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

Hoop
13-11-2011, 10:45 AM
Belg ... Maybe we don't mind which two of the major parties get in..eh...both are very good stable political parties with Centre bias

A reference site to look at...Below is an URL to a list of 177 countries ranked from 1 being the worst to 177 the best place in the world using the Failed States index formalae.......I suggest you look at the bottom of the rankings...eh?...hate to see you moving to Somalia (1st) or Chad (2nd)... ;)



Belg since NZ (172) is not good enough..I hope you realise that there isn't many better stable countries in the world to live in....but you are in luck as NZ although close it is not Godzone...Finland (177) has that honour.

So I guess you are moving to one of these better than NZ Countries..eh?..Denmark (173) Switzerland (174) Sweden (175) Norway (176) or Finland (177)...I hope when you move you'll consider flying AirNZ...(Disc: I'm a shareholder:D)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index

fungus pudding
13-11-2011, 11:13 AM
Belg ... Maybe we don't mind which two of the major parties get in..eh...both are very good stable political parties with Centre bias




Except this time around Labour propose introducing bureaucracy which will serve no purpose and in fact do more harm than good. Namely the GST and EQC - both complete nonsense. They're not for me.

Aaron
13-11-2011, 11:25 AM
The thing I can't understand is that Labour and National are coming out with policy that is quite different. e.g. raising retirement age, capital gains tax, asset sales etc yet National still look likely to win easily at the election. I can only think that the greedies(baby boomers) who have had cradle to the grave welfare all their lives don't want to give anything back for NZ's future generations unless it’s their own kids and National is playing to that but do baby boomers make up that much of the population? Could be John Key seems like a nice guy and Phil Goff lacks any charisma and although I say policy is more important than personalities I struggle to be bothered reading the policy coming out in the herald.
Labour has only come out with some sensible sounding policy as they were likely to lose anyway but to me it has greatly improved their appeal. The capital gains tax might be the clincher for me all though fluffing around with GST on fruit and veg seems like a big waste of time and a vote grabbing exercise. Although I would have to wait to 67 to receive any superannuation but if I had my way I may not get any anyway as I think the superannuation surcharge should be brought back in as well as death duties while looking to lower income tax and GST. I also think trusts should be legislated away as I struggle to see any worthwhile use for the discretionary family trust that isn't already provided by limited liability companies. It might save a lot of arguments and legal and court costs as well. As long as Trusts are available to game the system people will use them. Myself included.

Rather than leaving NZ Belgarion why don't you support a party that has policy that is aligned with your beliefs. People don't seem to want to admit supporting any particular party but if more and more respected people weren't afraid to show support for particular parties the rest of us could be more easily persuaded to change.

Although rabid political party supporters on the left or right always come across as a bit extremist and scary.

Too many kiwis see National Super as a "right" not a "privilege". Students used to think that free tertiary education was a "right" not a "privilege".

Disclaimer; Middle lower class, not particularly wealthy but not entirely sure that self interest would swing me another way if I was wealthier.

fungus pudding
13-11-2011, 11:55 AM
The thing I can't understand is that Labour and National are coming out with policy that is quite different. e.g. raising retirement age, capital gains tax, asset sales etc yet National still look likely to win easily at the election. I can only think that the greedies(baby boomers) who have had cradle to the grave welfare all their lives don't want to give anything back for NZ's future generations unless it’s their own kids and National is playing to that but do baby boomers make up that much of the population?

And some of us baby boomrs have paid a fortune in tax, such as the Muldoon period where my marginal rate was 66%. Do I need the super? No I won't (2 years to go) but for all that, it's a very small rebate on the tax I am paying, so I'll certainly take it, not that I'll use it personally. CGT is prettyt much an envy tax to pacify the masses who seem to think you can buy and sell properties or other assetts and not pay tax, and that's simply not the case. There are big downsides to CGT, mainly it stops things happening, but for all that I'll go along with it as long as it has a repatriation clause similar to USA. Otherwise - forget it.

Major von Tempsky
13-11-2011, 11:57 AM
Automatic stabilisers are the thing.

In biology/evolution the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid don't manage to reproduce and are eliminated from the gene pool.

In politics the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid (a) can't be bothered/understand how to register (b) if they do can't be bothered to vote on the day.

This is a natural automatic stabiliser in favour of National.

fungus pudding
13-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Automatic stabilisers are the thing.

In biology/evolution the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid don't manage to reproduce and are eliminated from the gene pool.

In politics the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid (a) can't be bothered/understand how to register (b) if they do can't be bothered to vote on the day.

This is a natural automatic stabiliser in favour of National.

But there are more Pauls than Peters, so socialist parties who always propose robbing Peter to pay Paul have an unfair advantage. Peter doesn't stand a chance. NZ will always favour socialist parties, which pretty much describes all parties with the exception of the Libertarians.

Aaron
14-11-2011, 08:08 AM
But there are more Pauls than Peters, so socialist parties who always propose robbing Peter to pay Paul have an unfair advantage. Peter doesn't stand a chance. NZ will always favour socialist parties, which pretty much describes all parties with the exception of the Libertarians.

The polls would indicate that there are more Peters than Pauls. I guess National is buying more votes than Labour these elections.

fungus pudding
14-11-2011, 08:33 AM
The polls would indicate that there are more Peters than Pauls. I guess National is buying more votes than Labour these elections.

Statistics tell us there are more Pauls. The polls tell us that the Peters see the policies that Labour is currently spouting as nonsense.

Major von Tempsky
16-11-2011, 06:00 PM
Note that the reaction of two random passersby that TVNZ stopped for the news tonight was that it was a private conversation - end of story.

Now, if you Belge had a private conversation with a friend and you were seized upon by the media to disclose it (ok, unlikely because you are not a celebrity) and were threatened that unless you disclosed/proved exactly what was in the conversation they would assume you were discussing (a) paedophile sex tours of Thailand and (b) methamphetamine P drug deals
and would publish lurid allegations and stories on that basis what would your reaction be? What would your reaction be if they kept following the same tack?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer Yes or No only.

If its ok to beat the News of the World to death for illegal eavesdropping why isn't it ok to beat the Sunday Herald to death for illegal eavesdropping?

If it was all a mistake why didn't the Herald apologise and hand the tape over?

Instead it secretly made another copy of the secret tape and handed it over to another media player. Hardly the actions of an innocent unpremeditated party.

Aaron
17-11-2011, 07:28 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5972674/Key-storms-out-of-media-conference

Wtahc the video ... A laugh out loud moment as dear of Key sounds like a broken record ... Now I really want to hear the tape!

I think its important for a party that is trying to win the election on personality not policy that a discussion that may reflect badly on its most important personality, is not let out of the bag.
The media were there to broadcast smiles and handshakes not to find out what makes the two John's tick and what they really think about things. Media should stick to their job, eh John.

ari
19-11-2011, 10:24 AM
http://soundcloud.com/whaleoil/winston-peters-on-the-tea-tape

JBmurc
19-11-2011, 02:43 PM
I may not get any anyway as I think the superannuation surcharge should be brought back in as well as death duties while looking to lower income tax and GST.

I agree on the death duties ,I know of so many very weathly parents than will be leaving some huge Capital plus 500k+ p.a passive cashflow's to their 2-3 kids that will never have or work a day in their lives...esp when you look at the large imbalance of wealth to the baby boomers a Death duties 10% over 400k-500k assets etc could be pooled into fund that invests into NZ instead of selling are assets we should be building them up.

Major von Tempsky
20-11-2011, 01:55 PM
If Labour wins we all emigrate.
Somewhere the government is perpetually business friendly and non socialist.
Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Bahamas,....any other suggestions?

All that superannuation stuff is BS. If you are competent and saved and invested all your life you shouldn't need the State crutch.
I'd be quite happy to totally lose my 65+ super....

Although one has to except all those unfortunate people who invested in dodgy finance companies and dodgy enterprises and were defrauded.

I followed the principle that I never invested with a finance company because there was no capital return. A principle that has worked brilliantly for me, nearly all NZ's 53 finance companies went down in a heap. I used to look at the constant stream of mail from companies like Nathan imploring me to invest. As it got more and more frenetic I thought they must be just about to go down. Obligingly they then did. No more nuisance mail from them.
Nor did I buy shares in the companies of any of the 1987 villains like Petrecevic or shady characters like the Hotchin brothers or high flying speculative real estate ventures. Also worked brilliantly for me.

Lego_Man
21-11-2011, 11:05 AM
Automatic stabilisers are the thing.

In biology/evolution the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid don't manage to reproduce and are eliminated from the gene pool.

In politics the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid (a) can't be bothered/understand how to register (b) if they do can't be bothered to vote on the day.

This is a natural automatic stabiliser in favour of National.


Makes you wonder how the right ever gets in in Australia, where voting is compulsory.

elZorro
26-11-2011, 09:12 AM
If Labour wins we all emigrate.
Somewhere the government is perpetually business friendly and non socialist.
Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Bahamas,....any other suggestions?

All that superannuation stuff is BS. If you are competent and saved and invested all your life you shouldn't need the State crutch.
I'd be quite happy to totally lose my 65+ super....

Although one has to except all those unfortunate people who invested in dodgy finance companies and dodgy enterprises and were defrauded.

I followed the principle that I never invested with a finance company because there was no capital return. A principle that has worked brilliantly for me, nearly all NZ's 53 finance companies went down in a heap. I used to look at the constant stream of mail from companies like Nathan imploring me to invest. As it got more and more frenetic I thought they must be just about to go down. Obligingly they then did. No more nuisance mail from them.
Nor did I buy shares in the companies of any of the 1987 villains like Petrecevic or shady characters like the Hotchin brothers or high flying speculative real estate ventures. Also worked brilliantly for me.

Major, if it was so easy for you to negotiate away from the finance companies, how is it that so many got trapped with their bank savings? I put it to you that probably the whole finance sector votes National, and it is these scheming rogues who took that money from unwary investors (offering very little extra possible return over bank savings) many of whom relied on their (often well-meaning) accountants and brokers for advice. I dare say you had to be inside the system to be that wary of it. Because there was very little warning going on in the press, until it was too late.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 08:14 AM
No need to emigrate :-). 48 + 1.1 + 0.7 + 2.8 = 52.6.

Loved the observation that most emigrants to Australia vote Labour which is why the polls in NZ swung to National :-).

elZorro
28-11-2011, 08:55 AM
OK Major, a great result if you're already set up and prosperous. The top few percent will be happy with this outcome. The rest followed the media and may not have bothered to look hard at the policies. The left voting block was still large, and where National doesn't have many coalition supporters anymore, Labour does. It'll only take a couple of byelections to possibly change things a lot.

I'll be watching for: a release of the tea party recording (which, if it had come out earlier, might have changed the election), confirmation of a zero police intake this year, moves to use the asset sales as a contra for Iwi relativity clauses coming due next year, and sundry benefit bashing and public sector sinking caps. National's message is: the tax take is down (that's their policy, it worked), we can't afford to take a punt with anything anymore.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 09:11 AM
The tea party recording has already been substantively released by Winston Peters so you are flogging a dead horse, the election's over mate. You lost. Remember? It won't get released.

Reminds me of a famous pack media scrum interview of a witty personality in NZ a few years ago.

Baying media: Answer the question! Answer the question!

Witty Personality: I'm not going to answer it because it's a hypothetical question.

Baying media: In what sense is it hypothetical?

WP: In the sense that I'm not going to answer it. (stalks off smiling).

Leaving all the bystanders and even some of the media laughing.

As for the police intake non-issue - keep up with the news mate, keep up with the news. It's a police decision and they've said the first of the 4 yearly intakes has been cancelled but not the next 3.

Next non-issue? You put 'em up and I'll bat 'em down.

elZorro
28-11-2011, 10:03 AM
Er, you answered two Major, not the next three, which are the really big ones. Look also for a bigger jobless queue, that won't help any of us.

peat
28-11-2011, 10:44 AM
stability is good for the market, sure...
but asset sales will draw out any surplus liquidity and keep a lid on the markets overall?

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 10:57 AM
Ok, next three.
"moves to use the asset sales as a contra for Iwi relativity clauses coming due next year, and sundry benefit bashing and public sector sinking caps. National's message is: the tax take is down (that's their policy, it worked), we can't afford to take a punt with anything anymore. "

Hmm, I see some observers/iwi bods are suggesting they might be in favour of asset sales if the Iwi could get preferential terms (lower prices to Iwi? extra Waitangi settlements in asset sales?). That is a corrupt approach and I think Iwi should only get the same terms as Mums and Dads (incl me :-)).

Public sector sinking caps - actually I worked in the public sector for many years and I totally agree that public sector sinking lids are needed.
I observed at first hand how petty bureaucrats built straw go slow empires and told continuing lies to sustain and expand them. I also noted the vast expansion of policy wonks, thousands upon thousands in Labours 9 years. Any graduate in something completely impractical like sociology, anthropology, political science could (and did) get a job in a NZ public dept doing "policy research". Reading overseas material and rewriting it with an NZ flavour. The world was their oyster.

Sundry benefit bashing. I think everyone noticed how there was a huge move, scores of thousands, from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit over Labour's 9 years. These cases need to be honestly investigated and at least some reinstated on unemployment benefit. Solo mums who make a career out of serially having babies of unknown parentage to avoid working obviously need to be cracked down hard on. Otherwise I personally don't think young mums should be forced out to work unless there is congenial part time employment available and decent child care.

POSSUM THE CAT
28-11-2011, 12:04 PM
MVT Where are all the jobs for these people coming from unless we reintroduce import restrictions & cut immigration. The same as it would have been been better sense to pay a little bit more for the new electric trains & less on the unemployment benefit.

fungus pudding
28-11-2011, 12:22 PM
stability is good for the market, sure...
but asset sales will draw out any surplus liquidity and keep a lid on the markets overall?

I doubt that would have anything more than a short term effect. By the time ACC, Cullen fund and the Kiwsaver schemes have taken a slice, I doubt that the pvt. money will amount to much anyway. And if the Maori party are any good at negotiating they'll end up with a bigger chunk than the 10 % restriction. Three seats = bargaining power.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 12:30 PM
There's no such thing as a "plan to reduce unemployment" or "green jobs".

Green jobs are made by taxing productive enterprises in order to employ inspectors and bureaucrats to enforce petty rules such as no woodburners allowed older than 15 years regardless of whether they are still going well.

The tax is a drag on the economy and the green jobs are unproductive.

Obama has been attacked in the US for not having "a plan to reduce unemployment" and similarly some Brit migrant here, unqualified in economics attacked Key in the same way.

The only way to stimulate jobs is by stimulating the economy so that productive enterprises want more employees.

elZorro
28-11-2011, 01:10 PM
There's no such thing as a "plan to reduce unemployment" or "green jobs".

Green jobs are made by taxing productive enterprises in order to employ inspectors and bureaucrats to enforce petty rules such as no woodburners allowed older than 15 years regardless of whether they are still going well.

The tax is a drag on the economy and the green jobs are unproductive.

Obama has been attacked in the US for not having "a plan to reduce unemployment" and similarly some Brit migrant here, unqualified in economics attacked Key in the same way.

The only way to stimulate jobs is by stimulating the economy so that productive enterprises want more employees.

Yes Major, I agree with the last line. If that is National's intention, then at the start of their first term they basically told the 450,000 small businesses that they were brainless and incapable of producing new and innovative goods and services. The R&D tax credits for example were summarily canned (saving a massive $30mill p.a. when the net benefit could have been far higher) and they gave the grants to just a few big businesses and CRIs.

That must go down in history as one of the dumbest policies ever, and it was just to spite Labour. There is no other sensible reason for it. So now we have to look to the bumbling CRIs and the automated big businesses (that readily sell out their manufacturing overseas), to come to our rescue. That won't happen, and meanwhile 450,000 small employers don't have an incentive to get in there and help solve the problem. We can employ school leavers to sweep the floor at a reduced rate, thanks National.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 06:01 PM
The Soviet Union job creation didn't work Belge.

Vast underemployment and totally uncompetitive with other countries.

Halebop
28-11-2011, 11:05 PM
The Soviet Union job creation didn't work Belge.

Vast underemployment and totally uncompetitive with other countries.

...and China?

elZorro
29-11-2011, 06:21 AM
...and China?

Good one Halebop. Our work email is deluged with offers from China to do some of our work for us, recently we even had an employee of a Chinese supplier we are using, try to poach our custom for his own business he was setting up. Raw capitalism, but with a huge energy.

We don't get much at all in the way of contact from USA, Europe, even Australia.

Recent example: 3m x 0.8m street banners in colour for NZ$109, sent over from China. These feature words and logos hand stitched onto a dyed colour banner, to copy your artwork as close as possible. That'll keep quite a few people occupied.

I think the lesson is: don't set up business in NZ doing nothing but banners, it's a cut-throat area. Try something with a bit more edge to it.

upside_umop
30-11-2011, 06:00 PM
Yes Major, I agree with the last line. If that is National's intention, then at the start of their first term they basically told the 450,000 small businesses that they were brainless and incapable of producing new and innovative goods and services. The R&D tax credits for example were summarily canned (saving a massive $30mill p.a. when the net benefit could have been far higher) and they gave the grants to just a few big businesses and CRIs.

That must go down in history as one of the dumbest policies ever, and it was just to spite Labour. There is no other sensible reason for it. So now we have to look to the bumbling CRIs and the automated big businesses (that readily sell out their manufacturing overseas), to come to our rescue. That won't happen, and meanwhile 450,000 small employers don't have an incentive to get in there and help solve the problem. We can employ school leavers to sweep the floor at a reduced rate, thanks National.

I think you will find the R&D tax credits were costing a lot more than that. $700m rings a bell. Plus, it wasn't as though this was hugely productive use of the money - accounting firms were just using projects that clients had on their books to qualify for the tax credits and take a big cut of it. It was aimless spending....

elZorro
30-11-2011, 07:01 PM
I think you will find the R&D tax credits were costing a lot more than that. $700m rings a bell. Plus, it wasn't as though this was hugely productive use of the money - accounting firms were just using projects that clients had on their books to qualify for the tax credits and take a big cut of it. It was aimless spending....

UU, too black and white - in fact I applied for my own R&D tax credit and it took me ages. It would have been a bit easier in future. I received a few thousand dollars (15% of my actual costs), one of just 300 applications. Another business I knew was audited, two bods flew in. They passed. Don't believe all you read, yes, the official line from National was that it would be rorted. Crap, utter lies. It was just a great policy, they couldn't admit it.

I'm still getting patents sealed from that work in 2009, I intend to have a lot more control over my business in future. If a lot more businesses did that after a small incentive, maybe the country would get somewhere. Do you have a better policy for the 450,000 small businesses in NZ? I would like to hear it.

fungus pudding
30-11-2011, 07:13 PM
UU, too black and white - in fact I applied for my own R&D tax credit and it took me ages. It would have been a bit easier in future. I received a few thousand dollars (15% of my actual costs), one of just 300 applications. Another business I knew was audited, two bods flew in. They passed. Don't believe all you read, yes, the official line from National was that it would be rorted. Crap, utter lies. It was just a great policy, they couldn't admit it.

I'm still getting patents sealed from that work in 2009, I intend to have a lot more control over my business in future. If a lot more businesses did that after a small incentive, maybe the country would get somewhere. Do you have a better policy for the 450,000 small businesses in NZ? I would like to hear it.

Credit for wages paid, credit for rent paid, electricity, advertising, how abut a credit for accounting work? You name it. Each one is as valid as R+D credits. Most businesses accept that there are costs and overheads to meet, and do not expect special treatment. Your mates, the Labour party, in one of their rare bursts of sanity, got rid of most business subsidies in the 80s. Good on them for that.

elZorro
30-11-2011, 07:39 PM
Credit for wages paid, credit for rent paid, electricity, advertising, how abut a credit for accounting work? You name it. Each one is as valid as R+D credits. Most businesses accept that there are costs and overheads to meet, and do not expect special treatment. Your mates, the Labour party, in one of their rare bursts of sanity, got rid of most business subsidies in the 80s. Good on them for that.

OK, here's how it works FP. The R&D work hours are totalled up from worksheets and the costs for that depend on which staff do the hours. Parts and external costs are brought in. Then the proportion of the hours spent on R&D compared to the whole business operation hours is used as a multiplier for the overhead costs. So if R&D uses up 20% of the firm's time, then you could claim 15% of 20% of the overheads, or 3% of the overheads. That's one big rort isn't it. Oh, and be ready for an audit on that calculation. This method is only acceptable if you have multiple projects where it would otherwise have been difficult to split out actual overhead costs. The formula was hidden deep inside one inch of printed documentation.

R&D tax credits were meant to grab the attention of business owners. At 12.5% it would be a small but clever incentive to smarten up business in NZ. That's what we all need really.

elZorro
02-12-2011, 05:43 PM
Good on yer Winston.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/national/politics/6072903/Peters-won-t-rule-out-release-of-tea-tape

upside_umop
02-12-2011, 06:49 PM
UU, too black and white - in fact I applied for my own R&D tax credit and it took me ages. It would have been a bit easier in future. I received a few thousand dollars (15% of my actual costs), one of just 300 applications. Another business I knew was audited, two bods flew in. They passed. Don't believe all you read, yes, the official line from National was that it would be rorted. Crap, utter lies. It was just a great policy, they couldn't admit it.

