the recipients marginal rate - less imputed credit for tax the company has paid. I cannot understand your ignorance of such things when you have claimed to be an employer. Obviously you do not trade as a company so I presume you are a sole trader; even so you should know something of tax law. This idea that all high earners are tax dodgers is ridiculous. You were wrong about tax rates. Wrong about charitable donations. Wrong about company tax paid to individuals. You make ridiculous assumptions about political donations. The green eyed monster within will eat you up.

Stop trying to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, FP. I'm not talking about NZ companies or individuals paying tax at the prescribed rates to the NZ Govt. I know there's no long-term tax advantage there. I did not say that all high earners are tax dodgers. You cannot stop me from jumping to conclusions about John Key's affairs, since he refuses to show us his tax returns. I can only assume there's a good reason why he won't show us those. Then we move on to other high-flyers who are strewing donations about the place, including to National/Act, and find that their businesses are connected to foreign trusts, and/or are the recipients of large govt grants or lucrative contracts for their operations. What kind of conclusions did you think I, or any normal person would make?

fungus pudding
19-04-2016, 12:57 PM
Stop trying to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, FP. I'm not talking about NZ companies or individuals paying tax at the prescribed rates to the NZ Govt. I know there's no long-term tax advantage there. I did not say that all high earners are tax dodgers. You cannot stop me from jumping to conclusions about John Key's affairs, since he refuses to show us his tax returns. I can only assume there's a good reason why he won't show us those. Then we move on to other high-flyers who are strewing donations about the place, including to National/Act, and find that their businesses are connected to foreign trusts, and/or are the recipients of large govt grants or lucrative contracts for their operations. What kind of conclusions did you think I, or any normal person would make?


There's no point in rebutting your silly allegations about National. They are firmly in your tightly closed mind.
As far as your claim that you know what you are talking about - here is one of your quotes which you seem to have forgotten.

' Now when someone is earning really big money, like say over a million p.a., they should be paying tax on almost all of it at 33% once it's in their own hands, not a company (28%), which you cannot deny.'

Sgt Pepper
19-04-2016, 01:35 PM
From todays NZ Herald

China seeks return of financial refugees

Key says New Zealand could enter into an extradition treaty with China, even though last year he said he wouldn't.

This could be the beginnings of real and present danger to John Keys tenure. According to the Herald the Chinese government claims up to 60 nationals have fled to NZ and as part of the crackdown on corruption they want them(, and their money?)returned. Should said individuals have had any historic or current association with the National Party, (i.e. donations) then it will be interesting to say the least. If Key caves in, and its looking that way, then watch this space.

elZorro
19-04-2016, 02:00 PM
From todays NZ Herald

China seeks return of financial refugees

Key says New Zealand could enter into an extradition treaty with China, even though last year he said he wouldn't.

This could be the beginnings of real and present danger to John Keys tenure. According to the Herald the Chinese government claims up to 60 nationals have fled to NZ and as part of the crackdown on corruption they want them(, and their money?)returned. Should said individuals have had any historic or current association with the National Party, (i.e. donations) then it will be interesting to say the least. If Key caves in, and its looking that way, then watch this space.

Sgt Pepper, thanks for the heads up. It could be very tricky for JK and National.

FP's clutching at straws, now he's adding 28% and 33% and coming up with 70%? I might be fired up, but I think I have a reasonable idea on how tax rates work. In theory at least, if someone has annual private earnings of over a million dollars gross in NZ, they'd be paying about 33% of it to the govt in taxes. Some of it might be taxed in a company structure, the rest is made up of imputation credits, or basically a topup to the individual rates. NZ-based trusts don't seem to circumnavigate that taxation much, but foreign trusts and vehicles are a different matter.

Sgt Pepper
19-04-2016, 02:16 PM
We won't extradite people to China unless they meet the condition that they wouldn't be subjected to either torture or the death penalty," he said

Awwh, Johh Key, what an old softy

jonu
19-04-2016, 06:03 PM
So who is this born-to-rule person who doesn't want to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, schools, just to use them when needed, and be a big-noter by 'donating' some of this shady tax money to causes which are probably aligned with their business interests?

Think carefully about the ramifications of this sentence of yours, Jonu. Actually you just parroted it, but if every wageworker refused to have PAYE deducted because it goes into a "consolidated fund", how long do you think it would be before your perfect world came crashing down?

El Z you really do yourself no favours taking this tone and extrapolating everything out to the extreme scenario. Perhaps one of Mr Lange's "pause for a cup of tea" is in order.

elZorro
19-04-2016, 06:42 PM
El Z you really do yourself no favours taking this tone and extrapolating everything out to the extreme scenario. Perhaps one of Mr Lange's "pause for a cup of tea" is in order.


Jonu, I asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it. On what planet is it OK for most to have to obey the 'rules', but for wealthy others to completely bypass them? Planet Key? Where is that video when I need it!

Is this the kind of thing you're keen on Jonu? Go for it. Look at the left-hand-side PDF.

http://designertrust.com/

"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, helped by dodging the taxes ordinary people are forced to pay".

tim23
19-04-2016, 07:03 PM
I think ELZ raised a fair point - trouble is PAYE earners don't have the tools to have fancy tax structures so they can claim WFF and get student allowances for their children attending tertiary. You reckon that's okay I suppose?
El Z you really do yourself no favours taking this tone and extrapolating everything out to the extreme scenario. Perhaps one of Mr Lange's "pause for a cup of tea" is in order.

jonu
19-04-2016, 07:32 PM
[QUOTE=elZorro;616731]Jonu, I asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it. On what planet is it OK for most to have to obey the 'rules', but for wealthy others to completely bypass them? Planet Key? Where is that video when I need it!

Is this the kind of thing you're keen on Jonu? Go for it. Look at the left-hand-side PDF.

http://designertrust.com/

I didn't see I had anything to answer El Z as you were off on one of you flights of fancy and proposing scenarios that I hadn't suggested.

