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
08-06-2016, 12:51 PM
Quite right, I should have said numbers, not amounts. Every vote is precious of course - parties would like to have their canvassers speak to every voter in the electorate, personally. How to do that, with the resources and the time constraints, is the issue.

I'm curious as to how you came up with that last sentence, though, FP. Surely if Labour would be better off going it alone, the recent polling would have moved in the opposite direction? It didn't move in the way you wanted it to move, so maybe your logic is flawed.

Could it be that the "Not National, thanks" voters have been waiting for this MoU event, and thoroughly endorse it? That's more likely. If it begins to look more certain that a Labour-Green coalition will take out the 2017 election, I'd expect soft National voters to move left also, as there are plenty of voters who just like to be on the winning side. They're not that worried either way.

The result of the next election will probably be in the hands of one Mr. Winston Peters. Fancy him as P.M?

Bjauck
08-06-2016, 02:07 PM
The result of the next election will probably be in the hands of one Mr. Winston Peters. Fancy him as P.M? If nationalists overseas are in power including The Donald in the US and Bo Jo in the UK, it will strengthen Winnie's hand...

macduffy
08-06-2016, 03:21 PM
The result of the next election will probably be in the hands of one Mr. Winston Peters. Fancy him as P.M?

If by some mischance a Labour/Greens alliance wins power they'll probably need someone like WP to show them the ropes and take them by the hand. Leadership goes along with that.

:ohmy:

elZorro
08-06-2016, 07:37 PM
If by some mischance a Labour/Greens alliance wins power they'll probably need someone like WP to show them the ropes and take them by the hand. Leadership goes along with that.

:ohmy:

Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, and many of the Labour MPs and caucus members were around during Labour's last triumphant nine year term in office. 9 years, during which Crown debts were repaid, not increased to new highs, when unemployment levels reached a new low for the times, and when smokefree legislation and many other useful policies were brought through, the Cullen Fund, etc etc.

Don't be so patronising. It's John key and Bill English who need holding by the hand. If they weren't paying heavily for Crosby-Textor's neoliberal advice, they'd have been booted out long ago.

fungus pudding
08-06-2016, 07:40 PM
Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, and many of the Labour MPs and caucus members were around during Labour's last triumphant nine year term in office. 9 years, during which Crown debts were repaid, not increased to new highs, when unemployment levels reached a new low for the times, and when smokefree legislation and many other useful policies were brought through, the Cullen Fund, etc etc.

Don't be so patronising. It's John key and Bill English who need holding by the hand. If they weren't paying heavily for Crosby-Textor's neoliberal advice, they'd have been booted out long ago.

Name one person in either Labour or Greens who could possibly be a Prime Minister. Don't even bother to mention James Shaw - he just ain't got it.

elZorro
08-06-2016, 09:10 PM
Name one person in either Labour or Greens who could possibly be a Prime Minister. Don't even bother to mention James Shaw - he just ain't got it.

Little, Goff, Shearer, Robertson, Cunliffe, King, etc, would all be better PMs for NZ than John Key and stand-in Bill English have been. That's a lot of depth to choose from. Who have National got in the wings? The conehead marketer Steven Joyce, he's all talk too. Brownlee? Bennett(s)? No independent thought anywhere. Give me a break.

John Campbell had an interview on Radio NZ with a girl from a homeless family. It's a sad state of affairs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9UnyOoMIPU

RGR367
08-06-2016, 09:56 PM
Little, Goff, Shearer, Robertson, Cunliffe, King, etc, would all be better PMs for NZ than John Key and stand-in Bill English have been. That's a lot of depth to choose from.

Little? C'mon eZ, we've telling you eversince that Andrew is not a PM material. Have you Guys seen him smile? I meant a smile that comes from the heart that makes the eyes shine for that smiling moment? Little is carrying too much weight on his heart and thoughts. Disregard Goff and Cunliffe too please.

Daytr
08-06-2016, 10:00 PM
Really? And how do you qualify that? Perhaps you see Shaw as a realistic threat to National, so better to dismiss him.


Name one person in either Labour or Greens who could possibly be a Prime Minister. Don't even bother to mention James Shaw - he just ain't got it.

elZorro
09-06-2016, 06:37 AM
SkyCity imaginary construction jobs, another scam in the making. Interesting comments.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/305837/skycity-centre-steel-jobs-go-to-thailand

winner69
09-06-2016, 07:24 AM
Hey EZ - do you keep your eyes on the speedo instead of the road as the Minister of Police would claim.

elZorro
09-06-2016, 07:27 AM
Hey EZ - do you keep your eyes on the speedo instead of the road as the Minister of Police would claim.

What do you mean, W69? I was just surprised no-one else mentioned it, thought I should. What's happening on the road, the bigger story is that NZ manufacturing is screwed, if it keeps going down this direction?

Bjauck
09-06-2016, 07:34 AM
Name one person in either Labour or Greens who could possibly be a Prime Minister. Don't even bother to mention James Shaw - he just ain't got it. I think the longer a party is in opposition, the less likely the electors are to remember its MPs in government positions and (to an extent, irrespective of the calibre of the people) the more difficult it is to perceive any of them in the position of PM. I think it is more likely that the National Party will lose the election rather than Labour (and Green) winning it.

Bjauck
09-06-2016, 07:38 AM
What do you mean, W69? I was just surprised no-one else mentioned it, thought I should. What's happening on the road, the bigger story is that NZ manufacturing is screwed, if it keeps going down this direction? Too much investor money ends up in residential land! I see Michael Hill is just about to have its main listing moved to OZ, to access more investors. I would have thought NZ would have been big enough to support them.

winner69
09-06-2016, 07:40 AM
SkyCity imaginary construction jobs, another scam in the making. Interesting comments.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/305837/skycity-centre-steel-jobs-go-to-thailand

EZ, we just have to put up with this sort of crap for a little longer until the eventual demise of neo-liberalism - which is already in it's death throes judging by how many parts of the world are turning on their governments/leaders who believe in it.

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 08:04 AM
EZ, we just have to put up with this sort of crap for a little longer until the eventual demise of neo-liberalism

Wrong. You may not like our current govt. but you will have to grin and bear it at least until there is a credible alternative.

winner69
09-06-2016, 08:13 AM
Wrong. You may not like our current govt. but you will have to grin and bear it at least until there is a credible alternative.

Not wrong as that was exactly as i was saying

That credible alternative might appear before 2020 elections - and it probably wont be appearing from Labour or Greens

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 08:17 AM
Not wrong as that was exactly as i was saying

That credible alternative might appear before 2020 elections - and it probably wont be appearing from Labour or Greens

That's a possibility. The point I was making is the unelectable shambles that labour has descended into.

winner69
09-06-2016, 08:19 AM
That's a possibility. The point I was making is the unelectable shambles that labour has descended into.

Gathered that and agree with your sentiments

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 08:26 AM
[QUOTE=elZorro;623930]Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, /QUOTE]

Actually his biggest problem is that is exactly how he comes across. Be objective. Of the 'leaders' you have named the winner is Annette King who is not interested and probably unelectable because of her age. I can't help thinking Shearer would have become extremely popular if he had been given longer. He has shone since his demotion. The one I am watching is Stuart Nash although he's probably in the wrong party just like Damien O'Connor. That doesn't matter much. the parties are close enough to drift backwards and forwards over the centre line. They both do - which is why I'm a swinging voter.

westerly
09-06-2016, 10:25 AM
[QUOTE=elZorro;623930]Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, /QUOTE]

Actually his biggest problem is that is exactly how he comes across. Be objective. Of the 'leaders' you have named the winner is Annette King who is not interested and probably unelectable because of her age. I can't help thinking Shearer would have become extremely popular if he had been given longer. He has shone since his demotion. The one I am watching is Stuart Nash although he's probably in the wrong party just like Damien O'Connor. That doesn't matter much. the parties are close enough to drift backwards and forwards over the centre line. They both do - which is why I'm a swinging voter.

A swinging voter? And here was I thinking you were Crosby-Textors South Island agent. The Labour Party will be relieved. :)

westerly

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 10:31 AM
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;623998]

A swinging voter? And here was I thinking you were Crosby-Textors South Island agent. The Labour Party will be relieved. :)

westerly

I have voted Labour several times - which is not to say I would ever vote for the current dismal lot. As far as Crosby Dexter go I don't even know who the hell they are. I've only ever seen the name on this forum, but gather they're a PR crowd. All major parties have a PR agency surely; although come to think of it, Labour show no sign of any PR advice.

blackcap
09-06-2016, 10:49 AM
[QUOTE=westerly;624045]

I have voted Labour several times - which is not to say I would ever vote for the current dismal lot. As far as Crosby Dexter go I don't even know who the hell they are. I've only ever seen the name on this forum, but gather they're a PR crowd. All major parties have a PR agency surely; although come to think of it, Labour show no sign of any PR advice.

I think Labour have one Matt McCarten as their "spin" pr merchant

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;624047]

I think Labour have one Matt McCarten as their "spin" pr merchant

Of course. Unsurprisingly - I forgot.

Daytr
13-06-2016, 05:52 AM
Really? Give examples when Shaw has looked put of his depth or incompetent.
Generally in my view he comes across very well.
However his co-leader doesn't give him much help.
The thing is The Greens are all too nice to stab each other in the back or have a leadership stoush,
The odd limp celery stick might get shaken violently.



[QUOTE=elZorro;623930]Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, /QUOTE]

Actually his biggest problem is that is exactly how he comes across. Be objective. Of the 'leaders' you have named the winner is Annette King who is not interested and probably unelectable because of her age. I can't help thinking Shearer would have become extremely popular if he had been given longer. He has shone since his demotion. The one I am watching is Stuart Nash although he's probably in the wrong party just like Damien O'Connor. That doesn't matter much. the parties are close enough to drift backwards and forwards over the centre line. They both do - which is why I'm a swinging voter.

elZorro
14-06-2016, 06:32 AM
Who is going to make the hard decisions around here?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11655554&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+14+ June+2016

fungus pudding
14-06-2016, 07:58 AM
Who is going to make the hard decisions around here?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11655554&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+14+ June+2016

Hopefully never a government.

Major von Tempsky
14-06-2016, 09:34 AM
Just a matter of time before the Greens support passes that of Labour :-)

Bjauck
14-06-2016, 10:22 AM
Hopefully never a government. Do you really want an unfettered free market with no regulations? Where foreign owned corporations make the decisions for NZ. Where the de facto NZ Ministry of Finance is located at Collins St, Melbourne.

elZorro
14-06-2016, 06:47 PM
Do you really want an unfettered free market with no regulations? Where foreign owned corporations make the decisions for NZ. Where the de facto NZ Ministry of Finance is located at Collins St, Melbourne.

FP probably has photos of Roger Douglas and Don Brash in the living room, Bjauck. FP voted Labour once, when for a while they were more neoliberal than the neoliberals.

winner69
14-06-2016, 07:02 PM
FP probably has photos of Roger Douglas and Don Brash in the living room, Bjauck. FP voted Labour once, when for a while they were more neoliberal than the neoliberals.

Remember this guy EZ?

Pictured telling some good story - did it work out as planned?

elZorro
14-06-2016, 09:26 PM
Remember this guy EZ?

Pictured telling some good story - did it work out as planned?

David Caygill, still working on the job by the sound of it.


Minister of Finance[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Caygill&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

When Douglas was fired by Prime Minister Lange, Caygill was appointed Minister of Finance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_(New_Zealand)) in his place. After Lange himself had resigned, Caygill retained his position under both Geoffrey Palmer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Palmer_(politician)) and Mike Moore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moore_(New_Zealand_politician)), Lange's short-lived successors as Prime Minister.
In his last budget as Minister of Finance before retiring, Caygill lifted the quarantining of rental losses on investment property, allowing an investor to offset losses on their investment property against their other taxable income.
In 1991, a year after the Labour Party had lost office, Caygill was replaced as finance spokesperson by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)), who was more moderate in his economic policies. Caygill continued to hold a senior position in the Labour Party, however, and when Helen Clark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark) became leader in 1993, Caygill replaced her as deputy leader. At the 1996 elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1996), Caygill retired from Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Parliament). He was replaced as deputy leader by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)).
Life after politics[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Caygill&action=edit&section=6&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

After leaving politics, Caygill returned to his original occupation, law. For some time, he was a partner at Buddle Findlay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddle_Findlay), a prominent law firm. He also worked for a number of government bodies, and was chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation). He chaired a ministerial inquiry into the New Zealand electricity market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Electricity_Market) in 2000, and was appointed chairman of the Electricity Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Commission_(NZ)) in 2007. He is a board member of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Efficiency_and_Conservation_Authority). He is the chair of the Education New Zealand Trust.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Caygill#cite_note-ECan_bio-4)
In 2010, Caygill was appointed by the National Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand) as one of the commissioners at Environment Canterbury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Canterbury). He holds the role of deputy chair.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Caygill#cite_note-ECan_bio-4) Caygill was appointed, in December 2010, as the Chair of the 2011 NZ ETS Review Panel.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Caygill#cite_note-ECan_bio-4)


Just a couple of the more recent Caygill actions I didn't know about. He's fairly determined to let the market take control isn't he?

Forget about income per person, the Crown has been on a spending spree since 2009, borrowing against every NZer. The rate slowed in recent years, but accelerated again in the 2015 year. Now every person in NZ has a gross crown debt of around $25,000, a figure that was stable at $10,000 and lowering under Labour. According to this chart, Crown gross debt is now well over $100billion.

https://figure.nz/chart/v8SueeHsw4czJ9zc

elZorro
16-06-2016, 06:40 AM
The government making a show over consultation on the RCEP. Even Fran O'Sullivan is not impressed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11657170&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+16 +June+2016

winner69
16-06-2016, 10:43 AM
@DawgBelly: This govt compensated a Saudi resident $11 million for his hurt feelings, Teina Pora gets $2.5million for 21 years wrongful imprisonment.

Just a tweet i thought interesting

fungus pudding
18-06-2016, 05:24 PM
Comment on CGT.

Especially for you eZ. As I have often pointed out a poorly designed CGT tax can be detrimental - particularly its effect of drying up, or slowing a market.
I've never been against a well designed scheme, but we'll never get one. It would be political suicide.
Anyway there's some comments in this article are worth a bit of consideration.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/why-capital-gains-tax-wont-stop-housing-bubble-gs

elZorro
19-06-2016, 07:22 AM
Comment on CGT.

Especially for you eZ. As I have often pointed out a poorly designed CGT tax can be detrimental - particularly its effect of drying up, or slowing a market.
I've never been against a well designed scheme, but we'll never get one. It would be political suicide.
Anyway there's some comments in this article are worth a bit of consideration.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/why-capital-gains-tax-wont-stop-housing-bubble-gs


Not a balanced article, as he's trying to push a CCIT idea from the Morgan Foundation. In one example there, a person has $1mill already, and is faced with putting it in the bank and using the taxed interest to pay rent, or buying a house to live in, outright. The argument is that it's tax efficient to buy the house, and it's an unfair advantage. Therefore every capital situation should be taxed.

However, very few people have the $mill to buy a house in Auckland, and will instead struggle to pay it off, including paying interest from their tax-paid income. Unlike those property investors who get to claim the interest costs against their rental/lease income. It's not a level playing field now, and applying a capital tax across the board will make it even more unfair. That's why other countries don't do it either, but they do have a CGT along the lines of what Labour proposed in 2014.

fungus pudding
19-06-2016, 07:44 AM
Not a balanced article, as he's trying to push a CCIT idea from the Morgan Foundation. In one example there, a person has $1mill already, and is faced with putting it in the bank and using the taxed interest to pay rent, or buying a house to live in, outright. The argument is that it's tax efficient to buy the house, and it's an unfair advantage. Therefore every capital situation should be taxed.

However, very few people have the $mill to buy a house in Auckland, and will instead struggle to pay it off, including paying interest from their tax-paid income. Unlike those property investors who get to claim the interest costs against their rental/lease income. It's not a level playing field now, and applying a capital tax across the board will make it even more unfair. That's why other countries don't do it either, but they do have a CGT along the lines of what Labour proposed in 2014.

Of course it's opinionm but follow some of the urls in the article referring to studies. e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/qr_euro_area/2012/pdf/qrea4_section_2_en.pdf

And a few of the others.