I'm still getting patents sealed from that work in 2009, I intend to have a lot more control over my business in future. If a lot more businesses did that after a small incentive, maybe the country would get somewhere. Do you have a better policy for the 450,000 small businesses in NZ? I would like to hear it.

I work for a big four accounting firm. Other ideas? I guess ones that are well costed and target genuine business needing to take the money to take that 'next step' with the risk. If businesses were going to do it already (i.e. the project), I don't see any reason for a tax credit.

fungus pudding
02-12-2011, 07:20 PM
OK, here's how it works FP. The R&D work hours are totalled up from worksheets and the costs for that depend on which staff do the hours. Parts and external costs are brought in. Then the proportion of the hours spent on R&D compared to the whole business operation hours is used as a multiplier for the overhead costs. So if R&D uses up 20% of the firm's time, then you could claim 15% of 20% of the overheads, or 3% of the overheads. That's one big rort isn't it. Oh, and be ready for an audit on that calculation. This method is only acceptable if you have multiple projects where it would otherwise have been difficult to split out actual overhead costs. The formula was hidden deep inside one inch of printed documentation.

R&D tax credits were meant to grab the attention of business owners. At 12.5% it would be a small but clever incentive to smarten up business in NZ. That's what we all need really.

It's got nothing to do with the calculation method. You're obviously interested because this is the area you dabble in. But it's unfsir to tax one business and hand that money to another business.

elZorro
03-12-2011, 08:31 PM
UU: I think you will find the R&D tax credits were costing a lot more than that. $700m rings a bell. Plus, it wasn't as though this was hugely productive use of the money - accounting firms were just using projects that clients had on their books to qualify for the tax credits and take a big cut of it. It was aimless spending....


I'm disappointed with your opinions, FP and UU. I did notice accountancy firms on the web saying the R&D tax credits were difficult to do, best leave it to them. Well, if you have a decent cashbook with plenty of categories, it's not that hard. And no-one understands the R&D projects more than the staff and supervisor or owner of the business. By the time we totalled up what we'd done in a year that fitted the criteria, we were pretty proud of the work. We in fact produced some research findings at a tiny cost, from a little business, that any CRI would have been proud of. Sometimes our outputs look better than a CRI produces with their 5-year million-dollar prototypes. And here's the thing FP, the spending on these projects wasn't just internal, we outworked and networked, employed an extra uni student or two, and gave them some work experience. The tax savings or incentives were well spread out.

Everyone says that NZ's R&D spend is too low compared to our GDP, and the govt portion is only 50% of other countries' percentages. I can tell you that the most efficient use for R&D funds will be in small, fast-acting businesses with low overheads. These businesses won't be using UU's firm for any type of tax minimisation, and they'll be ready for an audit if it is called for. Maybe the small firms don't have big sales channels ready for the outputs, but they have every right to work towards that goal. They can licence their ideas, sell them outright, or spend the five-ten years it might take to get the thing going.

fungus pudding
03-12-2011, 09:26 PM
I'm disappointed with your opinions, FP and UU. I did notice accountancy firms on the web saying the R&D tax credits were difficult to do, best leave it to them. Well, if you have a decent cashbook with plenty of categories, it's not that hard. And no-one understands the R&D projects more than the staff and supervisor or owner of the business. By the time we totalled up what we'd done in a year that fitted the criteria, we were pretty proud of the work. We in fact produced some research findings at a tiny cost, from a little business, that any CRI would have been proud of. Sometimes our outputs look better than a CRI produces with their 5-year million-dollar prototypes. And here's the thing FP, the spending on these projects wasn't just internal, we outworked and networked, employed an extra uni student or two, and gave them some work experience. The tax savings or incentives were well spread out.

Everyone says that NZ's R&D spend is too low compared to our GDP, and the govt portion is only 50% of other countries' percentages. I can tell you that the most efficient use for R&D funds will be in small, fast-acting businesses with low overheads. These businesses won't be using UU's firm for any type of tax minimisation, and they'll be ready for an audit if it is called for. Maybe the small firms don't have big sales channels ready for the outputs, but they have every right to work towards that goal. They can licence their ideas, sell them outright, or spend the five-ten years it might take to get the thing going.

It's a little like the music incentives and NZ quotas etc. Those schemes have never produced a Beethoven or Beatles, just as no R+D scheme will ever produce a Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

elZorro
04-12-2011, 09:11 AM
It's a little like the music incentives and NZ quotas etc. Those schemes have never produced a Beethoven or Beatles, just as no R+D scheme will ever produce a Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

So we shouldn't try at all? 450,000 small businesses each taking on a person for 20 hours on average would remove the dole queue. I watched The Nation and Q&A this morning. In a roundabout way just about everyone mentioned that to get us out of the mess we're heading for, we'll need better exports, smarter businesses. The person who conveyed that most clearly was David Shearer.

I have a question for UU: with all those businesses going past your view each year, surely some of them show the gem of an idea for the way forward, or are they really at your firm solely to minimise tax?

Major von Tempsky
08-12-2011, 08:59 AM
Time to put this thread permanently to bed :-)

National won.

fungus pudding
08-12-2011, 09:09 AM
Time to put this thread permanently to bed :-)

National won.

Or keep it going till 2014 so elzorro can tell us about R+D for 3 years non-stop. :p

elZorro
08-12-2011, 05:43 PM
Actually MVT ... This thread was about my fellow Kiwis. Not about who would win. I was critical of their thought processes leading into the election. I see the outcome as an indictment on Kiwis' grasp of economics and fair play. I remain extremely dissapointed.

I agree with your thoughts here Belge. By not replying, UU confirms what I suspected about the bigger accountancy firms, it's often all about tax. No matter what policies are in place, business owners will look after themselves (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10771749)to a large extent, they don't need a National govt to help with that. They just know there'll be a few extra perks if National are in. But these perks may not point in a good direction for the country as a whole, and that's why we're disappointed.

I see the Labour leadership race has awakened interest in the political process. Like a business starting out with a listing on the NZX, we'll need nothing but good stories from them for the next three years. That will be the job of the new leader. My vote would go with David Shearer.

Note FP, I refrained from mentioning you-know-what (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10771753)..

Major von Tempsky
08-12-2011, 06:49 PM
Look at the scoreboard! Look at the scoreboard!

"Note FP, I refrained from mentioning you-know-what.. "

You don't mean....not the....EPSOM TEA PARTY???!!!!

fungus pudding
08-12-2011, 06:59 PM
I agree with your thoughts here Belge. By not replying, UU confirms what I suspected about the bigger accountancy firms, it's often all about tax. No matter what policies are in place, business owners will look after themselves (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10771749)to a large extent, they don't need a National govt to help with that. They just know there'll be a few extra perks if National are in. But these perks may not point in a good direction for the country as a whole, and that's why we're disappointed.

I see the Labour leadership race has awakened interest in the political process. Like a business starting out with a listing on the NZX, we'll need nothing but good stories from them for the next three years. That will be the job of the new leader. My vote would go with David Shearer.

Note FP, I refrained from mentioning you-know-what (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10771753)..

David Shearer will do a lot less harm to Labour than Cunliffe, who is widely disliked by the public, but that's all that can be said for Shearer. Good bloke but no fire.

fungus pudding
09-12-2011, 08:45 AM
Should be perfect then! Just like Key. ;)

Key's got plenty of get up and go. That's why he spends all day doing stuff he doesn't have to.

POSSUM THE CAT
09-12-2011, 10:03 AM
KEY is all Bullsh*t & no substance

777
09-12-2011, 10:06 AM
Well he still the best choice of anyone available no matter what you think of him.

POSSUM THE CAT
09-12-2011, 12:24 PM
777 that is your opinion. Others do not agree

karen1
09-12-2011, 12:25 PM
Can't think why you say Key has no fire. He fires aplenty - withering looks of disdain at any who disagree with him.

And agree he's got plenty of get up and go, any time there's a camera nearby.

The best choice available? More like the best of a bad offering, and probably only because of the hundreds of photo opportunities he wrangles. "Mr Popularity" "oh, I know who that is"

And to think we've got one of his little lads in our town, who emulates his master to a t. Back by default.

elZorro
09-12-2011, 02:57 PM
I guess all is not lost, if there are a few about who don't religiously vote National (or worse, ACT).

777
09-12-2011, 03:24 PM
With the press following his every move how the hell does he keep away from the camera? Helen had to put up with the same thing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Winston has appeared more times than John Key since the election

And elZorro are there not a lot who religiously vote Labour(or worse,Greens). Sort of balances things out don't you think.

777
09-12-2011, 03:25 PM
777 that is your opinion. Others do not agree

That goes without saying.

elZorro
09-12-2011, 07:32 PM
With the press following his every move how the hell does he keep away from the camera? Helen had to put up with the same thing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Winston has appeared more times than John Key since the election

And elZorro are there not a lot who religiously vote Labour(or worse,Greens). Sort of balances things out don't you think.

Maybe some just vote on the 'unselfish' side more often. Chris Trotter had plenty of things to add on the Labour leadership battle today, some of it reported here.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6114981/Shearer-support-grows-in-Labour-leadership-race)It would make sense for a team to be formed, but apparently Cunliffe has plans to leave if he doesn't get the leadership (another blog, impeccable sources?).

fungus pudding
09-12-2011, 07:50 PM
Maybe some just vote on the 'unselfish' side more often. Chris Trotter had plenty of things to add on the Labour leadership battle today, some of it reported here.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6114981/Shearer-support-grows-in-Labour-leadership-race)It would make sense for a team to be formed, but apparently Cunliffe has plans to leave if he doesn't get the leadership (another blog, impeccable sources?).

I don't know how true that is, but Labour would certainly lift its popularity with him out of the way.

Major von Tempsky
09-12-2011, 08:14 PM
Yep, impeccable sources.

(a) phone hacking

(b) someone "accidentally" left a microphone in disguised form, switched on, in position to overhear a private conversation :-)

elZorro
09-12-2011, 08:19 PM
I don't know how true that is, but Labour would certainly lift its popularity with him out of the way.

FP, here's the page I found. (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/12/trotter_calls_for_shearercunliffe_ticket.html) I wonder if the accuracy of the source is better than the spelling..

fungus pudding
10-12-2011, 07:19 AM
FP, here's the page I found. (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/12/trotter_calls_for_shearercunliffe_ticket.html) I wonder if the accuracy of the source is better than the spelling..

I doubt that Parker could ever be minister of finance for obvious reasons.

POSSUM THE CAT
10-12-2011, 02:31 PM
So much for John Key's fabulous mandate a one seat majority he may have to kiss Winston's Feet or is he going begging to the Maori Party you can say state asset sales are off the menu

fungus pudding
10-12-2011, 04:48 PM
So much for John Key's fabulous mandate a one seat majority he may have to kiss Winston's Feet or is he going begging to the Maori Party you can say state asset sales are off the menu

If he needed to he'd just call a snap election. He'd bolt back in and Act would bring in several seats. So no need to worry.

POSSUM THE CAT
11-12-2011, 08:19 AM
Fungus Pudding Stop dreaming

fungus pudding
11-12-2011, 09:26 AM
Fungus Pudding Stop dreaming

Have a look at the polls.

POSSUM THE CAT
11-12-2011, 09:46 AM
Fungus Pudding What Polls the same ones that said that National was going to get 55% of the vote & would not need coalition partners

elZorro
11-12-2011, 10:46 AM
If he needed to he'd just call a snap election. He'd bolt back in and Act would bring in several seats. So no need to worry.

Cripes, you're not an ACT voter are you FP? :)

fungus pudding
11-12-2011, 11:28 AM
Cripes, you're not an ACT voter are you FP? :)

Should be. They certainly have the most sensible policies.

elZorro
11-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Should be. They certainly have the most sensible policies.

Ha Ha, you're pulling my leg right FP? I had to have a look at the ACT website for a couple of minutes to find these barely-thought-out policies. Have a quick look at them and they might make sense, if you'd had a couple of beers and were about to nod off.


ACT will keep working for a stronger economy. A Party Vote for ACT is a vote to:

• Push the next government to reduce wasteful spending. In 2005, Labour was spending 29 per cent of the national income. Today, the same figure is 35 per cent. ACT would push the next government to return spending to the level it was at in 2005 by repealing the “election bribe” spending of the past two elections with a view toward getting the top personal tax rate down to 25% and the company tax rate to 12.5%;
• Push the next government to lock in lower taxes by passing ACT’s Spending Cap Bill into law. The Bill would require government spending to increase only by the level of inflation and population growth. By reducing government spending and taxes, it would increase the rewards for wealth creation;
• Push the next government to pass ACT’s Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill would test all new regulations for unnecessary red tape, making it easier to do business;
• Sell state assets such as power generation companies; the overwhelming evidence is that such valuable assets produce more wealth when managed privately;
• Allow more mining when the economic benefits outweigh the environmental costs.


There must be plenty of others, in the vein of trickle-down theory, look after business owners, forget the environment, dismantle the public sector, etc.

If you have high income, the public sector is just a nuisance. But if you've been let go by a business, say, that sees continued profits at all costs as its only reason for existence, then the social policies that Labour brought in all those years ago, are the backstop. To pay for those, we need taxes (or inflation). I think we can have all of these positive outcomes, including profitable businesses employing lots of people, if taxes are only reduced in areas that foster positive actions. In other areas, they should be brought in to stop negative activity. As a relative pointed out to me yesterday, a CGT would make business owners more likely to hold out for better prices, making sales to overseas investors more profitable for the country as a whole. A CGT is also likely to encourage investment away from property, and into more lucrative business areas, because the annual returns from a half-way decent business will more than match a hopeful (taxed) capital gain from property down the track.

Major von Tempsky
13-12-2011, 08:20 PM
All very sensible policies designed to ramp up the productive part of the economy and incentivise productive effort.
Only thing missing is cutting down on existing red tape such as the Resources Management Act.

If you want to catch up with Australia and attract and keep more entrpreneurs here its the way to go.

elZorro
13-12-2011, 10:19 PM
All very sensible policies designed to ramp up the productive part of the economy and incentivise productive effort.
Only thing missing is cutting down on existing red tape such as the Resources Management Act.

If you want to catch up with Australia and attract and keep more entrpreneurs here its the way to go.

Not another ACT voter, this is too much.. OK, Major, the RMA, which is designed to make people think twice before bulldozing themselves a jetty into a river or draining a swamp, lowering a lake, as well as numerous other sabotage that we've all heard about, including taking more than your share of water. The RMA is there for a reason. Sure, regional councils get a fair bit of their income from it. But if it didn't come from those wanting to work on infrastructure, every ratepayer would have to pay more. And most of us aren't doing a lot most of the time. So I'm sick of farmers etc moaning about the bloody RMA. Get over it?

The research shows that trickle down theory doesn't work, it's a lie, it works the other way to pull profits into the top sector only. So unless the policies are suitable for smaller businesses who are just starting out, they won't help most of us at all. More tax reductions at the top end won't help, either. Unless you're already well off, and then I guess ACT is a great party, just for you.

Lego_Man
14-12-2011, 08:43 AM
As a relative pointed out to me yesterday, a CGT would make business owners more likely to hold out for better prices, making sales to overseas investors more profitable for the country as a whole. A CGT is also likely to encourage investment away from property, and into more lucrative business areas, because the annual returns from a half-way decent business will more than match a hopeful (taxed) capital gain from property down the track.

Sounds like inefficient capital allocation to me.

fungus pudding
14-12-2011, 09:15 AM
Fungus Pudding What Polls the same ones that said that National was going to get 55% of the vote & would not need coalition partners

With so many parties around now, it's almost impossible than any will ever get over 50% - in spite of any polls. MMP is designed to provide coalition govts., and it certainly does that.

fungus pudding
14-12-2011, 09:21 AM
As a relative pointed out to me yesterday, a CGT would make business owners more likely to hold out for better prices, making sales to overseas investors more profitable for the country as a whole. A CGT is also likely to encourage investment away from property, and into more lucrative business areas, because the annual returns from a half-way decent business will more than match a hopeful (taxed) capital gain from property down the track.


We can pick our friends, but we're all stuck with our relatives. Don't beat yourself up over it.

Major von Tempsky
15-12-2011, 07:35 AM
And for the anti-assets sales flock of parrots (hint No 1, you never succeed with a negative message, you need a positive message) , you will of course have noted that (a) the OECD recently advised the NZ Govt that it needed to make some asset sales to improve the economy and (b) that Julia Gillard's Labour Government is now moving towards power company sales in Australia.

POSSUM THE CAT
15-12-2011, 08:37 AM
Major von Tempsky (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/member.php?5562-Major-von-Tempsky) When has the OECD ever given any good advice. The Australian power company sales so far have been a disaster for the ordinary Australian

fungus pudding
15-12-2011, 08:45 AM
Major von Tempsky (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/member.php?5562-Major-von-Tempsky) When has the OECD ever given any good advice. The Australian power company sales so far have been a disaster for the ordinary Australian

Really? Do tell us more.

Halebop
15-12-2011, 06:19 PM
And for the anti-assets sales flock of parrots (hint No 1, you never succeed with a negative message, you need a positive message) , you will of course have noted that (a) the OECD recently advised the NZ Govt that it needed to make some asset sales to improve the economy and (b) that Julia Gillard's Labour Government is now moving towards power company sales in Australia.

The best argument National has presented is that we have to sell something to make the books balance. That is not a positive message.

If we want to back centre-right stewardship of the economy and the contention that National are better masters of growth, then retaining assets is the smart thing to do. Asset sales is a 'no' vote for the local economy (and therefore a no vote for national?).

I also prefer my thinking to be a little more independant. Asia can still recall the advice received from the OECD (advice that came with teeth via the IMF) about debt management. Think we know now what a bunch of cr@p the OECD has proved to be.

On asset sales I want to see interest saved and the benefits vs income earned and the benefits over a time series. Until I see something to the contrary, methinks inflation and compounding is a vote for assets retained. How about less dogma and more math?

elZorro
15-12-2011, 07:23 PM
The best argument National has presented is that we have to sell something to make the books balance. That is not a positive message.

If we want to back centre-right stewardship of the economy and the contention that National are better masters of growth, then retaining assets is the smart thing to do. Asset sales is a 'no' vote for the local economy (and therefore a no vote for national?).

I also prefer my thinking to be a little more independant. Asia can still recall the advice received from the OECD (advice that came with teeth via the IMF) about debt management. Think we know now what a bunch of cr@p the OECD has proved to be.

On asset sales I want to see interest saved and the benefits vs income earned and the benefits over a time series. Until I see something to the contrary, methinks inflation and compounding is a vote for assets retained. How about less dogma and more math?

I agree Halebop: On Tuesday a power fault at Huntly threatened the National Grid. 200,000 customers were dropped as part of load shedding. Genesis have threatened that Huntly is not profitable enough and they'd like to retire all of the old four steam generators. Oh sure, when on Tuesday lunchtime, two out of four were running flat out, generating 500MW. Split the power companies up even more, add market forces more directly, and we'll get heaps of this sort of rubbish going on. It's a bit like Pike River, in retrospect the best and safest use of that site would be to have Solid Energy operate it. With no market forces, just have a tidy, careful planning stage, but do it right. These are important national assets, not playthings.

Major von Tempsky
16-12-2011, 09:28 AM
It's not "the best argument National has presented" (doubt you've even read half of them anyway) but the arguments presented by OECD, IMF, Treasury, Reserve Bank, in the Australian Labour Government and expert worldwide economic advice!

Here's something to put in your pipe from Shane Jones

"Labour MP Shane Jones says his party has to realise that National has the numbers to push through state asset sales, and he will not criticise iwi which wish to invest in them.

Yesterday Mr Jones said that although Labour opposed state asset sales they were now inevitable and iwi wanting to invest in them for commercial reasons should not be pilloried.

He indicated a more pragmatic stance on the issue was ahead as Labour sought to re-build its links with business and enterprises.

"We can continue to criticise that programme, because we are in Opposition. But ... the Labour Party needs to learn to count in terms of the election outcome.

"The Government has the numbers to pursue its programme. I certainly won't get too precious if various iwi step up to the plate and say 'we want to be part of this action'. That's a decision they're entitled to take. They've got sovereignty over their own commercial decisions."

The position is similar to that of the Maori Party - which is opposed to state asset sales but has said it will support any iwi which wants to buy shares."

elZorro
16-12-2011, 09:50 AM
It's not "the best argument National has presented" (doubt you've even read half of them anyway) but the arguments presented by OECD, IMF, Treasury, Reserve Bank, in the Australian Labour Government and expert worldwide economic advice!

Here's something to put in your pipe from Shane Jones

"Labour MP Shane Jones says his party has to realise that National has the numbers to push through state asset sales, and he will not criticise iwi which wish to invest in them.

Yesterday Mr Jones said that although Labour opposed state asset sales they were now inevitable and iwi wanting to invest in them for commercial reasons should not be pilloried.

He indicated a more pragmatic stance on the issue was ahead as Labour sought to re-build its links with business and enterprises.

"We can continue to criticise that programme, because we are in Opposition. But ... the Labour Party needs to learn to count in terms of the election outcome.