I see this "Designer Asset Protection" web page has been in operation since 2005. Guess the previous lot didn't seem too bothered either. And am I keen on it. No, and never suggested I was. Do you take milk in your tea?

elZorro
19-04-2016, 08:24 PM
I didn't see I had anything to answer El Z as you were off on one of your flights of fancy and proposing scenarios that I hadn't suggested.

I see this "Designer Asset Protection" web page has been in operation since 2005. Guess the previous lot didn't seem too bothered either. And am I keen on it. No, and never suggested I was. Do you take milk in your tea?

Jonu, I think you're missing something. Back in 2005, NZ's foreign trusts were paying tax of 28% on income earned in NZ. Labour left them in a sensible position, so there wasn't much interest in them. It was John Key's move to change the tax rate to nil after he got into power.

jonu
19-04-2016, 08:34 PM
Jonu, I think you're missing something. Back in 2005, NZ's foreign trusts were paying tax of 28% on income earned in NZ. Labour left them in a sensible position, so there wasn't much interest in them. It was John Key's move to change the tax rate to nil after he got into power.

No I'm not missing anything. We were talking about tax minimisation in general and also charitable donations. I think any NZ chartered accountant will tell you they will minimise your tax. It's what they do. Should the tax system be more simple and transparent? I would say yes. Will any administration do this? No, they won't.

fungus pudding
19-04-2016, 08:47 PM
Jonu, I think you're missing something. Back in 2005, NZ's foreign trusts were paying tax of 28% on income earned in NZ. Labour left them in a sensible position, so there wasn't much interest in them. It was John Key's move to change the tax rate to nil after he got into power.

It should be nil. They are not liable for NZ tax.

elZorro
19-04-2016, 08:59 PM
It should be nil. They are not liable for NZ tax.

If we don't charge them tax for monies earned in NZ, they don't pay tax in any jurisdiction. Add to that, in general we don't have a clue who they are, or how many investments they have, whether the money is tainted or not, or what country they're from. Argo, we are a tax haven.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/79068398/tax-breaks-a-la-panama-papers-not-for-everyday-kiwis?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+2 0+April+2016

Daytr
20-04-2016, 07:08 AM
Well some of that is accurate. So Ez is not completely bonkers.
He is not referring to legitimate charitable support, he is referring to however those use foundations to minimize tax or rather ha pay tax elect where their funds go rather than pay tax. If everyone did this as EZ said, we would have no government income to pay for basic services.
The fact that you can set up your own church and claim charitable status is incredible to me.
Its about time Churches paid tax as well and they separate out their charitable works if need be.


You are going completely bonkers EZ. Must be the complete failure of Labour/Little that is driving you mad. I think you need to take a break.
You make it sound like wealthy donors don't pay any tax and choose to direct money that should go to IRD to their chosen charities. If my family Trust donates $100 to a charity, it gets a $28 tax rebate and $72 come from the Trust's tax paid money.

Time to stop with all the conspiracy theories, noone is listening. Come up with some decent policies and someone may start listening to Labour, if its not too late.

Daytr
20-04-2016, 07:10 AM
Why are foreign trusts here at all?
What is their purpose?


It should be nil. They are not liable for NZ tax.

Daytr
20-04-2016, 07:40 AM
I would just like to add some of the rhetoric on this thread is getting quite nasty and ridiculous.
Remember there is actually someone real on the other side of a handle.
More and more I see a personal jibe, before launching into some vitriolic response.
The other repeated bad behavior is taking the extreme of what someone is suggesting and basing the argument around that.

Daytr
20-04-2016, 07:42 AM
Or unless we get a panda in exchange. ;-)


We won't extradite people to China unless they meet the condition that they wouldn't be subjected to either torture or the death penalty," he said

Awwh, Johh Key, what an old softy

777
20-04-2016, 07:54 AM
I would just like to add some of the rhetoric on this thread is getting quite nasty and ridiculous.
Remember there is actually someone real on the other side of a handle.
More and more I see a personal jibe, before launching into some vitriolic response.
The other repeated bad behavior is taking the extreme of what someone is suggesting and basing the argument around that.


Getting hot in the kitchen ,is it? If you want to talk politics, as this thread is for, then expect people not to agree with you. The vitriol is not all one way.

westerly
20-04-2016, 08:51 AM
It should be nil. They are not liable for NZ tax.

Tell me how I can earn income in NZ and pay no tax?

westerly

fungus pudding
20-04-2016, 08:58 AM
Tell me how I can earn income in NZ and pay no tax?

westerly

Don't declare your earnings is the most common way.

westerly
20-04-2016, 10:48 AM
Says it all really,

3. Why should I invest in a New Zealand trust?

To keep your assets private and confidential
To facilitate wealth accumulation
To protect yourself against lawsuits
To legally minimise taxation
To place a barrier between you and government
To protect assets in the event of a family disruption
To leave an inheritance to your children's children
To create financial freedom

I can see why the wealthy like trusts. But then I am just green with envy.

westerly

Daytr
20-04-2016, 11:47 AM
Nope that's not it at all and I wasn't referring to anything directed at me.
I didn't say it was all one way either, so you are jumping to conclusions.
Of course people wont agree, that's quite apparent, but that doesn't mean they have to get personal or nasty about it.
I'm not saying I haven't done the same in the past either.
It was simply a message to perhaps tone down some of the personal jibes & attacks as it doesn't add anything to the debate.


Getting hot in the kitchen ,is it? If you want to talk politics, as this thread is for, then expect people not to agree with you. The vitriol is not all one way.

Daytr
20-04-2016, 11:57 AM
Hardly a flight of fancy or extreme, as this sort of thing is a real issue. People think they can decide individually how their tax dollars can be used, rather than like the rest of society that pays into the government coffers for them to allocate. You mightn't like it but that's the system & if you don't like how they spend it, vote them out.