The whole point is that CGT is not an open and shut case of just implementing a tax and seeing no negative consequences, wnich is why I hold the view that it needs to be well thought through, comprehensive and with a repatriation clause.

winner69
19-06-2016, 05:21 PM
Labour officially launch their campaign in Australia today. Big speech from Shorten a well as rolling out a few of mentors in old timers like Fraser and Keating.

For me it just confirmed that neither Shorten or Little just don't have what takes to be a Prime Minister

Might give Labour some hope if a miracle happened and a Labour PM happened in Australia

Daytr
20-06-2016, 07:17 AM
Good to see John Key defending Paula Bennett.
Apparently that stuff up after stuff up and some might even suggest bordering on illegal in the case of the leak from her office, its all a media beat up!
5 times Bennett has been asked to appear on the Nation since the homeless story broke and she hasn't been able to attend once apparently.
She showed her true colors in the Northland bi-election and was probably the most damaging to their campaign behind Mike Sabin.
Bennett is a liability, yet Key defends her.
The man's judgment yet again is flawed.

elZorro
20-06-2016, 09:52 PM
The latest Roy Morgan Poll shows that National's support is dropping, while the Labour-Green coalition concept is gaining votes. L-G are now within 0.5% of National, meaning NZ First has the balance of power.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6851-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-june-2016-201606201622

It'll be even more interesting when the Labour-Greens overtake National in the polls, surely can't be long now, hey FP?

Sgt Pepper
21-06-2016, 07:17 AM
John Key in January 2015

"Up to 143 New Zealand personnel will be sent, although the deployment will not be a badged mission. It will be reviewed after nine months and last no more than two years"

John Key20/06/2016

New Zealand will extend its deployment in Iraq for another 18 months and expand to a second military base, Prime Minister John Key has confirmed this afternoon

The perfidiousness of John Key is astonishing. It was like this right from the start, GST, his Tranz Rail shares transactions, by way of two examples, many others and no doubt more to come.

He makes Pinocchio look like an upfront guy who always tells the truth

fungus pudding
21-06-2016, 08:03 AM
The latest Roy Morgan Poll shows that National's support is dropping, while the Labour-Green coalition concept is gaining votes. L-G are now within 0.5% of National, meaning NZ First has the balance of power.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6851-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-june-2016-201606201622

It'll be even more interesting when the Labour-Greens overtake National in the polls, surely can't be long now, hey FP?

I agree if looking at combined vote. As I have said often the next govt. will depend on who offers Winston the biggest, brightest or most baubles. Neither Labour or Greens have got a leader capable of PM role - and that's what Winnie wants.
Mind you, I thought the last election would produce a National - Winston first coalition.

Bjauck
21-06-2016, 08:51 AM
Of course it's opinionm but follow some of the urls in the article referring to studies. e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/qr_euro_area/2012/pdf/qrea4_section_2_en.pdf

And a few of the others.

The whole point is that CGT is not an open and shut case of just implementing a tax and seeing no negative consequences, wnich is why I hold the view that it needs to be well thought through, comprehensive and with a repatriation clause.

I agree that if a CGT is introduced, it should be a comprehensive one. It should include a CGT on the family home.

However at the same time as this new tax introduction there should be tax cuts and changes. Instead of council rates there should be a council income tax (a couple of percecentage points on the existing tax rates?). There should be a tax free income tax threshhold for incomes up to about $15,000 and/or a GST tax cut and/or tax-free inflation allowance for investment income. A deduction against taxable income for those who pay rent (or mortgage interest) for accommodation should be considered to balance out mortgage-free home owners non-taxed benefit of occupancy.

However the vested interest of owner-occupiers would mean it would be politically devastating for a party to suggest a comprehensive CGT and radical tax over-haul.

fungus pudding
21-06-2016, 09:24 AM
I agree that if a CGT is introduced, it should be a comprehensive one. It should include a CGT on the family home.

However at the same time as this new tax introduction there should be tax cuts and changes. Instead of council rates there should be a council income tax (a couple of percecentage points on the existing tax rates?). There should be a tax free income tax threshhold for incomes up to about $15,000 and/or a GST tax cut and/or tax-free inflation allowance for investment income. A deduction against taxable income for those who pay rent (or mortgage interest) for accommodation should be considered to balance out mortgage-free home owners non-taxed benefit of occupancy.

However the vested interest of owner-occupiers would mean it would be politically devastating for a party to suggest a comprehensive CGT and radical tax over-haul.

As would be taxing investment income at a different rate than any other income. Quite unworkable.

Bjauck
21-06-2016, 10:24 AM
As would be taxing investment income at a different rate than any other income. Quite unworkable. Why would it be unworkable? I think different tax rates or rebates could fairly easily be applied to various levels of income from different sources. I also think an inflation adjustment for fixed interest investments would be relatively easy to implement compared to some existing requirements for investment income. The problems would be political.

fungus pudding
21-06-2016, 12:42 PM
Why would it be unworkable? I think different tax rates or rebates could fairly easily be applied to various levels of income from different sources. I also think an inflation adjustment for fixed interest investments would be relatively easy to implement compared to some existing requirements for investment income. The problems would be political.

Are you suggesting a higher rate for investment income, or a lower rate? I have no other income, and haven't had for years. Have I paid too much tax or not enough?

777
21-06-2016, 01:13 PM
Are you suggesting a higher rate for investment income, or a lower rate? I have no other income, and haven't had for years. Have I paid too much tax or not enough?

I hope you are taking advantage of PIE tax rates.

fungus pudding
21-06-2016, 01:22 PM
I hope you are taking advantage of PIE tax rates.

I certainly am.

Bjauck
21-06-2016, 03:26 PM
I certainly am. PIE income is one existing working example of taxing some investment income at a different rate than other income. So why couldn't any lower tax regime extend to other fixed investment income to make an allowance for inflation. I think currently the US and the UK for example have tax-advantaged financial investment schemes for individuals that are exempt from income tax and capital gains tax.

I think it would also be possible to introduce a rebate scheme for owner-occupier mortgage interest payments (I think NZ used to have such a scheme) and a rebate for rent payments to remove the tax advantage that mortgage-free owner-occupiers currently enjoy. That could be politically more feasible than assessing imputed rent.

fungus pudding
21-06-2016, 03:30 PM
PIE income is one existing working example of taxing some investment income at a different rate than other income. So why couldn't the lower tax regime extend to other fixed investment income to make an allowance for inflation. I think currently the US and the UK for example have tax-advantaged financial investment schemes exempt from income tax and capital gains tax.

I think it would also be possible to introduce a rebate scheme for first home owner-occupier mortgage interest payments (I think NZ used to have such a scheme) and a rebate for rent payments to remove the tax advantage that mortgage-free owner-occupiers currently enjoy. That could be politically more feasible than assessing imputed rent.


Bring it on. It's years since I was a residential landlord, but if rent payments were made tax deductible I'd be back in like a robbers dog. Remember subsidies never quite land where they are aimed at; landlords rather than tenants being the beneficiary of such a scheme.

Sgt Pepper
21-06-2016, 04:29 PM
Two complete U turns in one day, impressive, haven't seen this flexibility since
Nadia Comaneci at the 1976 Olympics

10:19 pm on 29 April 2013"

Govt rules out fuel tax, road tolls for Auckland


21/06/2016
It concludes that while ongoing investment in new road and public transport projects will clearly be needed, greater use of technology and in the longer term road pricing -- or directly charging for road use -- will also be part of the toolkit," Transport Minister Simon Bridges said

Bjauck
21-06-2016, 07:07 PM
Two complete U turns in one day, impressive, haven't seen this flexibility since
Nadia Comaneci at the 1976 Olympics

10:19 pm on 29 April 2013"

Govt rules out fuel tax, road tolls for Auckland


21/06/2016
It concludes that while ongoing investment in new road and public transport projects will clearly be needed, greater use of technology and in the longer term road pricing -- or directly charging for road use -- will also be part of the toolkit," Transport Minister Simon Bridges said

The looming crisis from lack of investment in infrastructure and increased demand from immigration has got to be addressed by more than passing the blame to the Council.

Jay
22-06-2016, 06:57 AM
Wasn't the extra petrol tax that gets added every year or so, supposed to pay for roads???

fungus pudding
22-06-2016, 07:59 AM
Wasn't the extra petrol tax that gets added every year or so, supposed to pay for roads???

No. It was supposed to go towards roading.

Jay
22-06-2016, 09:31 AM
No. It was supposed to go towards roading.
I stand/sit corrected

elZorro
26-06-2016, 10:43 AM
While having a look through the SST this morning (and I predict the demise of the business pages if they don't get some more advertisers) I saw this item by David Slack. He's being serious this time, and fair enough.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/social-networking/81397094/david-slack-greed-and-hair-gel-is-good

Make no doubt about it, there is a lot to fix in this commodity economy of ours. While I can sense that everything won't be great worldwide until we find some cheap non-carbon energy to replace bountiful oil seen in previous generations, NZ can still do better, but we won't, with a drongo National govt in place.

elZorro
27-06-2016, 06:44 PM
Liam Dann with an article that's interesting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11663837&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Monday+27+J une+2016

The Brexit vote has certainly pointed out to politicians that many of the hoi polloi (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11664425&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+28+ June+2016)have had about enough (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11664425&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+28+ June+2016) of watching the massive divide between the haves, and the have nots. Liam says, don't rock the applecart.

In a similar vein, John Key's choice of Mr Shewan to look at his lax foreign trust laws has at least provided some momentum for change.
(http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201806129/the-minister-of-revenue-on-foreign-trusts)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81497014/Shewan-report-recommends-greater-disclosure-annual-returns-by-foreign-trusts

However, while existing trusts will have to provide more details, they can also slither away before the rules come into force, and the 'tax rate' stays the same. That is, there is no tax.

Daytr
29-06-2016, 06:33 AM
I think Key is training for the NZ gymnastics team for Rio, with the amount of backflips, rolling over and u turns.
Mind you he's more looking like some running at the box and has mis-timed his run, its going to be nasty.
At least the pressure is off Paula Bennett as there are too many other things to concentrate on.
Such as his extending troups in Iraq, the investigation into foreign trusts says our regulations are not nearly stringent enough.
Only what the opposition and even government departments have ben saying for years.
Brexit was a big blow for the neo-liberals, Key should take note. People are fed up with the BS.

fungus pudding
29-06-2016, 06:58 AM
I think Key is training for the NZ gymnastics team for Rio, with the amount of backflips, rolling over and u turns.
Mind you he's more looking like some running at the box and has mis-timed his run, its going to be nasty.
At least the pressure is off Paula Bennett as there are too many other things to concentrate on.
Such as his extending troupes in Iraq, the investigation into foreign trusts says our regulations are not nearly stringent enough.
Only what the opposition and even government departments have ben saying for years.
Brexit was a big blow for the neo-liberals, Key should take note. People are fed up with the BS.

It is not possible to have an amount of back=flips.

RGR367
29-06-2016, 07:42 AM
It is not possible to have an amount of back=flips.

Kinda below the belt fp but just like that TV3 field reporter on the other night saying "the amount of families" attending the march for that Moko kid :ohmy:

macduffy
29-06-2016, 07:43 AM
It is not possible to have an amount of back=flips.

I agree, fungus. But let's not revisit the matter of how the language is changing, however much it hurts to try to imagine weighing an amount of backflips!
I've finally come to terms with the fact that English is a living language and that words mean what Alice's Red Queen says they mean!

fungus pudding
29-06-2016, 09:02 AM
I agree, fungus. But let's not revisit the matter of how the language is changing, however much it hurts to try to imagine weighing an amount of backflips!
I've finally come to terms with the fact that English is a living language and that words mean what Alice's Red Queen says they mean!

I haven't. Such an absurdity as an amount of backflips stops me in my tracks and I lose my train of thought. I realise many don't - but I ain't one of them!

777
29-06-2016, 09:09 AM
Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

jonu
29-06-2016, 03:39 PM
Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

Getting way off topic here, but laziness has been a driver of change in language for centuries. You have used the abbreviation fp. Why? Can't be bothered writing out the full name I would guess. I just used CAN'T for the same reason.

westerly
29-06-2016, 05:47 PM
Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

My Oxford Dictionary defines amount used as a noun as "the total number" If you replace “amount” with the “total number” of back flips etc “ it would appear to be correct usage, but who am I to argue.
Of more importance is the irony of a National Party who made much of Helen Clarke and the terms “nanny state and auntie Helen” passing a Health and Safety Bill with such draconian punishments, we have Real Estate agents worried about whether they should give a safety lecture and have people sign a “they know the risks” indemnity form before viewing an open home.
Uncle John is really looking after us. I am not sure what has happened to self reliance.

westerly

fungus pudding
29-06-2016, 07:01 PM
My Oxford Dictionary defines amount used as a noun as "the total number" If you replace “amount” with the “total number” of back flips etc “ it would appear to be correct usage,


westerly

Absolute rubbish. Amount applies to volume or mass. Number applies to things that can be counted (count nouns). An amount is something you can have less of. A number is something you can have fewer of.
You can have an amount of footwear, but a number of shoes.
An amount of traffic, but a number of cars.
You could have less footwear but fewer shoes.
Getting it right avoids ambiguity.

elZorro
29-06-2016, 08:28 PM
Yeah, well, this is getting off the very important topic of how to make sure National don't get back in, come the next elections..

I suggest some of the previous posts could be more applicable to the

Markets/Off Market Discussions/What's wrong with the youth of today/Poor grammar thread :)

elZorro
01-07-2016, 06:38 AM
Stuart Nash brings up some important points.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/81610936/ird-urged-to-lift-veil-of-secrecy-over-big-company-tax?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+1+Ju ly+2016

Later on in the comments, corporate tax evasion could easily be in the order of $10,000mill a year. Welfare fraud in NZ, that's more like $30mill a year. 300 times smaller. However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion.

Snapper
01-07-2016, 09:40 AM
"However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion."

Agree that there is a disparity there; I suppose the difference is because tax evasion is based on how much you give while welfare fraud is based on how much you take. I have a certain sympathy for welfare fraud, though. I was briefly unemployed after I sold my business a few years ago and went on the dole for about two months - it wasn't even enough to buy my groceries! It must be an incredible struggle for anyone on social welfare and we have one of the most generous systems around.

Daytr
02-07-2016, 07:26 AM
Ha ha, so many experts on the English language. I always find it amazing what irks people . Probably my spelling of amasing will do the same as I've used the American spelling from my text predictor. And yet American English in many instances is more correct than what is spoken in England, well that is if you live in a museum. It seems modern dictionaries define amount as also a number of, whereas more traditional dictionaries say its an amount that can't be counted.... Shakespeare was the biggest changer of the English language, by introducing over 1700 words. He changed nouns into verbs, he joined words and just made them up. Typically I find people who get bogged down with such pedantic BS, don't see the wood for the trees.
At this point I take my leave.

elZorro
02-07-2016, 10:41 AM
Shamubeel Eaqub with a thoughtful piece on the Brexit vote result.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/81656126/shamubeel-eaqub-brexit-a-pyrrhic-for-divided-kingdom?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+2+ July+2016

Daytr
02-07-2016, 04:44 PM
Murray McCully finally caught out completely on Saudi Sheepgate .
How many times has McCullybeen caught out in dodgy deals during his career?
Did he lie to parliament re the threat of legal action by the Saudi billionaire?
It appears so.

Was it a bribe hidden in a government contract for services?

Key blames Labour of course. What a joke !

Did anyone see Key interviewed this morning on the Nation re housing.
He was like a worm on a hook, squirming from one diversion to another.
He didn't look comfortable at all. Nor should he.

RGR367
02-07-2016, 05:23 PM
Yeah, when your threshold for shame like McCully is as thick as a pachyderm it will take you forever to resign. He's an embarrasment to National.

jonu
02-07-2016, 06:09 PM
McCully perhaps? It looks as though the grammar/language change distraction has taken root.

winner69
03-07-2016, 07:34 AM
Turnball learns that the electorate is turning against the rich elitist leaders - even Australia not immune

I reckon Key is taking note and will stand down later this year and not run again.

Sgt Pepper
03-07-2016, 10:11 AM
Turnball learns that the electorate is turning against the rich elitist leaders - even Australia not immune

I reckon Key is taking note and will stand down later this year and not run again.