"The Government has the numbers to pursue its programme. I certainly won't get too precious if various iwi step up to the plate and say 'we want to be part of this action'. That's a decision they're entitled to take. They've got sovereignty over their own commercial decisions."

The position is similar to that of the Maori Party - which is opposed to state asset sales but has said it will support any iwi which wants to buy shares."

Unfortunately the truth of the matter might be that some tribes like Tainui are due for top-up payments from the state under their agreement, once any other major Waitangi settlements are made in 2012. Instead of cold hard cash (which we are a bit short of, not enough National and Act supporters paying their fair share of tax), National has come up with "asset sales" as a way of keeping this a bit below the radar. Iwi will be gifted some of these shares in that case, as a contra.

Did you see Russell Norman from the Greens on TV this morning. It's to be hoped the govt will front up with 51% of any capital raising for the partially-sold companies in perpetuity. If not, they'll end up with less than 51% share, as a result of dilution...I hadn't thought of that. They are onto it, the Greens.

fungus pudding
16-12-2011, 10:00 AM
Unfortunately the truth of the matter might be that some tribes like Tainui are due for top-up payments from the state under their agreement, once any other major Waitangi settlements are made in 2012. Instead of cold hard cash (which we are a bit short of, not enough National and Act supporters paying their fair share of tax), National has come up with "asset sales" as a way of keeping this a bit below the radar. Iwi will be gifted some of these shares in that case, as a contra.

Did you see Russell Norman from the Greens on TV this morning. It's to be hoped the govt will front up with 51% of any capital raising for the partially-sold companies in perpetuity. If not, they'll end up with less than 51% share, as a result of dilution...I hadn't thought of that. They are onto it, the Greens.

Well every other bugger's thought of it. It has been well covered. (Greens are really on to it alright ! ) I have no idea why you think voters for any particular party do not pay their fair share of tax. I'll bet my bottom dollar that I pay a higher percentage of my total income than you do. This time I voted National - even though the tax changes last year increased my tax bill by about 60k with no change in income.

elZorro
16-12-2011, 11:08 AM
Well every other bugger's thought of it. It has been well covered. (Greens are really on to it alright ! ) I have no idea why you think voters for any particular party do not pay their fair share of tax. I'll bet my bottom dollar that I pay a higher percentage of my total income than you do. This time I voted National - even though the tax changes last year increased my tax bill by about 60k with no change in income.

Hi FP, I just stuck that bit in about tax to keep the thread going.. seemed to work :). Your case is a bit different, but it is certainly true that most high income earners are paying less tax under National. This shows up in the tax take dropping back, I did a chart of that somewhere. It's down by about 5 billion a year I think.

So has National said that they will not allow dilution to occur? That would be good to know.

It is amazing that on just about any topic, two opposing sides to the argument can be shown. It's just a case of which facts you leave out, is it not?

fungus pudding
16-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Hi FP, I just stuck that bit in about tax to keep the thread going.. seemed to work :). Your case is a bit different, but it is certainly true that most high income earners are paying less tax under National. This shows up in the tax take dropping back, I did a chart of that somewhere. It's down by about 5 billion a year I think.

So has National said that they will not allow dilution to occur? That would be good to know.

It is amazing that on just about any topic, two opposing sides to the argument can be shown. It's just a case of which facts you leave out, is it not?

It's a case of fairness. The one relavent fact is that about 10% of taxpayers still pay about 85% of the tax. 75% pay less than $2500.

elZorro
16-12-2011, 12:59 PM
It's a case of fairness. The one relavent fact is that about 10% of taxpayers still pay about 85% of the tax. 75% pay less than $2500.

Where did these figures come from FP? Here is the situation regarding PAYE, which implies it's not as rude as you suggest.

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53585/who-paying-21-billion-individual-paye

When you say tax, do you mean just the govt levied taxes on income, or do you mean to include Rates, GST, levies on fuel, cigs, alcohol, etc, which are all part of the picture? Lower income people must be paying a big portion of their weekly wage on levies/taxes in one form or another. Once you get above a certain point and overheads are covered, the tax rates we are left with now, are fairly affordable.

fungus pudding
16-12-2011, 01:12 PM
Where did these figures come from FP? Here is the situation regarding PAYE, which implies it's not as rude as you suggest.

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53585/who-paying-21-billion-individual-paye

When you say tax, do you mean just the govt levied taxes on income, or do you mean to include Rates, GST, levies on fuel, cigs, alcohol, etc, which are all part of the picture? Lower income people must be paying a big portion of their weekly wage on levies/taxes in one form or another. Once you get above a certain point and overheads are covered, the tax rates we are left with now, are fairly affordable.

Quite obviously I mean income tax. Of course they pay a higher percentage of their income for rates, fuel, fish, booze, weetbix etc. I thought there would be little point in stating the bleeding obvious.

elZorro
18-12-2011, 09:49 AM
Quite obviously I mean income tax. Of course they pay a higher percentage of their income for rates, fuel, fish, booze, weetbix etc. I thought there would be little point in stating the bleeding obvious.

FP, I made it quite clear I was talking about local body and central government taxes and levies, not the full value of goods and services. But I'm sure it's not even true that


75% (of taxpayers) pay less than $2500 (of income taxes per year). . But I would be interested in knowing the source of that statement.

fungus pudding
18-12-2011, 11:34 AM
FP, I made it quite clear I was talking about local body and central government taxes and levies, not the full value of goods and services. But I'm sure it's not even true that

. But I would be interested in knowing the source of that statement.

I'm not sure either. Quoted by Larry Williamson newstalk zb. Could be after wff

This will tell you something.

.http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploads/89385/files/230807/Who_Pays_Tax_in_New_Zealand.pdf

elZorro
18-12-2011, 12:44 PM
I'm not sure either. Quoted by Larry Williamson newstalk zb. Could be after wff

This will tell you something.

.http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploads/89385/files/230807/Who_Pays_Tax_in_New_Zealand.pdf

Thanks for that FP, so now we have about 1/3 of the answer. Because the government receives a lot more than just income tax, to make up the 60 billion or so of total annual tax receipts. So whoever does that right-wingish blog (and they might need to check their spelling) has conveniently forgotten about GST and other indirect taxes, which are far more heavily paid for by the masses. And guess where National has made the increases, the opposite result to the top tax rate of course. That was a great leading question in Parliament.

Income tax does not equal total tax paid by a household. That was my point. The GST tax on power, fuel, all goods and services, must be a fair chunk out of the income of the lower paid households. Where are those figures?

fungus pudding
18-12-2011, 01:00 PM
Thanks for that FP, so now we have about 1/3 of the answer. Because the government receives a lot more than just income tax, to make up the 60 billion or so of total annual tax receipts. So whoever does that right-wingish blog (and they might need to check their spelling) has conveniently forgotten about GST and other indirect taxes, which are far more heavily paid for by the masses. And guess where National has made the increases, the opposite result to the top tax rate of course. That was a great leading question in Parliament.

Income tax does not equal total tax paid by a household. That was my point. The GST tax on power, fuel, all goods and services, must be a fair chunk out of the income of the lower paid households. Where are those figures?

Well - we all know high earners also pay more in GST individually, but if you want the exact breakdown email Bill English.

elZorro
18-12-2011, 01:15 PM
Well - we all know high earners also pay more in GST individually, but if you want the exact breakdown email Bill English.

I had another look at the chart FP, here's another set of figures that are accurate.

48.7% of households pay at least $4362 of (net?) income tax, as they have a combined income of $60,000 or more.

The topmost tier containing 9.7% of households on $150,000 or more income pay 70.7% of the net income tax, because they are counterbalancing the lowest income families in part, from the way the table is deliberately set up.

But their average income tax, possibly for two earners, is only $48,487 per year, so often just $24,000 per person. This elite group received $333 million of gross transfers from the govt, over $2,000 per household, that helped balance the tax. Let's say the average household income was $200,000 for that group, and that would surely be on the low side. The income tax percentage overall (net) is 24% or less. Not 28%-33%.

Yes, higher earners might buy more goods and services, and so pay more GST. But you posed all this in percentages, FP. I'd bet my bottom dollar that on average, the lower-paid pay a higher percentage of GST tax relative to their income, which also brings up their contribution to the state coffers.

Which brings me to another question. What use is it studying an income tax chart that has already factored in some welfare payments etc? Because the total income tax received in that chart started at 22 billion, had dropped to a net 11 billion, and yet the govt receives 51 billion odd in taxes in total, every year.

It's a nasty right-wing chart, that's for sure.

elZorro
18-12-2011, 08:51 PM
Treasury has a more balanced take on taxes and income. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun11/06.htm
Here is a basic chart showing that of the $51 billion in taxes obtained in the last financial year, 45% was income tax at $23Bill, 27% was GST at $14Bill (this will rise), and $7Bill or 14% from corporate tax and the same from "other". Government has other non-tax income of about $5Bill plus $24Bill from SOES etc (soon to drop), but the tax take is down by about $5Bill from when Labour was in office, and costs have increased. SOE/elimination income has risen, but this is a result of the earthquakes, and is more than balanced out.

Several interesting points: No doubt all households will be paying GST, there's no escaping it. Corporate tax paid seems very low by comparison, companies must on average be doing poorly. GST is becoming an important tax, already no. 2 on the list. It was only about 19% of the tax take in 2005-2006.
The tax on fuel is another universal one: 48.5c a litre of petrol is excise taxes, and GST of 15% applies on top of that, making it about 36% of the end-user price being taxes. All households effectively carry those tax costs too.

I made a quick calculation: if about 43% of the 1.656 million households in NZ have an average income of $30,000 p.a., (even if they pay no net income tax, FP) and spend 75% of it on GST-bearing goods and services, that amounts to $5.6 billion in GST alone. This is 11% of the total tax take.

Those of us with companies and businesses at least get to remove GST from the books, it is always carried by any domestic end-users in effect.

elZorro
21-12-2011, 06:48 AM
We all know farmers as a bloc are BIG National voters, so I'm putting this post here.

One of the more interesting factors in the elections this year was the intent of Labour and the Greens to eventually charge farmers more for irrigation water in particular. This would be a significant cost for some bigger dairy farmers, in the region of an extra $200,000 per year (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/rural/91378/claim-proposed-water-charges-would-send-farmers-bust). Naturally enough they were not too impressed with this, from their point of view they are only "borrowing water". But hang on, aren't Fonterra using over 500 tankers to transport vast quantities of (mostly water) around the country every milking day?

The press releases from Federated Farmers need to be kept an eye on. The new Federated Farmers President, Bruce Wills, had this to say in a press release of 11th December 2011 (he waited until after the election results were in).


Newton's Third Law of physics and water policy

Released 11 Dec 2011
Bruce Wills is the President of Federated Farmers and a version of which, was published in the Sunday Star Times
Who in their right mind could possibly disagree with "jobs, rivers, and kids"? This week the Conservation Authority went further. It said a "set of selected rivers should be genuinely protected in perpetuity in their natural state..." One of New Zealand's best journalists, Jon Morgan, rightly noted that the Conservation Authority can be pretty free in giving uncosted advice. As Newton's Third Law of physics seems to apply to policy, it means that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Morgan noted that "a severe reduction in cow numbers of the kind needed to protect these special rivers would hurt us all. How much hurt can we live with? I'm not sure. I need to see the data."
I genuinely want my daughters to lay down their roots here but they'll first need a prosperous country rich in the environment and the economy. If we collectively agree New Zealand isn't one large national park then it means we agree there is need for balance; treating the environment, the economic, the social and the cultural as equals. This got me thinking what it would take to return the Waikato River to a ‘natural state'. It would start with removing all nine hydro-electric power stations. Given these power stations generate 13 percent of all electricity it would be a tall and expensive ask and it gets harder the deeper you go. A ‘natural state' means removing introduced trout, carp and aquatic birds like mallard ducks. It would also mean turning agriculture from our biggest exporter into a cottage industry. We're talking about the loss of tens of billions of dollars so how could we afford to upgrade deficient urban sewerage schemes? If we're going down this road then all these costs need to be on the table as Jon Morgan rightly observed. History and global experience tells us that the worse an economy becomes, the more the natural environment suffers.

For the record, I don't define ‘clean water' as the ability to drink straight out of the Tamaki River, but the ability to see your hands in water without falling ill afterwards. When you look at all of your daily uses of water, where it goes and what happens to it, what does clean water mean to you?

The Conservation Authority's report is what happens when you exclusively focus on the environment. Balance is a word government and politicians need to understand because water is crucial to business and the jobs businesses generate. Small business is big when it comes to employment with just under one in three Kiwis working for companies with 19 or fewer employees. Small businesses and I include farms in this, are also disproportionately hit by government policy. That's why a spending cap on government spending is like sending Wellington to a fiscal gym. A leaner and healthier government with balanced regulation makes it easier for small businesses to grow and create jobs. Few farmers would disagree with what Ngai Tahu said on moving into dairy farming because we all share "ownership positions and leadership positions". Farmers are small business people who see their farms as intergenerational assets. At a recent meeting our words to this effect saw one government official say we sounded like Mâori. I take that as a compliment because our kids need a rich environment with economic hope, vision and opportunity. It's why we need to invest a lot more in their health, education and well being. Doing it all takes money.
For more information:
Bruce Wills, Federated Farmers President, 06 834 9704, 027 234 1516


Have a think about this during the holiday season (OK, dairy farmers don't get much of one) when you're using our waterways. Don't be perturbed if you can't drink or swim in the water. If you can touch it without falling ill, it's fine:mad ;:

Jon Morgan seems to have been captured by the farming establishment, he used to be be a bit more open-minded. He needs watching too.

upside_umop
28-12-2011, 06:28 PM
What water ways do you want to use that you feel like you can't use, Ez?

karen1
30-12-2011, 07:50 PM
Don't really want to get into the argument uu, having not followed this thread closely, but you're question got me thinking.

Fifty years ago, as a kid, I swum in the Waikato River opposite the then operational Meremere Power Station. It didn't kill me, but my Mother would have had she known! The water was always clear then. Twenty years ago I paddled that river from Cambridge to Tuakau over 3 days, with a group of Venturer Scouts. We had to lay down some pretty strict rules with the kids when we realised it's state, the other option being calling the trip off.

Almost every time my paddle hit the water I wanted to cry - the water was filthy, the flow pathetic. In fact there were areas we had to drag canoes over, amongst much rubbish. To see a once beautiful stretch of river reduced to this dismal state is devastating. I don't have the answers, wish I did. So much for progress.

elZorro
04-01-2012, 01:56 PM
Don't really want to get into the argument uu, having not followed this thread closely, but you're question got me thinking.

Fifty years ago, as a kid, I swum in the Waikato River opposite the then operational Meremere Power Station. It didn't kill me, but my Mother would have had she known! The water was always clear then. Twenty years ago I paddled that river from Cambridge to Tuakau over 3 days, with a group of Venturer Scouts. We had to lay down some pretty strict rules with the kids when we realised it's state, the other option being calling the trip off.

Almost every time my paddle hit the water I wanted to cry - the water was filthy, the flow pathetic. In fact there were areas we had to drag canoes over, amongst much rubbish. To see a once beautiful stretch of river reduced to this dismal state is devastating. I don't have the answers, wish I did. So much for progress.

Thanks for the post Karen1, my father swam across a clear Waikato River about 55 years ago, just a bit further upriver. The water quality degrades the further down you go now, easily measured with chemical testing. I was doing some flyfishing out the back of Te Awamutu a couple of years back, and the farmland stream held good trout and was clear. But we came around a corner and there were drystock standing in it. This was apparently normal policy for the farmer concerned.

Stock are still being grazed right up to the edge of the Waikato River. Occasionally stock and farm pests 'fall in', and decompose on the edges, providing eel food. This is the same water that is piped to Auckland, guess it is cleaned up before going into their system....

Tainui are intending to clean up the Waikato River and replant Kowhai trees all along its banks, with the new govt funding. Sounds like a good idea.

fungus pudding
05-01-2012, 07:52 AM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10776792

So is this good business? Selling off your cash cows? Would an investment company sell off its best performers? Nope, they'd sell off their worst! ... National really need to come clean with numbers that suggest selling off the family silver is in our best interests.

For a start the Govt. is not an investment company - it's a government. The average annual returns from these things over the last ten or so years has been 2.3% according to one analysis published, from memory, in the NBR. If you really think they are so wonderful - there's a golden opportunity coming up for you so you should be thrilled.

elZorro
08-01-2012, 03:23 PM
For a start the Govt. is not an investment company - it's a government. The average annual returns from these things over the last ten or so years has been 2.3% according to one analysis published, from memory, in the NBR. If you really think they are so wonderful - there's a golden opportunity coming up for you so you should be thrilled.

It would be a hollow victory if the only way they increase profits for shareholders is to increase power prices FP. Can you please dig a bit more and find the actual data please? I'll bet that it's better than 2.3% average over 10 years. Especially if you use depreciated asset values.

Here's the latest on R&D in NZ, not looking so good, but the National spokesman has put a positive spin on it. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10776752 Businesses will pay just enough to keep workers, i.e. keep pace with inflation, and forget about R&D for a few years to increase short-term profits and hold a safety margin. That is the message National has given them.

elZorro
08-01-2012, 03:34 PM
What water ways do you want to use that you feel like you can't use, Ez?

Hi UU, I just think we need to keep an eye on such things. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/6208860/Dairys-waterways-policing-woeful

fungus pudding
08-01-2012, 05:39 PM
It would be a hollow victory if the only way they increase profits for shareholders is to increase power prices FP. Can you please dig a bit more and find the actual data please? I'll bet that it's better than 2.3% average over 10 years. Especially if you use depreciated asset values.

Here's the latest on R&D in NZ, not looking so good, but the National spokesman has put a positive spin on it. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10776752 Businesses will pay just enough to keep workers, i.e. keep pace with inflation, and forget about R&D for a few years to increase short-term profits and hold a safety margin. That is the message National has given them.

Feel free to dig all you want. I can't be bothered. Suffice to say power prices prices will increase dramatically regardless of ownership, not just in NZ, but throughout the western world. Demand for power is rising fast and new generation costs heaps. Huge capital required.

elZorro
09-01-2012, 01:44 PM
Here's a post I do agree with:


People say "who cares who owns the power companies? The State-owned ones behave like bastards anyway". True, but the solution is not to flog them off to a private owner but to enact a policy that SOEs supplying an essential service actually be a public service rather than profit-obsessed corporations, which are publicly-owned whilst exhibiting all the worst characteristics of privately owned Big Business corporations. That requires a political decision to change the business model of those and other SOEs from profit to service. Now there's a radical concept - but it was the status quo in NZ until the 1980s and 90s. The country's electricity system existed to ensure uninterrupted supply of an essential service, at cost.

From VOXY site. National are selling off state assets for ideological reasons, not to pay back public debt, which is at reasonable levels. It's private debt which is a bit high.

FP: frankly disappointed in your thoughts there: I'm sure I read somewhere that 67% of National voters had below average IQs, but above average incomes and self-preservation instincts. I could keep on adding comments all day.

It was Ernst & Young who were commissioned to provide an independent valuation of all the SOEs in terms of profit. However, the document is hard going, I saw a synopsis of it but cannot track it down. Here is the original. http://www.comu.govt.nz/resources/pdfs/ey-soe-epa-nov11.pdf

Not happy with ROIC (normal return on investment capital)data, they subtracted from this the weighted actual cost of the capital (WACC), which is a bit ripe considering it's taxpayers' money. As this was around 6-7%, it dropped the 'returns' (called EP) markedly. Meridian (the standout) has paid dividends of up to 600 million per year, while posting profits of usually less than that. This would erode capital in the SOE. You can make these statistics look as bad or as good as you want, but an old concrete dam and turbines producing power for about 1c cost per kWhr and selling it for over 20c + GST has to be doing OK, even if 50% of it is lost in transmission.

elZorro
10-01-2012, 10:30 PM
Maybe Colin James is a Labour voter too. Anyway, I usually agree with his articles.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 10 January 2012


When the good don't speak out against the bad


The rest of the world would respect Islam more if it more often heard decent Muslims condemning Allah-invoked murders of innocents. There is a lesson in that for those who value capitalism.

The human purpose of religion is to bind humans in harmony, to make value in an otherwise valueless existence. Terror and murder is the antithesis of that. Those acts invite retaliation and regulation, which diminish all our lives, as we find at airports where we are treated like criminals, made to prove our goodwill in X-rays.

To function well, human society needs an agreed moral and civil order. The
The alternative is anarchy and atomism. Upholding the first and averting the risk of the second is the principal role of governments. In a liberal democracy, that requires broad agreement on the rules and their fairness.

Capitalism is anarchic and essentially amoral. (That is, lacking morality, not immoral.)

While it can be argued that to be effective in business in a fully competitive free market requires empathy to win and keep customers, markets are only to varying degrees free and many are dominated or greatly influenced by a limited number of corporations with quarterly reporting imperatives who win and keep customers through product satisfaction, persuasive marketing and brand rather than empathy.

Still, capitalism is the most efficient means so far devised of improving material welfare and, with that, individual and social welfare. But there is a tension between capitalism's amorality and a coherent society's need for an agreed moral order.

Hence the mid-twentieth-century "mixed economy" in "western" societies: capitalism made us richer and state regulation kept capitalism mostly within the moral order. Wealth and opportunity were shared enough to generate a sense of belonging, even despite large inequalities.