Is there a cap on charitable donations for tax deductability? If not there should be.
I would like to see all charitable donations removed from being tax deductible.
I don't think people generally donate to charity because of its tax deductible.
And with the additional revenue the government saves, they could set up a fund where charities can apply for grants etc.


[QUOTE=elZorro;616731]Jonu, I asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it. On what planet is it OK for most to have to obey the 'rules', but for wealthy others to completely bypass them? Planet Key? Where is that video when I need it!

Is this the kind of thing you're keen on Jonu? Go for it. Look at the left-hand-side PDF.

http://designertrust.com/

I didn't see I had anything to answer El Z as you were off on one of you flights of fancy and proposing scenarios that I hadn't suggested.

I see this "Designer Asset Protection" web page has been in operation since 2005. Guess the previous lot didn't seem too bothered either. And am I keen on it. No, and never suggested I was. Do you take milk in your tea?

fungus pudding
20-04-2016, 12:02 PM
Says it all really,

3. Why should I invest in a New Zealand trust?

To keep your assets private and confidential
To facilitate wealth accumulation
To protect yourself against lawsuits
To legally minimise taxation
To place a barrier between you and government
To protect assets in the event of a family disruption
To leave an inheritance to your children's children
To create financial freedom

I can see why the wealthy like trusts. But then I am just green with envy.

westerly

The same applies - wealthy or not. Some people have a need for a trust, although there's a hell of a lot of people who have set up trusts which more often than not is no use, but have been advised to by an accountant or lawyer. One real advantage is they are stronger than a will but I'm damn sure I wouldn't have one.

elZorro
20-04-2016, 07:15 PM
Hardly a flight of fancy or extreme, as this sort of thing is a real issue. People think they can decide individually how their tax dollars can be used, rather than like the rest of society that pays into the government coffers for them to allocate. You mightn't like it but that's the system & if you don't like how they spend it, vote them out.

Is there a cap on charitable donations for tax deductability? If not there should be.
I would like to see all charitable donations removed from being tax deductible.
I don't think people generally donate to charity because of its tax deductible.
And with the additional revenue the government saves, they could set up a fund where charities can apply for grants etc.


I don't think that's the real issue, Daytr. If someone wants to donate $10,00 of their income to a cause, partly just to claim back their average tax rate, that's got to be OK. It's the people who don't pay their hundreds of thousands, or millions in tax, naturally due to the NZ govt, by using low tax vehicles, and then donate a portion of that in splendiferous ways to visible charities, that upset me. Maybe a cap on normal tax-deductible donations within the lifetime of the donor would be sensible. I'm conscious that Labour received a large estate gifting a few years back. We don't get many.

Bryan Gould on the Niue deal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11625546

Daytr
20-04-2016, 07:52 PM
Yes there is that & I wasn't arguing that point. However there are many 'charities' that shouldn't qualify for tax deductibility and they spoil it for the legitimate ones. Too many holes in the system.

elZorro
21-04-2016, 06:38 AM
Dr Claire Robinson was on TV1 just now giving her opinion on Labour's "Missteps" and putting her own spin on Andrew Little's political knowledge. Using her valuable airtime to further poke the borax, she implied that unless Labour change the opinion polls in the next two months, the 2017 election will go National's way. She has worked in a National administration and travelled with ministers, which doesn't give her much credence as an ambivalent political analyst. These types are actually on TV to help gain students for their uni courses, so any PR is good PR. What's worse, she has tried this stunt at about the same time, last election. So an easy interview for TV1, which allows someone to spread some BS, quote some inaccurate details, and make it harder for Labour.

https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/i-just-cannot-let-this-go-by/

Labour has been making inroads, not because they are that clever at anything at this stage, but because National has been corrupting the political practices of NZ since at least 2005, and voters are finally starting to notice it.

craic
21-04-2016, 07:53 AM
Dr Claire Robinson was on TV1 just now giving her opinion on Labour's "Missteps" and putting her own spin on Andrew Little's political knowledge. Using her valuable airtime to further poke the borax, she implied that unless Labour change the opinion polls in the next two months, the 2017 election will go National's way. She has worked in a National administration and travelled with ministers, which doesn't give her much credence as an ambivalent political analyst. These types are actually on TV to help gain students for their uni courses, so any PR is good PR. What's worse, she has tried this stunt at about the same time, last election. So an easy interview for TV1, which allows someone to spread some BS, quote some inaccurate details, and make it harder for Labour.

https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/i-just-cannot-let-this-go-by/

Labour has been making inroads, not because they are that clever at anything at this stage, but because National has been corrupting the political practices of NZ since at least 2005, and voters are finally starting to notice it.

What a load of rubbish! "Labour making inroads.............and voters are finally starting to notice it" What mystical poll have you seen? What spot of evidence have you for this? el Zorro, I am rapidly coming ot the conclusion that you and Daytr are National party plants, stratigically planted to ensure that anyone, foolish enough to follow your thoughts, will quickly become scared that there are more like you on the left and rapidly return to supporting the most effective government we had had in years

elZorro
21-04-2016, 08:12 AM
What a load of rubbish! "Labour making inroads.............and voters are finally starting to notice it" What mystical poll have you seen? What spot of evidence have you for this? el Zorro, I am rapidly coming ot the conclusion that you and Daytr are National party plants, stratigically planted to ensure that anyone, foolish enough to follow your thoughts, will quickly become scared that there are more like you on the left and rapidly return to supporting the most effective government we had had in years

Haw haw, good one Craic! What have they been effective at, pray tell?

Increasing inequality, yes, they're good at that. Running up a $70bill overdraft for the taxpayer? Hell, I could do that, no problem. What National has done to NZ overall, is monstrous.

Come on, give us some examples of this "effective government". This is an online forum, not a bar chat, let's have some real facts.

jonu
21-04-2016, 08:22 AM
Haw haw, good one Craic! What have they been effective at, pray tell?