I note that almost all of john Keys friends tat when overseas he likes to be photographed with have lost, or about go out of office
1. Stephen Harper Canadian PM - out
2. David Cameron . leaves in October
3. Barack Obama: finishes January 2017
4> Malcolm Turnbull ??
Poor old John, must be quite lonely

fungus pudding
03-07-2016, 10:20 AM
I note that almost all of john Keys friends tat when overseas he likes to be photographed with have lost, or about go out of office
1. Stephen Harper Canadian PM - out
2. David Cameron . leaves in October
3. Barack Obama: finishes January 2017
4> Malcolm Turnbull ??
Poor old John, must be quite lonely

It's a tough game. They all have their day. However Key is very convivial and is very likely to form close friendships with Trudeau and Theresa May, if she makes it. He's tactful enough to tolerate Hillary Clinton. No others count.

Daytr
03-07-2016, 01:25 PM
There's no housing crisis according to National and yet allocates $1bln of borrowing to build more roads etc.
They cannot afford to turn down immigration, as its their only economic growth model and building roads.
So NZ sacrifices quality of life for John Key's ambition.
No planning, complete disregard for the environment and the social & economic pressure on the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

fungus pudding
03-07-2016, 02:36 PM
There's no housing crisis according to National and yet allocates $1bln of borrowing to build more roads etc.
They cannot afford to turn down immigration, as its their only economic growth model and building roads.
So NZ sacrifices quality of life for John Key's ambition.
No planning, complete disregard for the environment and the social & economic pressure on the most vulnerable New Zealanders.


Tough life Eh! You might be able to find a spot in Cuba to live. No immigration problems there.

elZorro
03-07-2016, 04:22 PM
There's no housing crisis according to National and yet allocates $1bln of borrowing to build more roads etc.
They cannot afford to turn down immigration, as its their only economic growth model and building roads.
So NZ sacrifices quality of life for John Key's ambition.
No planning, complete disregard for the environment and the social & economic pressure on the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Yet again National has to concede that there is something useful in Labour's policies that it can flog, since they are bereft of ideas themselves. The market doesn't appear to be acting as fast as net immigration is - and why should it - by being a bit slower the developers make more money from each sale.

The government can use its borrowing power to borrow at 2.5% or so, the big difference between this ad hoc policy and Labour's is that there is no bulk buying of components, no trade training provided, no concerted effort to build cheaper houses, no effort to force down the price of sections, just a helping hand to councils to reduce their borrowing costs for public works. The $1bill fund will be accessed by councils, who have to state their case, to get on the list of approved projects. So the govt will be interfering a bit in the market anyway, but only with councils, not the builders and developers. It's similar to the way they've handled R&D for businesses. Only the big businesses need to apply, for the rest of us, the paperwork is often too onerous for the small amount on offer in the way of part-grants.

Again this year, just 200 undergrad 400hr positions for science/tech projects over the summer holidays coming up. The applications were open for about 2 weeks, the spec has been tightened, just the 200 positions for thousands of undergrads who could have been employed in a good training area. Again, most of those few grants nationwide would go to the bigger firms, and firms with public listings, wealthy overseas investors, established firms.

Steven Joyce still spouting off about the R&D tax credits not having worked overseas (they get rorted?), he just forgets to mention that Labour's were audited tax credits.

Daytr
03-07-2016, 05:12 PM
More constructive commentary from Fungus...
Actually it has become very tough for many Kiwis as the cost of living has exploded under this Key led government.


Tough life Eh! You might be able to find a spot in Cuba to live. No immigration problems there.

Sgt Pepper
04-07-2016, 04:52 PM
From an article on what John Key could learn from the Liberal epic failure in the Australian elctiom

"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"

If John Key sniffs the political wind and detects any prospect of failure next year, he will bail.

fungus pudding
04-07-2016, 04:56 PM
From an article on what John Key could learn from the Liberal epic failure in the Australian elctiom

"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"

If John Key sniffs the political wind and detects any prospect of failure next year, he will bail.

Nonsense stuff. What does removing negative gearing mean? Banning it?

Sgt Pepper
04-07-2016, 05:06 PM
Nonsense stuff. What does removing negative gearing mean? Banning it?

FP
I am surprised I thought you would be an admirer of the Australian LIBERAL party. John Key is.

fungus pudding
04-07-2016, 06:13 PM
FP
I am surprised I thought you would be an admirer of the Australian LIBERAL party. John Key is.

You shouldn't be suprised that i dont know what removing negative gearing means?
You don't either. Nobody does.

777
04-07-2016, 07:59 PM
Negative gearing according to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 02:43 AM
Negative gearing according to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

We all know what negative gearing means. What I don't know is how you 'remove it'.

Daytr
05-07-2016, 07:11 AM
National's $1Bln infrastructure debt policy is a drop in the bucket of what is required.
Its a cunning plan to divert the debt to councils and rate payers.
The government creates the problem, but blames others being councils for not solving it!
This BS that the level of immigration is due to Kiwis not leaving is getting tired.
Hello people not leaving is not immigration, its people entering the country.
Turn down the level of immigration!
We are not coping and it is creating a housing disaster.
When the housing bubble bursts its going to wreak havoc on NZ and be left for someone else to clean up.

777
05-07-2016, 07:54 AM
We all know what negative gearing means. What I don't know is how you 'remove it'.

Easy. Don't allow the negative figure to be deducted against other income.

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 08:17 AM
Easy. Don't allow the negative figure to be deducted against other income.

That's removing deductibility, or taxing on turnover rather than profit. That brings in a huge set of problems. Anyway it's far different than 'removing negative gearing'.

RGR367
05-07-2016, 08:24 AM
Easy. Don't allow the negative figure to be deducted against other income.

If that's the case, then someone who is still employed would never dare start a small business on the side? I'll vote against any political party with that policy and/or guideline.

777
05-07-2016, 08:52 AM
That's removing deductibility, or taxing on turnover rather than profit. That brings in a huge set of problems. Anyway it's far different than 'removing negative gearing'.

Well that is just a difference in interpretation. Where do you you get "taxing on turnover" out of that. Not allowing a taxable loss against other income is just that and no more.

777
05-07-2016, 08:55 AM
If that's the case, then someone who is still employed would never dare start a small business on the side? I'll vote against any political party with that policy and/or guideline.

The argument was to not allow negative gearing on investment property.

Sgt Pepper
05-07-2016, 10:36 AM
Well that is just a difference in interpretation. Where do you you get "taxing on turnover" out of that. Not allowing a taxable loss against other income is just that and no more.

Exactly
I will support taxable loss on investment property against other income if the government makes the interest on the mortgage for our family home tax deductible. That's never going to happen. Why, as a high income earner do I have to subsidise property investment?????

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 11:56 AM
Exactly
I will support taxable loss on investment property against other income if the government makes the interest on the mortgage for our family home tax deductible. That's never going to happen. Why, as a high income earner do I have to subsidise property investment?????

Std business practise world wide is to tax profit. Expenses such as interest do not form part of profit.

777
05-07-2016, 12:02 PM
Interest is an expense against income in order to calculate profit.

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 12:55 PM
Interest is an expense against income in order to calculate profit.

Exactly what I said. Only the profit should be taxed.

artemis
05-07-2016, 12:59 PM
Easy. Don't allow the negative figure to be deducted against other income.

So it would be a loss cfwd against income from the same source? Ringfencing? Should it apply to all sole traders? (If not, why not?) Certainly a quick way to pour a bucket of cold water on many start ups.

blackcap
05-07-2016, 01:02 PM
Exactly
I will support taxable loss on investment property against other income if the government makes the interest on the mortgage for our family home tax deductible. That's never going to happen. Why, as a high income earner do I have to subsidise property investment?????


Why is that never going to happen Sgt Pepper? In The Netherlands the interest on your mortgage for family home IS tax deductible, whilst interest on investment properties is NOT tax deductible. Interesting huh!

777
05-07-2016, 01:32 PM
So it would be a loss cfwd against income from the same source? Ringfencing? Should it apply to all sole traders? (If not, why not?) Certainly a quick way to pour a bucket of cold water on many start ups.

Copied from Sgt Pepper's post....

"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"

Nothing to do with startups.

777
05-07-2016, 01:35 PM
Exactly what I said. Only the profit should be taxed.

The profit is taxed. It is only if there is a loss that that loss would not be deducted against "other income". i.e. your salary etc

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 01:45 PM
The profit is taxed. It is only if there is a loss that that loss would not be deducted against "other income". i.e. your salary etc

No. Even if there isn't a loss the interest paid goes out the window according to the suggestions from proponents of such nonsense.

Anyway it's unworkable. e.g. To give a very simple example: if I earn 10k from source A, and lose 10k from a rental income because of interest - I have no money. What am I going to pay my tax with?

777
05-07-2016, 03:11 PM
No. Even if there isn't a loss the interest paid goes out the window according to the suggestions from proponents of such nonsense.

Anyway it's unworkable. e.g. To give a very simple example: if I earn 10k from source A, and lose 10k from a rental income because of interest - I have no money. What am I going to pay my tax with?

Well that is exactly what they are trying to achieve. You will have to borrow less in order to have less interest to pay therefore the amount you pay for the property will have to be less if your deposit is to remain the same. Everyone will be in the same boat so properties will adjust downwards.

Well that is the theory. In practice who knows.

I think we have dome this to death.

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 03:26 PM
Well that is exactly what they are trying to achieve. You will have to borrow less in order to have less interest to pay therefore the amount you pay for the property will have to be less if your deposit is to remain the same. Everyone will be in the same boat so properties will adjust downwards.

Well that is the theory. In practice who knows.

I think we have dome this to death.

That's like disallowing countdown to deduct the purchase price of their stock in order to drive down the price they buy goods for.

artemis
05-07-2016, 05:11 PM
Copied from Sgt Pepper's post....

"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"

Nothing to do with startups.

So you think a business renting out accommodation should be treated differently to other businesses? Why?

Sgt Pepper
05-07-2016, 05:20 PM
"Prime Minister John Key has signalled loudly to the Reserve Bank that it should extend existing loan to value ratio (LVR) restriction on investors to curb house price rises - and to move quickly"

John Key is doing so many U turns he must be suffering from motion sickness. A conviction politician he most certainly is not. The principled conservative wing of the National Party must be increasingly exasperated.

777
05-07-2016, 05:51 PM
That's like disallowing countdown to deduct the purchase price of their stock in order to drive down the price they buy goods for.

Rubbish. You can still write your interest off against your income from your rental but not against any other income. Carry you losses forward until your rental income covers them.

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 05:57 PM
Rubbish. You can still write your interest off against your income from your rental but not against any other income. Carry you losses forward until your rental income covers them.

That flies in the face of any standard accounting. What next? Disallow maintenance, rates, or insurance? Already depreciation is not deductible, and that is ridiculous.

elZorro
05-07-2016, 06:34 PM
That flies in the face of any standard accounting. What next? Disallow maintenance, rates, or insurance? Already depreciation is not deductible, and that is ridiculous.

As a normal business owner, you are now allowed to claim back certain R&D losses soon after the year they were incurred. All the rest of any losses have to be carried forward until you make a profit, if any. The rules National has put in place for such 'R&D' mean that very few activities will be in the correct slot. No patent/trademark costs. No work on refining an existing product. No new version of an existing product from somewhere else. Etc etc - you may as well not apply, unless you are one of the very few businesses where that would be applicable. But the policy sounded good, didn't it?

However, FP, as I'm sure you will be aware, a rentier has no such issue. Any and all interest costs, maintenance etc that is coded up, will be claimable in the year it was incurred. Since most landlords have either another income, or are well established enough to have a net income regardless, they claim the lot against other income streams, and in addition have a fairly usual capital gain that is tax free, to look forward to. So these relatively unproductive enterprises that employ few people, don't export anything, don't increase our potential at all, have a far better tax setup than a entrepreneurial enterprise that normally has to use private equity of the owner(s) to get started, because the banks won't lend to them unless they have property security.

fungus pudding
05-07-2016, 06:53 PM
As a normal business owner, you are now allowed to claim back certain R&D losses soon after the year they were incurred. All the rest of any losses have to be carried forward until you make a profit, if any. The rules National has put in place for such 'R&D' mean that very few activities will be in the correct slot. No patent/trademark costs. No work on refining an existing product. No new version of an existing product from somewhere else. Etc etc - you may as well not apply, unless you are one of the very few businesses where that would be applicable. But the policy sounded good, didn't it?

However, FP, as I'm sure you will be aware, a rentier has no such issue. Any and all interest costs, maintenance etc that is coded up, will be claimable in the year it was incurred. Since most landlords have either another income, or are well established enough to have a net income regardless, they claim the lot against other income streams, and in addition have a fairly usual capital gain that is tax free, to look forward to. So these relatively unproductive enterprises that employ few people, don't export anything, don't increase our potential at all, have a far better tax setup than a entrepreneurial enterprise that normally has to use private equity of the owner(s) to get started, because the banks won't lend to them unless they have property security.

Capital gained is far from tax free as you know. It is often classed by the IRD as income. And what is fair about National's strange move of disallowing depreciation as an expense? It may be a non cash expense, but it's a big one.

Sgt Pepper
05-07-2016, 07:25 PM
Capital gained is far from tax free as you know. It is often classed by the IRD as income. And what is fair about National's strange move of disallowing depreciation as an expense? It may be a non cash expense, but it's a big one.

FP
Yes disallowing depreciation as an expense was rather surprising for a National Government. What I found at the time, really surprising was the very muted reaction from Property Investor groups. Imagine if a Labour Government had been responsible, the noise would have been deafening

elZorro
05-07-2016, 07:29 PM
Capital gained is far from tax free as you know. It is often classed by the IRD as income. And what is fair about National's strange move of disallowing depreciation as an expense? It may be a non cash expense, but it's a big one.

I see you have to agree with most of what I said in the previous post. Since, on average, rental and commercial property increases in value in toto over the years, the idea that you could claim depreciation on some parts of a building like the plumbing or drapes, but not have to add to income to allow for the likely appreciation in other parts of it, is a bit weird. It was a brilliant tax dodge, that's all it was. Normal businesses do get to claim depreciation on their working assets, like computers, and that is more real. Often they rent their premises, so take the premises away from the equation, and the business is left looking shabby if the working assets are not replaced regularly.

I'd like to know what proportion of landlord property sales ever get taxed on capital gain. It won't be high, most of you are too clever for that.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11669161&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+6 +July+2016

elZorro
06-07-2016, 08:21 AM
I'm looking forward to the policy announcements from Labour this weekend. Good timing for another look at KiwiBuild, which I think has to be a brilliant policy, it'll boost the economy and give many people a real step up.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/labour-to-supersize-housing-plan-2016070511#axzz4DZU1CO7N

Sgt Pepper
07-07-2016, 12:19 PM
The release of the Chilcott Enquiry in the UK vindicates the position Helen Clark took in 2003 of refusing to send NZ ground troops to Iraq if there was no UN mandate. One new National MP at the time was highly critical calling NZ" missing in action". His name was John Key

elZorro
08-07-2016, 06:43 AM
The release of the Chilcott Enquiry in the UK vindicates the position Helen Clark took in 2003 of refusing to send NZ ground troops to Iraq if there was no UN mandate. One new National MP at the time was highly critical calling NZ" missing in action". His name was John Key

Absolutely right, Sgt Pepper. This govt doesn't have a brain, when you compare it to the Clark administration. Or, if they do have a brain, they employ it contrary to the nations' best interests.

Very interesting comments from the Reserve Bank yesterday (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11670579&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+8+Ju ly+2016), where they pointed out to the govt the strong causal link between net immigration levels and house price increases. I think all politicians know that they cannot contain housing inflation in NZ without bringing the net immigration numbers down. That chart says it all.

As we've all noted, that would mean the economy would have to stand on its own two feet, and National would then be judged on how little they have really achieved, in eight years.

macduffy
08-07-2016, 12:57 PM
I read in this morning's DomPost that Labour's emergency housing plan " would fund 1400 new emergency housing beds, providing 5100 places a year for those in need of support. That would take the total supply of emergency housing in New Zealand to 8100 places, with 2200 beds at any given time."

There must be some way to balance/reconcile these numbers without seriously top and tailing in the said beds, but it has me stumped. Answers, anyone?

:confused:

kiora
08-07-2016, 02:05 PM
I read in this morning's DomPost that Labour's emergency housing plan " would fund 1400 new emergency housing beds, providing 5100 places a year for those in need of support. That would take the total supply of emergency housing in New Zealand to 8100 places, with 2200 beds at any given time."