That "settlement" came under strain from the late 1960s: a rising generation worshipped individual freedom and chafed at the constraints of the moral order; cheap oil ended (for a time); the post-1945 order of fixed exchange rates collapsed and with that came "stagflation" (high inflation and low or zero growth); the east Asian "tigers" competed for jobs; economies became increasingly interdependent, with widely varying cost structures and capabilities which led to large transfers of production; the proportion of well-waged organised industrial workers declined.

The answer, widely adopted -- with special zeal here -- was to de-mix the economy: cut regulation, allow markets to find their levels and thereby promote productive efficiency. The state became more an occasional referee than a player.

That worked a treat. But it carried a big risk. It depended on those running capitalist enterprises self-regulating. Most do. Too many don't.

So we got leaky homes, a mine where safety was an optional extra and finance company sharpies who stole life savings -- human-made disasters which make nature seem tame. Plus a lot of less dramatic slyness, legal but at odds with moral order.

In the United States brilliant -- and now staggeringly rich -- "bankers" dreamt up schemes to bundle, chop, repackage and "insure" high-risk loans to people who couldn't meet the payments. They pumped a huge financial bubble, which sucked in many other countries' banks and investors. Its bursting has diminished, damaged or destroyed the livelihoods of large numbers of innocent civilians. That damage is continuing as we move into phase 2, the European phase, with maybe more to come.

The response has been to re-fight the 1930s Depression war. Generals do that in each new war until they figure the war is different and governments, central banks and international institutions haven't figured yet the nature of this war.

We are some distance from a new "normal". All we know, if we set aside econometric models and old textbooks, is that the old normal isn't normal.

What is likely is some re-mix: capitalism with tighter supervision. Capitalist irresponsibility and civilian hurt are the drivers.

Here we already have re-regulation of financial markets, new safety rules for mines and new environmental rules for offshore oil explorers, for example. Regulation recognises that an amoral wealth-creating system needs to be managed in a society where moral rules are needed for it to function well.

Those who run companies justifiably complain that regulation makes them less efficient and leaves the public less well off than it needs be.

But how many times did a good company leader castigate wayward capitalists in the de-mixed era? By their silence they left the field to the critics and let all capitalism be tainted by the actions of a few. In effect, they invited re-regulation.

Re-regulation means less new wealth to go round but also less damage to innocent people. Capitalism's anarchism is curbed. And the moral order society needs is firmer.

Fine capitalists (like fine Muslims) have a duty. It turns out ultimately to be to themselves.



-- 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

elZorro
12-01-2012, 12:27 PM
And Bryan Gould would get my vote too.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10778102

Major von Tempsky
18-01-2012, 10:23 AM
Capitalism is whatever you want to be :-)

Specialisation of occupations and exchange of output has been going on for over 100,000 years and must be built into homo sapiens sapiens dna by now. Similarly using durable outputs as a store of value for facilitating future exchanges of goods and services. Nor are you going to suppress private property of individuals or families, you'd be strung up.

The "anti-capitalism" brigade are whistling in the wind and away with the fairies.

It's interesting to see how the "Occupy" movements brekdown eventually into 4 warring elements
(a) "anti-capitalism"/socialist
(b) anarchist - which we don't really have or understand in NZ terms but roughly means replacing all government with local self government
(c) criminal elements
(d) druggie/homeless/alcoholic elements

elZorro
18-01-2012, 07:49 PM
Capitalism is whatever you want to be :-)

Specialisation of occupations and exchange of output has been going on for over 100,000 years and must be built into homo sapiens sapiens dna by now. Similarly using durable outputs as a store of value for facilitating future exchanges of goods and services. Nor are you going to suppress private property of individuals or families, you'd be strung up.

The "anti-capitalism" brigade are whistling in the wind and away with the fairies.

It's interesting to see how the "Occupy" movements brekdown eventually into 4 warring elements
(a) "anti-capitalism"/socialist
(b) anarchist - which we don't really have or understand in NZ terms but roughly means replacing all government with local self government
(c) criminal elements
(d) druggie/homeless/alcoholic elements

Major, I don't think most Labour party voters are anti-capitalists or even socialists, they just want to see a fairer divvy up of the pie. More from Colin James.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 17 January 2012


Why inequalities have come back into politics


Inequalities are the big political issue for 2012 and beyond. That's not because the left is about to surge -- the left has yet to connect principle to modern conditions. It is because the economic efficiency justifications are crumbling.

For three decades or so the ruling theory has been "all boats rise". Looser regulation and lower taxes freed entrepreneurs to innovate more, take more risks, make more money and thereby make us all richer.

Even if the already rich became very rich and the already very rich became staggeringly rich that was to the good because the whole economy would lift and even the lowly would lift with it. Theory said this was the most efficient route to wealth for the poor.

The working model was post-1945 United States: much more unequal than Europe and Australasia but its "middle class" got steadily richer.

Actually, since about 1980 a rising number of boats have risen more slowly and some not at all. Debt kept up an illusion the tide was rising but only till 2007, when debt soured. The result is widespread puzzlement, bewilderment, unease or anger, reflected in the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left.

Those extreme movements represent only small minorities of ideologues and super-angries. But they reflect wider discomforts and discontents -- evident in the Tea Party's raids on Republican candidacies and Republican fiscal conduct in the Congress and the fact that the Occupiers attracted serious media analysis and imitators across the "western" world, even, in a very minor key, here.

In is not the fact that there are inequalities that has caused the puzzlement, bewilderment, unease and anger. People widely understand, intuitively and from observation, that we are unequal in many ways -- genes, family circumstance, intelligence, physique, application, aspiration, educational opportunity, health and so on -- and that a wide range of random and significant influences can cause unequal income and wealth outcomes even from equal effort and ability.

Understanding that and knowing roughly where they fit, people make the best of their lives, with their equals.

They do that more comfortably if they believe they or their children have real opportunity to do better -- that is, if all boats are rising and/or there is socioeconomic mobility -- and if the collective (the state or community) eases the unfair inequalities.

Inequalities become a bother if they rigidify, if the state (or a state-backed class system) locks them in or appears to fix the rules in favour of the better-and-best-off, so inequalities grow -- and especially if too many boats stop rising.

Between 1979 and 2007, according to the OECD, while all boats rose in our sorts of countries, the boats in the top 20 per cent income band rose far faster than those in the other 80 per cent bands and those in the top 1 per cent rose far faster still.

After the debt veil was ripped off in 2007, there was initially a presumption that the old rules still held and that, with dollops of fiscal and monetary medicine, "recovery" would take hold and boats would rise again.

But "recovery" has been insipid or illusory. So inequalities -- particularly of income and wealth -- have seeped into politics: the two United States extremist movements, populist political parties in Europe and riots in Britain by an underclass not believing it has a stake in the establishment's game.

Angst about this used to be the preserve of the political left. But increasingly over the past six months it has been bothering the political right.

The World Economic Forum of major companies last week rated "severe income disparity" its top global risk for the next 10 years. Singapore is cutting politicians' pay by up to 51 per cent to counter rising public concern about income inequality.

In the Financial Times (FT), not exactly a left-wing rag, Lawrence Summers, a former banker and United States Treasury Secretary, wrote on November 20: "The extent of the change in income distribution is such that it is no longer true that the overall growth rate of the economy is the principal determinant of middle-class income growth. How the growth pie is distributed is at least as important."

On December 22 the FT's magisterial Martin Wolf, till 2007 a stout defender of the finance sector's brilliant but eventually disastrous inventions, declared in his column that the "huge rewards" for those with "ultra-high incomes" were "both unjust and inefficient". He demanded "a huge agenda" of government intervention, a "divisive" debate which "cannot be avoided if western democracies are to stay legitimate in the eyes of their peoples".

If such people -- and rafts of others -- think addressing inequalities is a political imperative in the north Atlantic countries, expect inequalities to feature here, too.

How that plays out -- and particularly how, or if, John Key comprehends and addresses it -- will be this year's most serious political show.





-- 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

Major von Tempsky
20-01-2012, 08:51 AM
Ah, I see, we're on to whether National will win in 2014.

My prediction is it will canter home again.

Fascinating how David Shearer took absolutely no notice of the tired and emotional Chris Trotter on his first day back at work and went off to visit the earthquake shattered people of Chch, ignoring the Stalinist 1951 waterfront strike in Auckland.

Was very amused to see a "threat" by the union movement that the Auckland waterfront strikers would emigrate to Australia if we weren't careful.

Hallelujah! Oh Lord let it be! I'd even contribute money to help pay for their tickets....

elZorro
30-01-2012, 08:58 AM
Ah, I see, we're on to whether National will win in 2014.

My prediction is it will canter home again.

Fascinating how David Shearer took absolutely no notice of the tired and emotional Chris Trotter on his first day back at work and went off to visit the earthquake shattered people of Chch, ignoring the Stalinist 1951 waterfront strike in Auckland.

Was very amused to see a "threat" by the union movement that the Auckland waterfront strikers would emigrate to Australia if we weren't careful.

Hallelujah! Oh Lord let it be! I'd even contribute money to help pay for their tickets....

David Shearer hasn't made any mistakes yet anyway, and if he was being unknowingly taped in a cafe he'd probably not appear as inane as John Key or John Banks. Here's the latest insight into how the trickle-down theory is working for the people of Northland, aided and abetted by National Party MPs Mike Sabin and Paula Bennett.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780696


It's not the kids' fault they go to school without lunch or the means to pay for it. The curious thing is that the government gets 1/3 of the gross profit from all gaming sites, plus the 15% GST. It adds up to a lot of income. Another 1/3 gets distributed through trusts to local and national non-profit organisations and sports bodies, with not much of it spent on items that would help the families of pokie players. The bulk of it goes to higher-profile outfits in general, in large lump sums.

Pokie sites tend to pull a large amount of cash out of struggling communities, quite a bit of it ends up in government coffers, but National are not too keen on helping out when they get the chance. Sounds all too familiar.

fungus pudding
19-02-2012, 07:58 AM
David Shearer hasn't made any mistakes yet anyway,


Do you not find his inaction on the land sales to the film producer, Cameron, a little hypocritical? Didn't he state outright that he would ban land sales to foreigners? Now the courts have handed him an open ticket to appeal for the same ruling to call for the OIO to review the sale; and what has he done? Nothing - not one murmur. That's because he went off half-cocked in the first place. Pity for Labour, but he just hasn't got it. However he did them a favour by burying Cunliffe, who I am sure the public would despise. They still need to find a new leader before they'll stand a chance, because David Shearer won't make it to the next election.

POSSUM THE CAT
19-02-2012, 04:15 PM
Vote of no confidence late this year new elections about March next year

elZorro
20-02-2012, 06:05 PM
Do you not find his inaction on the land sales to the film producer, Cameron, a little hypocritical? Didn't he state outright that he would ban land sales to foreigners? Now the courts have handed him an open ticket to appeal for the same ruling to call for the OIO to review the sale; and what has he done? Nothing - not one murmur. That's because he went off half-cocked in the first place. Pity for Labour, but he just hasn't got it. However he did them a favour by burying Cunliffe, who I am sure the public would despise. They still need to find a new leader before they'll stand a chance, because David Shearer won't make it to the next election.FP, he might just be taking his good time. I see he got to 10% as preferred leader the other day, and Key is going backwards..Regarding land sales, the farming process is so inefficient that anyone who wants to spend top dollar on immovable land should be able to purchase. If they start getting smart and producing direct energy (water heating at 80%, photovoltaic at 25%), then I might change my mind. Farming for meat/wool/dairy is about 0.04% efficient in terms of solar energy. This is a fundamental problem for NZ.

Another astute column from Colin James.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 21 February 2012
Labour's task: out of the margins, into the middle

Bill English has been sounding as if he is sorry for Labour: he angers iwi by lobbing section 9 of the State-owned Enterprises Act on to the asset selldown embers; he says the size of the selldowns loot is a "guess".The section 9 hoo-ha was so unnecessary that it seems almost like a manoeuvre to give the Maori party's patchy profile a lift with a pretend win and/or a pretext to go round iwi rohe pitching the investment opportunity.Carrying into the mixed model law the instruction to the Crown not to transgress the Treaty of Waitangi would not affect the sale price. Prospective investors will quickly find out that even Contact has had to deal with iwi over geothermal access and there is an iwi-Crown co-management regime for the Waikato River. Section 9 will be in the new law in effect if not in words.English's "guess" (actually avoiding stating a price) underlines that the value of the selldowns lies not in debt or schools and dams but as a source of steady dividends for baby-boomers needing a liveable income from nest-eggs since Alan Bollard and foreign investors drove down government bond returns. The efficiency gain is likely to be marginal and capital raising is constrained by the government's need to keep 51 per cent.

All this is small comfort for Labour, which focused on the selldowns in the election to scant effect.That line was negative. In fact, negativity dominated Labour's campaign, making the party sound like a cantankerous teenager, not a striding adult. Its big positive policies, not least its child-centred social policy initiative, were not pushed while it fixated futilely on claiming to match National's fiscal line.The challenge now for David Shearer and Labour is to go positive.The light reason for that is that Shearer doesn't have the bite to make negativity work but does have a strong personal leadership story to tell, in his past international work and his earnest decency.If he spends 2012 travelling the country letting that story reach people he might gradually gain acceptance, even with his low charisma. If he tries to play attack dog, to which David Cunliffe is much more suited, English and mates -- and voters -- will scarcely notice.

The heavier reason for Labour to go positive is that there is a big game on: to devise policies that highlight opportunity (not "problem") at a time when middling people are under pressure from the relocation of manufacturing, new technology and the upward income transfer to financiers, professionals and top executives.In the United States and Europe this has found a small voice on the radical left but a much bigger voice on the right in the Tea Party and populist parties. Social democratic parties have not found the words and policies to offer deliverance to the beleaguered middle.Here National and Winston Peters (whose appeal now goes wider than to "oldies) have more to say to those people than Labour. The Engineers Union's comparatively well-paid members are as likely to find common cause with National's policies as with Labour's. Labour has over the past 40 years become the party of the margins: the very-low-paid, Polynesian commoners, the disabled, gays, feminists.Most of these are atomised, much as the potential vote for a Labour-type party was in 1890, and thus much harder to lock into a voting force the way unions organised Labour's vote in its heyday.

In fact, Labour activists come less from the atomised low-socioeconomic segment than from the educational meritocracy, which arose from the opening of tertiary education in the 1960s and now forms a privileged self-perpetuating class. The children and grandchildren of educational meritocrats have been far more likely to go to higher education than the progeny of those outside the educated elite.Thus the bulk of what should be Labour's logical support base is outside the meritocracy but most of its activists are inside it. Those activists have to reach across a class divide -- and over the beleaguered middle.Reaching that middle requires a deep rethink of policy and organisation.

Shearer's real task is less to scratch together a win in 2014 than to start that rethink. Applying 1930s or 1970s thinking to the 2010s will leave Labour offside.It will, of course, win office from time to time. But in 2014 or 2017 that will be highly likely to require the Greens. There is now a short, tight hyphen between the two parties. Whether they like it or not they are now a coalition -- in effect if not in fact.On the Green side that means a sophisticated and realpolitik approach to policy and government, as Metiria Turei almost indicated on Sunday: less democracy, more leadership, tough choices.On Labour's side it requires a determined effort to make Labour-Green look like a government in waiting that can work term after term -- and gather in a large chunk of the middle.

That is Shearer's and environment spokesman deputy Grant Robertson's job. Any guesses on the chance of success?

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

Major von Tempsky
22-02-2012, 08:24 AM
Is there any hope of a balanced assessment here? i.e. John Key is not perfect, he is wrong on one or two things but overall he's going in the right direction and is the best leader.

I happen to think he's wrong on the Crafar farm sales and if you read what he has been saying closely he's saying Look, unfortunately it may be inevitable (but distateful and regrettable) because of international agreements NZ has signed up to that the sale will go through. However, underlining that, he's not going to appeal against the Court decision - nod, nod, wink, wink. Just as he said regarding Tony Marryatt's rise in Christchurch on hearing that Clerk Tony was now thinking of not taking the rise "It would be a clever rethink".

Aaron
22-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Is there any hope of a balanced assessment here? i.e. John Key is not perfect, he is wrong on one or two things but overall he's going in the right direction and is the best leader.

Going in the right direction? Upping a regressive tax (GST) to cut top income tax rates and refusing to consider capital gains tax. The Trickle down theory must surely be seen as bull**** by now. It is trickle up if the continued increasing disparity in wealth is any indication. That said it can't be an issue for a majority of New Zealanders who have voted in the current govt based on their policies (I hope they didn't just vote national cause John's a nice guy compared to Phill Goff)

I don't think beauracracies/govt is necessarily effective or efficient but at least they are motivated to consider the majority of people (as well as themselves).

elZorro
22-02-2012, 05:22 PM
Well said, Aaron.:)

Halebop
22-02-2012, 06:51 PM
Going in the right direction? Upping a regressive tax (GST) to cut top income tax rates and refusing to consider capital gains tax.

There was also the removal of depreciation allowances which hit the top end more than the bottom. Most of the people I personally know who are leveraged and invested in the property sector were in the former 39% tax bracket and IRDs cost benefit analysis certainly supported this. So the old system was also regressive to have the highest earners avoiding the highest rates of taxation.

The current mix of policies were designed to encourage debt reduction, discourage additional borrowing to fund property purchases (it also made all investment property less attractive, leveraged or not) and provide a sting to those who wanted to spend the post tax pay rise instead of saving it.

Given private investors repaid more than they borrowed for the first time in 10 years or so I suspect it worked. In light of the global focus on balance sheet risk and private NZ balance sheets being more leveraged the government's, I think they made the right choice. The benefits of risk management might never be known (we probably will never know if we avoid a Greek style debt default scenario for the fact that it was avoided). However, everyone, rich and poor, benefits from this stability, even if the tax restructure was largely neutral for the bottom end.

fungus pudding
22-02-2012, 07:05 PM
There was also the removal of depreciation allowances which hit the top end more than the bottom. Most of the people I personally know who are leveraged and invested in the property sector were in the former 39% tax bracket and IRDs cost benefit analysis certainly supported this. So the old system was also regressive to have the highest earners avoiding the highest rates of taxation.

The current mix of policies were designed to encourage debt reduction, discourage additional borrowing to fund property purchases (it also made all investment property less attractive, leveraged or not) and provide a sting to those who wanted to spend the post tax pay rise instead of saving it.

Given private investors repaid more than they borrowed for the first time in 10 years or so I suspect it worked. In light of the global focus on balance sheet risk and private NZ balance sheets being more leveraged the government's, I think they made the right choice. The benefits of risk management might never be known (we probably will never know if we avoid a Greek style debt default scenario for the fact that it was avoided). However, everyone, rich and poor, benefits from this stability, even if the tax restructure was largely neutral for the bottom end.

You are so right. My tax rate dropped from 39 to 33, but losing the depreciation claim has meant I pay one hellluva lot more tax than before. In fact I dropped more than the Ch-ch bloke who didn't take his increase. :mad ;:

elZorro
23-02-2012, 05:37 PM
You are so right. My tax rate dropped from 39 to 33, but losing the depreciation claim has meant I pay one hellluva lot more tax than before. In fact I dropped more than the Ch-ch bloke who didn't take his increase. :mad ;:

And now would be a good time to move into R&D or manufacturing instead, except of course National effectively removed any push-pull incentive to go there in the meantime. Yes, I'm still mad too FP, but about the R&D tax credits being abolished.

elZorro
10-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Wellington is being emptied out as far as jobs go, house prices too. Is the public sector really that inefficient, or are they just convenient cost savers? The National Govt can't sack workers in the private sector, well not directly. They are making it hard for Wellington retailers, landlords, and anyone needing a prompt response from the public sector.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6ae2af43/looming-public-sector-cuts-may-accelerate-decline-in-wellington-s-mojo.html

elZorro
13-03-2012, 06:44 AM
From Colin James.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 13 March 2012


Where to find the workplace discontent


Spiders discomfort some people. Unions discomfort John Key. Unions are the antithesis of individualism and they get in the way. One got in the way of some film moguls so he changed workplace law to suit the moguls.

Unions are fomenting discontent by joining Greypower and other groups to get up a citizens-initiated referendum on state asset sales which could be a bit embarrassing.

Other unions have been: obstructing Ports of Auckland's drive for much more job flexibility; not immediately embracing a meatworks company's major unilateral work practice changes; and wanting a fair share of the increase in a for-profit old-people's home operator's loot from taxpayers.

This agitation differs from pre-1980s Midlands-accented workplace folklore. Unions, once powerful, are now under a tenth of the private-sector workforce and by and large on the defensive as the cabinet limbers up for more deregulation in collective bargaining, flexible hours and dismissal constraints and as globalisation-stretched companies anticipate those more employer-friendly settings.

There is pressure in the public sector, too. The Defence Force's sackings last year to civilianise some jobs is now rewarding top brass with higher attrition and low morale. John Allen risks a similar return on his reconstruction of the foreign service: a survey of staff indicated widespread and deep upset at his big-change proposals.

People aren't numbers.

