PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



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

Minerbarejet
10-09-2013, 09:12 PM
err yeah guys,
Who in the whole spectrum of NZ politics has the ideals and mana to lead this minute but energetic country to its' penultimate destiny? Key -maybe, Cunliffe -who knows, English- doubt it, Ardern - Lady in waiting,
Viewed from the centre
mbj

fungus pudding
10-09-2013, 11:08 PM
err yeah guys,
Who in the whole spectrum of NZ politics has the ideals and mana to lead this minute but energetic country to its' penultimate destiny? Key -maybe, Cunliffe -who knows, English- doubt it, Ardern - Lady in waiting,
Viewed from the centre
mbj

If you're looking from the centre, the current Labour lot will be too far away to even see.

elZorro
11-09-2013, 06:40 AM
That's your worry, isn't it FP. Union strikes?

More downsizing in the manufacturing sector. Next time you use a BIC pen, it might not be made here. Why change the supply from inside NZ? Those of us using BIC pens, buy them because they are made here.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/bic-halt-new-zealand-pen-manufacturing-5579108

slimwin
11-09-2013, 07:08 AM
Thats not why I buy them EZ. In fact I always thought it was a French company. Our company buys them because they are cheap. That will always be the driver for the majority.

blackcap
11-09-2013, 08:28 AM
That's your worry, isn't it FP. Union strikes?

More downsizing in the manufacturing sector. Next time you use a BIC pen, it might not be made here. Why change the supply from inside NZ? Those of us using BIC pens, buy them because they are made here.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/bic-halt-new-zealand-pen-manufacturing-5579108

If a NZ company cannot be competitive it should no longer operate. We need to operate in markets where we have an edge. Not subsidise failing industries. If Bic can get them cheaper in SA, then that is good. If they are being produced cheaper in SA the question I have is... why are they being produced here at all? Maybe the wage rate needs to be lower to enable BIC to produce cheaper pens here??? ;)

fungus pudding
11-09-2013, 09:10 AM
If a NZ company cannot be competitive it should no longer operate. We need to operate in markets where we have an edge. Not subsidise failing industries. If Bic can get them cheaper in SA, then that is good. If they are being produced cheaper in SA the question I have is... why are they being produced here at all? Maybe the wage rate needs to be lower to enable BIC to produce cheaper pens here??? ;)

Exactly. .

craic
11-09-2013, 10:42 AM
paper clips - the bent wire variety, were farmed out to people at IHC workshops years ago and they did a good job. Maybe there is an opening here? The droves of reluctants who avoid work as a career could be utilised at a cheap/subsidised rate for the more technical parts of the production. Imagine being faced with the threat. "Look mate, if you don't make more effort to find work then you will be sent to the Bic factory"

elZorro
11-09-2013, 12:30 PM
There is no way the BIC pens are made by hand, they would be using robots and injection moulding machines. It still employed 19 people. Now they are going to sea freight the pens back here from SA? Because they save one or two cents a pen? The company owners want more profit, but from NZ's perspective there are 19 good manufacturing jobs gone, the taxpayer will pick up the tab while they try and find something else. FP and Blackcap will be the first ones to set up a manufacturing business to take up the slack. Correct? Not with those attitudes. Too much like hard work.

blackcap
11-09-2013, 02:56 PM
There is no way the BIC pens are made by hand, they would be using robots and injection moulding machines. It still employed 19 people. Now they are going to sea freight the pens back here from SA? Because they save one or two cents a pen? The company owners want more profit, but from NZ's perspective there are 19 good manufacturing jobs gone, the taxpayer will pick up the tab while they try and find something else. FP and Blackcap will be the first ones to set up a manufacturing business to take up the slack. Correct? Not with those attitudes. Too much like hard work.

El zorro, respectfully, what would your solution be to save these jobs if you were in govt?

craic
11-09-2013, 02:58 PM
Some time ago I bought gel-ink pens in Onehunga for $2 for a pack of four - made in China. On my way out of Auckland International airport I bought a pack of three pens at the book shop. They were Faber-Castell, made in Malaysia where I was going. Needle point was said to be Swiss. Now I'm sure that a careful investigation would show that this German company had its product made in Malaysia from Swiss tips, Chinese ink and heaven only knows how many other places were involved - that is the nature of trade in the modern world. Stayed at Strawberry Park Resort in the Cameron Highlands wher strawberries are among their proudest probucts - the strawberry jam at breakfast was Heinz in its little plastic packets. The butter on the plane to and from NZ was French. Maybe the Labour party should be looking for a leader, manufactured overseas from a variety of nationalities?

elZorro
11-09-2013, 05:55 PM
Blackcap, Craic, yes, points noted. Any manufacturing business that has survived for decades has a lot going in its favour. It has staff who know all about its business, it has a lot of customers who are buying its products or services, or one or two big customers. It has equipment in place to carry out its operations. Like FPA before them, the owners of these operations are looking for a suitable return on capital, and sometimes a bit of support from government. At crunch times, when investment decisions are being made. National has not been too crash hot at this. Especially for small businesses.

I was at a meeting with the local govt agent, provider of business help for R&D and business support, today. This was a bit of a useless chat for two hours, not helped by the fact that my data sheets that I'd filled out, hadn't been read by the interviewer, because they hadn't been passed on in their system days before. It was made reasonably clear to me that I wasn't aiming that high, compared to the millions of export sales that might be their target. I would perhaps be able to access $5000 of business vouchers. I don't meet much of the criteria that Callaghan Innovation ask for either.

The interviewer doesn't know my business, has no real intention of visiting it, and will probably expect me to access some business training. That is not the immediate encouragement I'm looking for. It doesn't lead me on to move into more higher-value products, instead I'll be filling out forms to access a small amount of advisor part funding, if I can be bothered. I am not in business to support a growing chain of business consultants, insurance brokers, advisors etc. I'm in the business of making niche stuff with a decent margin in it. For my own resale, or for clients.

If that's the sort of response I get, and I'm in a better area than most, I hate to think what other businesses going in there would be told.

How much easier to decide myself what R&D I'll be doing, and simply claim back an additional 12.5% of it in my tax return at the end of each year, with a small amount of paperwork, which I'll happily be audited on if they want to. It won't just be me, it'll be any small manufacturer who has a bit of an idea. And just a small proportion of those ideas will work spectacularly well, and that's where our new manufacturing jobs will come from.

iceman
12-09-2013, 06:55 AM
Good summary EZ. Government becoming involved in decision making for, and/or running businesses is highly inefficient , run by people that know nothing about business and is a complete waste of tax payers money. It isn't often I agree with your posts (but always enjoy and appreciate them) but this time I'm happy that we agree that Government should leave business to business !

janner
12-09-2013, 09:05 PM
Thats not why I buy them EZ. In fact I always thought it was a French company. Our company buys them because they are cheap. That will always be the driver for the majority.

They are a French company.. Owned by Baron Bich.. Who is a Baron in every sense of the word..

elZorro
12-09-2013, 09:41 PM
They are a French company.. Owned by Baron Bich.. Who is a Baron in every sense of the word..

Yep, thanks you two, I hadn't looked up the brand, and that's correct. More detail on the NZ operation, they at least made the pens here. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9147473/Bic-calls-time-on-NZ-pen-making

It's amazing when you look, how many common retail brands are owned by just a few big overseas companies. Colgate etc.

It would be a lot better if these exiting overseas firms set up (or allowed) their former staff to manufacture something else in their own right from the premises. But usually they'll pull the plant to bits and send it offshore, so they can keep generating profits with it, but at a cheaper labour rate. This is a longer term capital loss to NZ.

Iceman, thanks for the comments. If I could just get you to vote Labour at the next election, I could also sell ice to eskimos, and coal to Newcastle :)

iceman
13-09-2013, 06:12 AM
Iceman, thanks for the comments. If I could just get you to vote Labour at the next election, I could also sell ice to eskimos, and coal to Newcastle :)

I would be too confused and not know which faction to vote for EZ :confused:

elZorro
13-09-2013, 06:52 AM
Iceman, just as long as we know neither of us will change our convictions, it'll make the posts more interesting.

Chris Trotter thinks the Labour MPs who are in fear of their positions should look at the wider vote for Cunliffe. It's not a big jump left that they're afraid of, much more their salaries by the sound of it. We'll know soon.

Brian Fallow has this useful summary on the last few years in NZ. His comment, has NZ wasted some of the restructuring time they had? Household net positions have not moved since 2008. 5 years, nothing has happened, we're treading water.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11123855

craic
13-09-2013, 07:01 AM
Have a look at the Aust. stats released on this mornings news - jobs declining, more unemployment etc. and it was under Labour so why do people here think that our confused left is going to do better?

elZorro
13-09-2013, 07:21 AM
Have a look at the Aust. stats released on this mornings news - jobs declining, more unemployment etc. and it was under Labour so why do people here think that our confused left is going to do better?

Everything's relative Craic, Aussie has a bit further to fall considering they are one of the highest paid nations in the world, and we're always playing catch-up.

elZorro
14-09-2013, 10:57 AM
Here's what I mean about some enthusiasm in manufacturing. I may not be widely read or well travelled, but I have read Bob Jones' book "OGG".

And so, obviously, have the people behind this company, making duvets from alpine alpacas that don't actually exist :)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11124389

The book is really amusing, so I see this interpretation into real life as not too terrible, all in all.

craic
15-09-2013, 12:15 PM
So you're all sitting on the edge of your seats waiting to see which of the three wise monkeys gets the nod? Some time between 2.30 and 3pm today I'm told. I suppose the big question is "what happens if Cunliffe misses out"? Russell Norman will have to continue in his role as leader.

elZorro
15-09-2013, 12:59 PM
Craic, I'm getting a direct email at 2.45 pm apparently, but I might not be able to post it as I have a car trip coming up. I can see you're keen to find out too.

Whatever else happens, Labour will get a person coherently able to speak to camera, and maybe someone who acts more like a statesman. Russell Norman won't get a senior finance role in any Labour/Green government, but he will be part of an economic team. Russell does speak well to camera too, and part of the reason is this: the Greens have researched their position on the points they talk about, and in general they have got it right. That's why Russell scores so many points with the press and the public. I've been waiting for years for Labour to make a more open move to include the Greens as an alliance partner. The timing is right.

In line with this thinking , Andrea Vance mentioned this article from the Washington Post in the SST today. Listed companies chasing the immediate bottom line each quarter, doesn't appear to be working that well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/how-the-cult-of-shareholder-value-wrecked-american-business/

elZorro
15-09-2013, 01:51 PM
Craic, FP etc, the winner in the leadership ballot was David Cunliffe.

fungus pudding
15-09-2013, 03:51 PM
Craic, FP etc, the winner in the leadership ballot was David Cunliffe.


Indeed. Caucus are thrilled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_kC9470LkA

Major von Tempsky
15-09-2013, 07:41 PM
Anyone read Steve Braunias satire "The Secret Diary of..." in the Sunday Star Times each week.
This week he did The Secret Diary of Grant Robertson. Hilarious! Wonder if it had an effect on the Labour Leader election....

"Wednesday...We sat around and analysed latest polling. There was good news and bad news.
The bad news was that 79% of NZers thought I was inexperienced, shifty, kind of creepy, a bit of a toerag, and probably a really sore loser.
The good news was that caucus couldn't care less what 79% of NZers think about anything."

Major von Tempsky
15-09-2013, 08:04 PM
Fungus Pudding - really loved that Youtube clip, sent it off to a whole lot of friends and watched it several times!

fungus pudding
15-09-2013, 08:21 PM
Fungus Pudding - really loved that Youtube clip, sent it off to a whole lot of friends and watched it several times!


Yeah, it's certainly good for a laugh. For Cunliffe fans who haven't seen it yet, here's the url again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_kC9470LkA

elZorro
15-09-2013, 08:34 PM
Er, FP, isn't that getting close to defamation? Are you sure no-one could track you down with some papers?
MVT: Steve Braunias sounds like a Labour voter to me, and was just stating his preference for Cunliffe as the other main candidate.

craic
15-09-2013, 09:29 PM
Doubt it! From his surname he sounds like a Maori or polynesian?

elZorro
15-09-2013, 09:48 PM
His photo looks fairly European Craic. Here is the voting detail, more background.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11125010

iceman
16-09-2013, 05:32 AM
It will be interesting to watch Cunliffe in the first couple of weeks. Never in NZ history does a major party have a Leader opposed by 2/3 of MPs. There will be some hurt egos there and lots of bad feeling.Very interesting indeed.

craic
16-09-2013, 11:20 AM
That was a half-drunken play on words - If my surname was Braunias I would probably expect some stick - and maybe even a change to something else.
His photo looks fairly European Craic. Here is the voting detail, more background.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11125010

elZorro
16-09-2013, 07:28 PM
It will be interesting to watch Cunliffe in the first couple of weeks. Never in NZ history does a major party have a Leader opposed by 2/3 of MPs. There will be some hurt egos there and lots of bad feeling.Very interesting indeed.

He's started on the front foot, I think these words were well chosen. Chris Trotter and quite a few other media commentators will be helping out over time too. The caucus has resisted the views of the rank and file party members for a year or three, but it is the party members who nominated them as their representatives. Time for the MPs to get real.

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/cunliffe-talks-tough-first-day-labour-leader-5584854

Brian Edwards thinks David Cunliffe is a game-changer, and will be the next PM of NZ from 2014.

http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2013/09/congratulations-david-and-karen-from-brian-and-judy-and-why-john-keys-days-are-numbered/#more-8465

elZorro
17-09-2013, 06:22 AM
Some comments by Colin James today.

Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 17 September 2013



The light on Labour's hill is a long climb away

Labour has a leader. Now what? There is a long hill to climb. Each of the three contenders described part of that hillclimb in their pitches for the job.

First there is the foothill, the 2014 election. Labour excited its troops by trumpeting that they were electing "the next Prime Minister" and the candidates joined that chorus. But actually, there is a fair chance the next Prime Minister will be a National MP -- if John Key wins a third term, then moves on.

A third term is not a sure bet. The economy, while chugging along, is lopsided and too many are on the downside. National has yet to recruit enough minor-party support. Key, while still appealing widely, has satisfaction ratings around Helen Clark's in her third term. A trickle of moderate conservatives is turning off him, and so off National, for reasons ranging his shock jock style to his bypassing of due process (most recently the Chorus slinter).

Add to that an opponent, David Cunliffe, who can project to voters, as Phil Goff and David Shearer could not, who can exploit the government's tender points and who, in doing that, can re-establish Labour in the media and in public as the undisputed main opposition party.

Then close Labour's fissures, as the open leadership contest has done for now (a process National, fearful of open debate within its ranks, doesn't dare). Caucus pre-election closing of ranks is likely -- assured if Grant Robertson is kept on as deputy leader -- and, with that, rank and file confidence and activity.

So billing Cunliffe as next Prime Minister is not far-fetched. Clark's longsighted vision for him, from when he was a rising young free-trader on the party's right, would then be vindicated.

And as Prime Minister he would get things done. Some officials remember him with a shudder. But he addressed the long-festering telecommunications regulatory ripoff and made a start on health services. He is intellectually smart and managerial. And, while he can be oleaginous, as in some of his leadership campaign interviews, he can also be disarmingly charming.

But Cunliffe's transit from right to "red" -- his word -- has left a trail of questions which Key, with help from National's destructive Australian political consultants, will aim to exploit. The odds still lie marginally with National. That could trigger a post-2014-election leadership round.

Even if Cunliffe is Prime Minister, Labour still has a long way to climb from the election foothill up to the over-40 per cent uplands it once occupied after most elections. Other social democratic parties in our sorts of countries have the same challenge. That says Labour's base support issue is systemic, not fixable just by a spell or two in office.

Shane Jones talked of Labour's "lost tribe": those in income bands logically Labour who did not enrol to vote or, if enrolled, did not vote. They have been a focus of Labour electoral managers like Mike Williams for a decade. Getting enough of them out in 2005 got Clark her third term. Not getting enough was a factor in Labour's 2008-11 low votes.

Long ago, unions attached "working people" to Labour. Now the lower socioeconomic strata are atomised, no longer the "tribe" of Jones's memory. There are also ethnic and other diversities.

And Labour's top brass now is not "one-of-us" among these voting fragments. The top brass is mostly of the educational meritocracy which emerged in numbers in the 1960s -- some is second- or third-generation, that is, from a privileged stratum, a new ruling caste.

Question: How does Labour become "one-of-us" with its logical voters?

Cunliffe had a promising answer: a "fair go", a phrase which has all-but-disappeared from our political lexicon. It used to pitch to a wide swathe of society: from a fair go to do what we want (our individualism) across to a fair go for a real chance in life (education, health care and social security).


Question: How does Labour remake itself as the party of the fair go, not just for now but for the 2020s?

Robertson pitched himself as the 2020s answer: the "next-generation" leader.

There is a generational shift in our politics -- not from the baby-boomers to Xs/Ys, as I used to think, but from the baby-boom/older-Xs (Cunliffe is older-X) to the younger-Xs/Ys. Robertson is younger X -- free from Labour's desperate "third way" attempt to adapt to, and adapt, free-market economics.

In 2017 younger-X and below will be a majority of the voting age population. If Labour can click into these people and hold on, it could be more often the government next decade.

Cunliffe and David Parker have been rethinking economic policy but there is more to do to move past reactive to constructive. There is little real sign yet of rethought social policy, though Jacinda Ardern and other Ys insist they are working on it.

So, question: How does Labour reframe its principles for the 2020s?

These are big escarpments on Labour's long uphill climb. Cunliffe's election was at most a start.

Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz


Liam Dann: Lehman lesson remembered. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11125139)

janner
17-09-2013, 08:19 PM
That was a half-drunken play on words - If my surname was Braunias I would probably expect some stick - and maybe even a change to something else.

Ez. Does not appear to have a sense of humour craic.. But he is a liabour supporter.. That should explain much..

Major von Tempsky
18-09-2013, 06:41 AM
Probably couldn't understand it.
Bit of a hiding Cunliffy got first time up against Key in the House :-)

fungus pudding
18-09-2013, 06:43 AM
Ez. Does not appear to have a sense of humour craic.. But he is a liabour supporter.. That should explain much..


I don't understand how anyone without a sense of humour could support Labour! :D

elZorro
18-09-2013, 08:10 PM
There's humour and then there's vilification. No, I didn't find it funny. Like when the Nats found a hole in the Labour Party website, downloaded lists of donations and then refused to destroy the data they held. It was passed on to Cameron Slater, so he could threaten the blogosphere with it.

Belgarion, here we are waiting for National to do something, anything, to show they have a clue how to get the country running properly again. The Minister Of Everything admitted again today that the Novopay system is still doing a bad job each payday. Every National MP and supporter is delighted (or is that relieved) that David Cunliffe swaps two words in parliament. Look, I expect more from MPs.

Here is some actual policy from the Labour website. David Parker, the new deputy, is behind the Economic policies. I don't care if he's pointy-headed, these are smart policies and I think they'll work. I sure hope they get a chance to find out, from 2014.


Labour will:

Convert the dole into a subsidy for employers willing to take on one of the 84,000 young New Zealanders not in work or training as an apprentice.
Introduce a 'one in a million' rule for companies awarded major government contracts to take on one apprentice for every $1 million of taxpayers' dollars they receive.
Make sure Kiwis have the first crack at jobs by asking businesses to prove they've exhausted all options before bringing in workers from overseas.
Support the job-rich manufacturing sector by investing in innovation through a R&D tax credit and giving the Reserve Bank a wider mandate to tackle the high and volatile dollar.
Take the tough decisions on the big issues holding our economy back like expanding KiwiSaver, making Superannuation affordable and reforming the tax system.

Labour's solutions
Help exporters and manufacturers by changing the Reserve Bank Act so we achieve a fair and competitive exchange rate.
Help the manufacturing industry achieve its vision of being a modern, high-tech driver of our economy, employing New Zealanders in well-paid jobs and supporting other parts of the economy.
Change tax to encourage investment in productive, exporting industries. A capital gains tax and research and development tax credits are a key part of this.
A new vision for skills, education and training so that New Zealanders can take advantage of the job opportunities of a 21st century economy.
Investing more in innovation and science by reinstating Research and Development tax credits.
Tighter controls on foreign purchases of productive farm land and infrastructure.
Prudent decisions about looming fiscal pressures, including the age of eligibility for superannunation.
Introducing Universal KiwiSaver to build our savings so that we can own our own country.

Major von Tempsky
19-09-2013, 08:23 AM
The first para is sort of nice to think about and hopefully do.

The second shows he hasn't got a clue about economics and economic history.

Anyone who has studied economics and thought about it knows that many economic objectives are in conflict with each other and that both strands of economic action, monetary and fiscal have to be addressed, you can't get by on just monetary policy e.g. more economic growth causes higher inflation and higher balance of payments deficits and overseas debt. Higher interest rates to address inflation, balance of payments causes a higher Kiwi dollar. A higher Kiwi dollar discourages exports and encourages imports. There are no simple solutions or everyone would know about them and use them already overseas.
Given that there are half a dozen desirable economic objectives and they are mostly in conflict with each other, interest rates, employment, growth, balance of payments, debt, kiwi dollar, technological innovation, investment, consumption....its no good enshrining them all in the Reserve Ban Act as used to be the case. You either paralyse the RBNZ or it concentrates on the most urgent. Parker is advocating what has been tried already and failed, paralyzing the RBNZ with a lot of conflicting objectives. Besides there is no way that NZ with a small economy (but a huge amount of kiwi dollars swilling around overseas - the 10th most traded currency internationally) can more than briefly and marginally influence the level of the kiwi dollar. The utterance above simply shows his economic ignorance and inexperience.

fungus pudding
19-09-2013, 09:18 AM
The first para is sort of nice to think about and hopefully do.