Increasing inequality, yes, they're good at that. Running up a $70bill overdraft for the taxpayer? Hell, I could do that, no problem. What National has done to NZ overall, is monstrous.

Come on, give us some examples of this "effective government". This is an online forum, not a bar chat, let's have some real facts.

El Z, you and Craic are cut from the same cloth. He asks for poll evidence for your assertion. You ignore him and ask for evidence of effective government. A lot of talking and no listening from both sides.

Daytr
21-04-2016, 12:30 PM
Agree, as 1) Labour hasn't made inroads to National's popularity, or nothing of significance anyway.
And 2) National are absolutely shocking managers. One stuff up after another and racking up debt and selling assets all the way.
I was just reading the cost of one of the previous National government stuff ups that cost the country in the order of $25Bln or more.
And that was the leaky homes saga.
The current government has cost us a hell of a lot more than that.
Easily $50Bln more in debt and with $12Bln still not been spent on the CHC rebuild.
And how many billions of dollars of assets sold in that time as well?
Great managers ! Yeah right.



El Z, you and Craic are cut from the same cloth. He asks for poll evidence for your assertion. You ignore him and ask for evidence of effective government. A lot of talking and no listening from both sides.

craic
21-04-2016, 12:38 PM
The national debt is well within manageable proportions compared to most countries and in every government, the party in power is seen to hold the debt while the opposition holds a big banner with the amount written on it in an effort to scare the electorate. I, as a pensioner, will spend up to $300 today on horses at an obscure meeting in Woodville. Now some will call me a waster or a fool or whatever but Friday night I will go out to a show and dinner and on Saturday I will go to the Club, drink some ale and spend some more on the horses. Now I may win, I often do but either way I can afford this lifestyle in NZ so if you feel that you are hard done by or mis-managed here go and visit or live in some of the places I have been to - and that includes Australia and the UK.

Daytr
21-04-2016, 01:18 PM
Or just get someone in power that manages the debt well & reduces it. Like the last Labour government.
You do like to drivel on about your life.
Its riveting stuff!


The national debt is well within manageable proportions compared to most countries and in every government, the party in power is seen to hold the debt while the opposition holds a big banner with the amount written on it in an effort to scare the electorate. I, as a pensioner, will spend up to $300 today on horses at an obscure meeting in Woodville. Now some will call me a waster or a fool or whatever but Friday night I will go out to a show and dinner and on Saturday I will go to the Club, drink some ale and spend some more on the horses. Now I may win, I often do but either way I can afford this lifestyle in NZ so if you feel that you are hard done by or mis-managed here go and visit or live in some of the places I have been to - and that includes Australia and the UK.

craic
21-04-2016, 02:08 PM
like to drivel on about your life.
Its riveting stuff!

Daytr this forum is full of your past real and imagined and thepositions you held i finance and banking and the like. Levity is part of my nature and nothing amuses me more than those who think so highlyof themselves and their opinions that they come on here, day after day telling everyone how they would right the world. Just for laughs, I Had forty dollars on granite Ridge in the last race and it won. I might even get another win before the day ends. And took about $250 off the last race - it gets more riveting all the time

westerly
21-04-2016, 04:09 PM
Daytr this forum is full of your past real and imagined and thepositions you held i finance and banking and the like. Levity is part of my nature and nothing amuses me more than those who think so highlyof themselves and their opinions that they come on here, day after day telling everyone how they would right the world. Just for laughs, I Had forty dollars on granite Ridge in the last race and it won. I might even get another win before the day ends. And took about $250 off the last race - it gets more riveting all the time

Just another Irish joke.

westerly

craic
21-04-2016, 05:13 PM
No The dollars are real.

Daytr
21-04-2016, 05:13 PM
Seems you would like them to be imagined. So effectively you are calling me a liar, which I am not.
I think the only person you are amusing is yourself. But perhaps others enjoy the life & times of Craic.


Daytr this forum is full of your past real and imagined and thepositions you held i finance and banking and the like. Levity is part of my nature and nothing amuses me more than those who think so highlyof themselves and their opinions that they come on here, day after day telling everyone how they would right the world. Just for laughs, I Had forty dollars on granite Ridge in the last race and it won. I might even get another win before the day ends. And took about $250 off the last race - it gets more riveting all the time

elZorro
21-04-2016, 05:38 PM
El Z, you and Craic are cut from the same cloth. He asks for poll evidence for your assertion. You ignore him and ask for evidence of effective government. A lot of talking and no listening from both sides.

If you have a look back a few pages, I've already deconstructed the latest Colmar-Brunton poll. John Key is becoming less popular, and there are more voters sitting on the fence. They're not as sure about National anymore.


There are a lot of people comparing what this government has done, compared with the Clark Government under Labour. Don't forget what it was like during that time, NZ started to come to an even keel, we started feeling like we were living in a great country again.

Here's the full data from Colmar Brunton, including historical trends.

http://colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-conten...016-prelim.pdf (http://colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/160410-ONE-News-Colmar-Brunton-Poll-report-2-6-Apr-2016-prelim.pdf)

W69 is right, John Key is becoming less popular over time, and of the people who are quite likely or very likely to vote in the next election, 13% won't say which way they would vote at the moment, or are undecided. That's higher than usual. People are starting to think a bit, but they're not sure about Andrew Little yet.

Just over 1000 people on landlines were surveyed in this poll. So they are older households, perhaps more conservative. Lots of younger households don't have landlines (http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-transport-comms-mr.aspx), or are unlisted. The error in the party vote is about +/- 3.1% for 3D certainty for National, and about +/- 2.5% for Labour. The percentages are also rounded up or down with no decimal point, we're not told the actual data.

Let's take a Labour-positive view of the results. National could have had 49.6% of the party vote +/-3.1%, so worst case is 46.5%.