Well, actually they are. By and large National views employees' incomes as costs. By and large Labour views them as sustenance. The workplace is the dividing line between the two big old parties and an enduring reason why only in a dire national emergency would Labour enter a grand coalition.

In National's world flexible work practices and containment of wages and salaries are vital ingredients of business competitiveness in a tough global economy. In that arena people are numbers.

Labour thinks competitiveness comes from investment and innovation to lift worker productivity: David Shearer has kept the science and innovation portfolio. For Labour numbers in the workplace are those that meet living costs: food on the table in a house and so on. That's how people are numbers.

There are two main dimensions to this.

Go back 100 years: built into the conciliation and arbitration (IC&A) system then was a presumption that a wage should at the least enable a man to afford a decent supply of the basics for an average family: that is, a living wage.

The Service and Food Workers Union, which represents many of the lowest-paid workers, some of them shockingly treated, wants to resurrect that concept. It is talking to community organisations which support low-income families about launching a living wage campaign.

What is the moral case for not paying someone who works conscientiously a wage that pays for a decent supply of necessities, especially if supporting children, who hardly deserve to go without?

Actually, it is not so simple. The IC&A notion assumed a single "breadwinner", which was then the norm. This is still the case in many households but many now have two "breadwinners". Should the "living wage" for them be divided in two? And what if the other "breadwinner" is on a good screw?

Now apply National's argument that work gives "dignity". That is not easy to argue if the pay is derisory and demeaning and not enough to keep a couple of kids decently. A "dignity" policy needs strong foundations.

Now for the second numbers dimension. Global economics are driving down wages for even skilled work. Moreover, who gets most hurt if transport (including port) costs are higher than they need be? The least-well-off.

Ken Douglas, legendary unionist, used to call "wharfies" the "aristocrats of labour": high wages and cushy conditions. As in 1951, the Labour party is wary of being seen in cahoots with wharfies. Labour's safer position is concern that what can be done to well-organised wharfies can be done even more readily to others.

There is also a legal dimension.

The pressure generating the current tensions has been coming mostly from employers, whom unions think have been emboldened in exacting economic times by Key's law change promises, which Key disingenuously calls minor.

There has been loose talk of a "winter of discontent". But whose discontent is on show?

And where will employers' discontent lead? If Key does make the changes he has said he will, the next Labour-led government will reverse them and probably overdo it, as it did after National's 1990s deregulation.

The alternative for Key would be to tune into conservative values, one of which is durability of social conditions and conventions. Unstable workplace law doesn't fit.

* Last week I talked of "banana-less" New Zealand, in contrast to banana-republic Australian politics. Actually, I am told, the far north grows some bananas: a few and "marginal". The lesson: if we look for bananas politics in this country we will find it at the margins.





-- 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

elZorro
15-03-2012, 07:10 AM
David Shearer's speech this morning. I think he's on the right track.

http://labour.org.nz/newnz

CJ
15-03-2012, 10:38 AM
David Shearer's speech this morning. I think he's on the right track.

http://labour.org.nz/newnz

"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.

We won't be waiting around for officials to give us cautious ideas and suggest a few adjustments.

We will be presenting them with detailed and far-reaching policies.

Labour will spend the next two years listening, drawing up our plans. We will accept the best ideas wherever they come from."

I will wait to see what he puts forward. Until we see details, it is just waffle.

He seems to have dropped teh $5k tax free which is good.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. My concern is it is complex to implement and the revenue received doesn't justify it (if taxed on realization of a gain, that can be many years out, so you have a shortfall in the mean time).

Education - good but what changes.

Welfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

fungus pudding
15-03-2012, 11:58 AM
[I]"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.
.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. elfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

And I'm not opposed to CGT either, provided it has a repatriation clause - something Goff and Cunliffe were not planning.

elZorro
16-03-2012, 06:17 AM
"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.

We won't be waiting around for officials to give us cautious ideas and suggest a few adjustments.

We will be presenting them with detailed and far-reaching policies.

Labour will spend the next two years listening, drawing up our plans. We will accept the best ideas wherever they come from."

I will wait to see what he puts forward. Until we see details, it is just waffle.

He seems to have dropped teh $5k tax free which is good.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. My concern is it is complex to implement and the revenue received doesn't justify it (if taxed on realization of a gain, that can be many years out, so you have a shortfall in the mean time).

Education - good but what changes.

Welfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.

fungus pudding
16-03-2012, 07:23 AM
CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.

That would be pointless. Far better to wait until Labour have appointed a new leader. I doubt that Shearer will last long; he's only there because he's not Cunliffe.

CJ
16-03-2012, 08:48 AM
CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.As long as Shearer pickets beside the POAL employees, there is no chance in hell he will listen to any suggestions I have. The unions are a bigger block vote so much more 'valuable'.

But lets start with a simple one:

Bipartisan approach to interest free student loans. Key has come out and said it is not sustainable but it cant be changed as it is an election loser. Behind closed doors (trust issues aside), if Labour and national could find some common ground (even if just a small patch), then that would be good.

And just so no one thinks I am one sided, Key should do exactly the same with superannuation. He is currently in denial thinking it is sustainable. National and Labour needs to take a bipartisan approach to this issue as well.

Social welfare: Shearer has come out and said the model needs to be changed. If he keeps saying the right things, and starts adding to the debate rather than just dismissing everything National says, maybe Key would let him around the table on these issues. While you are diametrically opposed there is no point but if you are hitting your ball down the same fairway (with labour hooking to the left and National slicing to the right) the end goal is the same.

elZorro
17-03-2012, 10:28 AM
As long as Shearer pickets beside the POAL employees, there is no chance in hell he will listen to any suggestions I have. The unions are a bigger block vote so much more 'valuable'.

But lets start with a simple one:

Bipartisan approach to interest free student loans. Key has come out and said it is not sustainable but it cant be changed as it is an election loser. Behind closed doors (trust issues aside), if Labour and national could find some common ground (even if just a small patch), then that would be good.

And just so no one thinks I am one sided, Key should do exactly the same with superannuation. He is currently in denial thinking it is sustainable. National and Labour needs to take a bipartisan approach to this issue as well.

Social welfare: Shearer has come out and said the model needs to be changed. If he keeps saying the right things, and starts adding to the debate rather than just dismissing everything National says, maybe Key would let him around the table on these issues. While you are diametrically opposed there is no point but if you are hitting your ball down the same fairway (with labour hooking to the left and National slicing to the right) the end goal is the same.

Hang on CJ, NZ could afford all of these policies 20-30 years ago - good social welfare, jobs for anyone who wanted to work, free tertiary education, think big schemes. Retailers put a markup on of 1/3 in general, it all seemed to be OK. In the meantime globalisation happened, energy started to be priced higher, and we didn't keep up with the play.

We have to be very careful in choosing what we develop and sell overseas, and ensure we get a good margin for it. Then we can afford all the niceties in the domestic market, no problem. I think that's the guts of it, and all the policy noises from Shearer are along this line.

He does need to polish his presentation a bit, that should not be too hard for someone brave enough to travel along a mined road, simply to deliver examination papers to schools.

777
07-04-2012, 08:49 AM
Who cares.

There are plenty of places for gamblers to spend their money. The number of pokies available won't change that.People have a choice in life. Some make bad choices. We can't hold their hands all the time.

As a SKC owner I am happy for them to build the centre and as both an Auckland rate payer and NZ taxpayer I am particularly pleased.

Halebop
07-04-2012, 10:04 AM
Hang on CJ, NZ could afford all of these policies 20-30 years ago - good social welfare, jobs for anyone who wanted to work, free tertiary education, think big schemes. Retailers put a markup on of 1/3 in general, it all seemed to be OK. In the meantime globalisation happened, energy started to be priced higher, and we didn't keep up with the play.

I'm pretty certain you are quoting the wrong decade elZorro. 20 to 30 years ago was 1982 to 1992. This was the period where things had finally got so wrong, so dire, that Labour became the champions of libertarian free market econonics. Inflation averaged 8.7%, Floating Mortgage Rates 15.9%, government debt ballooned because recession and restructuring was expensive. The only policies that NZ could afford during this period was smaller government - rather than free education this was the period that student loans were introduced and real unemployment benefits were cut.

elZorro
16-04-2012, 01:33 PM
I'm pretty certain you are quoting the wrong decade elZorro. 20 to 30 years ago was 1982 to 1992. This was the period where things had finally got so wrong, so dire, that Labour became the champions of libertarian free market econonics. Inflation averaged 8.7%, Floating Mortgage Rates 15.9%, government debt ballooned because recession and restructuring was expensive. The only policies that NZ could afford during this period was smaller government - rather than free education this was the period that student loans were introduced and real unemployment benefits were cut.

You're right Halebop, I was thinking of the period 1970-1980, I'm older than I thought..and yes I paid over 20% interest on my first house in the mid 80s. Tell that to house buyers today and they wouldn't believe you..

elZorro
16-04-2012, 01:46 PM
More than $6 million is believed to have been allocated since the fund was set up in 2010.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6711592/Thousands-spent-on-whanau-gatherings

WTF !!! At first I thought this was an April fool's joke! But no!

F$$k me!!! ... $6 million so that the special people can get drunk and party?

Shonkey better explain this tuite suit! I want a public enquiry as to how this vote buying gig got set up!

Hi Belg, that's only $250 per person (example), many could spend that on a good night out with fine wines. But as well as provide the food, this funding did support maraes, consultants and the infrastructure out there in the regions. Te Puni Kokiri in Hamilton were formerly well known for putting on great huis, maybe this funding has simply been moved outside the city walls.

Is this funding really any different from the CRIs, who are taxpayer funded for research to the tune of hundreds of millions, most of which goes nowhere, but it employs the scientists "so they don't leave, and so that if the private sector ever need them, they'll be there". And I'm not joking, that is the rationale.

The govt takes in over 60,000 million in taxes. What's a few million here or there?
:)

Major von Tempsky
16-04-2012, 05:19 PM
Wellington is being emptied out as far as jobs go, house prices too. Is the public sector really that inefficient, or are they just convenient cost savers? The National Govt can't sack workers in the private sector, well not directly. They are making it hard for Wellington retailers, landlords, and anyone needing a prompt response from the public sector.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6ae2af43/looming-public-sector-cuts-may-accelerate-decline-in-wellington-s-mojo.html

Ha! ha! ha! I'm rolling about laughing! I worked 35 years in the Public Sector and a good bit of it in Wellington. It's gotta be an April Fools...

When did someone last get a prompt response from the public sector???????????????????

Helen Clark mopped up unemployment by hiring all anthropology, political science, sociology graduates as "policy analysts" in different government departments. Now they are being forced to get an honest job. Instead of specifying how many rungs there should be in a ladder.

elZorro
16-04-2012, 06:34 PM
You can always tell a National/Act voter, everything's black&white isn't it MVT?

My cousin's a bureaucrat, works in one of the Wellington offices, used to work for the railways. Last I heard he was bringing up an extended family in the suburbs, he has no university education. So while now he pays taxes and spends on GST items, in your perfect world he'd be out of a job and on the dole. The government is well aware that of every dollar they might spend on the public sector, most of it will come back in taxes, and that if the size of the sector is reduced, there'll be more on the dole and causing grief in other ways perhaps. The outfit my cousin works for, puts out incredibly useful reports that are used in policy decisions, and the private sector should be using these more often, to get an edge. But we're too lazy.

Major von Tempsky
17-04-2012, 09:13 AM
Wellington will continue to decline because its main industry does not have productive, useful output, it doesn't have a hinterland.
Christchurch will continue to boom because nothing is done in Chch/Canty unless there's a paying market for it and a good profit (except the CCC Peoples Republic of Chch of course). Canterbury has a huge hinterland dairying & & (with more farms switching to dairying everyday), a huge airport expanding exponentially, a booming port, recovering tourism, a labour market on steroids.

Auckland is an import port and has guaranteed growth from the brown rabbits in South Auckland who are soaking up all the benefits NZ can produce.
Tauranga is a growing export port, well organised with sensible labour market arrangements.

Hint: Move out of Wellington to somewhere with a future.

jmsnz
17-04-2012, 06:17 PM
You can always tell a National/Act voter, everything's black&white isn't it MVT?

My cousin's a bureaucrat, works in one of the Wellington offices, used to work for the railways. Last I heard he was bringing up an extended family in the suburbs, he has no university education. So while now he pays taxes and spends on GST items, in your perfect world he'd be out of a job and on the dole. The government is well aware that of every dollar they might spend on the public sector, most of it will come back in taxes, and that if the size of the sector is reduced, there'll be more on the dole and causing grief in other ways perhaps. The outfit my cousin works for, puts out incredibly useful reports that are used in policy decisions, and the private sector should be using these more often, to get an edge. But we're too lazy.
I'm in private enterprise and too lazy to comment on most conversations on this forum, but this astounds me.

In my perfect world your cousin wouldn't be a bureaucrat, and wouldn't be on the dole either. He would be working hard and productively in the private sector to support his family. I am sure that the government is well aware that cutting the bureaucrats shifts costs and doesn't remove them (actually seeing some things they do we might debate that a bit:D). Long term though, you would hope that a society that was encouraged as individuals to arrange their lives so that they could support themselves would be a good thing. This attitude that the government will support you one way or another is actually quite debilitating.

I would also note that whether he has a degree or not is irrelevant. I know plenty of people who have been able to support themselves and their families without one.

elZorro
17-04-2012, 07:28 PM
I'm in private enterprise and too lazy to comment on most conversations on this forum, but this astounds me.

In my perfect world your cousin wouldn't be a bureaucrat, and wouldn't be on the dole either. He would be working hard and productively in the private sector to support his family. I am sure that the government is well aware that cutting the bureaucrats shifts costs and doesn't remove them (actually seeing some things they do we might debate that a bit:D). Long term though, you would hope that a society that was encouraged as individuals to arrange their lives so that they could support themselves would be a good thing. This attitude that the government will support you one way or another is actually quite debilitating.

I would also note that whether he has a degree or not is irrelevant. I know plenty of people who have been able to support themselves and their families without one.

Thanks for your astounded post jmsnz, I challenge you to post more often than once every two months. I was simply correcting MVT, in that not all public sector workers will be fresh out of university with social science degrees. There will be a wide range of staff backgrounds, some quite practical.

I'm a left-leaning, grey area, private sector person, and I understand that there has been a public sector in NZ for a very long time, it won't disappear anytime soon. When the private sector strikes issues with the public sector, they should aim to make the most of it, jump through those hoops and get the information or part grants that are offered. The CRIs, I'm not so sure about them, they are being forced to compete with, and flog ideas from, the private sector in some instances.

I have every faith in the private sector too. But we all have much to learn, to compete with mass economies. A welder in India is paid $12 a week. Anything we build here to export, has to fit around those kind of facts.

jmsnz
18-04-2012, 06:52 AM
Not sure why how often someone posts is of relevance really, but anyway.

We will never compete with 'mass economies' and shouldn't try. We need to find niches that we excel at and the government's role in that should be setting the framework and ensure that infrastructure is in place and then empowering the citizen's to achieve. It isn't necessarily their role to do the work. CRI's are an interesting debate in that context.

I agree that the public sector has a wide range of people staffing it and that it isn't going to disappear anytime soon. My issue is that you imply that its size is irrelvent because it was employing people who would otherwise be on the dole, that isn't the reason for having a public service. That service has to achieve more for society that the costs to society.

elZorro
18-04-2012, 12:07 PM
jmsnz, I was having a gentle dig at those like yourself who are very capable of a good post, but seldom contribute. It worked..:)

Bob Jones (and FP) love the Labour party, because the larger public service fills up commercial property, their staff spend their pay on high street purchases, etc. There's bound to be a study on that somewhere. So even if the department outputs might be hard to value all the time, the downstream benefits can be large, and they make up for it. That's how the former Hamilton City Council tried to justify the V8s. (In their case, badly wrong, but anyway..).

My brushes with local CRIs have been disappointing, they're a miserable pack of sods who are only looking out for themselves. Try to strike a deal with them (or even get some research done) and they'll tie you up with a team of in-house lawyers and impossible clauses that no-one would ever sign. To top it all off, they still receive hundreds of millions each year, 80% of it used in admin, the rest on research, and how many results do we see? Not enough.

Major von Tempsky
23-04-2012, 09:31 AM
Well me old mates, in the latest Roy Morgan poll (the poll which is always the most favourable to Labour), The Press pA2 21/04/2012;

National up 5.5 to 49.5, Labour down 4 to 26.5.

Seems like the voters approve a free new National Convention Centre in Auckland for $260 mill.

And in case you call it a rogue poll it's pretty well backed up by the TV3 Poll taken about the same time.

fungus pudding
23-04-2012, 09:47 AM
jmsnz, I was having a gentle dig at those like yourself who are very capable of a good post, but seldom contribute. It worked..:)

Bob Jones (and FP) love the Labour party, because the larger public service fills up commercial property,........



FP doesn't 'love' the labour party at all. They do a lot of harm to those htey purport to represent. What I have said it is always easier to make your fortune when Labour are in, and not simply because they fill office buildings.

elZorro
23-04-2012, 01:20 PM
Sorry about that FP, I might have taken your comments out of context.. Bob Jones always said he liked seeing Labour in office.

David Shearer still has to hit his straps, why they're not making more headway at the moment could be partly due to a perceived lack of direction by Labour's caucus members. Shearer's speech delivery tends to bring on a yawning episode with me, and I'm all in favour of their policies generally. He is getting on TV a lot though, surely he'll be getting the hang of it.

Keep banging on about R&D though, David. Today I was advised that I could apply for funds for a postgraduate engineer to the tune of $30,000 for 6 months (MSI grant). This is part of how National delivers R&D to the private sector, under their new rules. These grants are not available to CRIs and councils etc, they have other avenues. Great.

Now the reality check. The grant application process is open for 1 month, it closes in a few days (early May). Only one grant per business. Has to be R&D or a new process or service, technically challenging, fair enough. Forms to fill in on the MSI website, (bound to be taxing).

They prefer to see firms with over 10 FTEs apply, who already spend on R&D. Open to employ postgrads in Science, Engineering, Technology, Design or Marketing who are out of work, and can work in the firm for 6 months fulltime, and have a NZ work visa.

They anticipate it will be oversubscribed, suggest firms don't select a student before they know if they've been funded. Why would that be?

Because although thousands graduate from these schools at NZ universities each year, there are only 70 positions to be funded for 2013. Take the 1/3 tax back, it's a $1.4 mill R&D programme at best, chicken feed - 0.002% of the tax take.

fungus pudding
23-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Sorry about that FP, I might have taken your comments out of context.. Bob Jones always said he liked seeing Labour in office.



I have heard and read quite the opposite from Jones. Generally speaking he has little time for socialists, or at least for socialism.

elZorro
23-04-2012, 07:54 PM
I have heard and read quite the opposite from Jones. Generally speaking he has little time for socialists, or at least for socialism.

OK FP, you know what I mean..despite (or because of) their policies being good for employing workers, commercial and rental property owners do better during Labour terms.

fungus pudding
24-04-2012, 08:15 AM
OK FP, you know what I mean..despite (or because of) their policies being good for employing workers, commercial and rental property owners do better during Labour terms.

In the short term most things do well under Labour, but longer term they do immense harm. then sit back. The exception was the 84 - to 90 Labour mob who dragged NZ out of its Soviet style 'protected' economy and set the stage for us to survive.

CJ
24-04-2012, 11:14 AM
The exception was the 84 - to 90 Labour mob ... Who went on to form ACT

elZorro
25-04-2012, 07:58 AM
Fair enough, FP and CJ. That was a massive upheaval for many working class people. But National's policies up until the present day seem fixed on making sure that only the priviledged few end up with the benefits of that economising.

This from NZResources today.


Labour needs to hold its nerveDene Mackenzie — 25 April 2012
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/articleimages/3212/_thumbs/MACKENZIE-dene-hs.jpg (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/articleimages/3212/MACKENZIE-dene-hs.jpg)
Dene Mackenzie.

If ever there was a time for New Zealand's Labour Party to hold its nerve, now is that time.
Two recent opinion polls shows the party is making no inroads at all into the support by voters of Prime Minister John Key and the National-led Government.
David Shearer won a some-times acrimonious leadership challenge late last year, appealing to supporters to give the party a chance to prove it was worthy of much wider support than shown by its hammering in the 2011 election.
Some hope. Shearer won the election with the Machiavellian help of Labour bad boy Trevor Mallard and the ABC faction of the caucus -- Anybody but Cunliffe -- David Cunliffe, that is.
One thing would have happened if Cunliffe had got the job. Labour would be making far more inroads into National's popularity. David Cunliffe has a streak of mean running through him that would have seen him probably thrown out of Parliament for calling Key some unpalatable names.
But also, he would have managed to drag the party kicking and screaming out of the centre where it has to compete with National and New Zealand First.
The Roy Morgan Poll showed increasing support for Key's National party at 49.5%, up 5.5% since March 12 to April 1. Support for Labour has fallen 4% to 26.5% in the same period.
If a general election was held, the National would most likely be returned to government, the pollsters surmised.
There have already been murmurs about dissent within the Labour caucus about Shearer's performance, or lack of it. His leader speeches so far have been dreary, unexciting and lacking any vision.
His former chief of staff Stuart Nash, a former high-flying young MP until the last election, departed for “family reasons” just a few weeks into his job.
His replacement, Alistair Cameron, is a gay environmental lawyer in Wellington, a close friend of deputy Labour leader Grant Robertson and once worked for former Wellington Central Marian Hobbs, whom Robertson replaced as the electorate MP.
Speculation is that Shearer will not last the year and that Robertson will be elevated to the leadership, the first openly gay party leader in the history of New Zealand politics.
Former prime minister Helen Clark managed to stare down a revolt within her ranks after consecutive poor polls. Many doubt that Shearer has the same nerve. He is likely to go quietly, if he thinks it is in the best interests of the party.
However, as Shearer himself said on Sunday night, he and Labour have time to change the polls. Whether or not he will be given that time is, unfortunately, not up to him.
*Dene Mackenzie is political and business editor of the Otago Daily Times.