The second shows he hasn't got a clue about economics and economic history.

Anyone who has studied economics and thought about it knows that many economic objectives are in conflict with each other and that both strands of economic action, monetary and fiscal have to be addressed, you can't get by on just monetary policy e.g. more economic growth causes higher inflation and higher balance of payments deficits and overseas debt. Higher interest rates to address inflation, balance of payments causes a higher Kiwi dollar. A higher Kiwi dollar discourages exports and encourages imports. There are no simple solutions or everyone would know about them and use them already overseas.
Given that there are half a dozen desirable economic objectives and they are mostly in conflict with each other, interest rates, employment, growth, balance of payments, debt, kiwi dollar, technological innovation, investment, consumption....its no good enshrining them all in the Reserve Ban Act as used to be the case. You either paralyse the RBNZ or it concentrates on the most urgent. Parker is advocating what has been tried already and failed, paralyzing the RBNZ with a lot of conflicting objectives. Besides there is no way that NZ with a small economy (but a huge amount of kiwi dollars swilling around overseas - the 10th most traded currency internationally) can more than briefly and marginally influence the level of the kiwi dollar. The utterance above simply shows his economic ignorance and inexperience.

David Parker rates around Russell Norman's level of economic understanding. He's so out of whack that he's unlikely to be taken seriously by the majority of voters. e.g. paying dole equivalent to employers starting new workers. A two year old can see what would happen, and why it's been rejected in the past. Every time he opens his mouth out comes 'capital gains tax' as though it's the answer to every situation NZ is in. Well it isn't. Unless well designed it will do more harm than good. Every single thing I have ever heard from Parker has been a half-baked simplistic bit of nonsense.

craic
19-09-2013, 10:08 AM
The wonderful thing about capital gains tax is that it is a two sided coin and the other side is capital loss to be deducted from the capital gain. Keep tossing a penny - heads and tails average out and the massive administration cost is a loss charged against the taxpayer.Another alternative for the "rich" is to find a better investment, possibly or even probably out of NZ. Other countries have capital gains tax but they have a wider range of opportunities. The absence of this tax in NZ keeps the place solvent to some degree.

westerly
19-09-2013, 06:12 PM
David Parker rates around Russell Norman's level of economic understanding. He's so out of whack that he's unlikely to be taken seriously by the majority of voters. e.g. paying dole equivalent to employers starting new workers. A two year old can see what would happen, and why it's been rejected in the past. Every time he opens his mouth out comes 'capital gains tax' as though it's the answer to every situation NZ is in. Well it isn't. Unless well designed it will do more harm than good. Every single thing I have ever heard from Parker has been a half-baked simplistic bit of nonsense.

Wikipedia lists 59 countries with a cgt. Of course thier level of economic understanding is probably pretty low. The far rights advocacy of less and less tax. less regulation, and leave it to the market has been well proven over the last few years. Yeah right.

Westerly

fungus pudding
19-09-2013, 06:54 PM
Wikipedia lists 59 countries with a cgt. Of course thier level of economic understanding is probably pretty low. The far rights advocacy of less and less tax. less regulation, and leave it to the market has been well proven over the last few years. Yeah right.

Westerly

Regardless of left/right politics and tax levels, capital gains tax has problems. Personally I think it should allow repatriation as some models do, so that it functions as an exit tax. And even if you do not agree with less taxes, surely you see the advantage of fewer taxes. It's not a simple matter, and our system of applying income tax to capital gains at least is simple. Try doing business in Australia and you'll soon see the biggest disadvantage - it stops things happening. One thing that will suffer is the NZ share-market and that is not good for the economy or anyone.

elZorro
19-09-2013, 07:13 PM
Regardless of left/right politics and tax levels, capital gains tax has problems. Personally I think it should allow repatriation as some models do, so that it functions as an exit tax. And even if you do not agree with less taxes, surely you see the advantage of fewer taxes. It's not a simple matter, and our system of applying income tax to capital gains at least is simple. Try doing business in Australia and you'll soon see the biggest disadvantage - it stops things happening. One thing that will suffer is the NZ share-market and that is not good for the economy or anyone.

I didn't think there were too many buy-and-hold shareholders anymore. Most of us should probably disclose the net trading positions each year, just like it was a business, which it is for many.

I still have grave doubts about the idea that someone should be able to keep a tax-free gain on property of let's say an average $100,000 p.a. on a $2mill building. If that person invested that money in a business that traded OK, they'd probably be employing people, they'd make more than $100k p.a, and they'd pay tax on it, every year without fail. So what kind of a mentality exists where some people who are obviously smart enough to do something like that, forgo it for a simpler and tax-free alternative? Is the idea of not paying any tax the main driver? In which case do the rest of us pick up their tax burden?

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/nz-treasury-showing-right-wing-mindset-greens-5586668

blackcap
19-09-2013, 07:32 PM
Er, FP, isn't that getting close to defamation? Are you sure no-one could track you down with some papers?
MVT: Steve Braunias sounds like a Labour voter to me, and was just stating his preference for Cunliffe as the other main candidate.

How can that be defamation El Zorro? FP just said he thought it was good for a laugh. Stating an opinion which in no way can be defamatory. I thought it was funny too. One of the better ones.

elZorro
19-09-2013, 08:39 PM
I guess FP didn't construct the video, it'll be interesting to see who did. It's just another way of deflecting attention away from more important concerns, like who is running the country. I guess big business is running it, for their own ends.


DefamationFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual), business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business), product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(business)), group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group), government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), or nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation). Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Under common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-1) Some common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-2)
Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law), which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy)."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-3)[not verified in body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. False light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light) laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-martin-4)
In some civil law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)) jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) rather than a civil wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_wrong).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-5) The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights) ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression) and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Righ ts).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-2012UNHCRlibel-6)
A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer".

blackcap
19-09-2013, 09:00 PM
I guess FP didn't construct the video, it'll be interesting to see who did. It's just another way of deflecting attention away from more important concerns, like who is running the country. I guess big business is running it, for their own ends.

Exactly, FP didnt construct the video so there is no way he is remotely liable and it is satire anyway. But an opinion can not be called defamation. There are literally thousands of these "hitler" skits online. Look some of them up they are really funny. There is even a Miley Cyrus one. I think from memory this was a scene out of the movie Valkyrie. But I could be wrong.

elZorro
19-09-2013, 09:23 PM
Exactly, FP didnt construct the video so there is no way he is remotely liable and it is satire anyway. But an opinion can not be called defamation. There are literally thousands of these "hitler" skits online. Look some of them up they are really funny. There is even a Miley Cyrus one. I think from memory this was a scene out of the movie Valkyrie. But I could be wrong.

Yes, I realise it's a generic film clip, and that anything can be tapped in there. A simple bit of googling and I think I know who compiled that Hitler video text, a 4th year Econ/Law student named Nick Cr---, he's on a debating team and likes firing off anti-Labour tweets, and blogging on Kiwiblog etc.

So this was not done for humour, he's trying to sway opinion, just like we all are, except he's overstepping the mark. He should watch his mouth.

fungus pudding
20-09-2013, 06:55 AM
I didn't think there were too many buy-and-hold shareholders anymore. Most of us should probably disclose the net trading positions each year, just like it was a business, which it is for many.

I still have grave doubts about the idea that someone should be able to keep a tax-free gain on property of let's say an average $100,000 p.a. on a $2mill building. If that person invested that money in a business that traded OK, they'd probably be employing people, they'd make more than $100k p.a, and they'd pay tax on it, every year without fail. So what kind of a mentality exists where some people who are obviously smart enough to do something like that, forgo it for a simpler and tax-free alternative? Is the idea of not paying any tax the main driver? In which case do the rest of us pick up their tax burden?

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/nz-treasury-showing-right-wing-mindset-greens-5586668

They pay tax on the profit per annum from rental income - whereas a business pays tax on its profit. when business owner sells he usually does not pay tax on goodwill. With CGT this becomes taxable. Same as selling a building. They are treated equally. However if IRD considers business is bought for resale, or if buying/selling businesses becomes a means of income according to IRD that becomes taxable - same as real estate. Generally speaking rebalancing of business, shares, or building portfolio is allowed is within reason. Very different with CGT. As I have said many times, there is a place for CGT, but if not properly designed it does a lot of harm. I have a bit of experience with Australian system and it is awful. It's not simple and with the principal residence exempt it is useless - unless you happen to be in the business of building luxury mansions. The idea as you put it of not paying any tax is silly. If capital gain is income of course it is taxed. Furthermore, your parties offsider, Russell Norman, does not approve of your use of 'tax burden' which unbelievably he describes as 'a right wing term' which pretty much tells us this financial genius has never sat in an economics or accounting class for even five minutes. and he aspires to be minister of finance under a Labour/Green govt. Parker is as bad. NZ is currently rated as one of the easiest countries in the world to do business, in the top 5 I think. That's a good thing and in part due to the absence of CGT, as well as the ease of just flinging the doors open and you're in business (in most forms of business). Registration unnecessary. Criticise NZ as much as you like for our ways of doing business, or hop on a plane and fly around the globe and see the alternatives. Show me a country where CGT has helped development, or that has survived or recovered from the GFC as well as us. I'm not aware of any.


.

iceman
20-09-2013, 08:19 AM
They pay tax on the profit per annum from rental income - whereas a business pays tax on its profit. when business owner sells he usually does not pay tax on goodwill. With CGT this becomes taxable. Same as selling a building. They are treated equally. However if IRD considers business is bought for resale, or if buying/selling businesses becomes a means of income according to IRD that becomes taxable - same as real estate. Generally speaking rebalancing of business, share, or building portfolio is allowed is allowed within reason. Very different with CGT. As I have said many times, there is a place for CGT, but if not properly designed it does a lot of harm. I have a bit of experience with Australian system and it is awful. It's not simple and with the principal residence exempt it is useless - unless you happen to be in the business of building luxury mansions. The idea as you put it of not paying any tax is silly. If capital gain is income of course it is taxed. Furthermore, your parties offside, Russell Norman, does not approve of your use of 'tax burden' which unbelievably he describes as 'a right wing term' which pretty much tells us this financial genius has never sat in an economics or accounting class for even five minutes. and he aspires to be minister of finance under a Labour/Green govt. Parker is as bad. NZ is currently rated as one of the easiest countries in the world to do business, in the top 5 I think. That's a good thing and in part due to the absence of CGT, as well as the ease of just flinging the doors open and you're in business (in most forms of business). Registration unnecessary. Criticise NZ as much as you like for our ways of doing business, or hop on a plane and fly around the globe and see the alternatives. Show me a country where CGT has helped development, or that has survived or recovered from the GFC. I'm not aware of any.


.

Great post FP. Totally agree with you on this.

elZorro
20-09-2013, 09:50 AM
FP, the property rental market and to some extent farming works on a similar principle:a large asset is used to generate returns that in most cases are nearly cancelled by interest costs and overheads, the interest costs being fully claimed as a cost to the business. The business has a low employee to assets used ratio. So while technically the business pays tax on income, it is often set up to minimise that expense, and it allows for a tax-free capital gain on the major asset to tick along in the background, if the timing is correct. You chose to ignore the point I was making: a manufacturing business by comparison may employ a lot more staff, and pays more tax on annual income, in addition to employee taxes paid on their behalf.

National policy appears to favour the natural attrition of manufacturing businesses, and Labour wants to actively assist them to grow. I see this as a fundamental policy difference between the parties.

fungus pudding
20-09-2013, 10:01 AM
FP, the property rental market and to some extent farming works on a similar principle:a large asset is used to generate returns that in most cases are nearly cancelled by interest costs and overheads, the interest costs being fully claimed as a cost to the business. The business has a low employee to assets used ratio. So while technically the business pays tax on income, it is often set up to minimise that expense, and it allows for a tax-free capital gain on the major asset to tick along in the background, if the timing is correct. You chose to ignore the point I was making: a manufacturing business by comparison may employ a lot more staff, and pays more tax on annual income, in addition to employee taxes paid on their behalf.

National policy appears to favour the natural attrition of manufacturing businesses, and Labour wants to actively assist them to grow. I see this as a fundamental policy difference between the parties.

Open your eyes Ez; be a little objective. Your view in every post I have read from you is that whatever Labour thinks or says is fine; whatever National says or thinks is wrong. That is why I almost never read your posts. The fact is they are both capable of good and/or bad ideas. That is why I consider myself a swinging voter. Unfortunately the current crop of Labour desperados seem to promote ideas they know are silly, but they also know will appeal to some voters. Think policy - not parties.

westerly
20-09-2013, 06:02 PM
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;428625]They pay tax on the profit per annum from rental income - whereas a business pays tax on its profit. when business owner sells he usually does not pay tax on goodwill. With CGT this becomes taxable. Same as selling a building. They are treated equally. However if IRD considers business is bought for resale, or if buying/selling businesses becomes a means of income according to IRD that becomes taxable - same as real estate. Generally speaking rebalancing of business, shares, or building portfolio is allowed is within reason. Very different with CGT. As I have said many times, there is a place for CGT, but if not properly designed it does a lot of harm. I have a bit of experience with Australian system and it is awful. It's not simple and with the principal residence exempt it is useless - unless you happen to be in the business of building luxury mansions. The idea as you put it of not paying any tax is silly. If capital gain is income of course it is taxed. Furthermore, your parties offsider, Russell Norman, does not approve of your use of 'tax burden' which unbelievably he describes as 'a right wing term' which pretty much tells us this financial genius has never sat in an economics or accounting class for even five minutes. and he aspires to be minister of finance under a Labour/Green govt. Parker is as bad. NZ is currently rated as one of the easiest countries in the world to do business, in the top 5 I think. That's a good thing and in part due to the absence of CGT, as well as the ease of just flinging the doors open and you're in business (in most forms of business). Registration unnecessary. Criticise NZ as much as you like for our ways of doing business, or hop on a plane and fly around the globe and see the alternatives. Show me a country where CGT has helped development, or that has survived or recovered from the GFC as well as us. I'm not aware of any.
[QUOTE]

I am not sure being a very easy country for business is a good thing. The number of NZ registered companies operating illegally overseas is a problem
evidently. But if it is why the many complaints on the cost of compliance?
I consider myself as a centre voter. I can vote Right or Left and believe that at the moment Labour is to concerned with being politically correct and National is too far right despite their constant references to being centre right. Hopefully one or the other will get back to realising NZ is a small country and start putting people before ideology

westerly

fungus pudding
20-09-2013, 07:01 PM
Hopefully one or the other will get back to realising NZ is a small country and start putting people before ideology

westerly

'Putting people before ideology/profit etc is a cliché. Putting policies in place that ultimately do the most good for most people should be the goal, and a responsible govt. will try to do that, and sometimes will pursue unpopular policies to do just that, while an opposition party will usually bleat about popular vote winning policies which sound good to the masses, but often aren't. An effective opposition can and should be constructive. We do not have that at present.

slimwin
20-09-2013, 08:00 PM
Hey Westerly.

"and National is too far right"

I know nothing of your background, but have you lived any where much else overseas? Most NZ politics is left of most politics of anywhere I've lived. That includes Scandinavia.

craic
20-09-2013, 09:35 PM
Today i was down a back driveway digging a post hole for a new gate. My truck was beside me with the radio on and I listened to the Americas Cup. I also listened to talkback about the economy and calls about someone who has a little money and wants to live off it in their retirement and the mantra about diversify and stick to bank interest from some sad "chartered accountant" - why do sad chartered accountants believe that they are financial experts? As I battled for hours with large rocks and stones underground, I was in a particularly philosophical frame of mind. Then a vary large blue gum - a eucalyptus Saligna of about 100 foot high - decided to relinquish its grip on mother earth in the strong wind. I heard it go and watched as it smashed into the ground beside me. The trunk missed me by three metres and my ute by just a metre. The Greens would be upset about the loss of the tree - the Labour party would want me to pay Capital Gains tax an the money I will get for the firewood. John Key would want the money invested in mighty river power and so on. I just planted another tree ther and opened a bottle of rum. Tomorrow I will but a lotto ticket.

karen1
20-09-2013, 10:38 PM
The Greens would be upset about the loss of the tree - the Labour party would want me to pay Capital Gains tax an the money I will get for the firewood. John Key would want the money invested in mighty river power and so on. I just planted another tree ther and opened a bottle of rum. Tomorrow I will but a lotto ticket.

Priceless! Bet that rum tasted great!

slimwin
21-09-2013, 07:06 AM
Greens would have made you put it back up Craic...

elZorro
21-09-2013, 09:42 AM
Craic, I have to hand it to you, you seem to have a varied and interesting life. I hope you are not overdoing it out there with the chainsaw already. I have helped clean up some bluegum from a line of trees that seemed to drop one or two every year. The trees are longlived, meaning over 15 years. But this excerpt from a farm forestry handbook implies there may be better trees to plant.


2. The eastern blue gums
This group produces hard, strong, durable timbers attractively coloured pink or red. While the timber is easy to dry, the species often suffer extreme growth stresses making them difficult to saw. Logs greater than 70cm diameter are preferred. The major problem with this group is the succession of insect pests that have arrived in recent years, and until these are under biological control, the species cannot really be recommended.

E. botryoides (Southern Mahogany) occurs both as a poor-form coastal species and as a tall forest species, so provenance is very important. It is tolerant of salt winds and wet sites (not swamps) but tends to be heavily branched and suffer crown breakage on windy sites.

E. saligna (Sydney blue gum) is a tall tree from the eastern strip of NSW and southern Queensland. Generally of good form, it requires reasonably fertile soils, but does not tolerate salt winds and can suffer crown breakage on exposed sites. Neil Barr used to emphasise the desirability of provenances with interlocked wavy grain. These are more stable, but opinions on relative merits vary.


If the trunk is over 70cm dia it might be worth more as a specialty cabinetry timber than as firewood. But I'm sure you're aware of all that. The Greens will be proud of you for planting another tree. There are a lot of rotting roots from that tree in the ground, so it has still sequestered carbon. But if you have a lot more of these bluegums at that age kicking around, maybe you should steer clear of them in the wind? :p

slimwin
21-09-2013, 12:58 PM
Espexially after said rum:)

craic
21-09-2013, 08:27 PM
These gums, botroides and saligna are in a a gully that was completely surrounded and sheltered by a mature pine forest. When the forest was felled recently, the gums were exposed for the first time to strong winds without a protective root system. I have hundreds of bagged replacements as I knock over the twenty or so trees in the gully. If they grow in wind they will be fine. There are no rotting roots the whole thing tipped over - just a big hole.

iceman
22-09-2013, 08:13 AM
Here we go. Yet another blunder. This guy will be exposed quickly for what he really is, just a lot of hot air. He will be no match for Key but may suck some gullible voters from the Greens, which would be great !

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9192790/Cunliffe-to-refresh-online-CV

elZorro
22-09-2013, 11:38 AM
Here we go. Yet another blunder. This guy will be exposed quickly for what he really is, just a lot of hot air. He will be no match for Key but may suck some gullible voters from the Greens, which would be great !

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9192790/Cunliffe-to-refresh-online-CV

OK, maybe Cunliffe has padded his CV in the distant past, quite a few people do. I still think that what's more important is that more people are employed in future, not less. That benefits all of us, not just a few.

slimwin
22-09-2013, 12:45 PM
You don't think it's important the guy that wants to run the country is fraudulant at a basic level?

fungus pudding
22-09-2013, 01:19 PM
You don't think it's important the guy that wants to run the country is fraudulant at a basic level?

I don't think it matters at all. Labour will not be back in power until it finds a leader. They haven't done that yet.

iceman
22-09-2013, 02:21 PM
You don't think it's important the guy that wants to run the country is fraudulant at a basic level?

I can only imagine the vitriol that we would be hearing from the far Left if Key or another senior National minister had blatantly falsified their CV that is on Parliament's official website.

winner69
22-09-2013, 02:23 PM
good to see cunliffe has had some budgeting experience

craic
22-09-2013, 03:10 PM
What? Gilding lilies?
good to see cunliffe has had some budgeting experience

winner69
22-09-2013, 04:36 PM
What? Gilding lilies?

Ha Ha

Wellington City Mission was also contacted, as the New Lynn MP also cited work with its budgeting service on his CV.

Manager Jill Hilston said she has worked there 18 years and could not recall him. Cunliffe's spokesman said he gave budgetary advice in 1987 and 1989, some 10 years before he entered politics as the MP for Titirangi.

"He did it once a week, or once every second week."

janner
22-09-2013, 07:40 PM
Ha Ha

Wellington City Mission was also contacted, as the New Lynn MP also cited work with its budgeting service on his CV.

Manager Jill Hilston said she has worked there 18 years and could not recall him. Cunliffe's spokesman said he gave budgetary advice in 1987 and 1989, some 10 years before he entered politics as the MP for Titirangi.

"He did it once a week, or once every second week."

Was he living in Wellington at the time ??