Labour in best case is 28.4% +2.5% or 30.9%. Add 13% unknown/undecided votes and Labour could achieve 43.9%, that is statistically a small possibility. Add Greens, and a Labour/Green coalition would have power in 2017.

This poll was completed before the news about the tax havens was well known. It certainly didn't include the effect of the multiple articles about NZ's need to do something about it, and John Key's inappropriate response.


John Key said he's using his trusted lawyer for advice. Except he's deregistered himself, did so in February this year to set up Antipodes, a firm offering foreign trust advice.

http://thestandard.org.nz/johns-keys-lawyer-is-not-a-lawyer/

winner69
21-04-2016, 08:18 PM
EZ - Labour losing any support they may have had from the younger people like whats happening in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-labors-looming-electoral-threat-from-young-people-in-one-chart-20160421-gobrv4.html

elZorro
21-04-2016, 09:20 PM
EZ - Labour losing any support they may have had from the younger people like whats happening in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-labors-looming-electoral-threat-from-young-people-in-one-chart-20160421-gobrv4.html

Yep, that's happening I'm sure. It's on our radar for 2017. Good link.

elZorro
22-04-2016, 06:34 AM
The National Govt adjusts for the Uber competition with Taxis, by simply relaxing the rules for both. This will end up doing some damage, surely. Of course the market wins, the public gets cheaper fares. But at what ultimate price?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1604/S00701/uber-and-taxis-to-be-covered-by-same-regulations.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+22+A pril+2016

craic
22-04-2016, 07:08 AM
Taxis have been a joke for years. I have never lived in Auckland but I caught a taxi in Queen Street a couple of years ago and I had to direct the driver to a motel by Alexandra Park, Greenlane. English wasn't the drivers strongpoint.

elZorro
22-04-2016, 05:41 PM
Taxis have been a joke for years. I have never lived in Auckland but I caught a taxi in Queen Street a couple of years ago and I had to direct the driver to a motel by Alexandra Park, Greenlane. English wasn't the drivers strongpoint.

They're all using ipads for directions now, apparently. From now on, taxis of all types don't have to display their rates. How would that work for you, if you were a tourist? Are we to be just like any overseas country, a cowboy's paradise?

More confirmation that I should ignore NZ Initiative emails to my inbox.

http://thestandard.org.nz/who-is-behind-the-new-zealand-initiative/

tim23
22-04-2016, 06:35 PM
The most effective government - where have you been that was the Clark/Cullen years - they were a legacy government or is your memory as short as this goverments vision?
What a load of rubbish! "Labour making inroads.............and voters are finally starting to notice it" What mystical poll have you seen? What spot of evidence have you for this? el Zorro, I am rapidly coming ot the conclusion that you and Daytr are National party plants, stratigically planted to ensure that anyone, foolish enough to follow your thoughts, will quickly become scared that there are more like you on the left and rapidly return to supporting the most effective government we had had in years

craic
22-04-2016, 09:59 PM
The most effective government - where have you been that was the Clark/Cullen years - they were a legacy government or is your memory as short as this goverments vision?

They were so effective that the voters threw them out and show no sign of having their successors back. Cullen? I met him twice through a mutual friend and the short conversation, or his side of it left me quite stunned. Outside the local RSA The third party asked if he would like to go in, his reply was "no, just a bunch of old men drinking pints" The pair headed down the street to a cafe were the local lawyers had their coffee. The third party didn't get re-elected.

elZorro
23-04-2016, 07:51 AM
They were so effective that the voters threw them out and show no sign of having their successors back. Cullen? I met him twice through a mutual friend and the short conversation, or his side of it left me quite stunned. Outside the local RSA The third party asked if he would like to go in, his reply was "no, just a bunch of old men drinking pints" The pair headed down the street to a cafe were the local lawyers had their coffee. The third party didn't get re-elected.

Craic, certainly that was a disappointing attitude from Cullen. Vote-wise, it might have been far more useful to Labour if he'd gone into the RSA when he was asked. You've bent many an ear about this episode since, I'm sure. However, on the scale of things, it's not a big mistake by him, and he did plenty for NZ which would make up for it.

I wonder if any of the National Party apologists on this thread would like to explain why, under National, we are the world's biggest climate change cheats, and why this doesn't matter. I think the Labour Party or the Greens could reasonably expect a big donation from Gareth Morgan soon, his foundation is in line with most of their policies.

http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-the-underarm-bowlers-of-climate-change/

craic
23-04-2016, 09:22 AM
If Gareth Morgan comes on side with labour or the Greens, then I will be pleased. He has already alienated half the population with his much publicised views on cats and dogs. Now, just because he has a lot of money and rode a motorcycle around the world his opinion on things his very important on many topics- to him. Che Guevara also rode a motorcycle around but he at least befriended lepers and had an Irish grandmother.

fungus pudding
23-04-2016, 09:39 AM
If Gareth Morgan comes on side with labour or the Greens, then I will be pleased. He has already alienated half the population with his much publicised views on cats and dogs.

His ideas on taxation of private homes should alienate the other half.

winner69
23-04-2016, 09:52 AM
The national debt is well within manageable proportions compared to most countries and in every government, the party in power is seen to hold the debt while the opposition holds a big banner with the amount written on it in an effort to scare the electorate. I, as a pensioner, will spend up to $300 today on horses at an obscure meeting in Woodville. Now some will call me a waster or a fool or whatever but Friday night I will go out to a show and dinner and on Saturday I will go to the Club, drink some ale and spend some more on the horses. Now I may win, I often do but either way I can afford this lifestyle in NZ so if you feel that you are hard done by or mis-managed here go and visit or live in some of the places I have been to - and that includes Australia and the UK.

Hey craic - good to see you enjoying life and doing all those things

Glad you spending your National Super well - that is what its for, the small things on life as a reward for making NZ what it is today

I had a nice dinner in town at a Asian restaurant the other night, got the free bus into town another day to see that new rave NZ film, had oysters and chips on the beach for lunch yesterday etc etc. Thats where my Super went this week.