Dene is right. David Shearer needs urgent coaching on his deliveries, and needs to write some better motivational speeches. None of the public know who he is yet, apart from a few TV appearances. So it's not too late to make some changes.

fungus pudding
25-04-2012, 08:08 AM
David Shearer needs urgent coaching on his deliveries, and needs to write some better motivational speeches. None of the public know who he is yet, apart from a few TV appearances. So it's not too late to make some changes.

The best thing about David Shearer is that he has kept Cunliffe out of the leadership role. Cunliffe would be the end of any support for Labour. Other than that, Shearer has nothing to offer. Seems to be a good fellow and all that, but he aint gonna make it; they still need to find a leader to get themselves up and running again.

upside_umop
25-04-2012, 09:39 PM
I don't think National will lead the next government. As much of a victory it was for National in the last election, it was too close.

Ez, I don't know why you're so pro-left, when the Greens will shut down your beloved investments being GEL/OGC if they half the chance.

elZorro
26-04-2012, 06:31 AM
I don't think National will lead the next government. As much of a victory it was for National in the last election, it was too close.

Ez, I don't know why you're so pro-left, when the Greens will shut down your beloved investments being GEL/OGC if they half the chance.

I've been outed! - how did you know all that UU? Anyway I'm not so pro-left, just pro-fair go. It's the same as with shares, it's a lot easier if there are plenty along for the ride.

Would the Greens shut down GEL operations? GEL's major interests will be JVs with Newmont in the medium term, I think they're (Newmont)doing the long-term work to ensure they have a foothold here. OGC have similarly provided good employment and minimal environmental impact. In their case, the land they use isn't much good for anything else.

GEL's placer mining is also commonly on already impacted schist gravels with a recent thin covering of topsoil. Suited for sheep/beef farming perhaps, but only returning $200 per hectare p.a. unirrigated. Very hard for the Greens to make a case against a substantial cashflow injection into such areas, and of course the land is always returned to its former use at the end of operations, probably better than it was before.

I'm all for a labour-greens alignment for the next election, as long as the savvy greens concentrate their efforts on helping our researchers (more likely the private sector) find more sustainable and cheap energy sources, hopefully with no carbon impact.

Surely even the Greens know that our recent civilisation is founded on energy use, and there's plenty of it out there, we're just using the easiest parts first at the moment.

Here's the result of National's rich-listers attitude: the tax take is down, so the surplus they predicted for 2014 and used as a massive plank in their election campaign has disappeared.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1204/S00815/english-promises-to-bridge-billion-dollar-deficit-gap.htm

No talk of increasing taxes back to where they were of course, but more cost cutting in the public sector, which will have the added benefit to big business of holding down wage increases and ensuring there's a well-trained employee pool to choose from. Just make sure you're not on the receiving end of it.

Major von Tempsky
29-04-2012, 07:04 AM
Well, how goes the unfortunate experiment? ;-)

And the coming Australian ALP disaster a la Queensland is bound to have some spillover into NZ politics....

elZorro
29-04-2012, 08:59 AM
Well, how goes the unfortunate experiment? ;-)

And the coming Australian ALP disaster a la Queensland is bound to have some spillover into NZ politics....

Not sure about the ALP, MVT. Lots of articles in the papers about Shearer though, not too many compliments. Most of them along the same lines: he'll need to get going within 6 months, needs more polished speech delivery, needs a really good "Orewa speech" cause, but without the negative racial side that Brash invoked.

slimwin
29-04-2012, 10:51 AM
He needs to be replaced. Wouldn't want to put your hand up in the labour party though, it makes an easier target for the knives.

elZorro
29-04-2012, 04:57 PM
He needs to be replaced. Wouldn't want to put your hand up in the labour party though, it makes an easier target for the knives.

Hi Slimwin, I still think there was a great deal of good work done in the three Labour terms, they really did set the country up for future success, and most of them worked in alignment to do that. But despite the impassioned comments from bloggers like us (both sides), and the good intentions of politicians, I suspect the general public are a slow-moving beast. For example, the business sector have (by and large) refused to heed a call to get into high-tech exports, we resisted smoking bans in public buildings, etc. Both are in our best interests.

That's why we certainly need a large-than-life leader of political parties, it's their marketing front. Anyone in business knows you have to market your products/services about 100x harder than you'd think, to get any quick progress. This is all learnt the hard way, over several years. David Shearer has just started out, but I think a crash course on public speaking might be a good idea.

fungus pudding
30-04-2012, 09:56 AM
Not sure about the ALP, MVT. Lots of articles in the papers about Shearer though, not too many compliments. Most of them along the same lines: he'll need to get going within 6 months, needs more polished speech delivery, needs a really good "Orewa speech" cause, but without the negative racial side that Brash invoked.

Brash called for an end to race-based policies. That's not negative - it's sensible. and therefore quite positive. Unfortunately it's all been swept under the carpet for another year or two.

Major von Tempsky
01-05-2012, 08:27 AM
Strange tactical approach by Labour and Green to the Banks/Dotcom donation....

One would have thought that it was better to be up against an ACT/National coalition than a straight National majority. There's always a chance that ACT and National will lose their tempers with each other over some policy and the government will fall.

However Shearer publicly acknowledged in the last couple of days that if there were an Epsom bye-election then National would win it.

Hence an approach of maximum embarassing publicity rather an actually trying to force Banks out would be the way to go.

Another example of the Shearer and Labour leadership failing to think it through?

POSSUM THE CAT
01-05-2012, 10:24 AM
MVT under the electoral act the percentage of party votes also effects the list seats as most of the party vote in Epson originally went to National. If National wins Epson do they loose a list MP as the percentage of the party vote overall only entitles them to so many seats Will the party vote increase enough to allow an extra MP I doubt it. Or is my interpretation of the law wrong

Major von Tempsky
01-05-2012, 11:38 AM
No, I think you must be right.
But if Banks was forced out that would be the end of ACT and even a goat with National Party Epsom Candidate painted on its side would get a huge majority (and Nat had a good candidate who only reluctantly stood down) particularly if ACT didn't stand a candidate and told its people to vote National so that I suspect National would keep all its party seats and would end up with a majority.
We probably need a political scientist to advise us on this.

elZorro
01-05-2012, 12:10 PM
Brash called for an end to race-based policies. That's not negative - it's sensible. and therefore quite positive. Unfortunately it's all been swept under the carpet for another year or two.

FP, according to Wikipedia, the speech (whether unintended or not) also served to reinforce racial stereotypes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orewa_Speech

If you have not already read it, have a look at "The Penguin History of New Zealand" by Michael King. It's a sad but unbiased commentary on pakeha dealings with Maori, amongst other things.

http://www.writerscentre.org.nz/michael_king.php

John Banks: looks like he's become overconfident. The rules were deliberately left open so that 'anonymous' donations could be slipped in quite readily, and he collected a great deal of cash. Did he also arrange 45 special deals for the 45 donations? I bet he did quite a few. Are these in fact bribes?

This is a huge mess, tarring National ranks. But it has provided hope for Labour supporters. Some I met today had lights in their eyes..

slimwin
01-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

I read A History of New Zealand twice and I didn't find it unbiased at all. Especially its "facts" about early NZ settlement which were of course passed down by word of mouth. Certainly some parts have now been disproved. Remember, history is written by the victors in any conflict not necessarily in line with the truth so history is never excactly the truth. I spent 12.5 years overseas returning in 2007 and was staggered to see the division in NZ. I actually struggled with it. European history proves that different cultures living in society without the same ethos ends in conflict. Any close follower of recent EU politics/news will know what I mean.

I never heard the Orewa speach but if the gist was together forward as one people then I hardly see that as racist. I see it as pragmatic. Not to discount peoples culture as irrelevant but one does not rate higher than the other and none above common law.

fungus pudding
01-05-2012, 01:42 PM
MVT under the electoral act the percentage of party votes also effects the list seats as most of the party vote in Epson originally went to National. If National wins Epson do they loose a list MP as the percentage of the party vote overall only entitles them to so many seats Will the party vote increase enough to allow an extra MP I doubt it. Or is my interpretation of the law wrong

I think I read somewhere that once the number of seats is established that stays set until an new general election, but I don't recall where I read that. If I'm right then they will simply win Epsom and bring in the next list member. If I'm wrong then they'd make damn sure that Act put up a good candidate and help them win it.

elZorro
01-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

I read A History of New Zealand twice and I didn't find it unbiased at all. Especially its "facts" about early NZ settlement which were of course passed down by word of mouth. Certainly some parts have now been disproved. Remember, history is written by the victors in any conflict not necessarily in line with the truth so history is never excactly the truth. I spent 12.5 years overseas returning in 2007 and was staggered to see the division in NZ. I actually struggled with it. European history proves that different cultures living in society without the same ethos ends in conflict. Any close follower of recent EU politics/news will know what I mean.

I never heard the Orewa speach but if the gist was together forward as one people then I hardly see that as racist. I see it as pragmatic. Not to discount peoples culture as irrelevant but one does not rate higher than the other and none above common law.

Surely Wikipedia, having been vetted and edited by any who feel they have some knowledge on the subject, is at least as accurate as other media, Slimwin. It's like Trademe, self-policing. Maybe the Orewa speech was meant to be polite to all, but a lot of red-necks thought it spoke to them. The speech was another backward moment in NZ's history.

Regarding Michael King's work, I understand he spent years of his life compiling it, with the help of researchers at Waikato University's Library. He was at great pains to just report that historical research impartially. I'm impressed you read the book twice. Once you start reading it, you cannot put it down.

POSSUM THE CAT
02-05-2012, 10:57 AM
elZorro Wikipedia when you go there how do you know it has not been edited in the last two minutes by some idiot with B.S. I would not even bother going there, let alone believe anything on Wikipedia.

elZorro
02-05-2012, 06:04 PM
elZorro Wikipedia when you go there how do you know it has not been edited in the last two minutes by some idiot with B.S. I would not even bother going there, let alone believe anything on Wikipedia.

I have to repeat that I've found it very reliable, although in one or two instances it didn't have much detail. Here's Wikipedia on its own accuracy..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Regarding the Orewa speech, an ill Michael King heard and responded to it, not long before he died. He'd have been very disappointed with the response from some NZers I would think.

POSSUM THE CAT
02-05-2012, 06:13 PM
elZorro When was the substance of that link last edited. Nothing In my opinion on Wikipedia can be relied on & that includes the above link. I will not even bother to look at it. Do you check everthing you read on it with a reputable source like the encyclopedia Britannica. I just go to a reliable source in the first place.

elZorro
02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
elZorro When was the substance of that link last edited. Nothing In my opinion on Wikipedia can be relied on & that includes the above link. I will not even bother to look at it. Do you check everthing you read on it with a reputable source like the encyclopedia Britannica. I just go to a reliable source in the first place.

PTC: if you read the article, it states that the reliability is at least as good as Britannica.

Here's Michael King talking about the Orewa speech. He certainly considers both sides. Note how he understands that everything is not black and white (by that I mean clearly one or the other).

http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=30


Michael King: The Pakeha I know who are most comfortable with Maori culture and with Maori colleagues are the people who know most about them and who are culturally equipped to interact with that culture. And one of the reasons I write books instead of doing other things is because I believe that information dissolves prejudice. Information shared by the family. And people need information.


He predicts it will be perhaps 1,000 years before NZ has one indigenous culture, rather than two. When you think about it, has our Pakeha NZ culture evolved yet? Tell me what it is, when any Maori influence has been removed.

Sadly, Michael King and his wife died in a car accident just 2 months later.

http://bookcouncil.org.nz/writers/kingmichael.html

Major von Tempsky
03-05-2012, 08:05 AM
As a 5th generation NZer I must note that "Pakeha" is an insulting term (have a look at a few translations) and I certainly do not accept it.

I do not use insulting terms for Maoris why should I accept insulting terms for myself?

I am an NZer, a Kiwi, but never a Pakeha or pakeha either.

King is a left wing, politically correct, wishy-washy white liberal. His work is rubbish.

fungus pudding
03-05-2012, 08:46 AM
As a 5th generation NZer I must note that "Pakeha" is an insulting term (have a look at a few translations) and I certainly do not accept it.

I do not use insulting terms for Maoris why should I accept insulting terms for myself?





Except maoris have been told that the word 'maoris' itself is an insult. It isn't of course. It's a correct English plural of Maori as any dictionary will confirm. But because the maori language doesn't have an s, a bunch of Maori academics have decided a decade ago that English shouldn't apply the s to references to maori things. It's rubbish of course, and I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one to use english plurals.

POSSUM THE CAT
03-05-2012, 09:12 AM
elZorro of course Wikipedia would say that. Just because Wikipedia say that everything on it is accurate does not mean it is. Can you come up with a very reputable source that say everything or even 95% on Wikipedia is correct.

elZorro
03-05-2012, 11:00 AM
Wow, that was enlightening.. I guess we have four right-leaning voters up against one left-wing liberal, and I should convert across. Just give me a lobotomy and I'll be right.

MVT, how's your 'History of NZ' book going? Or is it more like a comic book? Up here in the North Island there are opportunities to meet and work with a few more of the first indigenous tribe. That alone would inform you that stereotypes are always wrong, it's not that simple.

We still have a lot to learn from each others' culture yet.

Re some Maori on the dole Belgarion, there are a lot more Pakeha by numbers I'd think. Is the little bit of cash they get each week any worse than highly paid CRI scientists (amongst others) squandering hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars a year each, while producing very little of immediate use?

What we all need is a stronger, better economy that can employ a wide variety of staff.

Major von Tempsky
03-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Jeez, you are good at taking some heroic leaps in the dark el Zorro.
Firstly I was born in the North Island and lived there for over 30 years and rubbed shoulders with lots of Maoris, in the Army, woolstore &. Secondly one of my sons-in-law is Maori (but he does enrol on the General Roll by preference). There's over a 100,000 Maori who do the same as him :-)
Any more great leaps of assumption you'd like to make?

elZorro
03-05-2012, 11:39 AM
eZ, Hope you weren't including me in that list of four right-leaning voters :)
Lies, dam lies and statistics ... Honestly eZ, people will drive trucks through statements like that!
Key word there is employ ... i.e. work for money/remuneration:)

My apologies Belgarion, I remember you'd mentioned in another post your tendency to vote Labour. So that's two-all, L-R. You seem to take a tough line on ethnic matters though..to be polite.

Here's the stats, there are more NZ Europeans on the dole than Maori. Percentage wise, the stats don't look so good. Most of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of industry - not competing with globalism. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing.

http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/growth-employment-opportunities/growth-employment-opportunities_04.asp

What is the National govt doing about that? Sod all, because big business is now making super profits from a leaned-out workforce.

POSSUM THE CAT
03-05-2012, 12:40 PM
elZorro I hope you are not classing this cat in those Right Wing Voters. Cats are not as stupid as Humans

elZorro
03-05-2012, 12:52 PM
Yes I do. You can't have a society that has one set of rules for one race and another set of rules for another race. The South Africans tried that not only did it not work but just about every other race/country on the planet cried foul. I think it was called apartheid. ... ;)

Sorry. Did I read you right? More maori are unemployed than european becuase manufacturing jobs are all that maori can do?

Belg, you can't poke fun at one ethnic group and then say there should be one set of rules for all, as it's obvious that the rules in that case, would advantage another group more. On the face of it, one law for all (with no special dispensations for a small number of cases) sounds fine, unless an ethnic minority sees the sort of red-neck attitudes that appear on the web, and in conversations around NZ. Sure, there is some basis in fact, but these attitudes cannot be allowed to represent the whole picture.

As a percentage, Maori might generally have lower educational achievements, but there are an awful lot of pakeha who don't achieve either, through the system. Even with NCEA being designed to help. Employers want to see student grades in external exams, but many schools allow their students to not bother with these, and concentrate on internal assessments.

Guess where the profits are made in many trades-type businesses? Ongoing manufacturing of profitable items with a decent markup, and downstream support of those goods. Long after the R&D has been done and capital has been spent, this is what should be keeping large manufacturing firms and their staff afloat. Manufacturing takes in a wide range of skills and educational backgrounds.

elZorro
03-05-2012, 01:41 PM
elZorro I hope you are not classing this cat in those Right Wing Voters. Cats are not as stupid as Humans

Sorry about that PTC, I'm wrong again, happily.

Anonymous
03-05-2012, 06:11 PM
elZorro Wikipedia when you go there how do you know it has not been edited in the last two minutes by some idiot with B.S.

I am not going to stick up for Wikipedia but just in case anyone is interested, on every page on Wikipedia you can click the 'View History' tab up the top right and see exactly what has been edited and when it was edited. It keeps a full record of every change. I think it becomes pretty evident very quickly if a page has been edited by some idiot with malicious intent.

jmsnz
03-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Totally agree ... lets address these attitudes then ... but lets not implement a visceral racist system that codifies in laws the rights of one race over another and creates an entire industry that exploits these laws for their own gain.
I would also agree. It won't matter how many laws we create, they won't change the attitudes. It is those attitudes, from all parties that need to change.

As was commented previously, whilst not particularly offended with the various 'pakeha' labels, I consider myself and my wider family to be New Zealanders. Our roots are firmly planted in this country. I can't help thinking that if we changed the attitude of all to consider themselves as kiwis we would take a significant step forward.

I also think that we are quite hard on ourselves. We are a very young nation still exploring these issues. For all the rights, wrongs and inequalities that exist here we must surely all acknowledge that we have managed a level of integration and understanding that many haven't got close to. Just go to 'modern' South Africa to see that.

(And for elZorro - 2 posts in 2 weeks is a record for me!!)

Major von Tempsky
04-05-2012, 08:21 AM
Having worked in Statistics NZ at one stage, I can tell you there were enough bitter complaints about "Pakeha" for it to be dropped as a label in surveys :-)

fungus pudding
04-05-2012, 08:48 AM
Having worked in Statistics NZ at one stage, I can tell you there were enough bitter complaints about "Pakeha" for it to be dropped as a label in surveys :-)

yeah - they should stick with honkey.

elZorro
04-05-2012, 11:44 AM
When I was growing up in the country, we had Maori families living nearby. We played together, sports, biking and generally hanging about. Every so often, one of the neighbours would yell out "Hey air hoor" or similar, and I'd take offence because of the way it sounded. It wasn't until years later that I realised that this was a polite greeting, "E hoa" , "my friend".


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Ehoa_mean_in_Maori

elZorro
05-05-2012, 11:11 AM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10803579

Once again Gaynor's spot on.

Yes he is, great to see him still making a difference in the media. These are the commentators we need - those who have seen a lot of things go down, are careful observers, and are balanced in their approach. Author Michael King was another in this mould, so I appreciated your post jmsnz, and the alacrity of your posting..

Major von Tempsky
05-05-2012, 11:37 AM
One thing that interests me about these left wing wishy washy would be historians that the poster above me calls careful.....they never comment about Maori Wars atrocities by the Maoris against settler women and children, shootings burnings and killings. I'm a settler descendant on several sides and yes there quite a number of these. But the record has been carefully expunged.....If some of the newspapers of the times survive no doubt they could be found there. But for Belich and King only Maori civilian casualties exist. Careful? Joke.

The media are quick to pin laughable labels on these bods like "NZ's best historian" there was Belich wasn't there, or some such Russian name who alleged that the British artillery barrage at Gate Pa was the heaviest the world has ever seen. This stood for a number of years without challenge by the NZ media who continued to call him NZ's best historian until a Brit war historian pointed out Gate Pa was a mere pin-prick compared to various WW1 barrages.

elZorro
05-05-2012, 12:31 PM
One thing that interests me about these left wing wishy washy would be historians that the poster above me calls careful.....they never comment about Maori Wars atrocities by the Maoris against settler women and children, shootings burnings and killings. I'm a settler descendant on several sides and yes there quite a number of these. But the record has been carefully expunged.....If some of the newspapers of the times survive no doubt they could be found there. But for Belich and King only Maori civilian casualties exist. Careful? Joke.

The media are quick to pin laughable labels on these bods like "NZ's best historian" there was Belich wasn't there, or some such Russian name who alleged that the British artillery barrage at Gate Pa was the heaviest the world has ever seen. This stood for a number of years without challenge by the NZ media who continued to call him NZ's best historian until a Brit war historian pointed out Gate Pa was a mere pin-prick compared to various WW1 barrages.

I refer the above poster (MVT) to page 182 of the Penquin History of New Zealand.