What was his job/position at that time ??

elZorro
22-09-2013, 09:28 PM
The Cunliffe CV/Biography page on the parliament webpage.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/current/50MP30551/cunliffe-david

iceman
23-09-2013, 03:30 AM
The Cunliffe CV/Biography page on the parliament webpage.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/current/50MP30551/cunliffe-david

Yes, the "refreshed" one !

winner69
23-09-2013, 04:54 AM
Most people leave Greenpeace membership off their CV as often a no no for many employers

slimwin
23-09-2013, 10:26 PM
It gets better..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9199149/Lobbyist-Cunliffe-claim-untrue

Major von Tempsky
24-09-2013, 08:36 PM
"Can a new-look Labour take on National?
Yes, of course 31% (2453)
No, they look weak 59% (4671)
I don't know 5% (421)
I don't care 5% (391)"
http://nz.yahoo.com/

winner69
25-09-2013, 08:48 PM
Most people leave Greenpeace membership off their CV as often a no no for many employers

Wonder if Cunliffe will be calling for govt intervention to help out his fellow Greenpeace members arrested in Russia?

iceman
26-09-2013, 06:41 AM
Great to see business owners expecting job growth and an overall good underlying growth and confidence in the economy. Steady as she goes !
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11130033

elZorro
26-09-2013, 07:06 AM
Great to see business owners expecting job growth and an overall good underlying growth and confidence in the economy. Steady as she goes !
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11130033

Yes Iceman, good to see, although in my area any extra employment might be more limited. A lot of it driven by the ChCh rebuild.

Brian Fallow has this to say about productivity in NZ, it's trailing in the first-world countries list. Has been for some years.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11130048

I've been doing some more research into the govt's business funding. Large scale grants to big businesses are there, out of the question for SMEs. Next down is project grants, and these are 40% of all costs, but it's preferred the firm doesn't do its own R&D, they'll need quotes from other firms or CRIs etc. Part of this is a $5000 grant for initial scoping, easy enough to get. Last is student stipends, and there are Masters and PHD stipends of up to $20,000 a year for slower long term work, and some 3month partial grants for undergrad holiday jobs. But there are only 200 of these undergraduate grants for the entire student population each year. Some universities have their own schemes to help subsidise student mentoring and overheads.

A new booklet out from MBIE on medium-high and high-tech businesses shows not much change to a low level of investment compared to outputs over the last few years.

We're stuck in the sidelines. Larry Ellison is showing us all that investing in NZ businesses and staff can make fast turnarounds in performance possible.

iceman
26-09-2013, 08:26 AM
Yes Iceman, good to see, although in my area any extra employment might be more limited. A lot of it driven by the ChCh rebuild.

Brian Fallow has this to say about productivity in NZ, it's trailing in the first-world countries list. Has been for some years.



Agree productivity is a huge issue for NZ and has been for many many years. My industry is a good example where for example we employ lots of people hand filleting fish. In Norway, they stopped hand filleting 30 years ago and now utilise their people to make the filleting machines instead and sell them all around the World.
Unfortunately many industries in NZ are similar and we even have people, even on this thread, suggesting such and similarly outdated jobs should be protected !

fungus pudding
26-09-2013, 08:48 AM
Agree productivity is a huge issue for NZ and has been for many many years. My industry is a good example where for example we employmentlots of people hand filleting fish. In Norway, they stopped hand filleting 30 years ago and no utilise their people to make the filleting machines instead and sell them all around the World.
Unfortunately many industries in NZ are similar and we even have people, even on this thread, suggesting such and similarly outdated jobs should be protected !

Can you imagine NZ under a Labour/Green govt, with significant union power behind labour, and the return to the stone age philosophy of the Greens. I started my working life in the 60s when NZ was dominated by vicious unions, and just as bad was our old fashioned methods of anything mechanical with horrible import restrictions. I still shudder when I think of those days, and the sadly wasted opportunities.

iceman
26-09-2013, 09:04 AM
Can you imagine NZ under a Labour/Green govt, with significant union power behind labour, and the return to the stone age philosophy of the Greens. I started my working life in the 60s when NZ was dominated by vicious unions, and just as bad was our old fashioned methods of anything mechanical with horrible import restrictions. I still shudder when I think of those days, and the sadly wasted opportunities.

Exactly. They're even threatening they will take over monetary policy from the independent RB. Scary prospect indeed !

elZorro
26-09-2013, 06:22 PM
Agree productivity is a huge issue for NZ and has been for many many years. My industry is a good example where for example we employ lots of people hand filleting fish. In Norway, they stopped hand filleting 30 years ago and now utilise their people to make the filleting machines instead and sell them all around the World.
Unfortunately many industries in NZ are similar and we even have people, even on this thread, suggesting such and similarly outdated jobs should be protected !

It's hard to say which jobs should go, as it depends on scale. If a business can justify having two automated plants, to cope with the inevitable downtime of one of them, then maybe it'll be more profitable, if the machines save enough labour. I'm not that keen on large businesses getting govt grants to automate their production lines, so they can drop staff. Rather the money should be spent on developing high profit manufactures, moving away from less processed goods with lots of competition internationally. Fish fillets are in the latter category often.

During the season, thousands of staff put cups on dairy cows in NZ, even though robots are close to being on a par in a rotary dairy. It'll be a while before farmers put the capital in to buy two of these machines, it's actually more complex than it looks, human decisions need to be made.

I think what the public at large would say is: sure, take away those mundane factory jobs. Give us some more interesting, well-paid factory jobs where a variety of skills are needed, and there is opportunity to advance.

iceman
26-09-2013, 06:37 PM
Here is an article EZ that you may find interested and relates to what I am saying with my industry. It is outdated with mentality as described in this article. That's why I no longer work in the industry in NZ and make my living in the industry overseas.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9167703/NZ-can-learn-from-Icelands-fishing-industry?fb_action_ids=10151606232101956&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A67550 0912460855}&action_type_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A%22og.l ikes%22}&action_ref_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A%22s%3Ds howShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like%22}

elZorro
26-09-2013, 07:54 PM
Thanks for that Iceman. I have read it before, but it's worth looking at again. I have a product that should sell worldwide for about $1000 a kg in small volume, but I have been slow in getting it fully developed. I've been busy looking after everyone else. Sometimes it's not smart to underinvest in stuff that's under your nose. And that's how a lot of us behave in NZ. We need lots of small pushes in the right direction.

BIRMANBOY
26-09-2013, 08:16 PM
I'd be happy to help with a "small push' for you EZ....now just stand over there and dont look down;)
Thanks for that Iceman. I have read it before, but it's worth looking at again. I have a product that should sell worldwide for about $1000 a kg in small volume, but I have been slow in getting it fully developed. I've been busy looking after everyone else. Sometimes it's not smart to underinvest in stuff that's under your nose. And that's how a lot of us behave in NZ. We need lots of small pushes in the right direction.

JBmurc
26-09-2013, 08:56 PM
Here is an article EZ that you may find interested and relates to what I am saying with my industry. It is outdated with mentality as described in this article. That's why I no longer work in the industry in NZ and make my living in the industry overseas.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9167703/NZ-can-learn-from-Icelands-fishing-industry?fb_action_ids=10151606232101956&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A67550 0912460855}&action_type_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A%22og.l ikes%22}&action_ref_map={%2210151606232101956%22%3A%22s%3Ds howShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like%22}


Yeah I agree in many areas NZ fishing is badly in need of upgrading and reviving could really grow to twice it's size employment wise under smart management and SUPPORT like for one many NZ Maori Tribes were given muti-million dollar Quoters handout's ...Many of these Quoted fish species were then passed onto Foreign Fishing trawlers employing slave workers,low standards of catch etc
Now finally the National Gov is moving to remove the FFT...^^

"It is a national scandal that Maori, given settlement quota for the purpose of bringing young Maori into the business of fishing are now given a preferential right to use Third World foreign labour to harvest those very resources," Talley told Fairfax Media.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8986505/300-million-at-stake-if-FCVs-forced-out

Overall NZ fisheries biggest issues is the collective monopoly and effective control over the Industry by really a small amount of the wealthy few & Large Factories ...Now in many cases this means the vast bulk of NZ fisherman that catch the fish get a very small amount of the cut of the fish sold at the local store (we get paid $3-$5 New world sells for $40 etc) or export buyer price >>>very hard to improve the Quality of fish when your only just keeping your operation out of debt ...every year there is less and less NZ fishermen as Costs out-pace incomes very simple>>>>>> new tech... more R&D ..more support..new laws round Quoter owership-far to many non-fishermen buying Quoter for investments purposes driving up prices -- example --Crayfish ..Mr lawyer etc buys 1 ton for 500k leases to fisherman for 50k fisherman takes the risk sells caught fish for 60-70k next year lease price goes up but Cray prices dive fisherman loses out Lawyer still gets his 50k up front

iceman
27-09-2013, 06:12 AM
Agree JBMUrc. This is one area of the Quota Management System that is very bad but could be easily fixed by introducing a law that requires quota holders to fish a minimum amount of their holdings themselves. Even something like 50% every third year (common restrictions overseas) would avoid this speculative market creating artificially high quota prices. They only stop new blood and young enthusiastic fishermen with fresh ideas from being able to buy both vessels and quota and become their own masters. In a way, this issue of inflated quota prices stopping new blood into the industry is quite similar to the housing issue currently receiving political attention, where prices are too high for first home buyers to get onto the ladder. This is one issue.
I also blame the "No 8 wire"" mentality to get by with using old and outdated equipment instead of serious investment in latest technology, normally manufactured overseas.

elZorro
28-09-2013, 09:53 AM
Not a particularly good indicator of continued growth - electricity consumption in NZ has flatlined or dropped. Geothermal plants have been added over the last few years, and the older Huntly coal/gas turbines have come under fire for their maintenance costs. Tens of millions to keep each of the three turbines ready for operation at short notice. Now No. 3 is to be mothballed 12 months ahead of schedule. This will make the Genesis energy books look better before partial listing, but it will be at some risk to our generation capabilities.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/3751f3d0/genesis-mothballs-second-huntly-unit-earlier-than-expected.html

I know we're all helping with our heatpumps and our fluoro lightbulbs, but the real issue behind all this is the downturn in manufacturing. It's often energy intensive. The facts are, that both manufacturing and enterprise numbers have been trending down since National took office in 2008. This is the brighter future that we were promised.

slimwin
28-09-2013, 12:26 PM
Hasn't Tiwai, our biggest user, reduced use? that would account for everything.

elZorro
28-09-2013, 12:51 PM
Hasn't Tiwai, our biggest user, reduced use? that would account for everything.

Hi Slimwin, I think they use 15% of all the electricity generated, and if they are down to about 85% or so of full output, it will have a 2% effect, sure.

But here are the actual stats for enterprise numbers and employees, up to 2012. There is a clear difference in the performance of the two government terms. Again, the GFC has some bearing. But it's not a reassuring look is it?

BTW, that was a gem of a post BB, shame you had nothing to add relating to the thread itself.

janner
28-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Yeah I agree in many areas NZ fishing is badly in need of upgrading and reviving could really grow to twice it's size employment wise under smart management and SUPPORT like for one many NZ Maori Tribes were given muti-million dollar Quoters handout's ...Many of these Quoted fish species were then passed onto Foreign Fishing trawlers employing slave workers,low standards of catch etc
Now finally the National Gov is moving to remove the FFT...^^

"It is a national scandal that Maori, given settlement quota for the purpose of bringing young Maori into the business of fishing are now given a preferential right to use Third World foreign labour to harvest those very resources," Talley told Fairfax Media.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8986505/300-million-at-stake-if-FCVs-forced-out

Overall NZ fisheries biggest issues is the collective monopoly and effective control over the Industry by really a small amount of the wealthy few & Large Factories ...Now in many cases this means the vast bulk of NZ fisherman that catch the fish get a very small amount of the cut of the fish sold at the local store (we get paid $3-$5 New world sells for $40 etc) or export buyer price >>>very hard to improve the Quality of fish when your only just keeping your operation out of debt ...every year there is less and less NZ fishermen as Costs out-pace incomes very simple>>>>>> new tech... more R&D ..more support..new laws round Quoter owership-far to many non-fishermen buying Quoter for investments purposes driving up prices -- example --Crayfish ..Mr lawyer etc buys 1 ton for 500k leases to fisherman for 50k fisherman takes the risk sells caught fish for 60-70k next year lease price goes up but Cray prices dive fisherman loses out Lawyer still gets his 50k up front

Quota given to NZ companies should be exclusively be caught by NZ companies .. Using Vessels registered in NZ .. Processed in NZ boats or factories.. Paying NZ wages..

There is no World Wide ... Surplus of FISH !!..

Simple really !!.

This is not a paid for message from the greenies.. Just plain old common sense.


The World wants fish.. !!.. They will pay..

elZorro
29-09-2013, 10:42 AM
Janner, I know very little about this, but surely the world is short of quality fresh chilled fish, not frozen poorer quality fish. If we have to airfreight this fish to wealthy markets far away, and use our local wage rates too, we'll need to automate more processes to reduce net labour costs per kg. So we need investment, and for that we need faith from businesses owners.

Colin Espiner wrote an opinion piece in the SST today, and the latest Herald Digipoll shows that were an election to be held a week ago, we'd have a centre-left government. Unpalatable for some? - but that was the indication.

http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/nz-herald-digipoll-september-2013/

JBmurc
29-09-2013, 11:49 AM
Janner, I know very little about this, but surely the world is short of quality fresh chilled fish, not frozen poorer quality fish. If we have to airfreight this fish to wealthy markets far away, and use our local wage rates too, we'll need to automate more processes to reduce net labour costs per kg. So we need investment, and for that we need faith from businesses owners.

Colin Espiner wrote an opinion piece in the SST today, and the latest Herald Digipoll shows that were an election to be held a week ago, we'd have a centre-left government. Unpalatable for some? - but that was the indication.

http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/nz-herald-digipoll-september-2013/

yes always going be more frozen fish from NZ we are long way from the markets unless the fish prices are very high aka Crayfish(they get send live to the asian markets) sometimes are lower price fish get sent in trunk form(only head gutted) chilled but the vast bulk are filleted here in NZ factories then frozen ....we eat our own frozen fish least once a week which long as it's under couple months is still very good Quality
IMHO it comes down to more so how the fishermen process their fish do they bleed it straight away, keep it cool before cleaning ,wash it well ... ice it etc (we have certain aussie buyers that prefer to buy our fish than from other vessels)
I'd much rather eat a well processed frozen piece of fish to a chilled poorly processes piece etc

big advantage we NZ fisherman have is also are colder waters are temps ....I'd hate to do my job in hot climate also the Fish Quality is far higher when it comes from 12-18deg water than 25deg etc as it's all about getting the fish down to 0 as to why high priced tuna etc are bleed and placed in a ice slurry

elZorro
29-09-2013, 12:27 PM
yes always going be more frozen fish from NZ we are long way from the markets unless the fish prices are very high aka Crayfish(they get send live to the asian markets) sometimes are lower price fish get sent in trunk form(only head gutted) chilled but the vast bulk are filleted here in NZ factories then frozen ....we eat our own frozen fish least once a week which long as it's under couple months is still very good Quality
IMHO it comes down to more so how the fishermen process their fish do they bleed it straight away, keep it cool before cleaning ,wash it well ... ice it etc (we have certain aussie buyers that prefer to buy our fish than from other vessels)
I'd much rather eat a well processed frozen piece of fish to a chilled poorly processes piece etc

big advantage we NZ fisherman have is also are colder waters are temps ....I'd hate to do my job in hot climate also the Fish Quality is far higher when it comes from 12-18deg water than 25deg etc as it's all about getting the fish down to 0 as to why high priced tuna etc are bleed and placed in a ice slurry

Cheers for that JB, I assume the commercial fishing boats have icemakers, or do they take ice with them like boaties do? Anyway I can see that some nearby markets could be shipped quality frozen fish, no problem.

JBmurc
29-09-2013, 04:18 PM
Cheers for that JB, I assume the commercial fishing boats have icemakers, or do they take ice with them like boaties do? Anyway I can see that some nearby markets could be shipped quality frozen fish, no problem.

Your larger Fishing Vessels do and also your F.V that spend more time away from port can have small ice plants ...but as we've found the fresher the fish the happier the buyer so are trips are round 4-6 days ,,8 ton freezer with plant take round 2 ton of ice ...round the freezer plant 2-3 times a day to -14 fish comes out pretty good ...all really depends on the water temp peak summer your go through ice run freezer longer than winter....

janner
29-09-2013, 07:18 PM
Janner, I know very little about this, but surely the world is short of quality fresh chilled fish, not frozen poorer quality fish. If we have to airfreight this fish to wealthy markets far away, and use our local wage rates too, we'll need to automate more processes to reduce net labour costs per kg. So we need investment, and for that we need faith from businesses owners.

Colin Espiner wrote an opinion piece in the SST today, and the latest Herald Digipoll shows that were an election to be held a week ago, we'd have a centre-left government. Unpalatable for some? - but that was the indication.

http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/nz-herald-digipoll-september-2013/

EZ.. It was very good of you to put poor quality fish and the rise of the Liabour party in the same posting..

They both suffer from not smelling " FRESH " !!..

Yes the whole Fishing industry.. Commercial and Private needs a good long hard look ..

Not from a Royal Commission type .. Expensive.. Pencil pushers ... What is a fish ??.. View..

Just a plain common sense one..

What do we have ??..

What will they pay ??.

How can we maximise that payment ??..

Simple really.. there is no over supply of quality FISH..

Catch.. and Process it accordingly..

janner
29-09-2013, 07:28 PM
Cheers for that JB, I assume the commercial fishing boats have icemakers, or do they take ice with them like boaties do? Anyway I can see that some nearby markets could be shipped quality frozen fish, no problem.

Frozen fish is not quality fish !!.. Wake up !!..

JBmurc
29-09-2013, 08:22 PM
Frozen fish is not quality fish !!.. Wake up !!..

-Really just cooked up a fish pie with 2 month old frozen Gurnard was very tasty ..

wake up on frozen.... well if your've got a spare 747 on call 24/7 to fly out of Invercargill with cheap transport rates plse let me know...I'll let the local seaford factories know.. they only freight very small amount of our fish fresh (we use a refrigeration plant on board with ICE some stupid reason we call it a freezer) depending on the time /day /demand ...

Immediately after catching the fish start to spoil in one way on the other. However the rate of spoilage is different depending on ambient conditions, fishing technology, fishing equipment, species of fish, catching season and handling and preservation activities (Hobbs 1982). Using low temperature with ice is a popular method for fresh fish preservation. The chilling temperature of nearly 0°C can maintain freshness quality for a long time. When the temperature decreases the bacterial growth is slower, the reaction rate of enzymes is also decreased and the rigor mortis time can be extended. If the shelf life of some fish products stored at 0°C is known, the shelf life at different temperatures can be calculated by a certain formula e.g. if the fish can maintain quality for six days at 0°C the shelf life at 5°C will be 2.7 days or if another fish can maintain quality for 10 days at 0°C the shelf life at 15°C will be only 1.6 day (Table 2).
http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/quang05prf.pdf



Fresh fish are always better than frozen, right? Wrong.

Modern freezing techniques make many of the fish in the freezer section superior to those on the shelf nearby. Why? Because lots of fish are now frozen on the boat, just minutes after being caught, with flash-freezing units that maintain a temperature far below the typical home freezer. Many "fresh" fish are in fact previously frozen, and while reputable fishmongers will state this on the card identifying the fish, not all do.


http://fishcooking.about.com/od/howtochoosefreshfish/a/buy_frozen_fish.htm

elZorro
01-10-2013, 06:48 AM
Thanks for the insight JB.

This Meridian partial sale is looking messier and messier. A big discount factored in for the Labour-Greens policy and possibility of Tiwai Point closing after 2017, so the NZ taxpayer won't get good value for the immediate loss of lots of dividend income. Punters could get a bargain if Labour don't get in next year.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/382d28e6/quick-labour-greens-power-policy-implementation-possible-first-nz-meridian-report-says.html

But even Meridian are saying the Labour/Green power policy will have an effect on earnings, and could be largely implemented within a year. Preparing for the next big power station to be built by one or other of the SOEs or private power companies, has been the justification for all the extra power price margins for several years. But now we're flat-lining in terms of power needed, that reason is moot.

iceman
01-10-2013, 08:04 AM
Thanks for the insight JB.

This Meridian partial sale is looking messier and messier. A big discount factored in for the Labour-Greens policy and possibility of Tiwai Point closing after 2017, so the NZ taxpayer won't get good value for the immediate loss of lots of dividend income. Punters could get a bargain if Labour don't get in next year.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/382d28e6/quick-labour-greens-power-policy-implementation-possible-first-nz-meridian-report-says.html

But even Meridian are saying the Labour/Green power policy will have an effect on earnings, and could be largely implemented within a year. Preparing for the next big power station to be built by one or other of the SOEs or private power companies, has been the justification for all the extra power price margins for several years. But now we're flat-lining in terms of power needed, that reason is moot.