Thst Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a great movie by the way

Daytr
23-04-2016, 09:54 AM
I would suggest that most people don't understand Morgan's ideas on feral cats and dog control & that's because most people don't live in areas where Kiwi etc roam. If we don't eradicate feral cats, well as much as possible, none of us will have that amazing experience of hearing a Kiwi call at night. Obviously its not just the Kiwi these pests are endangering.

Winston Peters policy on creating jobs to get the possum population under control is forward thinking & courageous.
However this government will never take it on, as they don't do forward thinking. Unless of course they need NZF to form government in 2017. Then they will do more back flips than a Chinese gymnast at the Rio Olympics.

With a little tweaking Morgan's tax idea on housing I think could work as well. The biggest issue is probably for those who don't have much income, like retirees. So address that & I think taxing all assets appreciation as if it was bank interest, would sort a lot of of the imbalances in the economy right now. Of course its not popular, as too many Aucklanders have been made overnight millionaires by doing sweet fa.

elZorro
23-04-2016, 10:07 AM
If Gareth Morgan comes on side with labour or the Greens, then I will be pleased. He has already alienated half the population with his much publicised views on cats and dogs. Now, just because he has a lot of money and rode a motorcycle around the world his opinion on things his very important on many topics- to him. Che Guevara also rode a motorcycle around but he at least befriended lepers and had an Irish grandmother.

Again, Craic, you sidestepped the important question. Gareth has been at least been spending some of his untaxed capital gain on some kind of centrist think-tank that has actually come up with some good ideas, and in the case of climate change, begrudgingly admitted there might be something to it. That was a few years ago, and now he's checked National out, to confirm the typically cynical way they've bought fake carbon credits, while screwing the local forestry industry down.

tim23
23-04-2016, 03:09 PM
Effective for 9 years by the way. Left country in good shape to weather GFC, left us with WFF, Kiwisaver, Kiwi Bank, paid parental leave, same sex marriages, interest free student loans - this lot are in to their 3rd term what are their significant achievements or legacies? -
They were so effective that the voters threw them out and show no sign of having their successors back. Cullen? I met him twice through a mutual friend and the short conversation, or his side of it left me quite stunned. Outside the local RSA The third party asked if he would like to go in, his reply was "no, just a bunch of old men drinking pints" The pair headed down the street to a cafe were the local lawyers had their coffee. The third party didn't get re-elected.

craic
23-04-2016, 04:37 PM
I'm so glad to have stirred up the left and their fellow travellers who deny being on the left but it's also heartening to know that a majority of voters are not taken in by by Morgan, Peters and the left. "This lot" have achieved a lot - they have created one of the most desirable living environments in the world and created a world travellers paradise that is evident from the tourist numbers. Read the news- read the facts - our debt is less than most and our future is better than most. My most pressing charity is Australia where I will spend a couple of weeks later this year and support their economy. And finally, I would like to express my thank to SeanMcKay who, this afternoon rode a horse called Night Victory to win and therby added $195 to my funds.

Daytr
23-04-2016, 05:31 PM
Another self congratulating post from Criac. No surprises there.
So the previous Labour government didn't get us in the dire position of the likes of Europe. Agreed.
They reduced debt, National have more than trebled it. There's the comparison.
Comparing us to countries that are basically insolvent is hardly a compliment.

elZorro
23-04-2016, 05:51 PM
Is the fact that NZ is currently a world traveller's paradise anything to do with the exchange rate? Which is linked to the low dairy payout? In which case, it's a fortunate bonus from a failed hope by National to make dairy the big earner. It has made our exported goods more affordable for overseas buyers, but also makes imported goods dearer.

I didn't back any horses today Craic, but I did pick up some cheap shop fittings from the failed DSE store nearby. I'll use those assets in my business, storing manufactured goods for export. I'm in a growing minority under National polices, and I'm small-time, so I'm not feeling the support of the National Party marketing juggernaut. You know, you really should look more carefully at their figures/data, they don't have a clue what they're doing. They can only borrow for so long, then what?

tim23
23-04-2016, 07:54 PM
Hello - the living environment is about our geography and while you think the leader walks on water change the environment they can not - things that attract tourists like Rotorua & Queenstown Next you will be thanking Sky City for having a win in the casino - who cares? have been around for a while.
I'm so glad to have stirred up the left and their fellow travellers who deny being on the left but it's also heartening to know that a majority of voters are not taken in by by Morgan, Peters and the left. "This lot" have achieved a lot - they have created one of the most desirable living environments in the world and created a world travellers paradise that is evident from the tourist numbers. Read the news- read the facts - our debt is less than most and our future is better than most. My most pressing charity is Australia where I will spend a couple of weeks later this year and support their economy. And finally, I would like to express my thank to SeanMcKay who, this afternoon rode a horse called Night Victory to win and therby added $195 to my funds.

craic
23-04-2016, 10:08 PM
It must be sad to be stuck on the losing side.

Daytr
24-04-2016, 07:38 AM
A lot of us are losing with National in power.
Other than those who have made financial gain from National's open slather immigration policy that has seen Auckland housing prices get out of control, as well as a shortage .
Gareth Morgan said when he bought his first home, the average cost of a house was 3 times the average wage, now its 8 times!
The environment is one of the biggest losers, but then there's health and education as well.
The prison service, another that has lost its way under this government with the SERCO debacle.
There are many other areas.
In fact the list of failures is so extensive, its incredible Little can't make inroads.
It just shows how ineffective he is.

Labor made a big mistake not selecting Grant Robinson.
Him with Jacinda Ardern would have made a reasonably effective opposition and likely appeal to the young.
Unfortunately his sexuality would likely go against him.
It would be interesting to know if NZ is mature enough to elect a gay prime minister.