There must be some way to balance/reconcile these numbers without seriously top and tailing in the said beds, but it has me stumped. Answers, anyone?

:confused:

Maybe have to go to Ireland to get those builders :)

winner69
08-07-2016, 02:23 PM
EZ - this cartoon in The Press the other day

Probably sums up the image Labour (and Little) portrays to the electorate these days

Shorten nearly pulled it off in Australia - might give NZ Labour hope

elZorro
08-07-2016, 05:40 PM
EZ - this cartoon in The Press the other day

Probably sums up the image Labour (and Little) portrays to the electorate these days

Shorten nearly pulled it off in Australia - might give NZ Labour hope

I'm not sure I like Al Nisbet then. Labour has a plan, does National?

Another gem from Al Nisbet. I don't think he'd be a Labour Party member.

elZorro
08-07-2016, 08:40 PM
I read in this morning's DomPost that Labour's emergency housing plan " would fund 1400 new emergency housing beds, providing 5100 places a year for those in need of support. That would take the total supply of emergency housing in New Zealand to 8100 places, with 2200 beds at any given time."

There must be some way to balance/reconcile these numbers without seriously top and tailing in the said beds, but it has me stumped. Answers, anyone?

:confused:
'
Here's almost all of the answers you wanted MacDuffy, I'm not sure what happened to National's 3,000 places, maybe they're not with NGOs, so they add to the number. It appears that annual places outnumber actual beds, allowing for a dynamic situation.

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_s_emergency_housing_plan

macduffy
09-07-2016, 08:28 AM
'
Here's almost all of the answers you wanted MacDuffy, I'm not sure what happened to National's 3,000 places, maybe they're not with NGOs, so they add to the number. It appears that annual places outnumber actual beds, allowing for a dynamic situation.

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_s_emergency_housing_plan

Thanks, eZ.

So the plan relies on a quick turnover of the homeless into these new homes that someone is going to build. A dynamic situation, certainly!

Cheers.

fungus pudding
09-07-2016, 09:16 AM
'
Here's almost all of the answers you wanted MacDuffy, I'm not sure what happened to National's 3,000 places, maybe they're not with NGOs, so they add to the number. It appears that annual places outnumber actual beds, allowing for a dynamic situation.

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_s_emergency_housing_plan

eZ. You might care to explain why Labour thinks off shore buyers should be restricted to building a new house, rather than purchasing existing. Little mentioned it on the Nation this morning. Seems to me anyone can build a house. It is land supply that is the problem. Clusters of investment/rental homes on subdivisions may not be desirable. Building sites should be where the restrictions apply so only residents can purchase undeveloped residential land.

winner69
09-07-2016, 02:29 PM
@stevenljoyce: So the @nzlabour big idea for social housing is to turn Housing New Zealand into..... the Ministry of Housing. Really?

elZorro
09-07-2016, 04:03 PM
Here's something I'd wholeheartedly support, farmers returning marginal land to manuka plantations and getting a return off the honey.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11671175&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+9+ July+2016

An announcement from the Labour conference in Wellington, about housing. W69 is misinformed by Joyce's lazy tweet.


http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-announcement-labour-will-require-housing-corporation-to-use-dividends-to-build-state-houses/

I'm worried about you, W69. Can't you decide which side you're on? :(

I see someone suggested converting large commercial premises into spaces for the homeless, with a communal kitchen run by a marae. Yes, not a bad idea at all. Universities often buy multilevel office buildings in cities and fit them out as student accommodation. Not many vehicle spaces though, and I'm not sure we need lots of unemployed people in the middle of cities. The point is, there are options, and the State is best placed to sort that out.

FP, I'm thinking about your reasoning. Left your way, any existing property that is being sold would be available to overseas investors. Some of the time, residential properties would suit first home buyers, they won't be looking to build a new house. There's less risk in existing properties. Why not keep these open for NZ resident buyers only, and force overseas investors into adding to the property count, with a riskier investment.

fungus pudding
09-07-2016, 05:17 PM
Here's something I'd wholeheartedly support, farmers returning marginal land to manuka plantations and getting a return off the honey.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11671175&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+9+ July+2016

An announcement from the Labour conference in Wellington, about housing. W69 is misinformed by Joyce's lazy tweet.


http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-announcement-labour-will-require-housing-corporation-to-use-dividends-to-build-state-houses/

I'm worried about you, W69. Can't you decide which side you're on? :(

I see someone suggested converting large commercial premises into spaces for the homeless, with a communal kitchen run by a marae. Yes, not a bad idea at all. Universities often buy multilevel office buildings in cities and fit them out as student accommodation. Not many vehicle spaces though, and I'm not sure we need lots of unemployed people in the middle of cities. The point is, there are options, and the State is best placed to sort that out.

FP, I'm thinking about your reasoning. Left your way, any existing property that is being sold would be available to overseas investors. Some of the time, residential properties would suit first home buyers, they won't be looking to build a new house. There's less risk in existing properties. Why not keep these open for NZ resident buyers only, and force overseas investors into adding to the property count, with a riskier investment.

First home buyers might not build new, but everyone who does leaves a vacant property somewhere in the line. I see a huge downside to allowing subdivisions to be snapped up by off shore buyers who have no buying option. I also think there's potential for ghettos or slum developments. The rationale of forcing to build sounds good, but doesn't addrerss the problem. It's not sticks and bricks that we are short of. It's land suitably zoned.
Also no matter how many covenants are in place there would be no real urgency to get the build completed.

macduffy
09-07-2016, 07:28 PM
Also no matter how many covenants are in place there would be no real urgency to get the build completed

Reminds me of the Greek situation of 20 years ago - is it still the same? - where commencing a building brought certain tax advantages but left a host of partly built houses languishing around the country.

elZorro
10-07-2016, 07:59 AM
First home buyers open up a rental situation for another family, that's got to be handy in Auckland. Of course people renting out properties prefer longer-term tenants. But that's the game they're in.

Article on the 100yr anniversary of Labour.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11671227

winner69
10-07-2016, 03:54 PM
Talk of the government appointing a commissioner in Auckland and set up an Urban Development Authority is interesting.

Housing 'crisis' and nimbyism convenient reasons

Key would love this happening - plenty of good assets that can be stripped / sold off. All part of a bigger plan?

Daytr
10-07-2016, 08:00 PM
I watched Little on Q&A this morning. He actually came across quite well. He still needs to address the real issue creating the housing bubble / crisis, rampant immigration.

elZorro
11-07-2016, 06:53 AM
I watched Little on Q&A this morning. He actually came across quite well. He still needs to address the real issue creating the housing bubble / crisis, rampant immigration.

Bill English on TV1 this morning, was trying hard to push some rubbish about the Kiwibuild program to make it look silly. Note that National are relying on the voting public being too lazy to learn any new facts, and just accept what they are being told by National people.

Bill was saying Labour will have $2bill as a fund, and with that will build 100,000 houses. Then Bill says that as each house costs at least $500,000, they only have enough for 4,000 houses. He looked quite pleased with his maths. No-one said anything (Rawden, I'm disappointed in your brainpower), then they repeated this clever dig on the next news, and I guess we'll hear it all day.

The truth: Labour is going to sell those houses as they go, recycling the fund. Each house they sell will free up another rental, there will be many thousands of newly trained employed people to do the extra work, with all kinds of skills needed. These homes will be affordable, the govt doesn't need to make a profit on them because they'll get their own kickback in PAYE taxes, GST, having less on the dole, less homeless etc. I would assume that since the state owns the houses, they can choose who buys them. They would be live-in buyers, not speculators, and there would be rules on the turnover of these houses.

Kiwibuild is a great vision from Labour - National cannot put up such an idea without looking incredibly lame - so I see just this one policy as an election winner.

Anonymous article comment:


If the Kiwibuild scheme succeeds, it would be good if some creativity and lateral thinking could be applied to what is built. Designers and the creative sector should be encouraged to work on designs that are economical, but energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly. There is an opportunity here to reboot the sector and improve standards of design, materials used and refresh ideas about housing construction.

Obviously, if pine is involved, it doesn't mean no treatment.

macduffy
11-07-2016, 07:55 AM
I watched Little on Q&A this morning. He actually came across quite well. He still needs to address the real issue creating the housing bubble / crisis, rampant immigration.

I think he made a mistake in talking about getting house price increases down to 2%pa. The number doesn't need to be quantified - it's the trend down that's important and pinning the number "2" out there may come back to haunt him - if he ever has the opportunity to do anything about the matter.

fungus pudding
11-07-2016, 07:59 AM
I think he made a mistake in talking about getting house price increases down to 2%pa. The number doesn't need to be quantified - it's the trend down that's important and pinning the number "2" out there may come back to haunt him - if he ever has the opportunity to do anything about the matter.

He won't.
.

Sgt Pepper
11-07-2016, 08:31 AM
Interesting article in the Herald about the tension between the Reserve Bank, especially Grant Spencer and John Key regarding the housing market. As I am now leading the Sharetrader stock picking contest I think they both should listen to me.

RGR367
11-07-2016, 12:22 PM
......
Bill was saying Labour will have $2bill as a fund, and with that will build 100,000 houses. Then Bill says that as each house costs at least $500,000, they only have enough for 4,000 houses. He looked quite pleased with his maths. No-one said anything (Rawden, I'm disappointed in your brainpower), then they repeated this clever dig on the next news, and I guess we'll hear it all day.

The truth: Labour is going to sell those houses as they go, recycling the fund. Each house they sell will free up another rental, there will be many thousands of newly trained employed people to do the extra work, with all kinds of skills needed. These homes will be affordable, the govt doesn't need to make a profit on them because they'll get their own kickback in PAYE taxes, GST, having less on the dole, less homeless etc. I would assume that since the state owns the houses, they can choose who buys them. They would be live-in buyers, not speculators, and there would be rules on the turnover of these houses.

Kiwibuild is a great vision from Labour - National cannot put up such an idea without looking incredibly lame - so I see just this one policy as an election winner.
.........

Is $500K for a house really affordable? By the time Labour can get this rolling, say in 2018, how much will this $500K cost in real money? And what about tax, will it be raised to fund this housing bill?

elZorro
11-07-2016, 03:55 PM
Is $500K for a house really affordable? By the time Labour can get this rolling, say in 2018, how much will this $500K cost in real money? And what about tax, will it be raised to fund this housing bill?

I would think that Labour will be tidying up state houses as well, working out a correct treatment and prevention for P contamination issues (different scales), and in general the pricing for existing houses at the lower end of the market should settle back a bit. If you were a building materials supplier and the State rocked up looking for a bulk discount, and with a spotless credit record, I'm sure some deals would be done. Likewise, with land supply there is sure to be some crown land that will be in the melting pot. As for extra levied tax, why would that be needed, when the boost to the economy and the normal tax base will cover any shortfall in sales income.

winner69
11-07-2016, 06:02 PM
Interesting quiz

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/11-07-2016/who-said-it-john-key-in-2007-or-andrew-little-in-2016/


I'll own up - i got less than 50% right ....maybe should have read the question properly or something

Daytr
11-07-2016, 08:09 PM
If he achieves anywhere near that sort of stability I don't think anyone will quibble, besides those who would rather argue the small stuff than actually achieve for the greater good.


I think he made a mistake in talking about getting house price increases down to 2%pa. The number doesn't need to be quantified - it's the trend down that's important and pinning the number "2" out there may come back to haunt him - if he ever has the opportunity to do anything about the matter.

Daytr
11-07-2016, 08:14 PM
Well apparently we don't have any inflation, or less than 2% which is quite ridiculous in itself.
Labour have said they will work on the supply chain, i.e. materials.
NZ pays a ridiculous premium on building materials so there could be a reasonable saving there.


I would think that Labour will be tidying up state houses as well, working out a correct treatment and prevention for P contamination issues (different scales), and in general the pricing for existing houses at the lower end of the market should settle back a bit. If you were a building materials supplier and the State rocked up looking for a bulk discount, and with a spotless credit record, I'm sure some deals would be done. Likewise, with land supply there is sure to be some crown land that will be in the melting pot. As for extra levied tax, why would that be needed, when the boost to the economy and the normal tax base will cover any shortfall in sales income.

elZorro
11-07-2016, 09:25 PM
Interesting quiz

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/11-07-2016/who-said-it-john-key-in-2007-or-andrew-little-in-2016/


I'll own up - i got less than 50% right ....maybe should have read the question properly or something

I achieved 9/12 W69, should have done better I guess. One of those Key quotes sure sounded like it was Labour's. The charts do show a marked house inflation earlier in the 1999-2008 period. Everything went up, farm prices too. The difference is that this appeared to be based on real income increases. The Labour govt had a surplus every year, and paid off a lot of old debt. National hasn't done that at all. I think they have figured out that immigration can be a useful GDP-increasing tool. However, they're stretching the available infrastructure.

elZorro
12-07-2016, 06:42 AM
As one of the few posters brave enough to list Hamilton as my address, I couldn't resist this article.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81994647/nathan-field-exodus-to-the-tron-and-affordable-housing?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+12+ July+2016

macduffy
12-07-2016, 07:39 AM
Well apparently we don't have any inflation, or less than 2% which is quite ridiculous in itself.
Labour have said they will work on the supply chain, i.e. materials.
NZ pays a ridiculous premium on building materials so there could be a reasonable saving there.

We must all be imagining all those price rises around us. Either that, or house prices, rents, local body rates, building materials etc must have a "Nil" weighting in the CPI!

elZorro
12-07-2016, 06:36 PM
We must all be imagining all those price rises around us. Either that, or house prices, rents, local body rates, building materials etc must have a "Nil" weighting in the CPI!

Not nil, but just counterbalanced from other stuff like petrol and airfares.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/inflation-cpi

macduffy
12-07-2016, 08:07 PM
Not nil, but just counterbalanced from other stuff like petrol and airfares.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/inflation-cpi

Thanks, eZ. Yes, I've seen those explanations before and have yet to be convinced.

;)

elZorro
13-07-2016, 06:56 AM
Thanks, eZ. Yes, I've seen those explanations before and have yet to be convinced.

;)

Maybe insurance isn't in there either. That's gone up a lot.

Labour is certainly gaining traction with their Kiwibuild policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673268&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+July+2016

Comparing National and Labour housing policies at the moment. They are quite different.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673346&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+July+2016

westerly
13-07-2016, 11:47 AM
Maybe insurance isn't in there either. That's gone up a lot.

Labour is certainly gaining traction with their Kiwibuild policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673268&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+July+2016

Comparing National and Labour housing policies at the moment. They are quite different.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673346&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 3+July+2016

Labour ‘s housing policy is disappointing.
If the best they can come up with is to build more State houses and “affordable" homes around $500,000
they have sold out to the profiteers and really do not want to be re-elected. Andrew keeps sending emails requesting me to “chip in” but he has no show. House building costs in Australia are much lower than NZ (http://onproperty.com.au/build-a-house/) The policy of both parties appears to favour those lending the money and those borrowing by avoiding a drop in house prices. There will be a an inevitable economic downturn as has happened in the dairy industry
Banks are “expected” to support the heavily indebted farmers and no doubt the same will happen with housing.
Interestingly NZ is not one of the many countries that have bank deposit insurance. The Reserve Bank expecting the savers who have billions of dollars on deposit to take a haircut if a Bank runs into difficulty.

westerly

winner69
13-07-2016, 12:50 PM
Thanks, eZ. Yes, I've seen those explanations before and have yet to be convinced.

;)

Even the RBNZ can't understand why inflation so low
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673811

macduffy
13-07-2016, 01:20 PM
Even the RBNZ can't understand why inflation so low
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11673811

They're probably measuring the wrong things. I wonder what weighting Hansom cab rides, gas lights and buggy whips have in the index these days? Or phone landlines, DVD recorders and tape recorders?

;)

elZorro
13-07-2016, 05:36 PM
Labour ‘s housing policy is disappointing.
If the best they can come up with is to build more State houses and “affordable" homes around $500,000
they have sold out to the profiteers and really do not want to be re-elected. Andrew keeps sending emails requesting me to “chip in” but he has no show. House building costs in Australia are much lower than NZ (http://onproperty.com.au/build-a-house/) The policy of both parties appears to favour those lending the money and those borrowing by avoiding a drop in house prices. There will be a an inevitable economic downturn as has happened in the dairy industry
Banks are “expected” to support the heavily indebted farmers and no doubt the same will happen with housing.
Interestingly NZ is not one of the many countries that have bank deposit insurance. The Reserve Bank expecting the savers who have billions of dollars on deposit to take a haircut if a Bank runs into difficulty.

westerly

Westerly, those Aussie prices don't include the section price, and they're in Aussie dollars too. Although we're doing well on that front for the moment. The price of land in Auckland is quite bad, here's something in Pukekohe, might be cheaper??