I don't think there is any doubt that if this policy, even though only explained in very limited terms (like all other Labour slogans) so far, was to be implemented, it would have a significant effect on earnings of all power companies in NZ. First NZ Capital estimates a 33% wealth destruction of Meridian on its full implementation.
Interestingly though NZ First's research shows a very limited effect of the closure of Tiwai. So the main risk to Meridian and NZ at large, is the possibility of a silly Labour/Greens Government.

craic
01-10-2013, 09:23 AM
Unfortunately, Kel Tremain has taken one small step for Kel Tremain and one large step for the Labour Party by announcing that he will not Stand again at the next election. Trevor Nash, the Labour candidate locally, has the makings of a good politician and is likely to win the Napier seat back for Labour in my view, unless National can pull a live rabbit out of the hat

777
01-10-2013, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately, Kel Tremain has taken one small step for Kel Tremain and one large step for the Labour Party by announcing that he will not Stand again at the next election. Trevor Nash, the Labour candidate locally, has the makings of a good politician and is likely to win the Napier seat back for Labour in my view, unless National can pull a live rabbit out of the hat

Selling those TEL shares is showing through craic. It is Chris Tremain, not his deceased dad.

craic
01-10-2013, 01:44 PM
I know Chris personally but not well and his dad, I also knew. I've had that problem with names, 747, for years. It must be something I ate as a child.
Selling those TEL shares is showing through craic. It is Chris Tremain, not his deceased dad.

elZorro
01-10-2013, 08:51 PM
I don't think there is any doubt that if this policy, even though only explained in very limited terms (like all other Labour slogans) so far, was to be implemented, it would have a significant effect on earnings of all power companies in NZ. First NZ Capital estimates a 33% wealth destruction of Meridian on its full implementation.
Interestingly though NZ First's research shows a very limited effect of the closure of Tiwai. So the main risk to Meridian and NZ at large, is the possibility of a silly Labour/Greens Government.

Surely not a Silly party. Remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

elZorro
02-10-2013, 06:46 AM
ACC has done really well this year, posting a surplus of over $4billion. A lot of the gains were in their investments, which are well spread throughout NZ and overseas. They certainly help the sharemarket here. This is the same govt outfit that National would like to open up to the private sector once again, and what a who-ha that was last time. We have an effective work insurance and accident scheme, there is no way the private sector would invest spare capital and feed the results back into the system in such an open way. The surplus results this year are about 5% of the total govt income, if it was all paid out as a dividend.

It was Labour that restored the benevolent ACC system when they were last in office, and it has turned out to be a very good policy.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9232296/Call-to-chop-levies-after-ACC-bonanza

iceman
02-10-2013, 07:09 AM
ACC has done really well this year, posting a surplus of over $4billion. This is the same govt outfit that National would like to open up to the private sector once again, and what a who-ha that was last time.[/URL]

I must have misheard Judith Collins a few months back when she said privatisation was NOT on the agenda ! I am not sure the previous privatisation was a "who-ha".. I was running a business with 25 staff at the time and our accident insurance bill dropped nearly 60%. It sure helped us back then and I think its a real shame it wasn't given a fair go before being dismantled and nationalised by Labour

elZorro
02-10-2013, 07:31 AM
I must have misheard Judith Collins a few months back when she said privatisation was NOT on the agenda ! I am not sure the previous privatisation was a "who-ha".. I was running a business with 25 staff at the time and our accident insurance bill dropped nearly 60%. It sure helped us back then and I think its a real shame it wasn't given a fair go before being dismantled and nationalised by Labour

Iceman, my experience with insurance is that the new player will offer lower premiums, hook you in, but not on the same terms, as you'd find out later. And if they run at a loss, the premiums soon go back up to what you were paying before. ACC costs in most businesses is not a biggie, but I'd guess agribusiness, forestry, fishing would be higher premiums. ACC is like the former ECNZ, for a small country at least, this is a lot closer to what is required, when the relatively small size means an overview from one govt-controlled player is highly beneficial to all. The private sector probably couldn't beat that efficiency, even if parts of the whole are not as efficient as some would like.

craic
02-10-2013, 07:59 AM
I have a ten-year-old utility truck with less than 30000 kms on the clock. My registration fee is close to $600 per annum. When I query this I find that most is an ACC levy "Because it is a diesel ute and they feature high in the accident stats etc." Why should I, a careful seventy-odd-year-old driver with no claim against ACC for driving related claims in the last thirty years have to pay twice as much as the hoon down the road who regularly races on the roads up the back against his mates? ACC was a great system when it was first implemented but it does need to be taken out of the hand of public servants.







4600

fungus pudding
02-10-2013, 07:59 AM
I must have misheard Judith Collins a few months back when she said privatisation was NOT on the agenda ! I am not sure the previous privatisation was a "who-ha".. I was running a business with 25 staff at the time and our accident insurance bill dropped nearly 60%. It sure helped us back then and I think its a real shame it wasn't given a fair go before being dismantled and nationalised by Labour

The one thing lacking in the ACC model is competition. Monopolies never function at the ultimate level. They are notorious for fighting legitimate claims, and use their preferred medical experts to maximum effect. I agree that the competitive scheme was dropped too quickly, simply to fit Labour's ideology. It's worth noting that many countries have studied NZ's ACC scheme, yet not one has adopted as similar scheme.

iceman
02-10-2013, 10:50 AM
The first indication that the Reserve Bank's LVR restrictions may actually work ! http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9227689/Restriction-rush-sees-house-buyers-less-picky

If it achieves first home and low income buyers lowering their expectations somewhat, the scheme may have some success.

elZorro
03-10-2013, 06:51 AM
The first indication that the Reserve Bank's LVR restrictions may actually work ! http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9227689/Restriction-rush-sees-house-buyers-less-picky

If it achieves first home and low income buyers lowering their expectations somewhat, the scheme may have some success.

We're seeing some of the same effect in Hamilton, houses being a bit more in short supply, but many choose to list in spring. Some think rents in Auckland may go up 30-50% as a result of the LVR policy.

Labour's take on the Solid Energy restructure. In the scale of the ACC profits, it's no big deal (unless you're one of the newly unemployed), but the point is that National were in office at the time Solid Energy either needed good direction, or was given poor direction.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1310/S00023/taxpayer-pays-for-govts-solid-energy-stuff-up.htm

iceman
03-10-2013, 08:31 AM
We're seeing some of the same effect in Hamilton, houses being a bit more in short supply, but many choose to list in spring. Some think rents in Auckland may go up 30-50% as a result of the LVR policy.

Labour's take on the Solid Energy restructure. In the scale of the ACC profits, it's no big deal (unless you're one of the newly unemployed), but the point is that National were in office at the time Solid Energy either needed good direction, or was given poor direction.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1310/S00023/taxpayer-pays-for-govts-solid-energy-stuff-up.htm

Hard to disagree that Solid Energy needed good, form direction from the National led Government as soon as it took office after straying from its core business onto all sorts of ill thought out and hear brained schemes it was allowed to waste hundreds of millions on under Labour. Suppose it didn't come on the radar screen early enough or maybe the radar screen was too cluttered with disasters facing National after the takeover from Labour.

elZorro
03-10-2013, 09:22 AM
Hard to disagree that Solid Energy needed good, form direction from the National led Government as soon as it took office after straying from its core business onto all sorts of ill thought out and hear brained schemes it was allowed to waste hundreds of millions on under Labour. Suppose it didn't come on the radar screen early enough or maybe the radar screen was too cluttered with disasters facing National after the takeover from Labour.

I suppose I need to respond to that Iceman? :)

The stats are all there for anyone wanting to see the true picture: Labour had this country absolutely progressing well for the whole time it was in office - employment moved up, enterprise numbers went up, the proportion of commercial buildings leased went up, the tax take was up and that was because everyone could afford it, they were doing well. As they left office, Labour had installed some policies (like R&D tax credits for SMEs and the Cullen Fund contributions) that would have insulated us from international issues. National immediately scapped the R&D credits, and soon stopped paying into the Cullen Fund. Look at what has happened as a result of that poor decision-making.

Our private sector R&D spend continues to be very low by comparison with other small OECD companies, when it should have been picking up. ACC has continued to invest in the sharemarket here and abroad, and has posted record profits. The Cullen Fund has only had its previous capital to invest, so is not doing as well as it should have. This will impact on future contributions needed from taxpayers.

So there are just two clangers from National, the result of neo-liberal policies and indecision.

CJ
03-10-2013, 09:40 AM
elZorro - your comment conveniently forgets the timing of the GFC. While you may not agree with the steps they took, you have to agree that some more prudent economic thinking was required, and would have been required even if Labour had won again, their policy of tax and spend would have been unsustainable.

The R&D tax credits, at the expensive end of the market a least, was not encouraging new R&D, just funding existing R&D.

Cullen fund is arguable, why invest when you need to pay down debt but debt was cheap and when markets are down is the best time to invest. What we dont know is the effect on the Govt interest rate if we didn't slow down the rising debt balance.

Interesting times though. With the economy looking healthier, are people less concerned about better economic management (ie. National) and looking for more social spending (ie. Labour)

CJ
03-10-2013, 09:44 AM
elZorro - your comment conveniently forgets the timing of the GFC. While you may not agree with the steps they took, you have to agree that some more prudent economic thinking was required, and would have been required even if Labour had won again, their policy of tax and spend would have been unsustainable.

The R&D tax credits, at the expensive end of the market a least, was not encouraging new R&D, just funding existing R&D.

Cullen fund is arguable, why invest when you need to pay down debt but debt was cheap and when markets are down is the best time to invest. What we dont know is the effect on the Govt interest rate if we didn't slow down the rising debt balance.

Interesting times though. With the economy looking healthier, are people less concerned about better economic management (ie. National) and looking for more social spending (ie. Labour)

iceman
03-10-2013, 12:02 PM
But the GFC didn't happen in La(la)bour land CJ !

elZorro
03-10-2013, 03:06 PM
elZorro - your comment conveniently forgets the timing of the GFC. While you may not agree with the steps they took, you have to agree that some more prudent economic thinking was required, and would have been required even if Labour had won again, their policy of tax and spend would have been unsustainable.

The R&D tax credits, at the expensive end of the market a least, was not encouraging new R&D, just funding existing R&D.

Cullen fund is arguable, why invest when you need to pay down debt but debt was cheap and when markets are down is the best time to invest. What we dont know is the effect on the Govt interest rate if we didn't slow down the rising debt balance.

Interesting times though. With the economy looking healthier, are people less concerned about better economic management (ie. National) and looking for more social spending (ie. Labour)

CJ and Iceman, I acknowledge the GFC happened, I noticed it straight away in 2009. Bad year. That was a year that I completed some R&D, and the positive results from that are still filtering through. Patent attornies and the IPO were flat out processing all the new ideas from nationwide. I have not heard that larger companies were simply using the credits to do normal R&D. Far from that, the uptake was not as big as they expected, and National's excuse for cancelling it was cryptically that ordinary work would be treated as R&D, therefore it was a rort. But they failed to mention in the press, that the scheme was carefully audited. Only those who knew anything about the scheme could have poked that massive hole in their argument, and it wasn't many that had the info.

So, the taxpayers were lied to, right there. There were non-fiscal, big-business reasons for changing the policy, promises that had been made before taking office. It was one of the very first things National changed, on gaining office.

So we had a GFC in 2008-2009, well it's now late 2013, and NZ is still ticking along below the level of enterprise that Labour pushed it to in 2008. Some indicators are steadily improving, but I'm mindful that we have seen National running on (record) budget deficits for every year they have been in office. Michael Cullen was fiscally prudent, we all owe him a big thank-you for his control of the govt finances. But at the same time, they put in place incentives for enterprises that allowed them to thrive. The signals from National have mostly been negative.

CJ
03-10-2013, 03:23 PM
I have not heard that larger companies were simply using the credits to do normal R&D. Far from that, the uptake was not as big as they expected, Well now you have heard it. Any company that did qualifying R&D could make a claim, regardless of whether it was new or not. So any company already doing R&D would be able to make a claim.

Part of the low/late uptake from the big firms was the time/effort required to complete the paper work.

Think about the large R&D type companies on the NZX, then have a look at their annual reports - I assume the numbers must flow through the notes somewhere.

CJ
03-10-2013, 03:32 PM
Think about the large R&D type companies on the NZX, then have a look at their annual reports - I assume the numbers must flow through the notes somewhere.Page 8 makes interesting reading: http://www.fphcare.co.nz/files/documents/investor-announcements/annual-interim-reports-_-en/fph-annual-report-2009/

elZorro
03-10-2013, 05:20 PM
Page 8 makes interesting reading: http://www.fphcare.co.nz/files/documents/investor-announcements/annual-interim-reports-_-en/fph-annual-report-2009/

CJ, I'm not sure what you mean here. Did the Labour Govt want to encourage R&D by firms large and small? Yes. Does FPH represent one of the most techhie firms in NZ? Yes. They increased their turnover by about 33% in 2009, but only increased R&D by 18% (to $28.3mill) to reach 6.2% turnover, still well above the NZ private sector average. What do you mean by R&D being "not new?" If you look up the definitions allowed by that scheme, it has to be new stuff, not business as usual. Not fine tuning production, marketing, tooling for manufacture etc. This means that the R&D could take a year or two to get to production. Patents helped strengthen the case for inclusion as R&D. You can't get a patent for business as usual.

As I have explained elsewhere, the paperwork did look daunting, but it didn't require an accountant, only for the final stages anyway. It just needed some commonsense and a bit of documentation gathered from the work as it progressed. Of course SMEs would not have anywhere near the same R&D expenses, so would have a much smaller claim. The paperwork for that was simple enough (still the same forms), and if it had been audited (you have to be ready for this), the costs to send IRD/MBIE staff in would have matched the claims in some cases. So did this suit SMEs who wanted to have a go at R&D, a small 15% carrot to help them on their way? I think so.

elZorro
04-10-2013, 06:53 AM
An article by Patrick Smellie.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/9237015/Tricky-issues-could-haunt-Nats

I'm not sure how Patrick managed to forget the economic data from 2002 onwards, but to say that National 'rates' above Labour in terms of economic management, and that the economy is looking "increasingly robust", is a careful choice of words.

Labour performed far better than National has, over each of their last terms. The economy is starting to twitch back towards the 2008 high point Labour left it in, some five years after the GFC.

craic
04-10-2013, 07:48 AM
In your humble opinion?

CJ
04-10-2013, 07:57 AM
CJ, I'm not sure what you mean here.R&D by its very nature is new. If its not "new" then it is not R&D. FPH would have spent that money on R&D regardless of the tax credit. It never would have factored into their decision making process - it was a pure windfall gain of $3m.

iceman
04-10-2013, 09:09 AM
EZ, one thing I agree with you on is that Cullen was a fairly responsible Minister of Finance in his first term. But in the 2nd term, they turned NZs finances on its head with silly and unaffordable policies like Working for Families, interest free student loans and several others. All policies that this country will suffer from for decades to come because it is political suicide to remove them. Bill English, thankfully, is trying to get our books together and into surplus as we should as a responsible country, but with the disaster Labour left him intact. I think English will go down in history as one of our best ever Minister of Finance :)

elZorro
04-10-2013, 08:37 PM
EZ, one thing I agree with you on is that Cullen was a fairly responsible Minister of Finance in his first term. But in the 2nd term, they turned NZs finances on its head with silly and unaffordable policies like Working for Families, interest free student loans and several others. All policies that this country will suffer from for decades to come because it is political suicide to remove them. Bill English, thankfully, is trying to get our books together and into surplus as we should as a responsible country, but with the disaster Labour left him intact. I think English will go down in history as one of our best ever Minister of Finance :)

Ha, it's like a red rag to a bull, that line..

Was it really so bad to offer students interest free loans, when the interest rate is low anyway, and previous generations were funded virtually 100% for their tertiary education? I don't know anything about working for families, so no comment on that one. I've never claimed.

I'm fairly sure I could emulate Mr Bill English in my business if I sacked a staff member or two, didn't replace them, put some of my prices up but at the cost of lower volume and income, and then I'll increase my overdraft each year until something favourable occurs.

Even Mr O'Reilly of Business NZ thinks we need to work harder at profitable exports, and the path to that holy grail is through R&D. He might be mistaken about Callaghan Innovation being the answer though, it's not funded enough to get there, and I think it's more likely to halve its staff.

http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/index.php/businesslink/9213.html

elZorro
04-10-2013, 08:48 PM
In your humble opinion?

Yes, IMHO Craic, and as shown by the Statistics Office. The tax take figures, employment figures, enterprise figures, most economic metrics I'd think. NZ's population has gone up since then, and we've had some inflation. All this data would have needed to rise just to keep NZ in the same relative place.

But I am open to being shown anything that shows an improved performance by National over Labour, for their most recent terms in office. By that I don't really mean in downsizing the SOEs or public service - they always do that - or in achieving record budget deficits.

However, I am mindful that our place in the world is a fairly good one, here is a chart of income and average life expectancy for most of the planet.

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/world-pdf/

craic
04-10-2013, 10:20 PM
Every time I go out of this country I see factual indicators that suggest that I get home as quickly as possible. I gave up on the UK and Ireland a while ago and WE decided to avoid any return visits except for family events of significance. August/September we were in Malaysia and we decide enough is enough of South east Asia with several earlier trips to a collection of places where the majoriy of the population struggle to make a living out of almost nothing. Any further travel is to Australia. As to income and life expectancy, I am as fit as a fiddle and this evening I had no trouble affording a nice meal for two and a bottle of wine to celebrate my seventy-sixth birthday today. Even if we have to suffer another term of Labour - and I very much doubt that it will be after the next election - I will survive and so will my family. The biggest recognised problem for NZ at the moment is the possibility that Brown will be elected Mayor in AK. and bankrupt the city and the rest of NZ. Please excuse any errors or omissions caused by excessive ethanol consumption.

fungus pudding
05-10-2013, 06:51 AM
Every time I go out of this country I see factual indicators that suggest that I get home as quickly as possible. I gave up on the UK and Ireland a while ago and WE decided to avoid any return visits except for family events of significance. August/September we were in Malaysia and we decide enough is enough of South east Asia with several earlier trips to a collection of places where the majoriy of the population struggle to make a living out of almost nothing. Any further travel is to Australia. As to income and life expectancy, I am as fit as a fiddle and this evening I had no trouble affording a nice meal for two and a bottle of wine to celebrate my seventy-sixth birthday today. Even if we have to suffer another term of Labour - and I very much doubt that it will be after the next election

You are so right about travelling then returning to NZ. Unfortunately I'm not so sure about next election result 'cos although National will remain most popular party they haven't got a coalition partner. I'm taking a few 'protective' steps already. Anyway, many happy returns.

elZorro
05-10-2013, 07:40 AM
Every time I go out of this country I see factual indicators that suggest that I get home as quickly as possible. I gave up on the UK and Ireland a while ago and WE decided to avoid any return visits except for family events of significance. August/September we were in Malaysia and we decide enough is enough of South east Asia with several earlier trips to a collection of places where the majoriy of the population struggle to make a living out of almost nothing. Any further travel is to Australia. As to income and life expectancy, I am as fit as a fiddle and this evening I had no trouble affording a nice meal for two and a bottle of wine to celebrate my seventy-sixth birthday today. Even if we have to suffer another term of Labour - and I very much doubt that it will be after the next election - I will survive and so will my family. The biggest recognised problem for NZ at the moment is the possibility that Brown will be elected Mayor in AK. and bankrupt the city and the rest of NZ. Please excuse any errors or omissions caused by excessive ethanol consumption.

Happy Birthday Craic, and many more.

Hamilton's a bit insulated from Auckland, so I'm not too worried about what happens up there. As long as debt stays below a certain proportion of rates, any Len Brown plans should be affordable? A candidate I spoke to said Hamilton's debt is not too bad when put in context.

Well I just had a look at that to get my figures right, Hamilton's debt is $414mill, with annual income of only $175mill. It's obvious that once they've paid staff and other costs, there won't be much more than the interest costs that can be served. This is a big debt, 238% of their annual income. I suppose it's not as bad as buying a $500,000 house on $100,000 joint income, and that seems to be acceptable. But a council's costs might not leave too much spare for paying down debt.

http://www.concernedcitizen.co.nz/new-billboard-urges-five-hamilton-councillors-to-resign/

iceman
05-10-2013, 08:21 AM
Happy birthday for y'day Craig. You are so absolutely right about seeing living conditions elsewhere. A recent trip to Spain made me for the first time realise how destructive the GFC has been and how well NZ has battled through it.
FP, do you want to share what "protective measures" you are taking ? I am thinking along the same lines but not much action yet.

fungus pudding
05-10-2013, 10:46 AM
Happy birthday for y'day Craig. You are so absolutely right about seeing living conditions elsewhere. A recent trip to Spain made me for the first time realise how destructive the GFC has been and how well NZ has battled through it.
FP, do you want to share what "protective measures" you are taking ? I am thinking along the same lines but not much action yet.

Not much advice I can give; it's a horses for courses thing. For me, I'm retired and pretty well set up. Obviously there will be a bit to pass on, so while there are no death duties, gift duties I am in the process of setting up giving a couple of buildings to would be beneficiaries of my estate. Each beneficiary will get shares in buildings, and I doubt that any have marginal tax rates as high as mine, so that is satisfying to me. No point in waiting till CGT is introduced to transfer ownership. I will also buy a holiday home - something I've always avoided as it's just easier and cheaper to stay in a motel. I'm just unsure of CGT policy with Labour - will it apply to assets bought before cgt is introduced? They have been silent on that point. So the holiday home is on hold until I know whether to buy it in a younger family member's name or not. I'll keep going till my income gets down to 150k - the figure Labour will increase tax rates at. I'll obviously keep some money - bonus bonds, that sort of thing. I refuse to pay anymore than 33%. Been there too often. As a raw mug I paid 66% under Muldoon and won't do it again. I hate to see taxes raised when govt's, of either colour just waste it, and particularly in Labour's case often do more harm than good with their redistribution policies. So really it's just a more efficient way of sorting out the inevitable. As I said I'm setting this up but keeping my eye on polls. At some stage I'll push the go button, but it might be just before 2017 election. It's not a big deal and probably not applicable to many, but I've never bothered with trusts and the like, but no more.

iceman
05-10-2013, 11:00 AM
Thanks for sharing this FP. Well done.

iceman
05-10-2013, 11:00 AM
Thanks for sharing this FP. Well done.

elZorro
05-10-2013, 12:32 PM
FP, are you going to do all this changing about just to save some tax? Are you referring to the Labour policy at the last election, which was 39% tax on any income above $150,000? http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5284832/Labour-confirms-capital-gains-tax-new-rate

You mentioned 66% under Muldoon. Of course very few would have paid that rate, and it was only on the top part of their income. There will never be a need to go to that high a percentage in future, because there are new and bigger consumption taxes (GST, levies on power, fuel, gas, tobacco, ACC, gaming). Surely this means that those with low consumption will automatically pay smaller effective taxes on their income than others. Is that not enough?