It must be sad to be stuck on the losing side.

fungus pudding
24-04-2016, 08:16 AM
A lot of us are losing with National in power.
Other than those who have made financial gain from National's open slather immigration policy that has seen Auckland housing prices get out of control, as well as a shortage .
Gareth Morgan said when he bought his first home, the average cost of a house was 3 times the average wage, now its 8 times!



He's talking about the price of a house. Interest rates were as high as 4 times the current rate. The cost was much the same as today. Properties were normally financed through a solicitor's nominee company with first mortgage restricted to 66% of valuation. Second and third mortgages were sometimes available and expensive.

Daytr
24-04-2016, 09:05 AM
You make it sound like interest rates were at 20% for years, they weren't and in fact for the majority of the last 30 years were nothing like that.
Interest is a cost obviously, but this is about debt levels and entry costs. People trying save for a 20% deposit etc.
Do you think interest rates are going to stay low forever?


price[/U] of a house. Interest rates were as high as 4 times the current rate. The cost was much the same as today. Properties were normally financed through a solicitor's nominee company with first mortgage restricted to 66% of valuation. Second and third mortgages were sometimes available and expensive.

elZorro
24-04-2016, 09:05 AM
A lot of us are losing with National in power.
Other than those who have made financial gain from National's open slather immigration policy that has seen Auckland housing prices get out of control, as well as a shortage .
Gareth Morgan said when he bought his first home, the average cost of a house was 3 times the average wage, now its 8 times!
The environment is one of the biggest losers, but then there's health and education as well.
The prison service, another that has lost its way under this government with the SERCO debacle.
There are many other areas.
In fact the list of failures is so extensive, its incredible Little can't make inroads.
It just shows how ineffective he is.

Labor made a big mistake not selecting Grant Robinson.
Him with Jacinda Ardern would have made a reasonably effective opposition and likely appeal to the young.
Unfortunately his sexuality would likely go against him.
It would be interesting to know if NZ is mature enough to elect a gay prime minister.

Daytr, it's Grant Robertson you're thinking of. But I don't think NZ is entirely ready for a gay PM, it would be risky for Labour to put him up as an opposition leader.

Andrew Little isn't the world's greatest public speaker. But the array of media and National Party hacks that are following his every move and word, looking for mistakes, is daunting. At the moment the press are starting to ask harder questions of John Key, but he's not under the same pressure. If he was, he should have been booted out for 'misrepresentation' by now.

fungus pudding
24-04-2016, 09:07 AM
You make it sound like interest rates were at 20% for years, they weren't and in fact for the majority of the last 30 years were nothing like that.
Interest is a cost obviously, but this is about debt levels and entry costs. People trying save for a 20% deposit etc.
Do you think interest rates are going to stay low forever?

I hope not.

Daytr
24-04-2016, 09:27 AM
Well what happens to those interest costs on the massive amount of debt that people have tied to these house prices when interest rates do rise?
We live in a world of bubbles that no one seems to have the political will to prick.
So monetary policy is set to accommodate fueling the bubbles higher.

elZorro
24-04-2016, 09:31 AM
It must be sad to be stuck on the losing side.

I think that's how many people vote, not with their brains, but with the need to back which party they think will win, like it's a horse race. So the media and the polls are very important, even though both are fallible and can be jacked up in one party's favour, like iPredict was.

Paula Bennett is sometimes touted as the National Leader-in-Waiting. Paula, according to wikipedia, attended Taupo Nui-a-Tia college, from Kinloch, where her parents owned the small store for the area. She had a daughter when she was 17, and moved to Auckland where she had low-paid jobs, but was taxpayer funded to attend Massey University's Albany campus, where she became involved in student politics. Graduating with a BA, she then worked her way up the National Party ranks with paid employment and by running as a candidate.

On Q&A this morning, under intense questioning by Corin Dann about her new Climate Change portfolio and the 3-4 degree temperature change her govt is proposing by default, she mentioned the word hyperbole. Well actually, it was "hyper-bowl". It says a lot about the National Party, when they put a lightweight person into that highly important portfolio, it means they don't think it's important at all.

Well, it will be.

Last word from wikipedia:


Bennett has also been criticised by opponents for a perceived hypocritical approach with regards to her attacks on beneficiaries. This specifically relates to her having relied on state support throughout her adult life to enable education and development of her career, only to remove the ability of solo parents to do the same through her removal of the Training Initiative Allowance. More generally, Bennett has often been criticised for policies such as requiring solo parents to enter the workforce when their children turn five, when this policy would have made her own education impossible.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Bennett#cite_note-31)

Daytr
24-04-2016, 09:31 AM
Unfortunately its not just his public speaking which is poor to say the least.
He's not articulating a clear vision of policy for the vast majority of people to follow .
He fails to effectively take on National despite their multiple failures and that says more than anything else to me.

You are probably right re the sexuality thing, but that's sad as it shouldn't matter.


Daytr, it's Grant Robertson you're thinking of. But I don't think NZ is entirely ready for a gay PM, it would be risky for Labour to put him up as an opposition leader.

Andrew Little isn't the world's greatest public speaker. But the array of media and National Party hacks that are following his every move and word, looking for mistakes, is daunting. At the moment the press are starting to ask harder questions of John Key, but he's not under the same pressure. If he was, he should have been booted out for 'misrepresentation' by now.

Major von Tempsky
24-04-2016, 12:01 PM
And on the obsolete 2014 thread I'm sure Paula B will be absolutely delighted to be termed "lightweight" by EZ. All that without even joining weightwatchers :-)

tim23
24-04-2016, 12:40 PM
There the point - you needed a decent deposit, 20% when I bought my 1st home in 1985 , interest rates hit 20% for a brief period so your x4 todays rate is briefly correct (I know I was paying that rate!) you certainly couldn't get in to a property with no deposit or less than 20%. The cost of my 1st house was x3 my salary so there you are Gareth is about right.