Following discussion on the start of the many deaths that were to ensue from imported European illnesses (which nearly wiped out Maori altogether at one point), Michael King talks about an uprising in the South Island.


It was a fraudulent land deal which lay behind the first armed clash between Maori and Pakeha after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the only one to ever take place in the South Island. The major player, again, was the New Zealand Company. Captain Authur Wakefield held a false deed to land in the Wairau Valley on the southern side of Cook Strait (he had bought it from the widow of a whaler who claimed in turn to have bought the land from from Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa). When a group of Nelson settlers, including Wakefield, attempted to clear Maori off the land in June 1843, fighting broke out and 30 Europeans were killed, along with about half a dozen Maori. The dead included Authur Wakefield, who was executed by the Ngati Toa chief Te Rangihaeata in return for the death of his wife Te Rongo, who was also Te Rauparaha's daughter.

And that was just one page I quickly looked at. Nowhere does the author state his views on what happened, he just states the facts.

Now I'm really going out on a limb - here's what the lefty, wishy-washy Wikipedia says about Wakefield..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wakefield

slimwin
05-05-2012, 02:11 PM
The link to pass to friends who may be interested in the mixed ownership offer but want some info/education on it. www.governmentsharesoffers.govt.nz (https://www.governmentshareoffers.govt.nz/)

elZorro
05-05-2012, 06:45 PM
The link to pass to friends who may be interested in the mixed ownership offer but want some info/education on it. (https://www.governmentshareoffers.govt.nz/)www.governmentshareoffers.govt.nz (http://www.governmentshareoffers.govt.nz)

Thanks Slimwin, drop the 's' and the link works. Brian Gaynor's idea is more prescripted, which is fine.

Major von Tempsky
06-05-2012, 12:15 PM
So, no details about the innocent women and children killed at Wairau....

And the only example given, none at all from the North Island of innocent women and children settlers killed?

Wikipedia is very mixed, what it says stands only survives until something more authoritative comes along and corrects it.

elZorro
07-05-2012, 06:55 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/6869796/Cutbacks-blamed-for-rental-lull

fungus pudding
07-05-2012, 07:17 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/6869796/Cutbacks-blamed-for-rental-lull


No doubt you see something wrong with that situation, given that you seem to think there's something wrong with everything that happens when the socialists are not in control. Obviously population shifts around and follows employment. The reason here is the previously high level of non-jobs.

elZorro
07-05-2012, 08:26 AM
No doubt you see something wrong with that situation, given that you seem to think there's something wrong with everything that happens when the socialists are not in control. Obviously population shifts around and follows employment. The reason here is the previously high level of non-jobs.

Hi FP, yes you're right, that post was marked for your attention..:), and I'd have added some words but my 'broadband' was like a dialup modem this morning.


Unemployment: it's not working.

I've worked through the figures before: by the time an employed person pays all their various taxes and levies on power and petrol etc, they pass a big chunk of their earnings to the state (maybe over 50%). If they are unemployed, the state pays them a small amount and gets a smaller amount back, but with no useful or measurable output for the common good. In what political arena is this a good outcome?

David Shearer on 13% as preferred PM, Labour on 32% in latest poll. So not bad progress for Labour. Now I'd like to see some good policy announcements.

fungus pudding
07-05-2012, 08:58 AM
David Shearer on 13% as preferred PM, Labour on 32% in latest poll. So not bad progress for Labour. Now I'd like to see some good policy announcements.


Wouldn't we all.

slimwin
07-05-2012, 09:22 AM
Good luck on that.

elZorro
07-05-2012, 09:28 AM
National and Act supporters on shaky ground at the moment.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10803976

Here's the Dotcom song..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvRSZxqk_I

slimwin
07-05-2012, 09:56 AM
Most of the world cares very little about NZ politics. Our politics are world famous in New Zealand only. Despite what one news tells us.

slimwin
07-05-2012, 10:58 AM
Really, I spent 12.5 years in EU, but not England, and it's of very little interest to people there. I travelled with my work through-out Africa,Urals and South America and most had heard of Australia but not New Zealand. Played rugby with the expat business community in Luxembourg/France and it also meant little to them but a nice place to visit. Have to say there are a few very smart Kiwis doing well in the financial circles over there though.
The good thing over there is the news actually shows the news and not just an extended weather forecast. I prefered Euronews channel but also watched BBC,CNN and Al Jazeera for a balance. In fact thats all that was on in most hotels i lived in! I do remember seeing the Hikoi to wlg over foreshore and seabed and the arrest of Tame Iti and co training with weapons. That raised a lot of comments about NZ.

elZorro
08-05-2012, 08:03 PM
I think the problem with the news over here is the lack of funds. Not enough paid ads to cover good reporting. Fairfax gave up, and invested in TradeMe instead, they followed the money. Lots of journalistic hacks were made redundant, or are scratching a living with commissioned articles.

This news I find interesting though, considering National swept to power 3.5 years ago decrying the "nanny state". Now Paula Bennett, recently married ex solo mum, is announcing free contraceptive advice and gear for solo mums. Just solo mums and their daughters, others need not apply. Along with the new rules about finding a job when their first child turns 5, this is a pointed effort at reducing the terrible burden of a few solo mums on the state purse.

This is not a new cost. When I was flatting decades ago, there was a solo mum in 1/3 of the house we were in. I have a neice in this situation too. It doesn't keep me awake at night, I know this is not a dream situation for them, and I have seen some (like Paula Bennett did) move through this stage and do very well in the workforce. Sure, some won't make that move.

But this is all another step in the concept of austerity for the state - the government has given up on a smarter economy to get ourselves out of this declining situation. Batten down the hatches, it's going to be a long winter.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Paula-Bennett-gets-hitched-at-Piha/tabid/1607/articleID/250588/Default.aspx

http://thestandard.org.nz/contraception-debate/

Major von Tempsky
09-05-2012, 08:52 AM
That's not the Nanny Socialist state el-Zorro, its the return of the Nazi Party. Next, forced sterilisation....

Nanny Helen Clark state works in different ways, specified light bulbs, compulsory Maori, forced acceptance of homosexual marriages, enforced politically correct thinking in the Education system, accusations of racism on the slightest invalid pretext....

elZorro
10-05-2012, 06:07 PM
That's not the Nanny Socialist state el-Zorro, its the return of the Nazi Party. Next, forced sterilisation....

Nanny Helen Clark state works in different ways, specified light bulbs, compulsory Maori, forced acceptance of homosexual marriages, enforced politically correct thinking in the Education system, accusations of racism on the slightest invalid pretext....

MVT, I don't agree with you on all of the last part of your post. We have steadily changed most of the bulbs in our house to the new type warm colour fluoro bulbs. They give off good light, identical to a standard old bulb, but are a lot more efficient. I was shocked to see how poor incandescent efficiencies were. In the last two years, the cost to have a 3kW solar PV system for a domestic house has dropped to about a third of the earlier cost. About $13,000. With that you'd sell power to the grid sometimes. Hot water from evacuated tubes is even cheaper. The govt looked at the bulb change as a way of staving off the cost of a new power station, a thermal one like Huntly is about $3billion. Back then we sometimes ran out of power in a dry winter. If you look at the big picture, most of these decisions were very smart, but we are all resistant to change. Labour tried too many of these in their last term.

fungus pudding
11-05-2012, 07:37 AM
MVT, I don't agree with you on all of the last part of your post. We have steadily changed most of the bulbs in our house to the new type warm colour fluoro bulbs. They give off good light, identical to a standard old bulb, but are a lot more efficient. I was shocked to see how poor incandescent efficiencies were. In the last two years, the cost to have a 3kW solar PV system for a domestic house has dropped to about a third of the earlier cost. About $13,000. With that you'd sell power to the grid sometimes. Hot water from evacuated tubes is even cheaper. The govt looked at the bulb change as a way of staving off the cost of a new power station, a thermal one like Huntly is about $3billion. Back then we sometimes ran out of power in a dry winter. If you look at the big picture, most of these decisions were very smart, but we are all resistant to change. Labour tried too many of these in their last term.

Hydro electric is still the cheapest and certainly the most reliable and convenient. Solar just doesn't stack up. Energy efficient bulbs are certainly good in some applications, but not all. they will find ther way into homes where they are the best choice. The consumer will decide.

Major von Tempsky
11-05-2012, 12:15 PM
Its another example of the Government trying to pick winners, and nearly always failing miserably.
Recently a LED bulb won an energy competition in the US. It lasts for 40 years and costs $60 and is much cheaper over the 40 years than el Zorro's one and is obviously a much better choice than the Government's "winner".

I use that merely to show that it is impossible for the Government to foresee the the future and it should therefore leave it to the market and differential pricing.

slimwin
11-05-2012, 01:03 PM
Any idea which company makes them?

fungus pudding
11-05-2012, 02:49 PM
Its another example of the Government trying to pick winners, and nearly always failing miserably.
Recently a LED bulb won an energy competition in the US. It lasts for 40 years and costs $60 and is much cheaper over the 40 years than el Zorro's one and is obviously a much better choice than the Government's "winner".

I use that merely to show that it is impossible for the Government to foresee the the future and it should therefore leave it to the market and differential pricing.

Precisely. I wonder how long 40 years is, given that the 10 year life ones I bought a while back lasted between a week and maybe 2 years.

elZorro
12-05-2012, 10:04 AM
Precisely. I wonder how long 40 years is, given that the 10 year life ones I bought a while back lasted between a week and maybe 2 years.

FP, solar does stack up. When you run out of suitable streams and rivers to dam, like we have, where to next for low-carbon energy? Look up some pricelists. PV has fallen sharply to about $2-$3 a watt here, less if you're looking at bulk imports. $1 a watt is the magic figure where it's a no-brainer to construct a solar farm and sell the electricity to the grid, especially if it's poor land.

Re fluoro bulbs, the payback should be faster than 10 years if they're used a lot. LEDS will come down more, wait a bit.

Here's a bit of local Hamilton news from a manufacturer. Relevant to this thread, because National has left businesses smaller than this to their own devices. Note that Mr Maisey is concentrating effort on the niche high-tech markets, has given up competing in bulk with overseas manufacturing. He's also looking at selling direct to the consumer/user. Looking harder at the figures, a turnover of $30mill and dropping, 320 staff, that's less than the old benchmark of $100,000 per employee to break even. I wonder what his opinion on Labour's R&D tax credits was. He will of course be able to access the alternative funding for companies over $3mill turnover, if the firm does all the paperwork.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/business/6908260/Toughest-time-in-50-years-of-manufacturing

slimwin
12-05-2012, 10:39 AM
You mean when the greenies want the electricity but don't want to dam any more rivers to get it.

elZorro
12-05-2012, 11:27 AM
You mean when the greenies want the electricity but don't want to dam any more rivers to get it.

It's not just greenies, many river users don't want changes either. And a true greenie will be living off-grid already won't they?

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2012/05/01/contact-sees-2014-cash-flow-boost-as-projects-put-on-ice/

slimwin
12-05-2012, 02:26 PM
That would be the true greenie party that fly to parliment for their meetings and would ratner we all lived in caves. I like to have a green party but only in opposition. They could never agree how to run a country in a world economy. They have no appreciation that you have to earn money to spend it.

slimwin
13-05-2012, 08:10 AM
A lot of farmers already doing this Belg. The ability to sell excess power genereated back to the grid would bring costs down and maybe the catalist for people introducing green technologies on their new builds.

elZorro
13-05-2012, 08:24 AM
A lot of farmers already doing this Belg. The ability to sell excess power genereated back to the grid would bring costs down and maybe be the catalist for people introducing green technologies on their new builds.

Some info about this from EECA, looks like the retailers like to buy power back at a lower price, depends on the area. But better than wasting it.
Hmm, EECA, useful outfit, Labour set that up in about 2000.

http://www.energywise.govt.nz/how-to-be-energy-efficient/generating-renewable-energy-at-home/grid-connected-systems

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1105/S00162/budget-spells-doom-for-energy-efficiency-conservation.htm

fungus pudding
13-05-2012, 08:25 AM
A lot of farmers already doing this Belg. The ability to sell excess power genereated back to the grid would bring costs down and maybe be the catalist for people introducing green technologies on their new builds.

Might even be a good reason to flog off some shares in a power generator.....

elZorro
14-05-2012, 06:58 AM
Interesting comment from a politics graduate in this article, the flight to OZ.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10805706

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 09:04 AM
Yawn! I look forward to the continued and accelerating flight of the lower classes to Australia. Go the Mozzies.

Makes more space and cheaper assets to buy up in NZ and less lower class annoyances like rugby league, gangs, Maori child bashing etc.

And as Muldoon remarked, it raises the IQ of both countries.

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 09:13 AM
And, oh yes, there's another benefit.

Continued flight of Labour voters to Oz will ensure NZ has a permanent Nat Party majority.

And as the migrants to Oz become richer they'll switch to voting Liberal/National over there.

Its a win/win situation - Go the flight!

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 11:15 AM
Easy Belge, observe the departees as they line up in their jandals - nearly all working class people.

Think about it, continued flight of working class voters in recent years (incl under Helen Clark) and the Labour vote in NZ collapsed significantly in the last 2 elections.

For the first time the Chch party vote overall has gone blue, National, and I'm sure there are other areas in NZ which have done the same.

Even Dunedin is starting to come unstuck as a Labour stronghold.

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 01:58 PM
And yet National won the last 2 elections and the Labour lost the last 2 elections and Christchurch and its easy to observe the emigrés in line at the airport....so I think its you Belge with the reality gap....

And you're wrong about the economics degree Belge, its actually a double degree in Economics with papers in micro, macro, econometrics, money and banking, NZ industry, labour economics - just a little bit better than McDunk. And a whole lot of subsidiary units in various subjects like maths and English, accounting subjects, and a qualification in French from the French Ministry of Education. Subject closed.

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 04:12 PM
This is the worst aspect of Sharetrader - the drift into ad hominem arguments. I don't propose to enlighten you other than to say there were 4 different institutions involved in different places. Nor do I propose to tell you what my portfolio is and how many of each.
This has nothing to do with the debate. I recall at least two posters were thrown off Sharetrader for that sort of thing, personal abuse and several warned.
Shall we talk about the psychological problems you have Belge, which u divulged in one of the debates.....

Lets stick to the economic, social and political debates and keep out of each others personal lives and respect privacy.

Major von Tempsky
15-05-2012, 04:43 PM
I think most Sharetraders would agree that its a pretty good indication that Belge feels he is losing the argument when he makes a desperate jump into personal details of other Sharetraders and gives up firing any ammo on the issue in debate which was the polkitical effects of the drift across the Tasman :-)

So we are agreed that the drift across the Ditch favours National here and the Liberal/Coalition over there....

slimwin
15-05-2012, 05:28 PM
Great link. Now I can apply for that Yahoo CEO job.

Pumice
15-05-2012, 09:21 PM
Easy Belge, observe the departees as they line up in their jandals - nearly all working class people.

Think about it, continued flight of working class voters in recent years (incl under Helen Clark) and the Labour vote in NZ collapsed significantly in the last 2 elections.

For the first time the Chch party vote overall has gone blue, National, and I'm sure there are other areas in NZ which have done the same.

Even Dunedin is starting to come unstuck as a Labour stronghold.

This is a silly comment MVT, I and all my university grad mates live here, that’s about 30 of us. Pretty much every Kiwi I have bumped into is either a uni grad or a skilled trade worker. I don’t think a single many of them are labour or left leaning voters. Surely the act of voting Labour or National is no reflection of educational qualities.
However, if you’re right, NZ will be a rich raging success in no time at all. but i doubt it. My money is on it.

Major von Tempsky
16-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Its not a "silly" comment Pumice, I would accept an unproven assertion, certainly, although the NZ election results are telling.

Rather your reply is a "silly" reply.

Why?

Because if say 100,000 NZers have migrated to Australia in the last year or two and I assert that most of them voted Labour in no way do you disprove this by saying that you know a dozen of them and you don't think they voted Labour. If you are following that tack then you have to find another 49,000 and show that they didn't vote Labour or perhaps find a reliable opinion poll that says that. I don't know of any such poll.

Pumice
16-05-2012, 09:12 PM
Its not a "silly" comment Pumice, I would accept an unproven assertion, certainly, although the NZ election results are telling.

Rather your reply is a "silly" reply.

Why?

Because if say 100,000 NZers have migrated to Australia in the last year or two and I assert that most of them voted Labour in no way do you disprove this by saying that you know a dozen of them and you don't think they voted Labour. If you are following that tack then you have to find another 49,000 and show that they didn't vote Labour or perhaps find a reliable opinion poll that says that. I don't know of any such poll.

For one, it’s called a brain drain MVT, not a working class drain. 100,000 voters is also a very small percentage of the voting public and they were more than replaced by immigrants. Most people that move also know they are not entitled to a single benefit over here as well. That’s more of a capitalist position to put oneself in don’t you think? Are labour supporters more likely to be working than national supporters? Because the fact is that although 55,000 left NZ, the unemployment rate went up from 6.3% to 6.7% (lazy national supporter’s?) while in Australia, thee unemployment rate dropped from 5.2% to 4.9%

I just dismiss your assertion that there is a cause an effect relationship between kiwis leaving and national getting in power. Correlation, sure, but that’s all. National had significant support well before the brain drain reached its peek.

I hope NZ's economy thrives under its concentrated national support, it should do, yet to see any evidence though. It might soon be worth the move back.

elZorro
21-05-2012, 06:37 AM
Here's the latest from the dim-witted National Party: local body councils should look very hard at selling off income-producing assets, and concentrate on the basics: Rubbish, Water, and Rates.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6955858/Councils-get-nudge-on-asset-sales

National will also look to intervene if rates increase faster than inflation, and help out councils who are going down the right track.

And this policy is being pushed ... because it has been proven that the private sector is better at building up an asset and keeping costs down, 100% of the time. Spare me. Look at NZ Rail.

The other side of the coin is that without Council involvement, many of these assets would not be there in the first place. No private sector firm would have made the investment, so there'd be nothing to squabble over, meaning no bargain investments down the track for the private sector.

Here in Hamilton we have the new council-funded Claudelands Events Centre, which will be a great asset in the years to come. At the moment it's losing money, but not badly. It will compete with the not-for-profit society running the Mystery Creek area, where staffing is partly on a volunteer basis. Like them, it'll need to work on some profit centres over the years ahead.

But should the council sell this down to the private sector first? No way.

slimwin
21-05-2012, 07:37 AM
Your council is one of the examples that led to this. What was it, a 30million hole from street racing?! Explain that to a. Pensioner struggling to pay the rates.

elZorro
21-05-2012, 08:42 AM
Your council is one of the examples that led to this. What was it, a 30million hole from street racing?! Explain that to a. Pensioner struggling to pay the rates.

That was an aberration, Slimwin. At the time all this was pushed through and a contract signed, we had a hotshot mayor called Michael Redman, who swept in from the private sector (so-called marketing guru). We were all convinced this would be great for Hamilton. Redman opted out of being mayor soon afterwards and set himself up as the CEO on far better pay (Christchurch ended up with our old CEO, bad luck), then left under a cloud, so this was all just spin on his way up the tree.

So 2012 was the last year for a while when we got to watch rich Aussies parade their V8 cars around on our streets (mostly in single file, doing lap times slower than old Porsches).

So I agree, the V8s had to go, and were a bad investment for a council. They didn't exit the contract well, they got tucked yet again, and it was the private sector that did that to ratepayers.

elZorro
21-05-2012, 02:55 PM
elZ,

Rest assured my post above is NOT supporting selling off council assets willy-nilly. However, the case you cite, Claudelands Events Centre, is in fact one that I'd sell off. Such events centres benefit a small segment of rate payers. Thus in my opinion it shouldn't be built, owned or funded by ratepayers. Event centres need to be self funded on a user-pays basis. This works in many other parts of the world.

Nor am I supporting any Govt controlled body become the rate-payers watchdog. I'd actually like this group to be elected mid-way between each general election as is the practice in many other countries. This creates a great vehicle to put a break on out-of-control governments.

Hi Belg, I probably shouldn't comment on the Claudelands centre being good for all ratepayers, as I haven't been inside it since it was done up. My kids have. But the old place was an eyesore, and the council couldn't stand by and let it represent the best of Hamilton's general purpose event centres. Founders Theatre is getting tired too.

Pensioners always have a moan about rates, what's new. I think it's because with a limited income coming in, and owning properties that might have appreciated over the years, they see themselves as being stung a bit hard, and they have time to watch the local news and form an opinion.

Rates are generally a small part of business costs, the trick is to ensure your income swamps out background costs like rates and other overheads. I don't see the government stepping in with fancy projects inside the city boundaries - if ratepayers tell council they'd like to see some improvements to the area, and it gets voted into the 10 year plan, then as a whole the ratepayers must cover it.

But it's not black and white, most councils get plenty of stick about overspending, so the controls are mostly there anyway.

elZorro
22-05-2012, 06:16 PM
This was predictable: National starting to admit their policies probably won't be good enough to bring us back into surplus by the time of the next vote. They did succeed in one thing: the tax take is down, they managed to save the already well-off, some of their taxes.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10807475

I just caught the end of a story on Cambell Live: a solo mum bringing up three kids after the father left, working long hours for $13.50 an hour, and one school-aged child having to work also, to help. Employers should be ashamed, paying that little to an adult, but of course there are many more unemployed in the wings. A great National policy.

elZorro
23-05-2012, 05:50 PM
FP, you might get your wish tomorrow..