The proposed capital gains tax of 15% leaves the property owner 85% of the otherwise tax-free gains from what was primarily a simple business operation. I note that you were not too happy about the idea of a trading business claiming back an extra 15% of their costs in R&D. But in the same way that you are looking at rejigging your assets, employers may have a fresh look at their businesses. That can only be good for us all.

fungus pudding
05-10-2013, 01:43 PM
FP, are you going to do all this changing about just to save some tax? Are you referring to the Labour policy at the last election, which was 39% tax on any income above $150,000? http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5284832/Labour-confirms-capital-gains-tax-new-rate

You mentioned 66% under Muldoon. Of course very few would have paid that rate, and it was only on the top part of their income. There will never be a need to go to that high a percentage in future, because there are new and bigger consumption taxes (GST, levies on power, fuel, gas, tobacco, ACC, gaming). Surely this means that those with low consumption will automatically pay smaller effective taxes on their income than others. Is that not enough?

The proposed capital gains tax of 15% leaves the property owner 85% of the otherwise tax-free gains from what was primarily a simple business operation. I note that you were not too happy about the idea of a trading business claiming back an extra 15% of their costs in R&D. But in the same way that you are looking at rejigging your assets, employers may have a fresh look at their businesses. That can only be good for us all.

As I have said before I'm not against CGT - provided it is designed properly and definitely with a repatriation clause. Try selling your premises because you've outgrown them and you'll soon see. Often a huge expense and a real barrier to expansion for businesses without the taxman standing over their shoulder. There are other problems with cgt. You overlook the fact that property traders (which I am not and never have been) are taxed anyway, and there is still the problem of drawing the line between cgt and income tax. Prior to the very sensible GST we had horrific and complex sales taxes of course. You seem to suggest that high marginal tax rates aren't that bad because they are only on part of your income. A rate of 66% is either fair or it is not regardless of where it falls. Such a rate is more extortion than tax. I'm sure your familiar with the Laffer curve - believe you me, it's real with income tax. Am I doing this to avoid tax? Yes, on principal, probably initiated by Cullen and his illogical 'rich prick' attitude. I regard the tax when it was 66% as theft - any tax where the govt. keeps more than the taxpayer is simply wrong. For me these days 33% is my line in the sand. On principal I will not pay more. Cunliffe has mentioned clobbering 'the rich' which he inexplicably calls those earning 150k plus, but hasn't said what the rate is he has in mind. It's short-sighted, will do no good for the economy, which I'm sure Cunliffe knows, but also knows it will elicit the envy vote. You make the staggering assumption that employers having a fresh look at their businesses can only be good for us, when common sense and decades of experience show that it can only bad for the economy, iow - us.

elZorro
05-10-2013, 05:46 PM
You make the staggering assumption that employers having a fresh look at their businesses can only be good for us, when common sense and decades of experience show that it can only bad for the economy, iow - us.

What I meant about suitable businesses, is that with the incentive of saving a bit of tax, SMEs will likely carry out more R&D than normal. To do this they'll employ more staff, perhaps students, perhaps full-timers or contractors. They'll have to do this, because R&D will stretch their resources. They will probably be like you, and not actually figure out that the amount they'll save in taxes won't cover the expenses to do it, but they'll go ahead anyway. If a small proportion of the R&D works out, we'll have new big employers over time. Labour's R&D policy is not expensive, it's a subtle use of the levers of power.

fungus pudding
05-10-2013, 08:33 PM
What I meant about suitable businesses, is that with the incentive of saving a bit of tax, SMEs will likely carry out more R&D than normal. To do this they'll employ more staff, perhaps students, perhaps full-timers or contractors. They'll have to do this, because R&D will stretch their resources. They will probably be like you, and not actually figure out that the amount they'll save in taxes won't cover the expenses to do it, but they'll go ahead anyway. If a small proportion of the R&D works out, we'll have new big employers over time. Labour's R&D policy is not expensive, it's a subtle use of the levers of power.

Better still - just reduce taxes.

janner
05-10-2013, 09:06 PM
Taxes will always be with us .. The system of collection is obsolete..

8000 people still pushing quills in this age !!..

With a CEO who is really just a senior HR person.. Drawing God knows how much in salary..

" I control 8000 people .. therefore I must be important "..

elZorro
08-10-2013, 06:32 AM
With all the local body elections going on, this is interesting. There's some talk in Hamilton that the supply of metered water to properties will be privatised once the council has set it all up properly, in a bid to reduce city debt. I didn't exactly know who or what was behind the NZ Initiative, who put out frequent press statements, but I did recognise the neo-liberal tone.


Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 8 October 2013


Why vote when what's local is increasingly central?

Should local bodies bother about children? Could the cabinet agree?
The Every Child Counts coalition of major not-for-profits has signed up 200-plus local election candidates to commit to pushing for their districts to be internationally accredited by UNICEF as "child-friendly".
That includes "working to support every child's right to a standard of living that meets their needs by reducing health, education and income disparities", starting with a "living wage" for council and contractors' employees. It requires more "council investment in children and young people, particularly in the early years" and "building support for quality education", accessible recreation and cultural facilities and child-friendly transport. Plus "planning and policy development that includes children's voices".
You can see why retiring Local Government Minister Chris Tremain might want a rest. (In addition, that is, to not risking a loss in the next election to Stuart Nash who got a big swing against him in 2011.) To carry out the Every Child Counts pledges, councils would have to stray from the "core business" the central government's cabinet has been imposing on councils by law.
The "child-friendly" campaign in effect says councils should do more, not less. Another who says that is Oliver Hartwich, who runs the New Zealand Initiative (former Business Roundtable). He says councils should do much more and the central government correspondingly much less.
Hartwich hails from Germany, where he says cities compete to attract residents and businesses, including with many services which here are the central government's preserve. He also cites Switzerland, where the constitution bars the federal government from doing anything unless the 26 cantons (states) agree to alter the constitution to allow it. In turn the cantons do only what the 2408 communes pass up the line. And in the communes citizens directly make a lot of the decisions.
"Localism" brings neoliberals like Hartwich and communitarians like the Greens together but not in the same ideological locality. Neoliberals idealise a world of autonomous individuals. Greens idealise a world of cooperative, long-sighted people saving the planet (including, these days, humans) by "thinking global, acting local".
Neither world is one Bill English, a Southland conservative, inhabits. Nor, he insists, do New Zealanders generally.
"New Zealand is deeply statist and always has been," English told a gathering last Wednesday at which Hartwich and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) launched a campaign for a "new localism". (English excepted Maori from his generalisation.)
But, he said, "statism has peaked" and "has run its course", in part because technology is loosening controls on information and in part because "we know who we are" and don't need the state to tell us. State agencies have been "arrogant and dismissive", with "no regard for people and the communities and families in which they live".
The government, he said, is "groping its way towards a better solution". He said school boards of trustees are "remarkably sticky" (that is, wanted by the people), trials in six localities testing how money is spent on young people had got mayors actively involved and locals control health south of the Waitaki river.
So might the cabinet adopt "new localism"? English was blunt: "Local government isn't the only vehicle for it", his "it" being delivering services now done by the central government. The obvious alternatives are not-for-profits and private companies.
So English was not telegraphing more power to councils. He couldn't, given the torrent of Resource Management Act and local body legislation kicking councils round the paddock, taking wider powers to override them and telling them to mind their (smaller) business.
This is the most centralising cabinet since the early Labour cabinets -- maybe since the one that abolished the provinces in 1876.
The cabinet's subliminal election message is that councils are now less worth bothering to vote for.
So if the turnout is lower this time than 2010's nadir, the John Key cabinet will be part of the cause. English's alternative explanation is that councils give people the impression that voting cannot change things.
LGNZ bothers that a low vote will encourage the cabinet centralisers. It voted in July to seek formal constitutional status. President Lawrence Yule is pushing a royal commission. Now there is "new localism".
But at a press conference neither Hartwich nor LGNZ CEO Malcolm Alexander could specify criteria for deciding what services should be central and what local. They want a "debate" but offered no parameters.
There is also a question of what "local" is. Auckland's local boards have many multiples the population of Stratford and Carterton councils.
Still, councils have general elections. Not-for-profits and for-profits don't. English's less "statist" country might be less democratic. Which may be a reason to vote.





Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, 04-384 7030, 021-438 434, fax 04-384 7195, P O Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141,
ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000053/!x-usc:mailto:ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz), website www.ColinJames.co.nz (wlmailhtml:{859F7BC3-BC06-49EC-89C0-293E8B5037B7}mid://00000053/!x-usc:http://www.colinjames.co.nz/)





It's easy for multinationals to figure out that if they want to pay any taxes in Hong Kong say, at much lower rates, then they can simply load a lot of debt into any NZ operations, and pay no company tax here. I suppose at least they have to pay local GST and PAYE etc.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9253919/Multinationals-find-tax-optional

iceman
08-10-2013, 08:15 AM
With all the local body elections going on, this is interesting. There's some talk in Hamilton that the supply of metered water to properties will be privatised once the council has set it all up properly, in a bid to reduce city debt. I didn't exactly know who or what was behind the NZ Initiative, who put out frequent press statements, but I did recognise the neo-liberal tone.



It's easy for multinationals to figure out that if they want to pay any taxes in Hong Kong say, at much lower rates, then they can simply load a lot of debt into any NZ operations, and pay no company tax here. I suppose at least they have to pay local GST and PAYE etc.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9253919/Multinationals-find-tax-optional

Its not quite that easy EZ. They also have to deduct and pay Withholding tax on the interest, so not much gain from it at all ! Flawed thinking.

CJ
08-10-2013, 08:36 AM
Its not quite that easy EZ. They also have to deduct and pay Withholding tax on the interest, so not much gain from it at all ! Flawed thinking.Depending on the debt, they be paying AIL so minimal. The interesting thing about that company is they have 90% debt so already have a huge thin capitalisation adjustment as you can only claim interest on 60% debt to asset ratio.

iceman
08-10-2013, 08:53 AM
Thanks CJ. I am sure you know the detail much better than I do. A few years ago I was CEO of a small NZ company owned by a multi national. The parent company fully funded the investment in NZ and did not want to charge interest. Our advice at the time was that we (the NZ co) had to pay "reasonable" interest and deduct and pay withholding tax to IRD. As the loan was in the millions, this was a reasonably big sum !

craic
10-10-2013, 11:46 AM
I see Cunliffes mad dash to the left has left posters, including EZ, speechless? He will pay everyone a living wage and make it impossible for employers to correct their mistakes within a reasonable time. A principal effect will be an influx of machines to replace those who are barely emplyable or only employable at low rates - a sharp rise in the cost of junk food, particularly take-aways and a high increase in percentage of the population dependant on the State. But hasn't this always been the lefts mantra?

elZorro
14-10-2013, 06:39 AM
I see Cunliffes mad dash to the left has left posters, including EZ, speechless? He will pay everyone a living wage and make it impossible for employers to correct their mistakes within a reasonable time. A principal effect will be an influx of machines to replace those who are barely emplyable or only employable at low rates - a sharp rise in the cost of junk food, particularly take-aways and a high increase in percentage of the population dependant on the State. But hasn't this always been the lefts mantra?

I think any employer paying around $14 an hour or less to an adult in NZ should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not so sure that Labour's idea of removing junior payscales again will work a second time, as those same employers will rather employ adults than help new workers into a job if it's at the same pay rate.

Yes, junk food should be dearer. Businesses that are marginal should look for profit centres, so they can pay a decent wage.

Meanwhile in Aussie, retirees will be on $60,000 a year from their super, while NZ manages: $18,000 (repeatedly clobbled by National). Who bought in this AU policy? A left-wing Labor party 20 years ago.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/australias-compulsory-super-incredibly-beneficial-ck-147050

777
14-10-2013, 07:12 AM
I think any employer paying around $14 an hour or less to an adult in NZ should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not so sure that Labour's idea of removing junior payscales again will work a second time, as those same employers will rather employ adults than help new workers into a job if it's at the same pay rate.

Yes, junk food should be dearer. Businesses that are marginal should look for profit centres, so they can pay a decent wage.

Meanwhile in Aussie, retirees will be on $60,000 a year from their super, while NZ manages: $18,000 (repeatedly clobbled by National). Who bought in this AU policy? A left-wing Labor party 20 years ago.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/australias-compulsory-super-incredibly-beneficial-ck-147050

That article says nothing of the sort. It was referring to a salary not a pension.

Look at
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension

elZorro
14-10-2013, 01:57 PM
That article says nothing of the sort. It was referring to a salary not a pension.

Look at
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension

I was looking at another article first, 777. Apparently the Aussie pension is about $60,000 a person, if they've been working and had some of (their salary) paid into the super fund.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9281229/Labour-mounts-attack-over-KiwiSaver

fungus pudding
14-10-2013, 02:20 PM
I see Cunliffes mad dash to the left has left posters, including EZ, speechless?


I see he's using the label 'a red Labour govt.' so no more of the dopey misnomer 'centre left' they've been preaching for a few years. They're officially extreme left now.

fungus pudding
14-10-2013, 02:21 PM
I see Cunliffes mad dash to the left has left posters, including EZ, speechless?


I see he's using the label 'a red Labour govt.' so no more of the dopey misnomer 'centre left' they've been preaching for a few years. They're officially hard left now. :t_down:

craic
14-10-2013, 02:22 PM
ELZ, go and have a look at their website. The pension is income tested and any earnings over about $150 reduces the pension. The pension is asset tested, apart from the family home. Cars, shares and everything else reduces the amount you get and a relatively modest set of assets means no pension. The administrative cost of the scheme must be horrendous and the number of fiddles must be even greater.

artemis
14-10-2013, 02:36 PM
ELZ, go and have a look at their website. The pension is income tested and any earnings over about $150 reduces the pension. The pension is asset tested, apart from the family home. Cars, shares and everything else reduces the amount you get and a relatively modest set of assets means no pension. The administrative cost of the scheme must be horrendous and the number of fiddles must be even greater.

Yep, I have rellies in Oz on the pension. Not the full amount but close, and they are relatively well off retired professionals. They delight in telling me about their creative accountant. I am sure the creativity is legal, but clearly if folk have money to pay for the advice there are ways to minimise and maximise.

craic
14-10-2013, 02:40 PM
The Australian Pension for a couple including supplement and clean air supplement is $1246 per forthnight, that is $146 per fortnight more than the NZ pension. With a decent block of shares and two vehicles I would imagine that differential would be gone twice over, apart from the constant form filling.

westerly
14-10-2013, 04:23 PM
I see he's using the label 'a red Labour govt.' so no more of the dopey misnomer 'centre left' they've been preaching for a few years. They're officially extreme left now.

No more dopey than 'centre right' that National and it's far right tea party friends have been reaching for years

westerly

fungus pudding
14-10-2013, 05:30 PM
No more dopey than 'centre right' that National and it's far right tea party friends have been reaching for years

westerly

National is nowhere near far right. They are centrist by normal definition, supporting welfare programmes and medium level progressive taxes. By the way, the pronoun 'its' doesn't have an apostrophe. Don't thank me. You're welcome.

elZorro
14-10-2013, 05:46 PM
National is nowhere near far right. They are centrist by normal definition, supporting welfare programmes and medium level progressive taxes. By the way, the pronoun 'its' doesn't have an apostrophe. Don't thank me. You're welcome.

FP, you're spelling has been less than perfect sometimes, so their.

Anyway, does "centrist" encapsulate screwing down the public sector every time you're in office, stopping super fund payments, selling off public assets, and making it harder for SMEs? Holding down minimum wages, decreasing the top tax rate, moving R&D funding and other incentives to bigger businesses? If so, they are doing a great job.

fungus pudding
14-10-2013, 06:03 PM
FP, you're spelling has been less than perfect sometimes, so their.



So there, perhaps? Give me an example of my sloppy spelling please. I can't correct my faults if I do not know them.

elZorro
14-10-2013, 06:13 PM
So there, perhaps? Give me an example of my sloppy spelling please. I can't correct my faults if I do not know them.

It was a while ago FP, I should have saved it for just such a discussion..:)

I found a typo (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=402768&viewfull=1#post402768)though, and another one in a 22nd April post. Tsk tsk.

fungus pudding
15-10-2013, 07:07 AM
It was a while ago FP, I should have saved it for just such a discussion..:)

I found a typo (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?8606-If-National-wins&p=402768&viewfull=1#post402768)though, and another one in a 22nd April post. Tsk tsk.

I will admit to being a poor typer, especially so when using my small netbook. And before you tell me there's (or in your language their's) no such word as 'typer', there is now because I refuse to call myself a typist, just as I refuse to call actresses actors, or waitresses waiters. :D

blackcap
15-10-2013, 07:15 AM
I think any employer paying around $14 an hour or less to an adult in NZ should be ashamed of themselves.



Why El Zorro? $14 compares favourably with many European countries. We do not know how good we have it in this country with a minimum wage of $14 especially when our tax system takes ACC into account. Where I lived in Europe compulsory health insurance cost about $160 per month per person. Imagine every Kiwi having to fork out an additional $160 per month to cover this. Not so here.

fungus pudding
15-10-2013, 07:21 AM
Why El Zorro? $14 compares favourably with many European countries. We do not know how good we have it in this country with a minimum wage of $14 especially when our tax system takes ACC into account. Where I lived in Europe compulsory health insurance cost about $160 per month per person. Imagine every Kiwi having to fork out an additional $160 per month to cover this. Not so here.

Ez doesn't live in the real world. If he or she had any idea of small businesses, particularly in small towns, he/she would realise it is simply impossible for the likes of cafes, hairdressers, small retailer's etc., to pay that sort of money. They haven't got it. It's often more than the proprietor earns. I doubt that many kiwis understand how tough things are in Europe, America or Asia, and how good we have got it, even at the lower end of our income scale.

westerly
15-10-2013, 06:10 PM
National is nowhere near far right. They are centrist by normal definition, supporting welfare programmes and medium level progressive taxes. By the way, the pronoun 'its' doesn't have an apostrophe. Don't thank me. You're welcome.

Pedantic, I didn't realise I was sitting an english test. I left the p off reaching too!
With regard to the later posts along the lines of "we don't know how lucky we are" I suggest it is more likely we do and wish to keep it this way.
National and its policies of selling off the assets and reducing Govt. expenditure and relying on private enterprise to provide doesn't in my view work for the majority. Nz is a small country. Labour tried that and I don't think it was very successful apart from the few who made a lot of money out of it,

westerly

fungus pudding
15-10-2013, 07:20 PM
Pedantic, I didn't realise I was sitting an english test. I left the p off reaching too!
With regard to the later posts along the lines of "we don't know how lucky we are" I suggest it is more likely we do and wish to keep it this way.
National and its policies of selling off the assets and reducing Govt. expenditure and relying on private enterprise to provide doesn't in my view work for the majority.
westerly

It doesn't affect the average NZer in any way, but a downgrade in our credit rating sure would.

elZorro
15-10-2013, 09:42 PM
Ez doesn't live in the real world. If he or she had any idea of small businesses, particularly in small towns, he/she would realise it is simply impossible for the likes of cafes, hairdressers, small retailer's etc., to pay that sort of money. They haven't got it. It's often more than the proprietor earns. I doubt that many kiwis understand how tough things are in Europe, America or Asia, and how good we have got it, even at the lower end of our income scale.

I do live in the real world FP, it involves me being able to provide well for my own family, and quite a few other families and individuals, with a business started from scratch. I don't tend to sell services to the public, or be very interested in adding no value to whatever I sell. I know some retailing operations quite well, and I know it's tough out there. A small, underfunded, copycat business is always going to find it so. The business owners will need to work long hours, and eventually they should be able to find some profit centres that make it all worthwhile. I was reminded of one small firm, started with some spare capital, bagging edible goods at home that were then sold to retailers. 18 years later, the firm employs 600 staff. I don't know their pay scales, but I bet it's a liveable wage for everyone at the very least.

I don't have many answers for smaller retailers, but if I had spare time in a shop I'd be selling other stuff on a website or on TradeMe, for example. Or working out what I could export via NZPost.

I don't like seeing the decay in many retail areas of provincial NZ. When shopkeepers and their landlords stop spending money on the premises, when the shelves get low in stock, stock gets old (even in the cafes!) shops empty out, and locals spend precious money on petrol to shop further afield in the cities. And even there, the new malls get most of the trade it would seem. While all this is happening, new businesses are starting up all around the place, and they would like to showcase their manufacturing or products in retail premises, but that's too big a step by themselves. The large chains that run everything will not normally be interested. These same struggling small stores should access that need, selling stock on consignment. IMHO.

fungus pudding
16-10-2013, 07:08 AM
I do live in the real world FP, it involves me being able to provide well for my own family, and quite a few other families and individuals, with a business started from scratch. I don't tend to sell services to the public, or be very interested in adding no value to whatever I sell. I know some retailing operations quite well, and I know it's tough out there. A small, underfunded, copycat business is always going to find it so. The business owners will need to work long hours, and eventually they should be able to find some profit centres that make it all worthwhile. I was reminded of one small firm, started with some spare capital, bagging edible goods at home that were then sold to retailers. 18 years later, the firm employs 600 staff. I don't know their pay scales, but I bet it's a liveable wage for everyone at the very least.