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/sections-for-sale/auction-1114376336.htm

You could also buy 1/3 of an acre in Remuera for $7mill at the moment. So I think the $500k price, being half the average price for house plus section in Auckland, should be OK.

The Standard has a post on the background.
http://thestandard.org.nz/we-truly-are-being-run-by-a-bunch-of-clowns/

I note that the Super Fund has just bought several dairy farms in Southland. Putting aside the possibility that this is a directive from Bill English to support dairy land prices in his general area (I don't believe that for a moment), I hope they've bought at a good price. They must have been a steal. Great investment. After all, Landcorp has been booking massive profits for years.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/81985156/decision-on-nz-super-funds-southland-farm-buyup-future-yet-to-be-made

South Hillend is very close to Dipton.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10314543/20-years-on-dairying-move-south-celebrated

Edit: Bill English and his wife own the homestead on the family farm in Dipton, the dairy farm itself is now owned by his nephew Louis.

elZorro
15-07-2016, 05:42 PM
Latest internal UMR poll makes things look tough for National in 2017.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/15/breaking-exclusive-umr-secret-poll-national-41-labourgreens-45/

blackcap
15-07-2016, 05:58 PM
Latest internal UMR poll makes things look tough for National in 2017.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/15/breaking-exclusive-umr-secret-poll-national-41-labourgreens-45/

Come on ElZorro, that is quoting Bombers site. Really? I could just as easy post my own "secret" poll with as much validity as that one...

fungus pudding
15-07-2016, 05:58 PM
Latest internal UMR poll makes things look tough for National in 2017.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/15/breaking-exclusive-umr-secret-poll-national-41-labourgreens-45/

Certainly pointing to a National/NZ first/Act coalition alright.

elZorro
15-07-2016, 08:38 PM
Come on ElZorro, that is quoting Bombers site. Really? I could just as easy post my own "secret" poll with as much validity as that one...

UMR was started by Mike Williams, it was sold a few years ago, and I think Labour use them for some internal polling. Guess we'll have to wait for one of the other reported polls. But this housing issue isn't dying down, and National's policies aren't helping enough at the back end to fix the problem at the front: high net immigration.

Daytr
19-07-2016, 08:16 AM
Bill English over the weekend saying first home buyers need to be patient to get into the market.
If they had been patient in 2012 they would be paying $400,000 more now for the average house in Auckland!
The arrogance of the man is incredible.
Blaming everyone else except their own immigration policy that is the one & only driver of this property bubble that is creating a myriad of problems for the average citizen. And even those who are benefitting could be caught out in the biggest property bubble this country has seen. The banks no its an issue, in fact everyone except the government know its an issue. Its also time that Labour got off the political fence in regards the record level of immigration.

fungus pudding
19-07-2016, 08:30 AM
Bill English over the weekend saying first home buyers need to be patient to get into the market.
If they had been patient in 2012 they would be paying $400,000 more now for the average house in Auckland!
The arrogance of the man is incredible.


I don't recall him advising patience in 2012.
It's actually good advice at this point in the cycle.

Daytr
19-07-2016, 02:32 PM
Of course it is, as property is in a bubble particularly in Auckland & Queenstown, a bubble that this government has created.
Perhaps the advice is that no one should be buying in this market. The RBNZ obviously think there is a massive risk with the new LVRs coming in.
However unless they turn down the immigration tap is the market going to change?
So who will buy? Cashed up foreigners.
Will the market just cool eventually as the government hopes? If it does it doesn't make the market any more affordable for domestic or first home buyers. They could be shut out for a long time to come.
Nine fold average earnings for the average house in Auckland is a massive issue.
So what are they being patient for? A crash?


I don't recall him advising patience in 2012.
It's actually good advice at this point in the cycle.

fungus pudding
19-07-2016, 03:26 PM
Of course it is, as property is in a bubble particularly in Auckland & Queenstown, a bubble that this government has created.



The 'bubble' exists throughout the western world. It's a result of low interest rates. The time to buy real estate is when interest rates are high. The higher the better.
'Interest rates and real estate are the opposite ends of a see-saw'. (Fungus Pudding - circa 1970)

winner69
19-07-2016, 08:08 PM
Heck - even the good guys are going off Key

Good eh EZ

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/19-07-2016/an-arch-capitalist-has-launched-an-assault-on-keys-government-and-it-feels-like-a-huge-moment/#.V42x-RWB3FM.twitter

winner69
19-07-2016, 08:32 PM
We might be getting there EZ

Media talking more about Marx

@bryce_edwards: Is Marxism becoming more important in NZ? Here's some stats on how often "Marx" etc has been used in NZ print media: https://t.co/aIleqddeb4

Daytr
20-07-2016, 05:26 AM
So why is NZs house prices rising faster than most of the Western world when our interest rates are actually one of the highest?
Simple, record level immigration .
Historically when house prices have been high, interest rates have been raised to reign them in & lowered in the opposite, so your premise is completely inaccurate, for residential property anyway .


The 'bubble' exists throughout the western world. It's a result of low interest rates. The time to buy real estate is when interest rates are high. The higher the better.
'Interest rates and real estate are the opposite ends of a see-saw'. (Fungus Pudding - circa 1970)

elZorro
20-07-2016, 06:22 AM
So why is NZs house prices rising faster than most of the Western world when our interest rates are actually one of the highest?
Simple, record level immigration .
Historically when house prices have been high, interest rates have been raised to reign them in & lowered in the opposite, so your premise is completely inaccurate, for residential property anyway .

FP doesn't believe in highly correlated graphs, Daytr. But I think FP is also wrong in his premise. Surely you jump into property at the start of a long period of low interest rates. If you knew that was a likely occurrence. As we've seen, you get a big capital gain, and have to pay the least interest for it.

elZorro
20-07-2016, 06:30 AM
We might be getting there EZ

Media talking more about Marx

@bryce_edwards: Is Marxism becoming more important in NZ? Here's some stats on how often "Marx" etc has been used in NZ print media: https://t.co/aIleqddeb4

Apparently there's a new mood on the street. Around here anyway. The Labour-Greens have a good chance this time. :)

fungus pudding
20-07-2016, 08:49 AM
FP doesn't believe in highly correlated graphs, Daytr. But I think FP is also wrong in his premise. Surely you jump into property at the start of a long period of low interest rates. If you knew that was a likely occurrence. As we've seen, you get a big capital gain, and have to pay the least interest for it.

If you recall the 80s when interest rates were anywhere between 18 to 24%, house prices were low. R.E. prices settle at a rate dictated by affordability, as do average rents. There is no point trying to get , say, 1200 per week rent for the average house. If that's what a landlord requires to cover costs, then the market will fall. High interest rates will cause that. There's no point in trying to get a million for an ordinary house when interest rates won't allow the average wage earner to afford a huge mortgage. A loan of 400,000 at 10% is the same in weekly costs as 800,000 at 5%. It goes without saying that the lower principal sum makes a far better investment. Borrowing to buy commodities at low interest rates can be dangerous. When rates are high - it's a guaranteed ride to a lift in real value.

elZorro
21-07-2016, 05:08 PM
If you recall the 80s when interest rates were anywhere between 18 to 24%, house prices were low. R.E. prices settle at a rate dictated by affordability, as do average rents. There is no point trying to get , say, 1200 per week rent for the average house. If that's what a landlord requires to cover costs, then the market will fall. High interest rates will cause that. There's no point in trying to get a million for an ordinary house when interest rates won't allow the average wage earner to afford a huge mortgage. A loan of 400,000 at 10% is the same in weekly costs as 800,000 at 5%. It goes without saying that the lower principal sum makes a far better investment. Borrowing to buy commodities at low interest rates can be dangerous. When rates are high - it's a guaranteed ride to a lift in real value.

I still can't follow the logic here, FP. In the 80s we bought our first house, paid up to 23% interest. The house went up 50% in 5 years, we sold it to buy again, but the increased value didn't even reimburse the interest we'd paid, although I guess it saved on rent. We'd also painted the whole inside of the house, so our hourly pay rate for that was.. nothing. Just saying, that buying during a high interest period does add to the overall cost of ownership by quite a bit.

In any case, this is all off track. House price increases in NZ are most strongly linked to net immigration. That's the only factor that really counts.

fungus pudding
21-07-2016, 05:29 PM
I still can't follow the logic here, FP. In the 80s we bought our first house, paid up to 23% interest. The house went up 50% in 5 years, we sold it to buy again, but the increased value didn't even reimburse the interest we'd paid, although I guess it saved on rent. We'd also painted the whole inside of the house, so our hourly pay rate for that was.. nothing. Just saying, that buying during a high interest period does add to the overall cost of ownership by quite a bit.

In any case, this is all off track. House price increases in NZ are most strongly linked to net immigration. That's the only factor that really counts.

The point is if interest rates had been 10% rather than in the 20s, the price would have been higher. Your outgoings or cost of ownership could well be similar, but your debt would be higher, and your chance of gain lower.
Painting a house is only maintenance. Trace prices through the years and it's never a straight line. Five years is only the blink of an eye. As I've just posted on another site, a 120 year ride:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUldGc06S3U

We're due for the final phase of that demo. There's nothing new under the sun.

winner69
21-07-2016, 07:50 PM
EZ - bloody hell

National extends lead over Labour to highest in over a year as Government unveils $1 billion housing infrastructure fund

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6902-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-july-2016-201607211639?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morgan%20Poll%20-%20July%202016%20-%20New%20Zealand%20Voting%20Intention&utm_content=Morgan%20Poll%20-%20July%202016%20-%20New%20Zealand%20Voting%20Intention+CID_d86de7e8 5c0f574405361989f1086b06&utm_source=Market%20Research%20Update&utm_term=National%20extends%20lead%20over%20Labour %20to%20highest%20in%20over%20a%20year%20as%20Gove rnment%20unveils%201%20billion%20housing%20infrast ructure%20fund

winner69
21-07-2016, 07:53 PM
From twitter land

David Farrar‏ @dpfdpf So @nzlabour under @AndrewLittleMP is polling 5% lower than @UKLabour under @jeremycorbyn - makes you wonder.

macduffy
21-07-2016, 08:06 PM
So - more voters own property than don't?

fungus pudding
21-07-2016, 09:07 PM
So - more voters own property than don't?

Nothing to do with it. R.E. Prices are rising throughout western world. Only one eyed lefties who would never vote National anyway, blame this on the govt. It's not so much that National are winning voters over - more that the Labour Green party are losing support, and will do until they drop Little. I don't think even their most strident supporters see Little as Prime Minister.

elZorro
21-07-2016, 09:40 PM
EZ - bloody hell

National extends lead over Labour to highest in over a year as Government unveils $1 billion housing infrastructure fund

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6902-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-july-2016-201607211639?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morgan%20Poll%20-%20July%202016%20-%20New%20Zealand%20Voting%20Intention&utm_content=Morgan%20Poll%20-%20July%202016%20-%20New%20Zealand%20Voting%20Intention+CID_d86de7e8 5c0f574405361989f1086b06&utm_source=Market%20Research%20Update&utm_term=National%20extends%20lead%20over%20Labour %20to%20highest%20in%20over%20a%20year%20as%20Gove rnment%20unveils%201%20billion%20housing%20infrast ructure%20fund

No worries W69, voters will soon figure out that the infrastructure fund won't do much. National will be hoping property prices don't crash, but of course they can keep the immigration tap turned on full bore.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11678189&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+21 +July+2016

westerly
22-07-2016, 10:42 AM
"Omnishambles Trade Minister Todd McClay" and "Todd McClay should be ashamed of himself " Two quotes from Tthursdays "Press" on the Chinese threat of trade wars.
Fairly strong criticism from a generally pro National paper.

westerly

Daytr
22-07-2016, 11:51 AM
I get your logic FP, but its only one factor.
Particularly when you have record immigration and many of the new buyers are not impacted by domestic interest rates or global rates for that matter.
Comparing to history can be a dangerous thing, as in this case affordability needs to be taken into account.
What was the average wage multiple to the average house price then, compared to now for instance?


The point is if interest rates had been 10% rather than in the 20s, the price would have been higher. Your outgoings or cost of ownership could well be similar, but your debt would be higher, and your chance of gain lower.
Painting a house is only maintenance. Trace prices through the years and it's never a straight line. Five years is only the blink of an eye. As I've just posted on another site, a 120 year ride:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUldGc06S3U

We're due for the final phase of that demo. There's nothing new under the sun.

fungus pudding
22-07-2016, 12:06 PM
I get your logic FP, but its only one factor.
Particularly when you have record immigration and many of the new buyers are not impacted by domestic interest rates or global rates for that matter.
Comparing to history can be a dangerous thing, as in this case affordability needs to be taken into account.
What was the average wage multiple to the average house price then, compared to now for instance?


The thing to consider is what was the cost of ownership - not the capital cost. The cost of borrowing has a huge influence. Sure, it takes longer to earn the price of a house - that's worldwide. But the price of the mortgage has not increase by the same multiple. If you go back far enough you could have had a free cave. And yes, immigration plays a part, but also keeps us afloat with workers.
Solve the problem of 32000 vacant houses in Auckland, and that sorts accommodation shortage out. Surely the owners of these properties realise that tenants are an effective way of keeping the burglars out. :t_up:

artemis
22-07-2016, 04:05 PM
..... Solve the problem of 32000 vacant houses in Auckland, and that sorts accommodation shortage out. Surely the owners of these properties realise that tenants are an effective way of keeping the burglars out. :t_up:

Is it a problem though? Pretty much everyone lives somewhere and can improve their living arrangements with time and good money management. 'Twas ever thus. And for those that can't, don't, won't, well they are unlikely to be top of most landlords list. (Every year tens of thousands of tenants are taken to the Tenancy Tribunal mostly for rent arrears or damage. Add those with a poor credit record and that is a truckload of potentially unsatisfactory tenants.)

Several commenters have made the point in the media that many of those houses are empty for good reasons, as the census data measures houses empty on the night. As for those empty to avoid tenant hassles, can't blame them really. Burglars might be preferable!

Daytr
23-07-2016, 07:09 AM
For a long time & pre oil crisis interest rates were actually relatively low and affordability was around double the average annual wage.
Affordability has skyrocketed under national by multiples so that again blows your argument out of the water.
Basically home loan rates have dropped by 3% in the last 4-5 years, meanwhile housing in Auckland is up by around 80%.
Just for a little bit of perspective FP.


The thing to consider is what was the cost of ownership - not the capital cost. The cost of borrowing has a huge influence. Sure, it takes longer to earn the price of a house - that's worldwide. But the price of the mortgage has not increase by the same multiple. If you go back far enough you could have had a free cave. And yes, immigration plays a part, but also keeps us afloat with workers.
Solve the problem of 32000 vacant houses in Auckland, and that sorts accommodation shortage out. Surely the owners of these properties realise that tenants are an effective way of keeping the burglars out. :t_up:

fungus pudding
23-07-2016, 08:15 AM
For a long time & pre oil crisis interest rates were actually relatively low and affordability was around double the average annual wage.
Affordability has skyrocketed under national by multiples so that again blows your argument out of the water.
Basically home loan rates have dropped by 3% in the last 4-5 years, meanwhile housing in Auckland is up by around 80%.
Just for a little bit of perspective FP.

Interest rates have dropped from 10 or more% to around 5-6 % that's around 40% drop in the last decade. If you can't see a link between interest and RE prices you're not looking. If interest rates shot back up to say 15% do you really think RE would not be hit? Same with the sharemarket of course.

Daytr
23-07-2016, 08:21 AM
We can all pick a point in time FP.
I didn't say there wasn't a link, I'm an ex banker for gawd's sake, in fact previously I said there is a relationship, however there are many other factors and at the moment house price appreciation is far and away outstripping any offsetting interest rate savings.

blackcap
23-07-2016, 08:22 AM
Basically home loan rates have dropped by 3% in the last 4-5 years, meanwhile housing in Auckland is up by around 80%.
.