He's talking about the price of a house. Interest rates were as high as 4 times the current rate. The cost was much the same as today. Properties were normally financed through a solicitor's nominee company with first mortgage restricted to 66% of valuation. Second and third mortgages were sometimes available and expensive.

tim23
24-04-2016, 12:49 PM
The tide eventually will turn - just ask Clark, Muldoon & Bolger - now theres 2 of your stand out leaders, at least under Bolger we didn't suffer a dictatorship - Muldoons the same guy who destroyed a wonderful super scheme brought in by the Kirk govt and yes we had to wait for another Labour govt to get the next super scheme - says a lot really.
It must be sad to be stuck on the losing side.

Daytr
24-04-2016, 04:20 PM
I just saw Paula Bennett on Q&A re signing the Paris accord on reducing emissions.
She acted as if signing a bit of paper was a great effort and that it was a huge step forward.
National's policies fly in the face of reducing emissions.
Sponsoring oil exploration and a major sponsor of dairy intensification.
They have cut the budget to things like DOC.
Emissions in NZ have risen steadily and continue to do so and National is avoiding doing anything about it, because its obvious they are in complete denial about man made climate change.

elZorro
24-04-2016, 04:34 PM
I just saw Paula Bennett on Q&A re signing the Paris accord on reducing emissions.
She acted as if signing a bit of paper was a great effort and that it was a huge step forward.
National's policies fly in the face of reducing emissions.
Sponsoring oil exploration and a major sponsor of dairy intensification.
They have cut the budget to things like DOC.
Emissions in NZ have risen steadily and continue to do so and National is avoiding doing anything about it, because its obvious they are in complete denial about man made climate change.

Quite right. Who will rid us of this crap government??

winner69
24-04-2016, 04:56 PM
Quite right. Who will rid us of this crap government??

With ineffective opposition we need an uprising eh EZ

Is there a minor party that can step up - in 2020

tim23
24-04-2016, 07:52 PM
Its a difficult place to be in opposition - you clearly can't remember National under Bill English polling worse than Labour today I take it?
With ineffective opposition we need an uprising eh EZ

Is there a minor party that can step up - in 2020

777
24-04-2016, 08:09 PM
Labour is better in opposition because they have more practice at it.

tim23
24-04-2016, 08:53 PM
Typical of you Torys - you seem to think you have a God given right to rule - its pathetic.
Labour is better in opposition because they have more practice at it.

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 07:55 AM
Labour is better in opposition because they have more practice at it.

But they're no good at that either. Winston first, on his own, provides more effective opposition than Labour. Can't govern, can't oppose - the party is dead.

777
25-04-2016, 08:50 AM
Typical of you Torys - you seem to think you have a God given right to rule - its pathetic.

And it's attitudes like yours that put people off voting Labour. The use of the word "torys" sum you up really. Glass half empty thinking.

Right to rule? The voters select who they want to lead.

Sgt Pepper
25-04-2016, 10:43 AM
But they're no good at that either. Winston first, on his own, provides more effective opposition than Labour. Can't govern, can't oppose - the party is dead.


A headline from the Conservative supporting Telegraph in 2013. The lesson? Be very careful about premature political obituaries

"It's two years away, but the 2015 election is already lost

Four factors conspire to make a Tory majority an outright impossibility"

westerly
25-04-2016, 10:55 AM
I wonder how many NZ's use one of these. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/elite-wealth.../410842/

tim23
25-04-2016, 01:59 PM
No the word Torys sums you have rather nicely - how would you know about my thinking don't such a prat.
And it's attitudes like yours that put people off voting Labour. The use of the word "torys" sum you up really. Glass half empty thinking.

Right to rule? The voters select who they want to lead.

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 03:35 PM
No the word Torys sums you have rather nicely - how would you know about my thinking don't such a prat.

Roll on more charter schools. It's rare to see such a short sentence with so many mistakes in it (spelling, punctuation and grammar) that it can't be understood. Not that it matters.

westerly
25-04-2016, 04:36 PM
He's talking about the price of a house. Interest rates were as high as 4 times the current rate. The cost was much the same as today. Properties were normally financed through a solicitor's nominee company with first mortgage restricted to 66% of valuation. Second and third mortgages were sometimes available and expensive.

First homes were invariably financed by the State Advances with a 3 or 5% mortgage. Have a section and no deposit was required. You only reverted to other institutions if you did not meet S.A. criteria.
Houses were basic compared with those turned out by developers today. Bare section, no fences, paths or landscaping. The developer can maximise profits by adding all the extras (required ?) today.
Big opportunities for Labour to go back to their roots and look after the ordinary family.
Little doesn’t have to speak like a BBC announcer he just needs policies which match the needs of working people.

westerly

tim23
25-04-2016, 05:30 PM
You are right - it doesn't matter too much, sure 777 got the point though.
Roll on more charter schools. It's rare to see such a short sentence with so many mistakes in it (spelling, punctuation and grammar) that it can't be understood. Not that it matters.

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 05:34 PM
You are right - it doesn't matter too much, sure 777 got the point though.

Not worried about 777 and I'm sure 777 isn't either. It would only matter to someone who was trying to make sense of it. That's probably only eZ anyway.

tim23
25-04-2016, 05:42 PM
Who are you - his big brother?
Not worried about 777 and I'm sure 777 isn't either. It would only matter to someone who was trying to make sense of it. That's probably only eZ anyway.

fungus pudding
25-04-2016, 05:44 PM
First homes were invariably financed by the State Advances with a 3 or 5% mortgage. Have a section and no deposit was required. You only reverted to other institutions if you did not meet S.A. criteria.


westerly

That sort of policy helps no-one. Sounded good at the time, but think how much cheaper homes would have been without subsidies. Great example was the sweat equity scheme in the 80s. It was easy to get a package deal to a house that needed work. A similar age and style of house in immaculate condition was always cheaper.