I don't have many answers for smaller retailers, but if I had spare time in a shop I'd be selling other stuff on a website or on TradeMe, for example. Or working out what I could export via NZPost.

I don't like seeing the decay in many retail areas of provincial NZ. When shopkeepers and their landlords stop spending money on the premises, when the shelves get low in stock, stock gets old (even in the cafes!) shops empty out, and locals spend precious money on petrol to shop further afield in the cities. And even there, the new malls get most of the trade it would seem. While all this is happening, new businesses are starting up all around the place, and they would like to showcase their manufacturing or products in retail premises, but that's too big a step by themselves. The large chains that run everything will not normally be interested. These same struggling small stores should access that need, selling stock on consignment. IMHO.


I can only repeat Ez, you're not in the real world. Get to know a couple of small suburban business owners, retail or otherwise, and tell them about consignment stock etc. The problem is people go where people are. Big shops and malls.

craic
16-10-2013, 08:08 AM
My daughter became irritated by the flaws in the supply and demand systems and their failures in one area and decided to step in and start a business where people who wanted something would get it, without delay, in the high end furniture business. She contracted with the makers (in Italy) and offered the customers a guarantee. The prices were high but the quality was even higher and the staff were few but well rewarded. With her business partner they built a multi-million pound business with not a trade union in site. It's called Gomodern.

elZorro
16-10-2013, 08:20 PM
I can only repeat Ez, you're not in the real world. Get to know a couple of small suburban business owners, retail or otherwise, and tell them about consignment stock etc. The problem is people go where people are. Big shops and malls.

Yes, I know that, and I repeat I'm in the real world. The problem is that some retailers have no idea how to even keep an eye on cashflows, or they fail to target what their customers want, or are prepared to pay for. What pain do they solve for their customers? The biggest mistake is buying into a previously poor business and expecting it to recover without much effort. Like buying a café at the wrong end of town, when a simple look at the books would show that the rental and overheads kill any profit, if it is run the same way again.

My suggestion is that instead of a pure retail operation from those shops, maybe more of a business-to-business operation would work. Or sell something else altogether. Something with an edge, that's for sure.

Craic, I am most impressed with your daughter's business setup. A flash website, and using low staff numbers to offer so much custom quality product. There was a furniture shop in my family, of the older type. It failed ultimately, even though previously it was a brilliant business and employed a few people. They didn't invest to keep up with the latest trends, so that helped ensure big money customers went elsewhere, out of town.

A website offers goods 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, and they work. Especially if they are quality sites, with a shopping basket. And I see Go Modern has a store as well, the best of both worlds. Cheers.

Oops, have we strayed too far off the topic? Back to poking the borax at National.

The Environmental Defence Society is notable among environmental NGO's for its constructive and principled approach to developing environmental law and regulation, says Pattrick Smellie, of the NZEE newsletter out today. So when they are upset about how the govt is behaving, we should all take a look.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19332788/epa-tukituki-hearing-process-stacked-against-opponents/

elZorro
20-10-2013, 11:41 AM
Bill English was on Q&A today, talking what seemed like commonsense about housing issues and unemployment, and what National were doing about it.

I found this August article about housing in Auckland, which is slanted in National's favour, since the 100,000 homes policy from Labour is not even mentioned. He got a few comments about that following the article, and some good ideas came through.

http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-secret-behind-the-housing-debate-and-3-ideas

The guy is right though, when the annual capital gain from your house that you live in, exceeds your work income, it's a strange situation. It's not quite income though, because you would have to rent to get hold of the cash.

Back in the early 80s, house prices went up 50% or more in 5 years, but interest rates were up to 20%. So this time it's a new story, good inflation in house costs in some areas, and low interest rates for the meantime, but surely it's a risky investment.

Labour could well get in next year, and a massive house-building programme would be good for the country in many ways. Maybe some house prices in Auckland would be affected, but the prices now seen are unsustainable anyway.

Apparently a dual income couple on about $100,000 annual income before tax between them, can borrow about $770,000 from the Aussie banks at the moment. This leaves them $500 a week between them for all other costs. How is this done? a 30 year term with minimal capital repayments. Go back to the 80s, there you needed a 20% deposit, a 15 year term, and usually a 25% of income figure for repayments. This would allow that same couple to borrow only $250,000. Not enough for a first home in Auckland, even with the low interest rates we have now. Imagine how hard it must be for single income families that might have the breadwinner on near the minimum wage, say $14 an hour, $30,000 annual income before tax. They are forced to rent.

craic
20-10-2013, 12:16 PM
A single income family on $14 per hour living anywhere near Auckland is insane - move. I have seen perfectly habitable homes in central Hawkes Bay on the market for under $100,000. There is work, certainly in the $14 per hour bracket, plenty of schools,fresh air, transport links and all the rest. The last house I occupied was deemed unsaleable by most land agents in that it was a hovel. We had to rip everything out, cover the walls and ceilings with white paint and put out buckets of rat bait. It was on ten acres in two five-acre lots on a steep slope with ocean views from the top. We managed to survive long enough to clean the place up, move another house onto the property and sell half the land with the old house. I mention Hawkes Bay because I am familiar with the area but there are areas all over the cxountry. If you are a brain surgeon you may not be able to cope with the drop in wages but you may be able to get mre than the $14 per hour.

artemis
20-10-2013, 12:30 PM
..... Imagine how hard it must be for single income families that might have the breadwinner on near the minimum wage, say $14 an hour, $30,000 annual income before tax. They are forced to rent.

Double income, no kids can make a huge difference to saving a deposit and starting to pay down a mortgage. No need for accidental pregnancies these days, but if they happen (or indeed if they are planned) then there are consequences.

Also, one thing that is not often mentioned is the number of second and subsequent homes owned directly or in trusts. I'd guess there are plenty of these rented to family members and not necessarily at full market rent. (Several in my not very large extended family.) Plus don't forget many of these properties will eventually pass by inheritance, so the 'tenants' will own all or part of them eventually having had not a lot of financial input, apart from rent. Which they would have been paying anyway. The Law Commission estimates 300,000 to 500,000 trusts in NZ, and most will have at least one property in them. That's a lot of properties....

iceman
20-10-2013, 02:29 PM
Good subject for discussion EZ and I agree with many of your points. There is no doubt housing is the next election fight issue and as a National supporter, I am glad Nick Smith is in charge of it.
But like Craic points out, there are reasonably priced properties all around NZ. First thing I believe we need to do is change the immigration policy so as to make it a condition of any permanent residency that people reside and work in "the provinces" for at least the first 5 years of living in NZ. That would reduce a lot of the pressures on housing in Auckland.

elZorro
21-10-2013, 06:35 AM
Interesting comment, Artemis - I didn't know that was one use trusts were being put to. I agree with Craic's opinion on finding employment in the provinces as one step towards the property ladder. It all depends how welcome these people are made, I guess.

Iceman, this article from earlier in the month implies that only a small percentage of the new properties National would kickstart, will be affordable homes.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/19312137/areas-for-6000-new-auckland-homes-unveiled/

Naturally enough, if private sector developers are building the houses, they'll have a figure for the profit they'd like to make on each one. Under Labour's plan, the State will not be making a profit on any sales, and they'll be borrowing money at the govt rate to do it. This is why they will build a lot more homes at the lower cost end, as obviously needed.

craic
21-10-2013, 07:39 AM
Another angle to the population distribution/ housing shortage problem would be a greater effort by the government to spread the public service around the country more. In this electronic age there are few good reasons to have govt. departments lodged around parliment like bees around a honey pot. I remember my many trips to Wellington, at the taxpayers expense, to NZ Forest service HQ when there wasn't a pine tree within miles and later to Justice dept in Wellington when most of the crime was in Auckland? A few years ago, and maybe still, public servants would move several time for promotions and then try and get a retirement placement in some desirable place by which time they had a freehold home and often a lot of equity to spare.

elZorro
21-10-2013, 05:11 PM
National seems content to sit back and let the Reserve Bank adjust the settings, Craic.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11132061&ref=rss

I would say the average house prices in Hamiltown are about $350,000, and you can still buy a house here for under $200,000, but at that price it's not too exciting.

QV stats, very handy. (http://www.qv.co.nz/home?gclid=COvkz4eap7oCFUEgpQodiUcA6w) Dunedin prices are cool.

elZorro
25-10-2013, 06:47 AM
Treasury provided an opinion about housing demand cooling in July that largely mirrors Labour-Green policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11145624

Sure, it's a complex issue. But on the whole, while prices in Australia might also be rising, over there they generally have more income too.

Aussie is about the same as NZ in affordability, just a little better. Hong Kong is the worst shown in this table of data.

http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

craic
28-10-2013, 06:51 AM
Now what about the Conservative Party? They aim to steal from Winston. Now stealing from Winston must warrant a cliche or two but I just can't think of any this early on a monday morning. Possibly, No honour among Thieves?

Major von Tempsky
28-10-2013, 06:46 PM
Does it matter? Latest opinion poll shows National has enough to govern alone :-) 50.2%

The Cunliffe blitzkrieg has lost its way - crashed and burnt.

Who's the next Labour leader?

BIRMANBOY
28-10-2013, 07:51 PM
When is Helen Clark's UN contract up?

elZorro
28-10-2013, 08:53 PM
You chaps forgot to add Labour and the Greens together (OK, not enough, but it'll be close..). It's still quite a while to the election.

iceman
29-10-2013, 03:13 AM
You chaps forgot to add Labour and the Greens together (OK, not enough, but it'll be close..). It's still quite a while to the election.

National is looking good with Act in Epsom and a 2-3 Conservatives. With some luck the Conservatives may reduce Winston First below the 5%.
You Leftie´s must be concerned that Cunliffe is not even getting a honeymoon period from voters with his surge to the Left !
But as you say, a long way to go yet. This will be National´s election to lose so now they just have to avoid any scandals or mistakes.

elZorro
29-10-2013, 06:20 AM
National is looking good with Act in Epsom and a 2-3 Conservatives. With some luck the Conservatives may reduce Winston First below the 5%.
You Leftie´s must be concerned that Cunliffe is not even getting a honeymoon period from voters with his surge to the Left !
But as you say, a long way to go yet. This will be National´s election to lose so now they just have to avoid any scandals or mistakes.

Wait a minute, the Colmar Brunton poll had National on 45% and Labour/Greens on 47%. Quite a big difference from the other IPSOS poll.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11147659

There's another big labour conference coming up in the weekend, a good time to see if David Cunliffe can come up with something interesting.

craic
29-10-2013, 06:54 AM
Cunliffe is not particularly well liked by anyone, The Greens frighten the daylight out of anyone looking for work with their "return to the trees" philosophy and the Maori party are being disenfranchised by their own people. If the Conservatives can gain some serious financial backing to spread the word, then they can affect the outcome by getting on to the radar and taking a few votes but, as a party, they have one or two more elections to go before they get into parliment. MMP will deliver another mess as usual but Key appears to be holding.

blackcap
29-10-2013, 08:08 AM
Im not normally an automatic National voter, probably more centre than anything and I like to wait to reserve judgememt. But with what Cunliffe is spouting and the shift left, I think many people in my position will have no alternative but to vote National or some other alternative like the Conservatives or Winston. Cunliffe will strengthen the core hardline left but the middle of the ground labour voters appear to be shifting allegiance.

elZorro
01-11-2013, 06:57 AM
Im not normally an automatic National voter, probably more centre than anything and I like to wait to reserve judgememt. But with what Cunliffe is spouting and the shift left, I think many people in my position will have no alternative but to vote National or some other alternative like the Conservatives or Winston. Cunliffe will strengthen the core hardline left but the middle of the ground labour voters appear to be shifting allegiance.

Labour needs to hope that the large part of the voting population who are more likely vote Labour given their income levels, will be enticed to vote again next year -according to Chris Trotter. He of course is a leftie, quite open about that.

What about Maria Slade? Editor of Unlimited magazine, has this to say in the press.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/9268240/Top-earners-paying-greater-share-of-tax

This article is all about that aged mantra from National, being that the well-off have to pay all of the income tax in NZ. Based on the figures she supplied, the National Govt is now collecting less overall tax in 2013, than Labour was in 2008. About 10% less. Income tax makes up only $15bill of the tax take of $57bill. A lot of the rest of it comes from GST, for example. Everyone pays that, and if you spend all of your income each year, you spend more in proportion on GST, fuel levies, etc, than someone who is investing or saving. No mention from Maria about that.

Maria also points out in another article which is careful to shoot down the left and uplift the incumbents, that NZ is the 4th most prosperous country in the world, in terms of an average of all social and economic factors. I guess it depends on the weightings. We don't know how lucky we are, etc. But could we again be a country that pays for all tertiary education for our own children from the tax base, and could we try to make sure that they all find good jobs over here?

Meridian was a poor seller because the demand for electricity has slowed. That's because manufacturing has not been encouraged, the very industry we need to get some of our new jobs from. National doesn't have its eye on the ball.

iceman
01-11-2013, 11:51 PM
Wow, these Cunliffe policies are really going to swing "The provinces" back to Labour. (insert Tui ad)


* Maori language made compulsory in state schools and teachers required to be competent in te reo

* Privatised state assets renationalised with compensation based on "proven need"

* Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren

* Laws to discourage excessive alcohol consumption, a review of the purchasing age, alcohol availability and an increase in the price of booze

* Prisoners again getting the right to vote

* A national sex and sexuality education programme dealing with sexual diseases, contraception methods, consent, sexual orientation and gender identity

* New Zealand becoming a republic

* An apology for the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed in 2004

* A prohibition on school boards of trustees restricting same-sex partners from attending school balls

* A Pasifika television station

* A Maori language newspaper

elZorro
02-11-2013, 07:36 AM
Wow, these Cunliffe policies are really going to swing "The provinces" back to Labour. (insert Tui ad)


* Maori language made compulsory in state schools and teachers required to be competent in te reo

* Privatised state assets renationalised with compensation based on "proven need"

* Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren

* Laws to discourage excessive alcohol consumption, a review of the purchasing age, alcohol availability and an increase in the price of booze

* Prisoners again getting the right to vote

* A national sex and sexuality education programme dealing with sexual diseases, contraception methods, consent, sexual orientation and gender identity

* New Zealand becoming a republic

* An apology for the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed in 2004

* A prohibition on school boards of trustees restricting same-sex partners from attending school balls

* A Pasifika television station

* A Maori language newspaper

Iceman, it's lifted from this article I assume, which is only a small part of the full proposals they're looking at. The comments below it, from both sides, eventually show a bit more light on it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9349220/Radical-proposals-will-put-heat-on-Cunliffe

These are all difficult areas that need a bit of consideration, they are not going away. This is not hard-and-fast policy yet.

iceman
02-11-2013, 09:22 AM
Iceman, it's lifted from this article I assume, which is only a small part of the full proposals they're looking at. The comments below it, from both sides, eventually show a bit more light on it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9349220/Radical-proposals-will-put-heat-on-Cunliffe

These are all difficult areas that need a bit of consideration, they are not going away. This is not hard-and-fast policy yet.

Sorry EZ, I beg to differ. Most of those areas don't need any consideration at all by a Government. What needs consideration is proper education (including teaching our kids USEFUL languages amongst other things), good universal healthcare, sustainable economic growth and wellbeing and job creation. We do NOT need any more social engineering about "gender identity and sexual orientation" in our schools. Nor do we need the Government to fund yet another TV station nor get involved in publishing newspapers. Labour is out of touch and as John Armstrong says in his column today, the various factions seem more interested in settling scores internally than trying to connect with middle NZ. So far they are doing that just fine.

elZorro
02-11-2013, 10:58 AM
So NZ's culture, those things that set us apart from other countries, don't include a smattering of Te Reo? No nod to the pacifica regions at all? I think a govt's role is partly to develop, through the voter's wishes, a stronger, more indicative culture here.

Fronted unfortunately by Sir Michael Cullen, NZ Post needs to drop 1500 to 2000 staff within three years. There doesn't seem to be any job creation in the SOEs to balance these sorts of losses. http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/956589a5/up-to-2-000-nz-post-jobs-to-go-in-three-year-shake-up.html

craic
02-11-2013, 02:57 PM
The Post Office has been heading for the cliff's edge for years. Mail was up to the mid-eighteen-hundreds, a service for the wealthy to communicate with each other until a man came up with penny-postage and turned it into a huge industry. It remained viable for a hundred or more years. Some competition affected the profitability, particularly in parcel post, but instead of competing effectively, prices were raised to cover the difference. I cannot reasonably buy and post parcels to my offspring and their offspring in the UK at $40 or $50 postage a pop. I now push a button or two and Marks and Spencers deliver to the door on the day at no extra cost. Michael Cullen has no more chance of saving this business than he had of saving the Labour Party.

slimwin
02-11-2013, 04:41 PM
*Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren.

So if a party other than their own is elected they should stop crying like babies when the other party implements it's election policies.


The left and democracy have always been uneasy bed fellows.

craic
03-11-2013, 08:08 AM
Don't worry folks! Cunliffe is only trying to woo the Russians and Chinese and others by trying to convince them that we are as red as they are - on the inside.

elZorro
03-11-2013, 10:25 AM
Craic, Slimwin et al, I hope you watched Q&A this week. David Cunliffe was excellent giving a moderate and resolute answer to anything that Corin Dann batted his way. All sensible policies. And then they had an article on child poverty, where it was noted that a charity supplied the funds for some numerical stats on poverty in NZ (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=11147721), estimated to be 265,000 children. Paula Bennett was asked why the government didn't have these stats. She replied wasn't it good that the govt didn't have to pay $525,000 for that four-five years of data (which she sort of disputed), when of course the real answer was that these stats have been getting worse since National got in, and there is no way they want to have 'official' figures on that. I hate being lied to.

All in all the programme today gave a lot of hope for a Labour-Greens win in 2014. The panel had Matthew Hooten on it, seated next to ex-party president Mike Williams. Some of the National mantra rubbish Matthew was talking, I half expected Mike to reach over and clip him one, but instead he made every effort to ignore Matthew. Trickle-down theory, how one of poverty's causes (if not the only one) is welfarism.. no, the big cause of poverty is a lack of jobs matching all the people we have.

There are some good salaried jobs out there for those who are tertiary trained. But guess what, not everyone can get through at that level. So the National policy of further dropping NZPost staff by 2,000 people is not going to help. They cannot say they are all about job creation when they are instead destroying jobs in the public sector. Labour has come up with a good idea in the state-owned Assurance policy, to be run through NZPost. That should employ a few more people. I for one would swap across.

Also in the SST today, DOC has been booting out staff over the last few years of course. 75 recently. Now the stats show a degrading picture of the Conservation estate, less control of possum infestations, etc. No surprise.

The public were asked their perceptions on LVR housing policy (Nat) and the CGT(Lab). Sorry FP, the public thought CGT was fairer, and the LVR was not.

National listened to a recommendation about a rental housing warrant of fitness. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10884190)Looking at state housing is
a good initial approach. The bigger issue is what happens to the private sector rentals. I know one landlord who had to live in one of his rentals for a while, after it had been rented out for years. He soon insulated it and replaced some rotten windows etc. He wasn't prepared to live in it, in the previous state.

Would landlords put up the rent once they'd done (often neglected) property maintenance? I doubt they can squeeze any more out of tenants, so it's a direct cost to the landlords. No wonder National, on their behalf, don't think it's a good idea (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1311/S00016/bennett-im-an-advocate-for-wof-on-private-rental-housing.htm). Paula Bennett is an advocate of extending the WOF to privately owned rentals, but not the party. I'd expect many rental owners vote National, that's why.

If the public get to be better informed, and a bigger percentage of them vote than last time, the Labour-Green coalition will win the 2014 elections, imho.

blackcap
03-11-2013, 01:02 PM
well Labour are well and truly on their way to losing in 2014...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9357211/Labours-gender-quota-gets-go-ahead

So if they require at least 50% women, what about at least 50% men? This is becoming a farce. Any policy that promotes positive discrimination is in itself and by definition discriminatory and will not work in the long run.

elZorro
03-11-2013, 01:45 PM
Blackcap, here is an article from May 2013 that gives a bit of the background. Shearer was against this idea, he is gone, and David Cunliffe is part of the story now. http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/politics/coming-to-the-party-5/

Let's say 50% of the voters are women. There is still a perception that National is a party for middle-aged men in the upper quartile of income. It's not going to be bad in the polls for Labour to appeal more to the female voters. My wife is smarter than me, I've been able to accept that.

Labour is not going to be selecting future female MPs for the list without due concern for their qualifications. Let's face it, there have been some terrible male MPs over the years, in both major parties. Being a good or poor MP is not gender-specific.

So I don't agree with you Blackcap, it's actually a really good policy from Labour.

iceman
03-11-2013, 03:43 PM
Let's say 50% of the voters are women. There is still a perception that National is a party for middle-aged men in the upper quartile of income. It's not going to be bad in the polls for Labour to appeal more to the female voters. My wife is smarter than me, I've been able to accept that.

Labour is not going to be selecting future female MPs for the list without due concern for their qualifications. Let's face it, there have been some terrible male MPs over the years, in both major parties. Being a good or poor MP is not gender-specific.