Its data manipulation like this example (we all do it, so I am not picking on you Daytr, its just that yours is the latest example) that for mine detract from the argument because its too easy to see through and then the reader feels they are being manipulated. We all know home loan rates have not fallen by 3% but more like by 37.5% but technically the writer is correct in that rates have come down from 8% to 5% (a 3% drop) however that is a fall of 37.5%. (8-5)/8

fungus pudding
23-07-2016, 08:54 AM
We can all pick a point in time FP.
I didn't say there wasn't a link, I'm an ex banker for gawd's sake, in fact previously I said there is a relationship, however there are many other factors and at the moment house price appreciation is far and away outstripping any offsetting interest rate savings.


No doubt. But it's a bit tiring to continually hear how much prices have risen, without a single nod to affordability, which is a huge factor.

Daytr
23-07-2016, 05:20 PM
Blackcap its nothing of the sort, it was obvious what I was conveying. And the 37.5% or whatever it is of 7-8% that rates were makes it sound a lot better than it is. If rates were 2% and went to 1% they would have reduced 50%....
Housing affordability is measured around the world by multiples of the average wage and that has blown out particularly in Auckland but also on average across NZ.

Its data manipulation like this example (we all do it, so I am not picking on you Daytr, its just that yours is the latest example) that for mine detract from the argument because its too easy to see through and then the reader feels they are being manipulated. We all know home loan rates have not fallen by 3% but more like by 37.5% but technically the writer is correct in that rates have come down from 8% to 5% (a 3% drop) however that is a fall of 37.5%. (8-5)/8

winner69
24-07-2016, 08:23 AM
EZ - here's an interesting paper. Would Labour strategists dare read such stuff

Trump, Brexit, and the rise of Populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash
Ronald F. Inglehart and Pippa Norris

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aufvq80d5ymtakp/IPSA2016%20Inglehart%20and%20Norris%20Populism%201 9-7-2016.pdf?dl=0

NZ is ripe for a 'populist' to make a decent showing in 2020 elections. . If somebody does step up i think Labour would be the losers.

winner69
25-07-2016, 03:36 PM
Watched Grant Robertson on Q&A yesterday taking about the economy and other things

Seems to know what's wrong but didn't come across having any ideas how Labour going to fix things

Labour still don't have a narrative and its just over a year away from the election. Of they do i must be rather thick because as hard as I try i just don't get it.

Can't see them doing that well next year - pity really as the Nats are ripe for the taking.

Daytr
25-07-2016, 06:31 PM
National's bold announcement today remaking NZ pest free by 2050 will no doubt be a crowd pleaser and I would very pleased if this was pulled off.
However I just don't believe them. This is the government that cut DOC's funding and has done one restructure after another after the previous model failed. The same government that wants to sponsor seabed mining and grow the oil and gas industry no matter the environmental cost let alone the price of oil! This is the government that has shown no willingness to combat climate change and reduce emissions.
To be frank I think its nigh on impossible to achieve anyway. What are they going to do to eradicate every sewer rat?
Its a policy they won't have to deliver on as its so far out.
They can't deliver on current policies. They are denial that there is a housing crisis.
This is a policy to appear bold before the next election tat they will never have to deliver on.

winner69
25-07-2016, 07:13 PM
National's bold announcement today remaking NZ pest free by 2050 will no doubt be a crowd pleaser and I would very pleased if this was pulled off.
However I just don't believe them. This is the government that cut DOC's funding and has done one restructure after another after the previous model failed. The same government that wants to sponsor seabed mining and grow the oil and gas industry no matter the environmental cost let alone the price of oil! This is the government that has shown no willingness to combat climate change and reduce emissions.
To be frank I think its nigh on impossible to achieve anyway. What are they going to do to eradicate every sewer rat?
Its a policy they won't have to deliver on as its so far out.
They can't deliver on current policies. They are denial that there is a housing crisis.
This is a policy to appear bold before the next election tat they will never have to deliver on.

Policy announcement reaction to this bill board that popped up the other day

elZorro
25-07-2016, 09:15 PM
National's bold announcement today remaking NZ pest free by 2050 will no doubt be a crowd pleaser and I would very pleased if this was pulled off.
However I just don't believe them. This is the government that cut DOC's funding and has done one restructure after another after the previous model failed. The same government that wants to sponsor seabed mining and grow the oil and gas industry no matter the environmental cost let alone the price of oil! This is the government that has shown no willingness to combat climate change and reduce emissions.
To be frank I think its nigh on impossible to achieve anyway. What are they going to do to eradicate every sewer rat?
Its a policy they won't have to deliver on as its so far out.
They can't deliver on current policies. They are denial that there is a housing crisis.
This is a policy to appear bold before the next election tat they will never have to deliver on.

Have to agree with you Daytr, this is a nutcase idea that we could have NZ predator free by 2050, with a kickstart of just $28mill. $2,800mill would be closer. Do they have any idea of the breeding capability of rats and mustelids, and how trap or bait-shy they can become? Unless they think they can release something that will take them out, and that's risky also. If it was that easy, the AHB or TBFree as they are now known, would have long finished their job. TB is still spreading through NZ bush, from its first discovery in a possum population in 1970 or so. Possums and other pest species are carrying it. It confirms that National have no idea on policy, because they wrote this one up on a napkin during a liquid lunch.

Some interesting actual facts about pests in NZ.

http://thestandard.org.nz/predator-free-a-fantastic-goal-but/

elZorro
25-07-2016, 09:19 PM
Policy announcement reaction to this bill board that popped up the other day

Now I get it. Sometimes you're too subtle W69. Anyway, I think this is quite polite, and Stuart Little was a lovable character. John Key's posters are going to get ponytails, hammers, big noses, dollar bills, and I'd like an icon for brainless, but I'll work on it.

Daytr
26-07-2016, 08:26 AM
Here's some more National policies.
Solve world hunger by 2300, cost to be met by councils and business.
Mission to Mars by 2100, cost met by residents of the Mahia peninsular ratepayers as that's where NZ's new rocket lunch pad is based, oh and business, or at least one business anyway.
Solve NZ's housing crisis. Again the cost to be met by councils and business, oh and by the way its their fault to. Nothing to do with 65,000 new citizens each year of which around 40,000 end up in Auckland.
Dos anyone remember the government warning the Auckland council to expect an additional 400,000 residents over the next 10 years in 2008?
Where was their planning!

fungus pudding
26-07-2016, 08:30 AM
Have to agree with you Daytr,


How suprising.

elZorro
26-07-2016, 08:53 AM
How suprising.

I suspect you're still in your slippers, FP, but how about you explain how $28mill spread over four years is going to make one blind bit of difference to the predator/pest problem in NZ? You obviously know quite a bit about it - enlighten us, o great sage.

fungus pudding
26-07-2016, 09:02 AM
I suspect you're still in your slippers, FP, but how about you explain how $28mill spread over four years is going to make one blind bit of difference to the predator/pest problem in NZ? You obviously know quite a bit about it - enlighten us, o great sage.

I'm not sure why you think I know quite a bit about this when I made no comment; although I have listened to some expert opinion which is highly supportive. I simply posted a sarcastic comment regarding your agreement with daylt. However I suspect if Labour had announced a similar program, both you and Daylt would be quite orgasmic. For your records eZ, so you can keep your file on me up to date, I do not own any slippers.

Daytr
26-07-2016, 09:55 AM
FP, I think it is a fantastic policy, I really do and I said as much in my first post.
I just don't believe National have any intention of delivering it.

fungus pudding
26-07-2016, 10:09 AM
FP, I think it is a fantastic policy, I really do and I said as much in my first post.
I just don't believe National have any intention of delivering it.

It is a great proposal and long overdue. As a keen tramper in earlier years I have great concerns about the damage that I observed, mainly by possums. I'm quite sure National will uphold their end of the deal as they state; why wouldn't they?

Daytr
26-07-2016, 10:15 AM
Why wouldn't they? The question should be, when have they?
Their record of PPPs is hardly stellar.
Look at the prisons, the previous DOC restructures that included PPP & failed.
They scraped their social bonds experiment before they even started.
Their record of delivery is pathetic.
I'm not a huge fan of Labour by the way either, even though if you disagree with John Key you are tarred with that brush.
Labour haven't had the guts to stand up and be counted in regards policy and that is why they have been ineffective as an opposition.



It is a great proposal and long overdue. As a keen tramper in earlier years I have great concerns about the damage that I observed, mainly by possums. I'm quite sure National will uphold their end of the deal as they state; why wouldn't they?

elZorro
26-07-2016, 04:56 PM
Why wouldn't they? The question should be, when have they?
Their record of PPPs is hardly stellar.
Look at the prisons, the previous DOC restructures that included PPP & failed.
They scraped their social bonds experiment before they even started.
Their record of delivery is pathetic.
I'm not a huge fan of Labour by the way either, even though if you disagree with John Key you are tarred with that brush.
Labour haven't had the guts to stand up and be counted in regards policy and that is why they have been ineffective as an opposition.

I bet that if Labour did have a policy for a pest-free Nirvana in NZ, they'd have put some real thought and funding into it.

westerly
26-07-2016, 05:22 PM
It is a great proposal and long overdue. As a keen tramper in earlier years I have great concerns about the damage that I observed, mainly by possums. I'm quite sure National will uphold their end of the deal as they state; why wouldn't they?

National will put in $1 for every $2 put in by someone else. Yeah right.

westerly

elZorro
26-07-2016, 05:31 PM
I'm not sure why you think I know quite a bit about this when I made no comment; although I have listened to some expert opinion which is highly supportive. I simply posted a sarcastic comment regarding your agreement with daylt. However I suspect if Labour had announced a similar program, both you and Daylt would be quite orgasmic. For your records eZ, so you can keep your file on me up to date, I do not own any slippers.

I can suggest some bedtime reading though, to put National's make-believe policy into perspective. It's called The Flight of the Huia. (http://notornis.osnz.org.nz/system/files/Notornis_51_4_247.pdf)

fungus pudding
26-07-2016, 06:09 PM
I can suggest some bedtime reading though, to put National's make-believe policy into perspective. It's called The Flight of the Huia. (http://notornis.osnz.org.nz/system/files/Notornis_51_4_247.pdf)

It might be ambitious to achieve the goal by 2050, but they'll certainly get there before Labour wins an election.

elZorro
26-07-2016, 10:08 PM
It might be ambitious to achieve the goal by 2050, but they'll certainly get there before Labour wins an election.

Would you like a side bet on that, FP?

fungus pudding
27-07-2016, 12:27 AM
Would you like a side bet on that, FP?


Love to, but my expected life-span won't allow it.

elZorro
27-07-2016, 05:45 AM
Love to, but my expected life-span won't allow it.

Mine won't either, but the bet would probably close off in late 2017 anyway :)

fungus pudding
27-07-2016, 07:23 AM
Mine won't either, but the bet would probably close off in late 2017 anyway :)
Now you're being overly optimistic eZ. There's no way all pests will be eradicated by 2017.

macduffy
27-07-2016, 12:27 PM
Now you're being overly optimistic eZ. There's no way all pests will be eradicated by 2017.

Probably depends on the definition of "pests". Would need to exclude the occasional invasion by fruitfly, varroa mites and other accidental visitors.

fungus pudding
27-07-2016, 12:51 PM
Probably depends on the definition of "pests". Would need to exclude the occasional invasion by fruitfly, varroa mites and other accidental visitors.

And possums, stoats and rats. It will take many years. similarly with Labour/Green party gaining power.
This absurd enouncement sure won't help them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11682323

elZorro
27-07-2016, 06:06 PM
And possums, stoats and rats. It will take many years. similarly with Labour/Green party gaining power.
This absurd enouncement sure won't help them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11682323

At least you're starting to get your head around the problem, FP. More than the National govt has, they don't expect anyone to think deeply about their make-believe policies. Predator control by 2050 is just a new one of those.

John Campbell was talking to Nick Smith today. He was outside the site of a 1500-home complex being developed privately just off Mt Eden Road. My daughter flats up there, and so I know the area's traffic reasonably well, in the weekends. John was saying, how are the vehicles from 1500 homes going to fit onto Mt Eden Road? No worries, says Nick Smith, there's a regular bus service around there. Many of these households apparently won't use a car to get to work. What will they do in the weekends, just stay home?

This is a nightmare! You can't just throw more traffic into Auckland, it's not coping now, it can't cope anytime soon. Surely the answer is to push most of the population growth out into the regions, where there is more like a vacuum. But that would require some understanding, some policies to make it work. National has been ignoring the regions, by and large.

I thought Andrew Little made a sensible response to the Green Party announcement. It would be great for those without property for the prices to crash by 50%, but it would undo a lot of bank funding for businesses too, options for growth. I just want to see more people take a risk with a business idea, one that employs people. At the moment, that relies mostly on spare equity in real estate.

Daytr
28-07-2016, 06:30 AM
So its ok for Auckland housing to go up by 80% in four years but not gradually reduce them by approximately the same amount?
I don't necessarily agree with the 50% figure, although that is probably where the reasonable affordability level is.
One of the major issues in Western World democracies in he last 20 years or so is at any cost governments and central banks keep creating and sustaining asset bubbles in housing and stock markets etc. So called free market! Yeah right. High wealth socialism if I ever I saw it.
We are now going to see Auckland keep expanding, housing built over productive land.
Traffic congestion will only get worse and all because National's only plan for economic growth is immigration and a much larger population.

And they blame everyone else for the consequences they have created.
Where was the National policy that said they were going to grow the population by 600,000 over 10 years ?



And possums, stoats and rats. It will take many years. similarly with Labour/Green party gaining power.
This absurd enouncement sure won't help them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11682323

elZorro
28-07-2016, 06:41 AM
So its ok for Auckland housing to go up by 80% in four years but not gradually reduce them by approximately the same amount?
I don't necessarily agree with the 50% figure, although that is probably where the reasonable affordability level is.
One of the major issues in Western World democracies in he last 20 years or so is at any cost governments and central banks keep creating and sustaining asset bubbles in housing and stock markets etc. So called free market! Yeah right. High wealth socialism if I ever I saw it.
We are now going to see Auckland keep expanding, housing built over productive land.
Traffic congestion will only get worse and all because National's only plan for economic growth is immigration and a much larger population.

And they blame everyone else for the consequences they have created.
Where was the National policy that said they were going to grow the population by 600,000 over 10 years ?

I've just had a look at the Unitary Plan, and it has clobbered most of the RMA-type restrictions, just at a council level for Auckland, but National has got what their backers wanted. Was that the big picture? Make such a mess up there, that the rules would have to be relaxed?

Shamubeel Eaqub has more housing details covering most of NZ. The implication is that people should start to prefer a more interventionist government by 2017.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/82522544/economist-predicts-brexitlike-shift-in-attitudes-towards-housing?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+28 +July+2016

Daytr
28-07-2016, 09:19 PM
Well this government has taken over councils by stealth. How many councils are now under Central Government control? They pushed hard to consolidate the councils in Northland, but thank god they backed down. Mind you it may have been an improvement on our Far North District Council but that wouldn't be difficult.

elZorro
03-08-2016, 06:01 AM
Well this government has taken over councils by stealth. How many councils are now under Central Government control? They pushed hard to consolidate the councils in Northland, but thank god they backed down. Mind you it may have been an improvement on our Far North District Council but that wouldn't be difficult.

Headlines from the other day about an 'official' 3% of house purchases are from overseas buyers. The real figure is much higher than that.

Listen to this interview with Nick Smith. Refuses to answer the question.

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Why-wont-Nick-Smith-answer-this-one-simple-question/tabid/506/articleID/126297/Default.aspx

winner69
07-08-2016, 08:16 AM
EZ, You'll enjoy this article

One day (after 2017 sadly) parties like NZ National will get their comuppance. The populus are starting to turn against them - a political revolution is coming

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/06-08-2016/what-happened-to-truth-in-politics-it-got-eaten-by-finance/


Extract:
This is why the idea of truth and of the individual in finance and in the politics exemplified by John Key is in profound contradiction to the most ancient wisdom of this country and with the socialist and social democratic politics that marked its more recent past.