So I don't agree with you Blackcap, it's actually a really good policy from Labour.

I am surprised you hold such a chauvinistic view of Kiwi women in 2013 EZ. I think majority of both women and men will vote for the candidate they like the most, regardless of their sex (Len Brown excluded). I for example have recently voted for a female Mayor and can say that never ever did it come into my consideration whether she was a woman or a man.

This is not the final policy from Labour though. They will also add quotas for Maoris, Pacific Islanders and gays/transvestites.
So totally agree with blackcap, "positive discrimination is by definition discriminatory". I can not see how MPs like Damien O'Connor (as an example) representing the great and real LABOURERS of Blackball and the wider West Coast, can continue deluding themselves they belong in Cunliffe's rainbow/feminist run party. They have very little in common !
I repeat that I believe each day we get these new policies from Cunliffe, the more he distances Labour from the average voter in "the provinces".

blackcap
03-11-2013, 06:00 PM
I repeat that I believe each day we get these new policies from Cunliffe, the more he distances Labour from the average voter in "the provinces".

Agree with you Iceman but there is a problem. The average voter in the provinces is a minority when it comes to the polls. With the urban areas in this country making up by far the largest majority of people.

elZorro
03-11-2013, 07:07 PM
I'm not going to get trapped into saying anything else on gender matters etc, because I think that's immaterial. I just want to see good representation from MPs who have all of our best interests at heart.

The govt should not:
Reduce the size of the public sector when every job in NZ needs to be kept open. We have more graduates and school leavers coming out of the system each year, where will they find a job? The message from this govt is that sorry, you might not get a job for the next few years if we stay in power. They are sacking public servants and SOE staff all over the place. If more people are employed here, the tax take will rise, and lots of problems funding positive movements in the economy will disappear. Labour showed how easy this was to achieve, when they were last in office.
The govt should: boost R&D incentives quickly, encourage manufacturing, train more people in the services industries if needed, tune education to where the majority of jobs are. This is not a time to be sitting back and seeing if the private sector will do it for NZ. They will not do this for altruistic reasons, they need to be incentivised. Fully within the scope of a govt's ability.

You're right Blackcap, David Cunliffe was a diplomat, he's an urban person, he has stronger connections to the biggest voter areas. He's not a mug in front of the camera either. It's going to be an interesting election.

slimwin
03-11-2013, 11:29 PM
Yep. Watched it alright. Not through your glasses though. Granted the man can speak, as a politician should be able to. Didn't hear anything to get excited about. They're going to start an insurance company that can't provide cheaper insurance. My bad experiences with the earthquake down here were not through my insurance company. They are with EQC. The compulsory state insurer, so excuse me if I'm not excited about that.

I'm a great believer in having a welfare system. I may need it one day. Hopefully not. I do find it hard to feel sympathy for a woman who had no money, has 8 kids and now complains we (the tax payer, as money has to come from somewhere) aren't giving her enough. This is what will screw this country, not the niff naff argued here. It's an exponential problem.

craic
04-11-2013, 06:54 AM
And how the hell is keeping hundreds of public servants in jobs in a service that is redundant going to do any more than hide the true rate of unemployment and pay the ersatz unemployed at different rates. Will the government create hundreds of thousands of "pretend" letters to deliver to mailboxes around the country? Maybe a return to horsedrawn busses and trams would save petrol and provide jobs for blacksmiths. We live in a world economy where we have to purchase goods from other countries who in turn buy our produce. We are poor manufacturers because our living standards demand excessive pay rates by comparison with other manufacturing countries - we produce meat, wool, timber and better scenery than they do so they buy from us. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? My first job in NZ was assembling Ford vehicles at Gracefield. It was actually a waste of effort and now the cars arrive manufacturedand assembled elsewhere. This waste existed because of political demand for a "New Zealand component"

elZorro
04-11-2013, 07:00 AM
Slimwin, I think the government agrees with you. They'll sit on their hands to ensure the problem only gets worse. Sooner or later those people will have to find a job, right?

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/south-auckland-budgeting-service-having-lay-off-staff-5456670

Craic, I'm sure you spent your earnings in the local economy, and the alternative might have been less opportunities to find work. The cost difference between a "surplus" govt job and someone on the dole is not that great, but in one scenario someone is getting training and all the benefits of being gainfully employed.

Major von Tempsky
04-11-2013, 08:56 AM
If Cunliffe was as good as Norman Kirk (which he obviously isn't) then he would get in in his 3rd election i.e. 2020.
I hope u r a patient man El Zorro....

CJ
04-11-2013, 09:32 AM
Yep. Watched it alright. Not through your glasses though. Agree.

He speaks alot better than Shearer could and sounds persuasive so that should bode well for the election. However, National was able to discredit most of their ideas within seconds - the left claim this is because National are running scared, I think it is because the policys aren't great. Personally I was underwhelmed. Last election we saw CGT, Retirement age to 67 and no state asset sales - all big ticket items and in the case of the first two, very bold moves (though CGT exemption to the home makes it pointless).

Insurance - stupid. Trying to replicate AMI which had to be bailed out.
ChCh - this is already well underway and why would you want to repair red zone houses, just to demolish them again. Changes to RMA are what is needed and Labour doesn't support.

Poverty - Sure National isn't measuring it but they have lots of major projects with indirectly or directly are helping child poverty. It is pretty hard to fix however when you have 8 kids!!! I couldn't even effort it and I am one of these lucky households paying the majority of the tax in NZ. Building WOF, Paula agrees with them and I think there will be movement going forward. The problem is cost, not just for those that need to be uprated but costs to get the WOF for those that exceed the standard - shy should I spend a few hundred dollars to tell some professional that the executive apartment that I am leasing to him well exceeds minimum standards. The difficulty lies in the detail on that policy.

DOC staff - dont know anything to comment.

NZ Post - so you would support paying these 2,000 people (the living wage no doubt) despite that fact there is no work for them to do? I think changes need to be made to the deed to make them more viable but that is not what you are raising. Unemployement in NZ is low (especially compared to Europe) so things aren't as bad as you make out. Job losses make the media as they come in lumps where as new jobs are one by one.

slimwin
04-11-2013, 09:52 AM
Throwing more and more money at people who choose to have more and more kids created the problem. Education on basic finances. Ie, you can't afford more children despite what your minister (not the govt type) says, is what's required. No way should people that choose that route have it as easy as people who only have a child or two so to ensure they have a good life.

I have never heard of anything more insane than suggesting the govt employ 2000 people with no work to do.Fortunately Michael Cullin agrees. Huge loss of cred there EZ. The govt will be paying unemployment benefit to these people till they find new work. Why should they be considered more privileged than everybody else on the dole? Or should everybody get a govt job? Hey, labour could nationalize your business and use that to employ people. A slippery slope indeed.

slimwin
04-11-2013, 09:54 AM
Thankfully mankind as a whole doesn't have that "things must stay the same" mentality or we'd still be living in caves.

elZorro
04-11-2013, 11:52 AM
Throwing more and more money at people who choose to have more and more kids created the problem. Education on basic finances. Ie, you can't afford more children despite what your minister (not the govt type) says, is what's required. No way should people that choose that route have it as easy as people who only have a child or two so to ensure they have a good life.

I have never heard of anything more insane than suggesting the govt employ 2000 people with no work to do.Fortunately Michael Cullin agrees. Huge loss of cred there EZ. The govt will be paying unemployment benefit to these people till they find new work. Why should they be considered more privileged than everybody else on the dole? Or should everybody get a govt job? Hey, labour could nationalize your business and use that to employ people. A slippery slope indeed.

About 2-3 years ago my business was talking at a highish level with NZPost about a new hi-tech, low cost service they could offer, which would have increased revenue. They were quite interested, but this idea never went ahead in any way except for a small trial, because the funding for such areas was removed. The NZPost business has not been investing enough in new areas -why would it- when the intention is to remove staff, not build up the business. They've been hobbled by the govt.

Can someone please point me to that TV story on a woman who has 8 children at her home, because I think that was two families crammed into one house. No, there is probably no breadwinner around, because there are so few manufacturing type jobs going.

The Labour insurance idea, this is for all the easy insurance, nothing too risky. I note they're not going to look at commercial buildings initially.


CJ: I couldn't even afford it and I am one of these lucky households paying the majority of the tax in NZ.

CJ, you mean that you are paying a higher percentage of income tax than some others. The vast majority will be paying a bigger percentage of GST, fuel excise, power and other excise taxes from their income. Many will have never seen capital gains in their lifetimes, and will have few investments. National Party policy is to keep the status quo in this cosy setup, otherwise why allow the LVR changes?

CJ
04-11-2013, 12:27 PM
About 2-3 years ago my business was talking at a highish level with NZPost about a new hi-tech, low cost service they could offer, which would have increased revenue. They were quite interested, but this idea never went ahead in any way except for a small trial, because the funding for such areas was removed. The NZPost business has not been investing enough in new areas -why would it- when the intention is to remove staff, not build up the business. They've been hobbled by the govt.You may be right (I acknowledged in my post that the charter needs to be changed) but you dont keep the staff on if you cant support them.


Can someone please point me to that TV story on a woman who has 8 children at her home, because I think that was two families crammed into one house. No, there is probably no breadwinner around, because there are so few manufacturing type jobs going.From memory, from the exact same TV show you are talking about, the (Grand)mother had 8 kids most of those were at home, and one of the daughters had 3 kids with a combined 8 kids and 2 mothers in the one house (though technically 1 of the mothers was also one of the kids). I could be wrong on the amounts.


CJ, you mean that you are paying a higher percentage of income tax than some others. The vast majority will be paying a bigger percentage of GST, fuel excise, power and other excise taxes from their income. I bet I pay more GST than most families pay in GST and income tax (net of govt assistance) combined. Why - because most families pay negative income tax after WFF etc. On top of that I pay my income tax.
Many will have never seen capital gains in their lifetimes, and will have few investments. National Party policy is to keep the status quo in this cosy setup, otherwise why allow the LVR changes?I would support a CGT if it was also on the family home (with roll over relief). It just isn't worth it if you exempt that. It also isn't the magic bullet you think it is. Speculators are already caught under existing law - this needs to be enforced better but the IRD keeps getting more money to do so. Property investors" rarely sell so while there will be a CGT, it wont be for many years into the future, and they may defer that decision even further if they know they will lose some in tax.

LVR - forgot about that. It isn't a National policy and they were pi$$ed off with the RB for implementing it as they did. What National didn't do, but you/Labour want to do is pass special legislation to remove the independence of the RB - very scary!!! What I would like to have seen is the RB (it is their decision, not govt) is to implement a sliding scale so owners of only 1 house are allowed a higher LVR wheras those will multiple (incl looking through entities) would be allowed a reducing amount of LVR as they acquire more properties (eg. those with only 5 properties are only allowed a 50% LVR). I think this is done in Israel.

slimwin
04-11-2013, 12:31 PM
Good idea on LVR CJ. Why don't you suggest it to RB?

artemis
04-11-2013, 01:04 PM
..... From memory, from the exact same TV show you are talking about, the (Grand)mother had 8 kids most of those were at home, and one of the daughters had 3 kids with a combined 8 kids and 2 mothers in the one house (though technically 1 of the mothers was also one of the kids). I could be wrong on the amounts.......

The number of people / children in the house was rather unclear, to me at least. There was no discussion of income coming in to the house, and very little about outgoings. Nothing about housing costs for example. So just a fluff piece really.

The woman interviewed did say that $100 a week was needed for bus fares and if not available the kids skipped school. Something seemed wrong about that - it's a lot of money for kids to get to school and back. I wondered at the time if the children were at local schools, or travelling further afield (and if so why).

It annoys me when journalists don't cover relevant questions. Don't they realise that they look like they are running an agenda?

slimwin
04-11-2013, 01:28 PM
It was even worse when they reported on the interview on the news later. Your right. Sloppy reporting on an important issue.

craic
04-11-2013, 02:15 PM
Notice that, almost invariably, the complainants are overweigh by a fair old margin and you never see a skinny kid. I was raised in an Irish village where everyone was poor and fat or overweight people didn't exist. But then neither did welfare.

CJ
04-11-2013, 02:37 PM
Good idea on LVR CJ. Why don't you suggest it to RB?I am sure the RB was aware of it. They seem to have gone for the simplest method available which makes sense if they only intend for it to be temporary and they want as few distortions as possible.

CJ
04-11-2013, 02:42 PM
The woman interviewed did say that $100 a week was needed for bus fares and if not available the kids skipped school. Something seemed wrong about that - it's a lot of money for kids to get to school and back. I wondered at the time if the children were at local schools, or travelling further afield (and if so why). I wondered this as well. I assume none are primary as they should be within walking distance (at least they are in my area). Intermediate and collage can be further away but shouldn't be more than 1 stage which is 90c each way with HOP, or $1.10 with cash which I assume they are paying if they are going week by week (unfortunate that the poor struggle to take advantage of discounts)

slimwin
04-11-2013, 03:50 PM
Free bus rides for kids to school. There's an election policy rather than more money straight to parents.

CJ
04-11-2013, 04:10 PM
Free bus rides for kids to school. There's an election policy rather than more money straight to parents.
As a person using a bus to commute, I couldn't think of anything worse. They would be jumping on and off for only one stop of travel just because they can.

westerly
04-11-2013, 05:08 PM
Notice that, almost invariably, the complainants are overweigh by a fair old margin and you never see a skinny kid. I was raised in an Irish village where everyone was poor and fat or overweight people didn't exist. But then neither did welfare.

You did'nt stay in Ireland though! Instead coming to NZ where you appear to have prospered Unfortunately NZ has become under policies of both parties
a country where the younger generation and others are finding it harder to get ahead consequently voting with their feet for supposed opportunities overseas.
For all the talk on tax and who pays what the highest rate is still only 33 cents in the dollar. A good read is a book called " Pity the poor Billionaire " which illustrates how following the GFC the wealthy in the US have continued to prosper at the expense of the poor. A similar situation applies in NZ.

westerly

elZorro
04-11-2013, 05:37 PM
My appreciation to Belgarion and Westerly for holding back the hordes of neoliberals and right-wingers!

However I like CJ's idea on scalable LVRs. That would work, it would be fair, it's a Labour-type policy though, isn't it. Don't school-age children get cheaper fares in Auckland?

By the way, the data on the poorest families in NZ shows an increasing trend in average family size as poverty increases, but only to about 2.7 children on average. Yet another right-wing propaganda untruth that is endemic in certain circles.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/03/auckland-the-super-city-of-poverty/

I would like to see a list of all the public sector (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1302/S00046/further-public-sector-cuts-likely-to-push-up-capital-jobless.htm)and SOE jobs that have disappeared under National. The govt who said they would simply cap the staff levels in 2008, not decrease them. The population of NZ is increasing, so therefore we should have more employees in the public sector.

Edit: Not all of the high-tech NZ businesses stay here. Labour should look at fish-hooks for R&D funding.


http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/another-kiwi-tech-gutted-after-offshore-sale

slimwin
04-11-2013, 09:09 PM
Not true EZ. My brother was on a few labour think tanks. He used to write speeches for Helen no less. He's told me its accepted that the people that can't afford to have children are having too many and those that can are having less. Its creating an exponential problem. Not one labour can address in the public domain though.

elZorro
05-11-2013, 06:16 AM
That's interesting Slimwin. However I'm sure your brother would have said that there's a trend for
the people that can't afford to have children are having too many, and those that can are having less.
Putting it the way you have, is a lot more hard and fast, which is not true. In any case, where is society laying down how many children are too many, as a number? It's surely a figure that there will be a range of opinions on.

Here is the article I pulled a figure of an average 2.7 children in the most deprived families from. See Table 1. http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php

I think we all know how empowering earning a wage is anywhere in the world, it's no different in NZ. People don't go on the dole or the benefit for the lifestyle, as a rule. They are there because their options are very limited. I think that if you do the numbers, the cost to the public purse is not a big net proportion of outgoings for the taxpayer. Don't forget that everyone is a taxpayer in some form or another, despite the half-truths National keeps trotting out. Labour achieved a record unemployment figure and record tax take before they were removed from office. Great budget surpluses too.

National, for all its rhetoric and admittedly tough events since 2008, is only just now getting the economy back towards a very small budget surplus, and I'd be surprised if they get that before being turfed out, and we have a heap of new loans to pay off as a country. We're not as badly off as some countries, but as this article states (http://www.interest.co.nz/news/67161/treasury-looks-how-other-countries-are-dealing-large-debt-they-built-gfc-and-how-new-zeal), that's because NZ started with a record low borrowing position in 2008. SOEs and the public service are still in line for job losses (I'm picking MBIE), and many struggling service businesses in the private sector are doing the same, in a constrained domestic economy.

This is apparently the bright future we were promised.

slimwin
05-11-2013, 10:36 AM
No he didn't say that EZ although I didn't push him more on it.

So, one of the complaints is there is not accurate enough reporting/recording of child poverty so a graph means little. Perhaps there is a statistic somewhere which correlates benefits paid to related families. I doubt it though.

I worked many years in impoverished African countries and the old way was to have as many kids so some will make it. Then the church's came in and stigmatized contraception while demanding more flock for their parish's. Why should other people be forced to support this societies life style. (although that's what I was there doing)

If your in NZ that has an excellent, by world standards, welfare system this does not give you the right to deliberately burden the taxpayers by having as many kids as possible and expecting to be supported.

I have no problem with people having lots of kids. It just must be a balanced decision and part of that decision making process is not the thought "ahh, the state will pay.."

Labour were in power during one of the biggest world growth periods recorded. Even they couldn't fail. They did allow a property bubble to develop under their watch, although I know both parties would of. Neither Labour or Nats are the answer. In fact there is no answer. We can't predict the future with world and local events. Only hindsight will tell which policies are correct.

At the moment all I can see from Labour is rhetoric. National are sticking to a plan they laid out long ago and we've come through a recession way better than what my friends are going through all over the world. I'm not going to swing back just yet. Will wait and see what Labour comes up with closer to the election but at this stage a collusion with the greens is the deal breaker for me. Or too much of the "all together brothers..." type speeches.

elZorro
05-11-2013, 01:30 PM
Fair enough Slimwin. I'm not so keen on the comrade speeches either. But remember David Cunliffe is a diplomat. When he speaks to business people, they come away reassured. He will tailor a speech to the audience. Maybe a bit too transparently sometimes. Will DC become a statesman - that's what I'd like to see.

I agree with you on poverty in Africa, I support one young adult there. In retrospect, a rotating business loan would be a better concept.

You can hold onto the idea that National is steering us safely out of a global recession, but my impression is that Labour left govt with a nearly clean slate, and all National have done is the usual downsizing of the public sector, swapped valuable state assets for immediate cash in the bank, borrowed for everything else, scuppered one or two SOEs, and provided almost no incentives for the private sector to thrive in the years ahead. The message has been that the business sector, outside of construction, should hunker down for the meantime. And they have, for several years.

The NZ govt's indebtedness in terms of a percentage of GDP is just starting to level off or drop. That's because GDP is going up again. But it has not reached the level obtained when Labour were in power in 2008. More importantly, the GDP output per person in NZ has fallen from the ramped up output Labour achieved. It's all in the charts.

Major von Tempsky
06-11-2013, 01:30 PM
Tough luck EZ - news release today says NZ's unemployment rate has gone down :-)

elZorro
06-11-2013, 06:24 PM
Tough luck EZ - news release today says NZ's unemployment rate has gone down :-)

Yes, MVT, National has been remarkably good at constraining the unemployment rate somewhere between 5.5% and 7%. Have a look and see what Labour were able to do when they were in for three terms. Record employment.

Major von Tempsky
07-11-2013, 06:47 AM
A lack of historical knowledge EZ. In 1973 when Norman Kirk was in we had registered unemployed of zero in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch and an NZ total of about 300.

However that was on the back of a huge commodity price surge in NZ's favour that couldn't and didn't last. The Labour government was just a piece of flotsam in a surge of water that went in and then out.
What was Labour's response? Borrow and Hope! But the hope never materialized and it took Roger Douglas to sort things out with a floating exchange rate and repayment of debt.
Overall equilibrium and growth counts for more than an isolated low unemployment total.
It's just that further back up this thread I saw some moronic left winger crowing about "rising unemployment" (like to compare it with Greece, Portugal and Spain some time?) so I thought I would pop that bubble with an uncomfortable fact.

blackcap
07-11-2013, 06:53 AM
Yes, MVT, National has been remarkably good at constraining the unemployment rate somewhere between 5.5% and 7%. Have a look and see what Labour were able to do when they were in for three terms. Record employment.

Nice Graph El Zorro, but come on what happend in 2008 that was out of NZ control.

elZorro
07-11-2013, 07:33 AM
A lack of historical knowledge EZ. In 1973 when Norman Kirk was in we had registered unemployed of zero in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch and an NZ total of about 300.

However that was on the back of a huge commodity price surge in NZ's favour that couldn't and didn't last. The Labour government was just a piece of flotsam in a surge of water that went in and then out.
What was Labour's response? Borrow and Hope! But the hope never materialized and it took Roger Douglas to sort things out with a floating exchange rate and repayment of debt.
Overall equilibrium and growth counts for more than an isolated low unemployment total.
It's just that further back up this thread I saw some moronic left winger crowing about "rising unemployment" (like to compare it with Greece, Portugal and Spain some time?) so I thought I would pop that bubble with an uncomfortable fact.