This is why the idea of truth and of the individual in finance and in the politics exemplified by John Key is in profound contradiction to the most ancient wisdom of this country and with the socialist and social democratic politics that marked its more recent past.

craic
07-08-2016, 12:03 PM
In 1960 I lived at the top of Sugarloaf Road in Brooklyn, Wellington, Elderly couples were having to move from homes that they had live in for decades because they could not afford the rates. To those unfamiliar with the area, the road and its residents had panoramic views across the botanic gardens and out across the harbour. Once it had been a backwater of the city steep and inaccessible and probable cheap and affordable. Now? Idon't know but it's probably well outside my budget.In more recent times, my son bought a house in London, a terraced house, a two up, two down style labourers residence. The elderly residents found they could get a price that allowed them to move to the sea in Margate and have a much better life. My son had to gut the place and build up and out at great cost but now he has a home worth a million pounds or so, close enough for him to cycle or run to the City where he works (He's a distance runner) and its close to paid off. The house is worth over a million and in due course he will move on. This is the story of every big city or population centre throughout the world but you don't hear the same whinge in other places. "Why does the government not provide me with a cheap house close to my workplace?" Most of us have to do the best we can and lever ourselves up from there.

winner69
07-08-2016, 01:58 PM
EZ - your mate Grant likes twitter

@grantrobertson1: Just a reminder that Steven Joyce has been Econ Dvlpmt Minister for 8 yrs and exports as % of GDP gone backwards on his watch. @NZQandA

I should remind Grant that this is generally what happens under neo-liberalism

And My gut feeling is that Labour would not achieved a ifferent outcome - neo-liberals in their own right?

elZorro
07-08-2016, 02:53 PM
EZ - your mate Grant likes twitter

@grantrobertson1: Just a reminder that Steven Joyce has been Econ Dvlpmt Minister for 8 yrs and exports as % of GDP gone backwards on his watch. @NZQandA

I should remind Grant that this is generally what happens under neo-liberalism

And My gut feeling is that Labour would not achieved a ifferent outcome - neo-liberals in their own right?

W69, maybe you should change your label to RedBaiter, although someone else has that, on The Standard. :)

Anyway, I will comment. Grant Robertson has been doing a lot of research into the future of work. He probably understands more than most, how nimble NZ businesses and their staff will have to be in the future. One policy that Labour had at the end of their term could have done more towards increasing exports as a percentage of GDP(in other words refocusing our manufacturing and design/IT industries) than any other.

It was a simple thing called R&D Tax Credits. National stupidly crushed that policy when they finally got into office, and have been careful to sling off about it ever since. Big mistake. Labour still have that policy, and hopefully will bring it back in 2017.

elZorro
08-08-2016, 09:49 PM
Great poll result out today, that's more like it. Paddy Gower, on our side??

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/poll-john-key-could-lose-grip-on-power-2016080815#axzz4GjiRTTt5

elZorro
09-08-2016, 06:24 AM
Colin James has a thoughtful article on immigration today.


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 9 August 2016

Immigration is about much more than houses

Winston Peters has banged on about immigration for close to a quarter-century. In the 1996 election it was his salient point of distinction, as Asian migrant numbers climbed. His party got 13% and he got to be Deputy Prime Minister.

Immigration wasn't Peters' only line. He was pitching against market-liberal economics, soothing ageing survivors of Sir Robert Muldoon's "Robsmob". But immigration -- by the wrong sorts -- was the policy he became known for. Like Donald Trump and the Brexiteers, he would take back New Zealand for those who felt it had been taken from them: "New Zealand First". Liberals called this racist. Just as this year National called Labour racist for counting up Chinese buyers of Auckland houses.

Peters now wants net immigration stabilised at 10,000 a year (where it was 10 years back). In the year to June it was 69,090. That added 1.5% to total population. On the plus side immigrants pushed up total national output because most got jobs, not least the 39,118 who came in on work visas (which doesn't include those on working holiday visas -- about 61,000 in the year to June 2015).

That has some positive spinoff for the general population, as Steven Joyce told TVNZ's Q&A on Sunday. The 27,518 on student visas are in effect an export, feeding money into the economy. Hospitals and IT companies depend on migrants for some staff.

On the minus side, arrivals stoke the house bubble. They have cut per-person output growth close to zero. Ministers attribute the migrant surge predominantly to New Zealanders returning from Australia. Actually, 3480 more New Zealanders still left for Australia in the year to June than came back.

This net outflow was down 24,964 from the 2006-13 June-years average of 28,444 (and the monthly figures are still falling). But the rise in total net migration in the corresponding periods was 61,203. So 36,239 of the total net rise was from other sources, overwhelmingly foreigners.

Pressure on houses is the main political point. As Bank of New Zealand economist Stephen Toplis put it in a brief on Thursday, the 40% overpricing relative to average earnings is one of the "externalities" that comes with high immigration. Toplis distinguished between those who buy a house to "consume" what it offers them (a place to live) and "speculators and investors" who buy a house as "a store value or as a means to earn returns".

He went on: "When houses are being bought and sold for speculative purposes, then prices can more quickly adjust and do not necessarily reflect underlying supply and demand." That is, the bubble is not just a supply issue, as ministers insist. Toplis reckoned the role of foreign money "will always be overstated" but "nonetheless, foreigners are often the marginal buyers and hence may set the marginal price" which is "even more problematic if foreigners are just utilising the housing market to store value". (As Labour said.)

He then suggested that "New Zealand may need to address the idea of having a population/demographic policy". "Is there an optimal population size? And what is the optimal growth rate in quantum and timing?" Toplis's thoughtful analysis points to where Winston Peters could go for wider appeal.

Migration is a far broader issue than house prices. It is a matter of what sort of nation we want to be. Labour's wonkish former deputy leader David Parker agrees. Parker cites Julie Fry, joint author of Going Places, based on research she did for the Treasury. Fry says in her book that "the evidence suggests that sustained large economic impacts from migration are unlikely". The productivity impacts are small. But she does think that high-skill and genuine business migrants are a plus and policy could aim for more of them.

Fry says under current policy the import impact of migrants is bigger than the export impacts. She cites economist Andrew Coleman's finding that the benefits are mostly captured by the migrants. She says we get too few very-high-skilled immigrants and a higher proportion of low-skilled than Australia and Canada. Foreign students increasingly just go for diplomas, not degrees. Parker says policy should set against the gains the public and private marginal costs of more population in such as roads, water services, houses, schools and hospitals. He thinks many low- and very-low-paying jobs -- for example, on dairy farms, orchards, tourism -- done by those on temporary work visas could, with a policy change, be done by New Zealanders (for higher pay).

Parker wants a population policy. Some see this as xenophobia or eugenics. Toplis and Parker are not of either ilk. Nor is economist Shamubeel Eaqub, who argued the case last week. This is a highly attractive country and will become more so, especially to rich foreigners living in polluted cities and under tyrants like Xi Jinping. How many we want and how that builds a coherent nation is the issue Toplis, Parker and Eaqub are raising. Migration is not just about houses.

Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000046/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000046/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)

elZorro
11-08-2016, 06:57 AM
Waikato University has a population studies department. They have been commissioned by the govt to come up with a report on the effect of net migration on the Auckland housing market. I think this is it, and the results have been released recently.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/housing-and-property/nidea-report-immigration-housing-literature-review.pdf

Reported in the press overnight, the headline says "Migrants not to blame.."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11691145&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Thursday+11 +August+2016

Now while I have every faith in university research, the report seems to be missing any images, like this one, which is rather damning.

Yes, sure, one of the drivers of house price increases is the expectation of good capital gains. But that factor comes in after the demand is seen. And there is a big demand, an extra net 600 people a week coming to New Zealand over the last year. Net migrant numbers are highly correlated with house price increases in Auckland. While our housing system and other infrastructure might cope with more NZers coming home, it can't cope with that, plus a lot of new migrants.

These researchers have simply talked around the issue. How about they try to explain that graph away.

craic
11-08-2016, 08:07 AM
I regularly read The New Scientist (weekly). Couple of months ago they had an extensive article on the effects of immigration on countries/ populations and much of that was from a NZ researcher. The outcome was that there is a nett gain in productivity from immigration. Something in the order of 1 to i.25. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the article at the time and I don't hang on to the magazine after it's read.

elZorro
11-08-2016, 11:32 AM
I regularly read The New Scientist (weekly). Couple of months ago they had an extensive article on the effects of immigration on countries/ populations and much of that was from a NZ researcher. The outcome was that there is a nett gain in productivity from immigration. Something in the order of 1 to i.25. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the article at the time and I don't hang on to the magazine after it's read.


Here's the article Craic.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030680-700-the-truth-about-migration-how-it-will-reshape-our-world/

The 1.25 to 1.5% increase in GDP with a 1% immigration increase is from an average of 15 European countries. It might not apply in NZ, it doesn't seem to be that good so far. Would there be a point where too much of a population increase, too fast, has wider reaching negative effects, and do most European countries have better infrastructure than we do? I can't see much effort from this govt in planning for the increased population, apart from ad-hoc fixups with a few million thrown in, every so often, when some noise is being made. That's not really planning is it?

elZorro
12-08-2016, 06:49 AM
No-one's really sure what's happening with our exchange rate at the moment.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11692073&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+12+A ugust+2016

The Reserve bank wants a small amount of inflation to grow the economy. This latest rate cut has strengthened the NZ$ for some reason.

fungus pudding
12-08-2016, 06:57 AM
No-one's really sure what's happening with our exchange rate at the moment.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11692073&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+12+A ugust+2016

The Reserve bank wants a small amount of inflation to grow the economy. This latest rate cut has strengthened the NZ$ for some reason.

The 'some reason' is because interest rate drop was not as large as expected, along with an extremely healthy economy. .

elZorro
12-08-2016, 10:11 AM
The 'some reason' is because interest rate drop was not as large as expected, along with an extremely healthy economy. .

In that case, there must be some massive new industry that is generating $7billion of annual income to replace the dairy sector income that isn't there at the moment.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/seven-billion-reasons-the-lower-dairy-payout-will-be-felt-by-everyone-2015050609#axzz4H4FkBKe0

I guess housing is going well, that's mopping up the surplus farm workers as farm owners go back to milking, and other cashflow saving measures. But overall, if our GDP/capita isn't rising rapidly by any means, how can you say the economy is in extremely good shape? Is the National govt starting to repay their debt mountain, are they? I think you'll find they are now borrowing money just to pay the interest, and will be doing so for some time.

macduffy
12-08-2016, 11:06 AM
There's always reasons to view the glass as half empty! Just ignore the envious glances from virtually every other developed economy at our strong currency, positive interest rates, relatively low unemployment, thriving tourism industry, strong retail sales........

:cool:

winner69
12-08-2016, 11:47 AM
I have trouble understanding the Labour narrative as well

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-little-doing-poor-job-telling-labours-story

Raz
12-08-2016, 02:01 PM
EZ - your mate Grant likes twitter

@grantrobertson1: Just a reminder that Steven Joyce has been Econ Dvlpmt Minister for 8 yrs and exports as % of GDP gone backwards on his watch. @NZQandA

I should remind Grant that this is generally what happens under neo-liberalism

And My gut feeling is that Labour would not achieved a ifferent outcome - neo-liberals in their own right?

Not neo-liberalism but it is generally what happens when there are easier Speculative ways to make money..in our case through government policy.

elZorro
13-08-2016, 08:36 AM
Not neo-liberalism but it is generally what happens when there are easier Speculative ways to make money..in our case through government policy.

Welcome to the thread, Raz. Do you mean immigration policy? National seem to be quite good at that.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/IntTravelAndMigration_HOTPJun16.aspx

Seasonally adjusted, we are levelling out at about 6,000 net migrants per month, an extra 72,000 p.a. to house, on top of any normal population growth. That is a guaranteed recipe for increased house prices throughout NZ, it's a 1.6% annual increase in population.

Funnily enough, it's about the same as the growth in the economy.

From Trading economics.com


The New Zealand economy advanced a seasonally adjusted 0.7 percent in the three months to March of 2016, following 0.9 percent expansion in the previous period and above market expectations of a 0.5 percent increase. The latest growth was driven by the construction and health industries, but partly offset by decreases in the primary industries and manufacturing. Year-on-year, the economy expanded 2.8 percent. The main driver behind the GDP growth was construction, which rose 4.9 percent. This was the strongest quarterly growth for the industry since March 2014.



Latest stats on population:

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/83067/nzs-populaton-grows-fastest-rate-ever-year-june-back-surging-migration?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+13 +August+2016

Shamubeel Eaqub comments: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/83106207/shamubeel-eaqub-is-time-to-include-house-prices-in-inflation-calculations?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Saturday+13 +August+2016)

Daytr
14-08-2016, 09:09 AM
Well that's fine if you only judge things on economics. Unfortunately we don't value our environment the same way. We don't build the infrastructure in advance of policy implementation. Living in the Far North we diabolical roading, sewerage systems that can't cater for the current population let alone tourism and now we are seeing massive population growth. I drove to Auckland recently and I averaged 45kms/hour! Due to the roadworks, truck after truck and no where to pass. And yet the government instead of re-implementing rail wants to rip more up! This same government only 18 months ago was driving centralization of services are now giving the homeless money to leave Auckland and forgiveness of student loans if they move to the regions. This is a government that governs by the seat of their pants and are constantly reacting to the consequences of their own policy, because they haven't been proactive or even thought it through.

There's always reasons to view the glass as half empty! Just ignore the envious glances from virtually every other developed economy at our strong currency, positive interest rates, relatively low unemployment, thriving tourism industry, strong retail sales........

:cool:

elZorro
14-08-2016, 06:33 PM
Well that's fine if you only judge things on economics. Unfortunately we don't value our environment the same way. We don't build the infrastructure in advance of policy implementation. Living in the Far North we diabolical roading, sewerage systems that can't cater for the current population let alone tourism and now we are seeing massive population growth. I drove to Auckland recently and I averaged 45kms/hour! Due to the roadworks, truck after truck and no where to pass. And yet the government instead of re-implementing rail wants to rip more up! This same government only 18 months ago was driving centralization of services are now giving the homeless money to leave Auckland and forgiveness of student loans if they move to the regions. This is a government that governs by the seat of their pants and are constantly reacting to the consequences of their own policy, because they haven't been proactive or even thought it through.

Reminded me of this video:

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

elZorro
17-08-2016, 06:23 AM
Not sure I'd like to be drinking the water in Havelock North for a while.

The current policy on the bottom line for water is simply that it must be wadeable and suitable for boating. Not for swimming in.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/297066/govt-failing-to-protect-rivers-opposition

I was told the other day that just down the road from where I live at a central Hamilton address, are large holding tanks for sewage. There's at least another set on the other side of the Waikato River. In the 50s or 60s, council staff would go down to these tanks in the middle of the night on occasion, and let the sewage into the river, if there had been a lot of rain and the sewage system wasn't coping. Who knows, they may still be doing that, it would be a simple button press from the control room.

Remember Bruce Wills, ex Federated Farmers President, who wrote - while he was still in office - that waterway quality needed to be suitable enough that you could put your arm in up to the elbow, and not get ill afterwards. Since expunged from the web, but he wrote that.

Should government be providing a bit more direction on this at the moment? Did Craig Foss, MP, do anything useful to help?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/83204490/gastro-outbreak-peaks-in-havelock-north-as-ministry-of-health-called-into-inquiry

Liam Dann with a good article, mildy scathing of the govt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11694771&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 7+August+2016

jonu
17-08-2016, 08:18 AM
Not sure I'd like to be drinking the water in Havelock North for a while.

The current policy on the bottom line for water is simply that it must be wadeable and suitable for boating. Not for swimming in.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/297066/govt-failing-to-protect-rivers-opposition

I was told the other day that just down the road from where I live at a central Hamilton address, are large holding tanks for sewage. There's at least another set on the other side of the Waikato River. In the 50s or 60s, council staff would go down to these tanks in the middle of the night on occasion, and let the sewage into the river, if there had been a lot of rain and the sewage system wasn't coping. Who knows, they may still be doing that, it would be a simple button press from the control room.

Remember Bruce Wills, ex Federated Farmers President, who wrote - while he was still in office - that waterway quality needed to be suitable enough that you could put your arm in up to the elbow, and not get ill afterwards. Since expunged from the web, but he wrote that.

Should government be providing a bit more direction on this at the moment? Did Craig Foss, MP, do anything useful to help?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/83204490/gastro-outbreak-peaks-in-havelock-north-as-ministry-of-health-called-into-inquiry

Liam Dann with a good article, mildy scathing of the govt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=11694771&utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Wednesday+1 7+August+2016

Not one of your more rational posts El Z. Accusing your local govt of systematically dumping sewerage based on a rumour of what happened in the 50s is hardly strong argument. The US/British exploded atomic bombs in central Australia in the 50s (that's fact not rumour). Does that mean the Aussies are letting off a few sly ones now?

The answer is probably yes, the stinky bast.....

elZorro
17-08-2016, 07:17 PM
Not one of your more rational posts El Z. Accusing your local govt of systematically dumping sewerage based on a rumour of what happened in the 50s is hardly strong argument. The US/British exploded atomic bombs in central Australia in the 50s (that's fact not rumour). Does that mean the Aussies are letting off a few sly ones now?

The answer is probably yes, the stinky bast.....

I guess I should have provided some proof. Maybe we shouldn't look.

It turns out the bastion of good information, Wikipedia, has this on Hamilton City:


Although by 1956 80% of Hamilton had sewage pipes, it was only piped to 14 septic tanks (17 when replaced in 1976[127] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_New_Zealand#cite_note-HCSS-127)), which were emptied several times a year, either into the Waitawhirwhiri Stream, or directly into the Waikato.[110] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_New_Zealand#cite_note-ReferenceB-110) In 1956 the Pollution Advisory Council said, "the daily flow of sewage effluent and trade wastes from Hamilton City is three million gallons… in effect, partly digested sludge and raw sewage is being disposed of into the Waikato River". Downstream from Hamilton contaminants increased 10 times between the 1950s and the early 1970s.[128] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_New_Zealand#cite_note-128) The 1953 Water Pollution Act (http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/wpa19531953n104253/) set up a Pollution Advisory Council, but it had no control powers until 1963.

In 1964 the Department of Health (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Health_(New_Zealand)) ordered adequate treatment for the sewage. Steven and Fitzmaurice, Consulting Engineers, presented a plan to Council early in 1966. There was some work on piping new areas in 1966, but work on the major trunks and interceptors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer#Nomenclature) didn't start until 1969 and building at Pukete sewage works started in January 1972. The first sewage was treated in July 1975 and was fully connected early in 1977.[127] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_New_Zealand#cite_note-HCSS-127)



So this lines up with the fact that the Waikato River immediately north of Huntly, for example, was quite clear in the late 40s, early 50s, but got quickly worse in the years that followed (reliable hearsay).

Grant Robertson on favourable statistics:


Tomorrow the latest Household Labour Force Survey is released. These are the official statistics used to track, among other things, the level of unemployment. This will be the first survey undertaken since a change in how someone is defined as being unemployed. To be considered unemployed you need not only to be out of work, but also ‘actively seeking work’. Fair enough. But what is considered actively seeking work has changed. Looking on the internet on a website such as Seek or Trade Me is now considered “passive” rather than “active” and therefore is not sufficient for the person to be included as being unemployed. The result when this new criteria was applied to the last survey’s results was that unemployment magically went down from 5.7% to 5.2%.
This change in measurement just does not fit with the modern world and how people go about looking for work.
I accept the Chief Statistician’s assurance there was no political interference in the decision to make this change. What I know is that we have a National government that regularly misuses and misrepresents statistics and mark my words they will do it with this change particularly closer to the election.
The sad reality is that while the change in measurement might elicit a lower number or percentage it will not mean one fewer person is unemployed.

We need a more active government partnering with communities to create decent meaningful work right across NZ, not just celebrating a statistical change.

neopoleII
18-08-2016, 07:32 PM
just as well the billion plus people of India and their toilet habits has nothing to do with the world that we live in........
really?........ I thought all the oceans were inter connected......
how many people live in Hamilton? and in the 1950s how many people lived there?
obviously one mans poos and wees is less than a another mans....... even if there a billions of poos floating down a foreign countries streams.......
bad NZ, we cant have a single poo floating in the water.
who cares about other countries!!!
not our problem.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/Around-80-of-sewage-in-Indian-cities-flows-into-water-systems/articleshow/18804660.cms

isnt politics and peoples views great!

elZorro
19-08-2016, 05:56 AM
just as well the billion plus people of India and their toilet habits has nothing to do with the world that we live in........
really?........ I thought all the oceans were inter connected......
how many people live in Hamilton? and in the 1950s how many people lived there?
obviously one mans poos and wees is less than a another mans....... even if there a billions of poos floating down a foreign countries streams.......
bad NZ, we cant have a single poo floating in the water.
who cares about other countries!!!
not our problem.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/Around-80-of-sewage-in-Indian-cities-flows-into-water-systems/articleshow/18804660.cms

isnt politics and peoples views great!

I can't see how we can do much about solving India's issues. But we live on the last major land mass to be discovered by humans, a part of Gondwana that happened to have only bats as the mammal representatives in recent times. It's a very special place, and we should do all we can to protect what's left. Humans are overrunning the world's ecosystems almost everywhere else - why don't we make a stand on principle, here in NZ?

Another symptom of a National Govt:

Unicef calls for action on child poverty - in NZ! (http://thestandard.org.nz/unicef-call-for-action-on-nz-poverty/)

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/311017/'tents-and-warehouses'-suggested-for-homeless

Daytr
19-08-2016, 06:41 AM
Question: Should the new Ministry for vulnerable children come under the umbrella of the Minister of Social Housing or Immigration?
As I see policies of both have lead to the extreme disparity of wealth in NZ creating more vulnerable families.
So what happens to those who were covered under the previous ministry that aren't children or the most vulnerable as the government keeps referring to.

winner69
20-08-2016, 01:20 PM
Wow - 16 medals at Rio Olympics

Good psyback for ongoing Governent support

Should make Jonathan Coleman happy .....and John boy

Did Jonathan go and suprt the team?

elZorro
22-08-2016, 06:49 AM
Wow - 16 medals at Rio Olympics

Good payback for ongoing Governent support

Should make Jonathan Coleman happy .....and John boy

Did Jonathan go and support the team?

W69, I take it you mean that $180mill of taxpayer costs yielded 18 medals? It's like so many other areas, results can be bought up to a certain point.

Bernard Hickey on immigration and the impact on wage growth here. I'm just starting to read "No Left Turn" by Chris Trotter, so I found this article to be along the same lines. Who cares about wages? We're winning medals over there.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11697962

Daytr
22-08-2016, 09:03 PM
I think Shonkey got the GCSB to plant the bug in the ABs hotel just so he would know where to be for the next photo op. ;-)

He never misses an opportunity to have a dodgy handshake with the ABs captain.
I'm sure he will take credit for the medal haul as well.


Wow - 16 medals at Rio Olympics

Good psyback for ongoing Governent support

Should make Jonathan Coleman happy .....and John boy

Did Jonathan go and suprt the team?

elZorro
23-08-2016, 06:17 AM
The Future of Work:


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 23 August 2016

Robertson's task: to build something to be proud of

Three National ministers and an MP proclaimed in Parliament last Wednesday their "pride" in what their government has done on climate change. Really?

The cabinet's proud record is an emissions trading scheme which exempted farmers and traded in crooked units from Russia and Ukraine plus tentative moves on transport and heating and research on animal methane. Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett has said she is killing the "two-for-one" units subsidy for big emitters, has invited Labour and Greens to discuss "consensus" on some matters and is to appoint a "technical advisory group". There is not much concrete yet to be proud of.

The economy bids better for pride: fiscal balance and low-ish fiscal debt, strong GDP growth, consumer spending and construction and a tourism boom. But there are vulnerabilities. Ultra-low interest rates are in pursuit of an arbitrary, increasingly questioned inflation target (Graeme Wheeler can influence only domestic inflation, which is actually on his 2% target) and are fuelling wild house prices. Household debt is a record and rising, a loud signal of danger.

GDP growth and consumer spending owe a lot to immigration and to low-wage, commodity tourism. Real gross national disposable income per capita "growth" in the year to March was zero. And threats are rising. China's growing unfriendliness to foreign companies is being felt by exporters and in a veiled retaliation threat over complaints about its steel dumping. China's economic contradictions are worsening, as visiting expert Bates Gill laid out in the Sir Howard Kippenberger lecture last Thursday. United States and Europe populist rage threatens openness to trade. Global monetary policy has badly skewed balance sheets.

So there is cause for pause, to ask if policy settings are right. Bill English thinks they are. Labour thinks not. For Labour's second "future of work" conference this Friday Grant Robertson has brought in David Coats, an English employment academic from the union side of the "work" debate.

Coats is not a fan of throwback politics. which English Labour seems to yearn for in its impending re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Last December Coats wrote that "moderates" should do the "heavy lifting" on economic policy. Returning to a 1980s model "would be a catastrophic mistake". He cites Financial Times columnist John Kay (covered in this column on February 9) and former British Financial Services Authority chair Lord Adair Turner for "really interesting thinking". Turner last year backed fiscal stimulation of the economy financed by monetary expansion, not borrowing, and has queried narrow inflation targeting. He chairs the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

Coats will bring to Robertson's conference a message that Labour "has to be open, questing and genetically dissatisfied with the status quo". But he has no ready-made solutions because the future is too murky. He says forecasts of "footloose", "self-employed" people (which Robertson's March conference heard) are premature. But some of that will likely feature in a contribution by Samantha Gadd, of Wellington workplace relations consultancy Humankind, who says that while most people need fulltime, permanent work with a stable income, it is "inevitable" that more flexible working arrangements, with flat and/or cooperative management modes, will become more common.

Coats, Turner and Gadd are not wonky oddballs (though Wheeler and English might think so). There is growing international commentary similar to former United States Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers' call in May for "new policy paradigms". That commentary is the context for Robertson's quest. His final future of work report in November is to set a "direction of travel", out of which will come specific policies. One was released in late July: upgrade professional career guidance in schools to a "core mission" to create personalised plans for students' schooling, predicated, in Robertson's words, on "what work you want to create, not what job you are going to do".

Robertson will also want an "active labour market" policy to help people make a "just" transition through employment changes. He sees "work" policy as critical in economic policy. Among other changes, he will want to adjust monetary policy -- he got into a stoush with Wheeler at a parliamentary committee two weeks back -- and put more emphasis on fiscal policy as a macro-economic influence.

He will flag deep changes in tax policy but is leaving specifics to a post-election working group. Two specifics so far announced are to expand to five years the two-year bright line test on capital gain from property trading and abolish negative gearing. That is part of a rebalancing of tax on wealth and income, which implies more tax on wealth, possibly including land.

But there is a sales job ahead. Robertson's task these next 12 months is to get voters to tune in and then think his work is something Labour could be proud of.

Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000050/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000050/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)



A related topic from Shamubeel Eaqub:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/83371884/shamubeel-eaqub-education-is-the-key-to-preparing-for-economic-change?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+23+ August+2016

fungus pudding
23-08-2016, 08:01 AM
The Future of Work:



A related topic from Shamubeel Eaqub:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/83371884/shamubeel-eaqub-education-is-the-key-to-preparing-for-economic-change?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Tuesday+23+ August+2016


You may not realise this eZ, but most of us are quite capable of reading our daily newspaper, although I can quite understand that many would not bother reading Colin James' articles.

Sgt Pepper
23-08-2016, 10:29 AM
William Yan $43 million settlement as reported in the NZ H,erald

"Key said he was unaware of the settlement until he read about it this morning Herald this morning."

Yeah .. right

Daytr
23-08-2016, 06:22 PM
I see the walnut shell game is alive & well under National .
Constantly renaming departments, Ministers moving from one portfolio to another on a regular basis.
Constant reshuffles and backflips with little or no progress.
Do they actually have any policy that they stick to?
Well besides record immigration that is.
Mind you did anyone see this as a policy in any of their election campaigns?
I think not.

Daytr
23-08-2016, 06:23 PM
I think they call that a bribe.
No charges? Give us the money and we wild leave you alone.


William Yan $43 million settlement as reported in the NZ H,erald

"Key said he was unaware of the settlement until he read about it this morning Herald this morning."

Yeah .. right

elZorro
23-08-2016, 08:47 PM
You may not realise this eZ, but most of us are quite capable of reading our daily newspaper, although I can quite understand that many would not bother reading Colin James' articles.

FP- We don't see the ODT that often in Hamiltown. It's a good independent paper and with independent thought. Doesn't seem to have rubbed off on you?

National's solution to schooling costs: let's all go online.

http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-push-stupidest-education-plan-ever/

Major von Tempsky
26-08-2016, 04:50 PM
I can remember reading Colin James articles about the Black Budget in 1958 when I was a boy.
Surely he's now writing reviews about Zimmer frames and Respite Care?

fungus pudding
27-08-2016, 02:20 PM
eZ and his ilk will e thrilled to reminisce on the very real and beneficial acheivments of their beloved Labour party, before their spines descended into jelly.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/pain-and-gain-rogernomics-remembered-us-made-documentary-ng-p-193541

Daytr
27-08-2016, 04:12 PM
Anyone see Nick Smith on the Nation this morning ?
He's in complete denial about the housing crisis let alone the stress on infrastructure.
This is completely in their control of course.
All they need to do is turn down the level of record immigration to take the pressure off.
But they wont as its the only way they know how to grow the economy and they wont even accept that having a million dollar average priced housing in Auckland is a problem!

tim23
27-08-2016, 04:29 PM
And of course turning off the immigration tap would put pressure on wages and this government clearly won't want that...

westerly
27-08-2016, 05:56 PM
eZ and his ilk will e thrilled to reminisce on the very real and beneficial acheivments of their beloved Labour party, before their spines descended into jelly.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/pain-and-gain-rogernomics-remembered-us-made-documentary-ng-p-193541

Ironic that the article concludes with a link to the "rich list 1916" Acheivments?

elZorro
27-08-2016, 07:44 PM
eZ and his ilk will e thrilled to reminisce on the very real and beneficial acheivments of their beloved Labour party, before their spines descended into jelly.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/pain-and-gain-rogernomics-remembered-us-made-documentary-ng-p-193541

Treasury boffins drove the neoliberalism experiment, not core Labour. The boffins just happened to have the plan ready when the country was in crisis from Muldoon's hands-on controlling.

Explain for me how, under Helen Clark some time later, with some moves to soften the hard edges of neoliberal policy and move a bit more left, the country boomed, the economy was grown, good capital gains were made, good taxes were paid, and in the space of nine years nearly all the historical Crown debt was paid off? They just got lucky? I think they knew how to run the country properly.

fungus pudding
27-08-2016, 08:52 PM
Treasury boffins drove the neoliberalism experiment, not core Labour. The boffins just happened to have the plan ready when the country was in crisis from Muldoon's hands-on controlling.

Explain for me how, under Helen Clark some time later, with some moves to soften the hard edges of neoliberal policy and move a bit more left, the country boomed, the economy was grown, good capital gains were made, good taxes were paid, and in the space of nine years nearly all the historical Crown debt was paid off? They just got lucky? I think they knew how to run the country properly.

Douglas wrote and published 'There's got to be a better way' without any help from treasury. For which he got a severe bollicking from Dopey Rowling. To the immense credit of Labour, particularly Moore, Caygill, Goff and others we stopped emulating soviet union type policies which had crept in under both govts, and increased our standard of living to what we have today. In spite of the odd bit of moaning and groaning heard, it;s much better to be poor now than it was pre Douglas, when even the wealthy couldn't afford much. Such a pit Lange lost the plot and flicked the switch before the reforms were complete.

winner69
28-08-2016, 07:34 AM
They say money makes people right-wing and inegalitarian

As house prices rise / booming stock market / increased perceived wealth / declining unemployment rates the harder its becoming for Labour (Green) winning next year - no matter how bad the Nats are

Daytr
29-08-2016, 09:15 AM
Yep agree unfortunately. People will turn a blind eye to social depravation and environmental destruction as long as their pockets are being lined for doing nothing, i.e. owning property. Brings out the worst in people.


They say money makes people right-wing and inegalitarian

As house prices rise / booming stock market / increased perceived wealth / declining unemployment rates the harder its becoming for Labour (Green) winning next year - no matter how bad the Nats are

fungus pudding
29-08-2016, 10:23 AM
Yep agree unfortunately. People will turn a blind eye to social depravation and environmental destruction as long as their pockets are being lined for doing nothing, i.e. owning property. Brings out the worst in people.


What a ridiculous comment.

westerly
29-08-2016, 10:29 AM
What a ridiculous comment.

Only in your view, somewhat biased towards the right of right of centre.

westerly