MVT, you fell into my cunning trap..I had a feeling that there had been lower unemployment 30-40 years ago. Also achieved under Labour. I bet if we graphed unemployment rates against National and Labour terms, or took an average, the figure would be lower for Labour. This would be because National is more concerned with business profits, part of their very flawed trickle-down theory. You can't have high profits in many "standard" businesses if you can't find suitable staff at suitable low rates of pay.

I'm sure Labour will be making this clearer before the election, but NZ's way forward must surely be to revamp all of our businesses so they can export more on average, and pay more staff better wages and salaries. So the GDP per person needs to rise. Labour have already shown they know how to do that.

slimwin
07-11-2013, 09:39 AM
Also achieved under a macro boom time EZ. Employers achieved the unemployment rate. Not the govt of the day.

elZorro
07-11-2013, 07:26 PM
Also achieved under a macro boom time EZ. Employers achieved the unemployment rate. Not the govt of the day.

The government is also a big employer though. Here is a bigger trend on unemployment. Our grandparents were dismayed at the ongoing strikes through the 70s. That's when unemployment started its big move upwards (Muldoon era). Right-wing policies from Roger Douglas in the 80s, along with a big recession, made it worse. The last three term Labour Government made a singular contribution to the health of the economy. NZ started to look even more like a great place to live.

So unemployment reached nearly 12% at worst, around 1991. This was a painful 15 year period in the country's history, when many older established businesses folded up, and a raft of new computer technology slowly gathered pace. NZ has been saved a bit from further ignominy by the increased pressure on food protein, but we have not developed our export income streams as quickly as many other OECD and emerging countries, IMHO.

Here is a Treasury working paper or draft, looking into ways to best get in some more tax revenue, without mucking up too much else in the economy. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/longterm/externalpanel/pdfs/ltfep-s3-02.pdf

What I was looking for, was an up-to-date chart of govt revenue. All through this document, they show the income and expenses as a percentage of GDP. In all of the discussion, the idea of raising govt revenue through an increase in GDP per person was not mentioned. Labour managed to do this. What was interesting was that in NZ, compared to other countries, the govt raises a big chunk of taxes from personal income (PAYE and even capital gains etc) and GST. Increases in GST, being a tax on labour and savings, can reduce labour force participation, they said. But it's a great way of getting in a lot of revenue with a small change. CGT could reduce vulnerabilities to property price shocks.

Anyway, it would be a good read at some stage.

Major von Tempsky
08-11-2013, 07:02 AM
"Unemployment started its big move upwards?"

We're talking about an unemployment rate of 6.2%. Compare that to any number of countries overseas.

Anyone willing to move from Blackball and Nightcaps and Thames, who isn't into drugs and alcohol and gangs and who is literate (actually you don't even have to be literate for a number of jobs) can get a job.
You're thrashing a non issue EZ.

elZorro
08-11-2013, 08:56 PM
Keep up MVT, I was talking about the past, the unemployment rate ended up at nearly 12%. So it's not as bad now, I agree. There are plenty who have given up on finding work though, and removed themselves from the stats. Just like in USA. And our employment rate for young adults is quite a lot higher than 6.2% on average. Anyway, that was not really my point. Labour does better, (on average, using normal Labour policies) than National at getting people employed, and they don't do all of it by enlarging the public service. If those jobs in the last three Labour terms were fake ones, the average GDP per person (adjusted for inflation) would have gone down. Instead, it kept going up. Until National took over. The country went into idle mode on average, after 2008.

Unemployment is not a non-issue. Every time a supermarket opens and is looking for 30-40 staff, there are huge queues applying for the jobs. Others are working part-time jobs, often at near the minimum wage, which is below a living wage. If employers felt that they couldn't exploit this situation, wage rates would have to increase. You're right, some people could move to find better jobs, in certain situations. But I'm sure that if a job was found for everyone on the dole now, at least as many more would pop up looking for work.

iceman
09-11-2013, 11:52 AM
Not a bad summary from Duncan Garner
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Duncan-Garner-Five-years-on--Key-passes-the-test/tabid/721/articleID/38848/Default.aspx#.Uny2rZSkwly

artemis
09-11-2013, 01:55 PM
......................Unemployment is not a non-issue. Every time a supermarket opens and is looking for 30-40 staff, there are huge queues applying for the jobs. Others are working part-time jobs, often at near the minimum wage, which is below a living wage. If employers felt that they couldn't exploit this situation, wage rates would have to increase. You're right, some people could move to find better jobs, in certain situations. But I'm sure that if a job was found for everyone on the dole now, at least as many more would pop up looking for work.

Many in the long queue when a new supermarket opens will be able to show WINZ they applied, safe in the knowledge they are never going to get hired. Check out the folk lined up on the telly. They may be great workers but many don't seem to have made much effort to present well.

When you talk about 'living wage' it would be helpful if you also mentioned that the quantum was established for a one income family of 2 adults and 2 children. Which is around 6% of the relevant workforce. It was not intended to be the amount a single person or smaller family needs to live on. Have a think about what happens if every individual, regardless of age, skills or family circumstances. is paid the 'living wage' I suggest to you the ranks of the unemployed, especially the young, would swell quickly.

There may be unemployed people not appearing in the stats. However, they have income from somewhere. If they qualified for a benefit why would they not apply? And I believe they are accounted for in the HLFS.

The black economy in NZ is conservatively estimated at over $2 billion a year. Just sayin'.

elZorro
09-11-2013, 05:22 PM
Artemis, regarding WINZ requirements, maybe you are right, this has been going on for decades. But the living wage is enough for a family of 2 adults and 2 children, where one is working 40 hrs a week, and the other is working 20 hours a week.

artemis
09-11-2013, 07:50 PM
Artemis, regarding WINZ requirements, maybe you are right, this has been going on for decades. But the living wage is enough for a family of 2 adults and 2 children, where one is working 40 hrs a week, and the other is working 20 hours a week.

I stand corrected on the latter point, as I have not checked, but my original points stand - the 'living wage' is calculated for a family with children, and this group is a very small proportion (6%) of those currently on minimum wage. So the proposal is basically to raise the minimum wage to the 'living wage' regardless? Makes no sense.

And next, if it is tacitly agreed individuals need that amount to live on, no doubt we shall see benefit levels raised as well. Slippery slope?

I assume the amount is based on average rents? If so, are state house tenants subject to some abatement of the living wage, or do they get a windfall.

elZorro
10-11-2013, 08:58 AM
Artemis, I have also done a bit more research, and apparently the WFF subsidy is an important factor at this level of family earnings, and was taken into account by the group who originally proposed a living wage. I have never claimed WFF, so I don't know much about it.

http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/files/embargo%20file/Living%20Wage%20Investigation%20Report.pdf

This means that a single person, who cannot claim WFF, and has no backup income from a spouse working part-time, will have less income in total. Let's say about $400 take-home at the current minimum wage of $13.50. They are obviously not going to be renting a house for themselves, they'll need to be flatting, paying board at home, etc. Even driving to work in their own car will be a major out-of-pocket expense of probably $50-$100 a week including vehicle repairs. If this minimum wage situation kept up for a long time, the person involved will not be saving much unless they have a frugal lifestyle, or take on another part-time job.

These figures focus attention on what those on a benefit are paid, by the state. It's obviously less, so more restrictive in terms of what they can do. A single person of a benefit can be stuck with a lot of time on their hands, any owned transport will be very basic and little used, rental costs normally have to be shared, and their chances of presenting well at a job interview reduce over time. Their employment record is against them.

I thought that all state house rents were now at market rates. National put this in place a few years ago, but had to backtrack after widespread protests. Here is the current deal.


The Fifth Labour Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand), elected in 1999, placed a moratorium on state house sales and re-established the income-related rents. In 2001, Housing New Zealand, the Housing Corporation, and part of the Ministry of Social Policy were combined into the Housing New Zealand Corporation, so that policy and administration for state housing are controlled by a single agency.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing#cite_note-46)
A program to modernise state houses was introduced after 1999. Existing houses are insulated, the layout is improved, and in many cases the kitchen and bathroom are replaced.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing#cite_note-47) A "Community Renewal" program, started in 2001, attempts to build supportive networks amongst residents of state housing areas, reduce crime and increase safety, and improve community services.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing#cite_note-48)
Rents are now limited to 25 percent of net household income for tenants earning up to the rate of New Zealand Superannuation (for 2013/14, this is $357.42 per week for singles, $549.88 combined per annum for couples). For those earning more than the rate of NZ Super, rent is 25 percent on income up to the NZ Super rate, then 50 percent on income above this up to the property's market rent.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing#cite_note-49)

NZ needs an economy so strong that employers can all afford to pay staff close to the living wage as a minimum. It doesn't mean that benefits have to go up, but there need to be credible jobs for the unemployed to apply for, with a good chance of landing one. As I have said before, well-paid manufacturing jobs close to urban centres fit the bill, exactly the sort of jobs that National's hands-off policies have usually helped to decimate. Except for the Tiwai Point smelter, and they only helped there, so they could get extra cash out of Meridian.

craic
10-11-2013, 10:10 AM
Well paid jobs in the manufacturing sector can only exist with subsidies. I bought a pair of shoes made in Thailand yesterday - If they were made here by people in well-paid employment, I coud not have bought them, or would not have bought them so either the state subsidises their pay or my pension - Which would you suggest? (they were Hush-Puppies, and cost $99)

slimwin
10-11-2013, 10:26 AM
I suggest steel capped work boots for you craic. Much safer with that chainsaw!

elZorro
10-11-2013, 11:46 AM
Well paid jobs in the manufacturing sector can only exist with subsidies. I bought a pair of shoes made in Thailand yesterday - If they were made here by people in well-paid employment, I coud not have bought them, or would not have bought them so either the state subsidises their pay or my pension - Which would you suggest? (they were Hush-Puppies, and cost $99)

Maybe you could run faster in Hush-Puppies if another bluegum topples in your vicinity, Craic. They are one of the few brands with flexible soles, the rest feel like work boots.

Did I ever suggest that NZ gets back into the shoe-making business? There are heaps of things that we should be manufacturing though. Anything with a good profit edge, and this usually means technology and capital has to be put in first. We should stop concentrating on property, and get our businesses thriving first.

iceman
11-11-2013, 09:30 AM
Artemis, I have also done a bit more research, and apparently the WFF subsidy is an important factor at this level of family earnings, and was taken into account by the group who originally proposed a living wage. I have never claimed WFF, so I don't know much about it.


Below is an example of what a "typical low income family" would gain from this ill thought out campaign. 2/3 of the increase in their "wage" would effectively go to Central Government in the form of lower WFF subsidies. I really don't get this idea ! I wonder if the Mayors of Auckland and Wellington, who have both jumped onboard this campaign, have really thought this through !

" Treasury calculated that for a family of two parents and two children, where one partner worked 40 hours a week for $16 an hour and the other 20 hours for the minimum wage of $13.75, and where they paid $380 weekly to rent a three-bedroom house, the living wage would lift their take-home pay by $63 a week, or just over $1 an hour. But it would leave the Government $126 a week better off through the tax and transfer system. "

craic
11-11-2013, 09:59 AM
No you didnt mention shoes or any other "anything with a good profit edge" If you care to list two or three of the"heaps of things" I can guarantee that the will be both capital and enterprise. There is always a steady stream of Kiwis looking for another angle or another profitable enterprise so wild generalisations dont even help your beloved Labour Party.
Maybe you could run faster in Hush-Puppies if another bluegum topples in your vicinity, Craic. They are one of the few brands with flexible soles, the rest feel like work boots.

Did I ever suggest that NZ gets back into the shoe-making business? There are heaps of things that we should be manufacturing though. Anything with a good profit edge, and this usually means technology and capital has to be put in first. We should stop concentrating on property, and get our businesses thriving first.

blackcap
11-11-2013, 03:47 PM
O Look! ... MP's screwing taxpayers again and Key saying to give them a break!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154765

Belgarion, all is well within the law so I do not see where your problem with this is. Maybe the law needs to be changed but don't obfuscate the facts. They (the MP's) are not actually taking anything they are not entitled to. And the article did not mention Labour MP's but who knows how many there may be doing the same thing.

Major von Tempsky
11-11-2013, 04:01 PM
EZ belongs to the same cargo cult as Rod Oram.

Oram believes if you chant "added value", "added value" often enough and penalize the industries that we do have a comparative advantage in we will solve NZ's economic problems.
EZ believes we should attack on the low labour cost industries front while simultaneously raising wages.

Alice in Wonderland stuff.

elZorro
11-11-2013, 06:03 PM
EZ belongs to the same cargo cult as Rod Oram.

Oram believes if you chant "added value", "added value" often enough and penalize the industries that we do have a comparative advantage in we will solve NZ's economic problems.
EZ believes we should attack on the low labour cost industries front while simultaneously raising wages.

Alice in Wonderland stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean here, MVT. It's much easier to look at what is working at the moment, sort of. Haier has taken over FPA and delisted it. They are in the process of adding another 150 IT engineers in Auckland to work on software and hardware for new whiteware to be sold all around the world. They are taking on the top engineering students from our universities and polytechnics. It could be argued that at least the staff wages for the designing will stay in NZ, and that these people will end up being highly skilled. Maybe F&P could never have cracked the big overseas markets by themselves, and certainly there are real costs in manufacturing that sort of gear here. But hats off to F&P, they have come up with some terrific gear over the years. Could any of that technology be applied into more niche markets where the profit margin is better, and manufacturing could be done here? I'm sure that would be the case.

Should we be designing upmarket furniture in pine to sell worldwide? Adding more value to all of our primary sector outputs as Rod Oram opines? Yes, of course, and where are the incentives to take those risks, the backing? For larger businesses with the ability for copious paperwork and the jumping of high bars, it is no problem. But these businesses are often slow acting, not as dynamic as SMEs, when SMEs are given a nudge. And larger firms are very good at automating, with the intent of dropping staff per unit of output. While this is part of the profit equation, it should not be the only answer. It could be argued that if you need to reduce staff to break even with the same turnover, then your business is running on too lean a margin, and something needs to be done about profit centres. You have to be reasonably optimistic to run a business, so therefore your attitude will be that there are always some profit centres out there somewhere.

It is these profit centres which allow for better wages.

slimwin
11-11-2013, 07:00 PM
Upmarket and pine. There's two words you don't often hear together..

iceman
11-11-2013, 07:32 PM
Blackcap,

Snouts at the trough.

Belgie as blackcap says, they are playing it perfectly above board and following the rules. There is no issue here.
If you want to talk about "snouts in the trough", look at how many National MPs that have had their day are voluntarily leaving early at the next election, to pursue careers outside Parliamen. Do you see the same in Labour, which is full of deadwood ? No you don´t because they generally have very limited skills to find decent paying jobs outside of Parliament/Government/Unions. That´s why they hang onto the "trough" as long as they can. No wonder they are pushing hard for the silly " living wage". Purely out of self interest for life beyond Parliament when they´ve beenthrown out ?

blackcap
11-11-2013, 08:39 PM
Blackcap,

Based on your assertion that because its not against the law then I suggest we all get behind Eric Watson's run for PM.

It would appear that there aren't any labour MPs doing the same thing. Why? I understand they were discouraged to do so as it would be construed exactly as it has been ... Snouts at the trough.

Belagarion.. there were 32 MP's doing this, a mix of national, labour etc. The only difference was that these 6 National MP's were not disclosing it (because they didnt have to). That was the only difference between them and the other MP's. The actions concerned (snouts in the trough as you so succinctly put it) is happening across the board.

elZorro
11-11-2013, 08:46 PM
There won't be any MPs who would work for someone else on the minimum wage. Although I had one soon-to-be-elected MP helping a contractor's team paint my house quite a few years back. But I think you've hit the nail on the head Iceman. Many National MPs are there for the contacts and to set themselves up. Many Labour MPs will be there because they really do want to empower everyone in NZ.

I am being bombarded with propaganda of the worst kind.. it assumes I have dementia and have never seen any stats.


Today - 8 November - marks five years since this National-led Government was first elected.

We've seen the country through some tough times.

When we came into office, the country was in recession, the worst global financial crisis for generations had just struck, and we were facing years of government deficits and ever-increasing debt.

The day after we were elected, we got to work to turn this around, and we haven't stopped since.

I'm proud of our achievements.

Together with the rest of New Zealand, the Government has persevered even in the face of some big challenges along the way.

Under National, the country is in good shape. Our economy is among the fastest-growing in the developed world. Our hospitals are performing more operations every year. Our schools are lifting achievement for young people. And recorded crime is at its lowest rate for 33 years.

We want to take New Zealanders with us as we build on our momentum towards the brighter future you and your family deserve.... etc etc


Barf!

Aaron
12-11-2013, 07:05 AM
Bill English was working some scam a long time ago renting his Wellington house while living in taxpayer provided accommodation. What are you saying blackcap that MPs particularly National MPs have an entitlement mentality. Looking at the value of some of the properties in the herald this morning you can see why a capital gains tax is too hard for National. I was tending towards national but this is just another example of a group of people out for themselves. This is probably true for a lot of politicians not just national but increasing a regressive tax like GST to reduce a progressive income tax and not consider capital gains tax being hard on beneficiaries yet not considering means/wealth testing national voting national superannuitants who don't need help from the NZ taxpayer. I applaud the MPs in the paper today who have done well and created wealth jobs prosperity what I am against is their desire not only to not contribute something in the form of tax but try and get as much as they can from the taxpayer. They are part of the greedy generation and the greedy generation will continue to support them. maybe if we means tested National Superannuation the savings could be ploughed into tertiary education and we could start investing in the young people in our country and the countries future.

blackcap
12-11-2013, 08:46 AM
. maybe if we means tested National Superannuation the savings could be ploughed into tertiary education and we could start investing in the young people in our country and the countries future.

This would be a disaster for the country and investment in general and probably end up losing a lot of jobs. There would be no incentive for people to get ahead, create wealth, save etc. The onus would be to spend now. Additionally it would not work as everyone would throw all assets into trusts for the kids thus defeating the purpose.
Also I have a big problem from an ethical/philosophical point of view where you would reward the wasters who have nothing left at 65 and penalise those that have been prudent and saving and doing the right thing.

craic
12-11-2013, 09:52 AM
And apart from everything else, you would have to create a whole new beaurocracy to administer and police the thing and that includes Courts to enforce etc. The simplest way - the cheapest way and the best way to tax is the GST way.
This would be a disaster for the country and investment in general and probably end up losing a lot of jobs. There would be no incentive for people to get ahead, create wealth, save etc. The onus would be to spend now. Additionally it would not work as everyone would throw all assets into trusts for the kids thus defeating the purpose.
Also I have a big problem from an ethical/philosophical point of view where you would reward the wasters who have nothing left at 65 and penalise those that have been prudent and saving and doing the right thing.

artemis
12-11-2013, 12:41 PM
And apart from everything else, you would have to create a whole new beaurocracy to administer and police the thing and that includes Courts to enforce etc. The simplest way - the cheapest way and the best way to tax is the GST way.

Mary Holm (yeah I know) had a column couple of months back in which she concluded that means testing super would cost more than it saves. Apart from the cost and hassle of compliance for individuals and bureaucrats, and the moral hazard.

In Oz, the age pension is means and assets tested. A lot of people make a lot of money from helping people adjust their affairs. Some of my rellies among them.

Major von Tempsky
12-11-2013, 01:55 PM
Actually Belge,I have 2 economics degrees and some other stuff besides :-)

Aaron
12-11-2013, 04:06 PM
This would be a disaster for the country and investment in general and probably end up losing a lot of jobs. There would be no incentive for people to get ahead, create wealth, save etc. The onus would be to spend now. Additionally it would not work as everyone would throw all assets into trusts for the kids thus defeating the purpose.
Also I have a big problem from an ethical/philosophical point of view where you would reward the wasters who have nothing left at 65 and penalise those that have been prudent and saving and doing the right thing.

Taxpayer funded university education worked in the past in fact all the baby boomers and older would have had the opportunity to get a taxpayer funded tertiary education. Are you suggesting that anyone with a NZ university degree is a disaster costing the country jobs. I don't follow your argument. means/asset testing I agree currently people can put assets in trust. maybe now MPs can't hide assets in trust so well we can have a serious debate about getting rid of the trust concept as trusts don't seem to serve any great purpose. I agree that it would irk me to reward wasters and penalise savers but the majority of people still would rather look after themselves and contribute to the community than take from it although the greedy generation somehow feel justified taking super when they don't need it. The main argument I hear is that "I have paid tax all my life" that said previous governments haven't saved much to cover everyone's retirement. (probably spent too much on free education and cradle to grave welfare that future generations may not get).
Are you suggesting we pay welfare to those who don't need it because those that do need help are hopeless bastards. Or maybe you would prefer letting those who haven't saved starve.
Superannuation made up 43% of the government welfare costs for year ended 30/6/2011 the next highest was family tax credits at 10%. The DPB was 9% of the welfare spend. The government is running deficits not saving for the future. The young people of NZ should be enraged at this intergenerational theft. I guess they won't wake up until there is nothing left in the kitty.

Aaron
12-11-2013, 04:16 PM
And apart from everything else, you would have to create a whole new beaurocracy to administer and police the thing and that includes Courts to enforce etc. The simplest way - the cheapest way and the best way to tax is the GST way.
Being cheap and easy is your justification for a regressive tax that taxes the less well off harder. I guess they are reasons but not any that I would agree with. Any capital gains tax would need to be as pure as the NZ GST with as few exemptions as possible including the family home or it probably is a waste of time. I would also wait until after the next major recession otherwise you could end up with a lot of losses.