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-preview-capital-gains-tax-surprise-wb-119276

fungus pudding
23-05-2012, 06:37 PM
FP, you might get your wish tomorrow..

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-preview-capital-gains-tax-surprise-wb-119276

Not my wish. CGT is a messy tax and does a lot of harm to businesses, farms, motels and the like when trying to expand. All I have ever said is trhat if we ever do have one it should be an exit tax (have a repatriation clause). i.e. payable only when the gain is retained for personal use. It hasn't done any good in any economy and NZ won't be any different.

elZorro
23-05-2012, 08:18 PM
Not my wish. CGT is a messy tax and does a lot of harm to businesses, farms, motels and the like when trying to expand. All I have ever said is trhat if we ever do have one it should be an exit tax (have a repatriation clause). i.e. payable only when the gain is retained for personal use. It hasn't done any good in any economy and NZ won't be any different.

Thank goodness FP, I thought you'd fallen asleep ..:sleep: yes it'll be interesting tomorrow.

But in the general theme of a bit of a dialogue here, how does the thought of an eventual CGT put someone off expanding their property-based business? Do you mean they have to sell something first? Because that is not often required, the new asset is borrowed against if it's any good.

At last, some sensible policy, even if it's from the opposition.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/boost-exports-get-economy-going-labour-urges-dw-119265

http://nzresources.com/showarticle.aspx?id=3313&gid=30003313

John Walley wades in too.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10808000

fungus pudding
24-05-2012, 08:00 AM
Thank goodness FP, I thought you'd fallen asleep ..:sleep: yes it'll be interesting tomorrow.

But in the general theme of a bit of a dialogue here, how does the thought of an eventual CGT put someone off expanding their property-based business? Do you mean they have to sell something first? Because that is not often required, the new asset is borrowed against if it's any good.


True, but many of those investors won't be affected b y a CGT as they are are already classed as traders by IRD and are currently subject to income tax on gains. The difficulty is motel operators, farmers etc. Moteliers often start as lessees and trade up to a freehold, or larger lease, etc. It's a massive financial hurdle for most, and to tax them at that stage, when all the capital from a sale goes straight back into earning their living, is where I have a real objection. The gain should be allowed to accumulate and be paid on exit from an asset class. Actually NZ's system of applying income tax to traders works fairly well. Other than appeasing the envious, who largely seem to think all landlords, developers etc, make squillions and pay no tax, it would do little good. (Most do actually pay income tax on gains) If it's paid on exit only, it's hard to argue with. Then of course holiday homes and the like (non income producing assets) would be taxed on a transaction basis. And Labour's proposal to extend CGT to non icome , financially useless assets , like art etc, gets really messy and close to impossible to administer. It's sufficient to leave the status quo of clobbering the traders. Finally,here are a few hobbyists who spend years restoring some beaten up old car and eventually make a buck of sorts. I would hate to see them clobbered as per Cunliffe's ideas.

elZorro
24-05-2012, 11:01 AM
Fair enough FP, I can see there are issues about the applications. Perhaps it's more likely the weird loophole on baches will be closed. Apparently you can set a very high lease on the bach, get no takers, and then claim interest and overhead costs for almost all of the year because it was available for rent. That is a rort, no doubt.

CGT on exit from an asset class, that does sound fair enough. As long as the new transaction is bigger I guess. If a farmer sold the big farm and bought a hobby block, surely there would be CGT to pay on the difference.

fungus pudding
24-05-2012, 02:54 PM
Fair enough FP, I can see there are issues about the applications. Perhaps it's more likely the weird loophole on baches will be closed. Apparently you can set a very high lease on the bach, get no takers, and then claim interest and overhead costs for almost all of the year because it was available for rent. That is a rort, no doubt.

CGT on exit from an asset class, that does sound fair enough. As long as the new transaction is bigger I guess. If a farmer sold the big farm and bought a hobby block, surely there would be CGT to pay on the difference.

Yes, as that releases capital, and the new purchase would be unlikely to be an economic unit anyway. . Your point abnout setting a high rent and getting no takers is not lawful. IRD rules in all countries forbid schemes that are designed to avoid tax. The odd-bod might get away with such nonsense, but the odd bod also gets away with simply not declaring income. Thinking about schemes, you may recall some Australian clown a few years ago who was running around the country promoting his scheme - essentially swapping houses with a mate - thus both becoming loss making landlords. Completely illegal as anyone who tried it would soon find out - or maybe not, because if NZ's tax system has one flaw, it is that it is under-funded and doesn't catch as much as it should, so the laws are okay, but the policing is a little hairy. .

elZorro
25-05-2012, 06:29 AM
The Budget, haven't spent much time checking it over, but the heralded increase in the R&D spend is actually not much above inflation for the next year. And a big chunk of it is going to what used to be IRL, the home of many expensive projects that never went anywhere. I heard of one project where an IRL researcher quit and later completed the work privately, after the original client ran out of cash for IRL. It then turned out to be a winner, so I guess that counts..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10808290

Again, John Walley is on the mark, R&D tax credits would be so much better for NZ.

Dear John, the National government doesn't even trust their own people and voters to fill out accurate tax returns, so it's a lost cause. By donating a lump sum to IRL the R&D job is done, it's so much easier..

Meanwhile National takes away some technology teaching resources from schools?? Still to research this, but kids who pull things apart and try to make stuff at a young age often go on to be the engineers of the future. Any moves to halt this process in schools has to be roundly criticised.

fungus pudding
25-05-2012, 08:01 AM
The Budget, haven't spent much time checking it over, but the heralded increase in the R&D spend is actually not much above inflation for the next year. And a big chunk of it is going to what used to be IRL, the home of many expensive projects that never went anywhere. I heard of one project where an IRL researcher quit and later completed the work privately, after the original client ran out of cash for IRL. It then turned out to be a winner, so I guess that counts..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10808290

Again, John Walley is on the mark, R&D tax credits would be so much better for NZ.





Once again you're singling out this 'bee in your bonnett' R+D thing. Yes - it would be good for NZ, but it's picking winners. Arguably a tax credit for all business expenditure would be good for NZ. at least you recognise that taxes are often harmful.

elZorro
25-05-2012, 09:21 AM
Once again you're singling out this 'bee in your bonnett' R+D thing. Yes - it would be good for NZ, but it's picking winners. Arguably a tax credit for all business expenditure would be good for NZ. at least you recognise that taxes are often harmful.

No, taxes are not harmful FP, they are there to value the currency..because let's face it, the government could simply print more money if they need it. Thinking about it, that would devalue the NZ$, just like our exporters are wishing for....

OK, longer term, we need better exports. Not more volume, more profit. Without a margin, we are doomed to be price takers, like every farmer. Yes, R&D is a bee in my bonnet, because it's a very important driver of these future profits.

The government's job is not to back just a few likely corporate developers of our new prosperity, they must give us all a chance to get there. They need to set the taxes up as a guideline towards that future, in other words reinstate the R&D tax credits that Labour set up, in line with Australia, and many other countries who are more enlightened on the potential of their manufacturing sector.

It's looking more and more likely that Labour will be back after the next election, so I only have two years to wait.

FP, should I stick to basic business, hunker down and forget any new product development, as the govt is saying, until 2014, or should I keep up with my plans for world domination in just one or two tiny little niche areas?

fungus pudding
25-05-2012, 10:03 AM
No, taxes are not harmful FP, they are there to value the currency..because let's face it, the government could simply print more money if they need it. Thinking about it, that would devalue the NZ$, just like our exporters are wishing for....

OK, longer term, we need better exports. Not more volume, more profit. Without a margin, we are doomed to be price takers, like every farmer. Yes, R&D is a bee in my bonnet, because it's a very important driver of these future profits.

The government's job is not to back just a few likely corporate developers of our new prosperity, they must give us all a chance to get there. They need to set the taxes up as a guideline towards that future, in other words reinstate the R&D tax credits that Labour set up, in line with Australia, and many other countries who are more enlightened on the potential of their manufacturing sector.

It's looking more and more likely that Labour will be back after the next election, so I only have two years to wait.

FP, should I stick to basic business, hunker down and forget any new product development, as the govt is saying, until 2014, or should I keep up with my plans for world domination in just one or two tiny little niche areas?

Please yourself, but you can do all the R+D you like right now, but if you aren't prepared to do so without tax credits, then I really wonder why you are in business at all. You are right that next govt. will probably include labour, which of course means former communist* Russell Norman almost certainly as Finance minister; but NZers are mainly socialists, and the promise of robbing Peter to pay Paul always brings the Pauls out of the cupboard.

* He is possibly the only one on the planet who believes he's changed his stripes.

elZorro
25-05-2012, 10:39 AM
Please yourself, but you can do all the R+D you like right now, but if you aren't prepared to do so without tax credits, then I really wonder why you are in business at all. You are right that next govt. will probably include labour, which of course means former communist* Russell Norman almost certainly as Finance minister; but NZers are mainly socialists, and the promise of robbing Peter to pay Paul always brings the Pauls out of the cupboard.

* He is possibly the only one on the planet who believes he's changed his stripes.

FP, you know I'll be out here in the provinces spending my own cashflow to get my R&D done. I've seen it work, I know I'll get the money back at some stage. It's all the other businesses I'm worried about. They need to get their first R&D projects under way.

I had a look at Russell Norman's wikipedia page. For a kickoff, he has one. He has had a bit of a look at lots of different political arenas, it seems to be his calling all right. And I like the way he gets the sound bites in on TV, he's good. I would welcome a Labour-Greens coalition, I'm not scared of that at all.

Green Party moving in new direction.

(http://www.webcitation.org/5qTeXiU0w)

slimwin
25-05-2012, 11:28 AM
Yeah, I loved that "give my flag back " sound bite.

elZorro
25-05-2012, 03:36 PM
Yeah, I loved that "give my flag back " sound bite.

Slimwin, maybe we should all do a bit more research on the subject of Tibet, rather than just watching the highlights on TV. The Greens do just that, somebody has to..

fungus pudding
25-05-2012, 03:49 PM
Slimwin, maybe we should all do a bit more research on the subject of Tibet, rather than just watching the highlights on TV. The Greens do just that, somebody has to..

Research it as much as you like - it doesn't alter the fact that Russell Norman bleating about his damn flag, like a kidergarten kid who'd just had a favourite toy pinched was a pathetic, ridiculous sight.

elZorro
28-05-2012, 06:42 AM
CRI, IRL, ATI : three letters that mean large public sector group with a low accountability for R&D results per dollar invested.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10808890

I'm not even sure the universities are much better, but they are more fleet-footed, that's for sure. Again, neither have channels to markets. Do all the R&D you like, don't you have to sell it to someone? That is the domain of the private sector, that's where the R&D spend and directive should come from.

Major von Tempsky
28-05-2012, 05:14 PM
Funny thing, heh heh heh, food for thought for those who bitterly contested my thesis that most of those that emigrate to Australia vote Labour in NZ.

A nice cartoon in The Press today.

A banner going through the top of two boxes saying " People Leaving in Record Numbers".

In the left hand box Shearer looking glum thinking "We're losing all our constituency" and underneath the cartoonist has added "And your credibility".

In the right hand box Key looking delighted thinking "We're losing all our unemployed!".

So, Roll On the Great Migration :-)

Pumice
28-05-2012, 07:32 PM
MVT I had a look at the figures on Statistics NZ website and there is no correlation between migration and governing party. It actually showed slightly more left under labour. (Although not corrected for population growth)
Also assuming they are all (majority) labour supporters, they can still vote for them from over here.
I’m a bit confused on why you are happy with willing workers having to leave NZ to get a job?
My main reason for moving is I refuse to pay for all the unfunded liabilities that make up the bulk of the welfare costs, Aged health care costs and superannuation.
Here’s and excerpt of what I sent to Rodney Hide: “A lot of people complain about the unemployment, DPB and even interest free student loans as big budget costs, however these costs are miniscule compared to health and superannuation costs, but if I were part of the baby boomer generation (who make up a significant portion of the voting public) I wouldn't vote in a government whose policy is to make budget cuts to these areas. I doubt the youth are prepared to pay for these unfunded liabilities and will likely move overseas and leave the mess for someone else to clean up and fair enough too.”

Rodney’s response: “you’ve hit the nail on the head”
Seems I’m somehow sympathising with ACT!! I’m ashamed of myself…..

Pumice
29-05-2012, 08:56 AM
Funny thing, heh heh heh, food for thought for those who bitterly contested my thesis that most of those that emigrate to Australia vote Labour in NZ.

A nice cartoon in The Press today.

A banner going through the top of two boxes saying " People Leaving in Record Numbers".

In the left hand box Shearer looking glum thinking "We're losing all our constituency" and underneath the cartoonist has added "And your credibility".

In the right hand box Key looking delighted thinking "We're losing all our unemployed!".

So, Roll On the Great Migration :-)

Hey Major, thought I would use something a little more calculated than a cartoon for my argument. Based on the 2008 election results, more overseas voters (by a majority) voted National, fact. Maybe the next election will be very Red & Green for NZ with all thses national supports heading offshore?
3998 3999

Major von Tempsky
29-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Good try Pumice :-)

I suspect a pretty low proportion of AUSTRALIAN domiciled NZers actually vote in NZ elections. National/conservative voters are far more conscientious than Labourites in terms of registering and actually voting even though its raining (unlike the wharfies who won't work when its raining :-0 ).
So, yes, thank you to our Australian domiciled National voters for actually registering and voting and equally, thank you to our Australian domiciled formerly Labour voters for not bothering and going to the League, placing their bets, having a fag and/or getting drunk instead :-)

However the UK domiciled Kiwi voters tend to be more professionals and very patriotic and register and get out and vote National.

elZorro
02-06-2012, 10:35 AM
Wild unsubstantiated claims supporting National there MVT.

We need higher profits all round here, more innovation. Building things up, not tearing them down.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7032834/Animated-plea-to-help-small-firms-innovators

Aaron
03-06-2012, 09:58 AM
Balancing the books and living within your means is something I agree with so support National in that regard. I even think John Key was unfairly treated re Skycity and the conference centre. Trying to encourage a conference centre that might bring in some overseas conferences and dollars seems like a good idea to me. Good to see an MP doing something practical.
My problem with national is that it is the young (the future of NZ) that have to take make the sacrifices. They are increasing class sizes reducing support to people studying at University at a post graduate level (if it is tech classes at school that are getting cut then that may mean less engineers and scientists.)
No mention of raising the retirment age or reintroducing means testing for National Superannuation( i.e. if you don't need social welfare from the rest of NZ you don't receive it) I know National's needs to pander to greedy boomers who want/expect a continuation of their cradle to grave welfare but at the expense of the young it is getting a bit much. John's a polictician not a statesman. Even Fungus Pudding must be starting to feel a bit guilty about the oldies screwing over the young in NZ. A lot of those young people are already leaving. Some are protesting. Next elections I hope they can get off their arses and vote.

Aaron
03-06-2012, 10:07 AM
but NZers are mainly socialists, and the promise of robbing Peter to pay Paul always brings the Pauls out of the cupboard.


Whose doing the robbing Fungus the people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it. Welfare should only be there for people who need it in my opinion. NZ Super made up 43% of the welfare spending to June 2011 and will be expected to grow in future years. I bet there could be some significant savings made there without anyone starving that could go to education and health (I wonder what age group uses up most of the health spend)

winner69
03-06-2012, 10:13 AM
The clash of the generations .... bring it on

Only problem is that will take 10 years or more to sort it out .... but I have faith in the Millenials to come up with a resolution

Aaron
03-06-2012, 11:25 AM
While I am ranting, removing the child tax rebate and the under $9,880 rebate seem like asking those who can least afford it to make sacrifices for the good of the country.
Imagine earning $9,000 for the year and being expected to pay $945.00 in tax. That might be quite tough going to be fair even if it is only 10.5% of your income well less than half the 33% people earning over $70,000 have to pay. After tax weekly $9,000($154.91($173.08-$18.17)) $90,000($1,334.23($1730.77-$396.54) at least we don't have a flat income tax rate yet.
Increasing the tax take is another way to balance the budget. (That would not include increasing GST as we all know this is a regressive tax) Capital gains tax could be a consideration if it wasn't so complicated.

fungus pudding
03-06-2012, 12:38 PM
Whose doing the robbing Fungus the people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it. Welfare should only be there for people who need it in my opinion. NZ Super made up 43% of the welfare spending to June 2011 and will be expected to grow in future years. I bet there could be some significant savings made there without anyone starving that could go to education and health (I wonder what age group uses up most of the health spend)

I'm not sure of your point. Is that a rhetorical question? I read it as 'Who's doing the robbing Fungus? The people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it?' I agree that welfare should be limited to those who need it. I'm not sure wehat you mean by welfare in retirement. Don't sickness, unemployment etc. stop once superannuation payments kick-in? Superannuation is not welfare, and those who don't need it because of other income, get very little after their marginal tax kicks in. My point was simply that socialists generally would rather put their hands out for a share of someone else's hard earned money, than pay the price necessary to generate their own. That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary, going without for many years, living below their means, saving, scrimping, investing, taking risks etc. None of which is a comment on those who need welfare assistance through no fault of their own.

Pumice
03-06-2012, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure of your point. Is that a rhetorical question? I read it as 'Who's doing the robbing Fungus? The people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it?' I agree that welfare should be limited to those who need it. I'm not sure wehat you mean by welfare in retirement. Don't sickness, unemployment etc. stop once superannuation payments kick-in? Superannuation is not welfare, and those who don't need it because of other income, get very little after their marginal tax kicks in. My point was simply that socialists generally would rather put their hands out for a share of someone else's hard earned money, than pay the price necessary to generate their own. That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary, going without for many years, living below their means, saving, scrimping, investing, taking risks etc. None of which is a comment on those who need welfare assistance through no fault of their own.

Isn’t that one of the problems? "That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary" I moved offshore and more than doubled my income, but NZ'ers won’t benefit from the increased tax I and many other younger people pay (and nor should they). So Nz loses about $12k of tax, but gains only $3k or less in student loan interest (less if they don’t have a SL).
I had plans of coming back to NZ, but after living in Australia, it’s impossible for me to come back. I’m more than happy to pay a higher tax rate in Aus, of which I an ineligible for any benefits. I am happy to pay for my own health care and superannuation on top of that.
NZ needs to catch up to Australia on policy as well as financially.

Aaron
04-06-2012, 07:53 AM
Maybe I'm wrong I am just not as cunning as Key & English
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/john-keys-cunning-super-plan-120247
At least it stops the debate being between old and young if everyone starts making a sacrifice to balance the books.

craic
04-06-2012, 08:40 AM
Just as a matter of interest, the gross cost of Universal Superannuation is significantly reduced by the income tax we oldies pay on the Super. And just like everyone else, we have 15% GST deducted from the remainder. As a couple, we have paid out over $30,000 of our savings on urgent surgery that the public system was unable to deliver in a reasonable time. We also pay out lots of tax yearly on our investments/savings. I am fit enough to work, even in a manual situation and if I did, I would take a position and create an unemployed person who would then cost us the unemployed benefit. Adding to the super age will cause many oldies to stay in work. Not only will the have to work up to the age but the psychological effect may overcome the perceived "need to retire' for many. Key is shewd enough to read the signs but every government in the western world has been overturned at least once since 1998 except Merkels and she is about to lose her next election. Voters throughout the world are running back and forth like headless chickens and we have to live through these times.

Major von Tempsky
04-06-2012, 09:24 AM
I wasn't going to claim National Super until successive governments of both stripes and CommComm confiscated most of the shareholder value from TEL without compensation.

So I decided to claim Super until I had reconfiscated my stolen shareholder value.

My grandfather lived into his 103rd year in good health :-)

POSSUM THE CAT
04-06-2012, 02:21 PM
When Ruth Richardson put the means test on super a lot of accountants told all those that were not in the super high income bracket To spend up large or gamble & hope to have big win as you could not in most cases be any worse off. As in most cases you would be living on approximately the same amount as the super provided by your savings. While those that had spent everything got about the same amount from super. No wonder the savings of New Zealanders declined from this point. Go back to the two age that we used to have. One age for a means tested pension & another for a universal non means tested one.

fungus pudding
04-06-2012, 02:25 PM
I wasn't going to claim National Super until successive governments of both stripes and CommComm confiscated most of the shareholder value from TEL without compensation.

So I decided to claim Super until I had reconfiscated my stolen shareholder value.

My grandfather lived into his 103rd year in good health :-)

You should be extremely grateful that dopey outfit was sold, and for huge money at the time. 22,000 employees, mostly doing next to nothing, among the highest charges in the world and still massively subsidsed by the taxpayer. If you are old enough, you will no doubt remember that toll calls were only made on special occasions. The oldies still shudder in their boots at the thought of making a toll call, ringing someone in another city, let alone another country. All phones had to be rented from the post office; we were not allowed to use our own, even those who had smuggled one back from overseas. You needed a special permit to install an answerphone, or rather to allow the post office to install one. It was a dreadful outfit. Well done to the govt. for dropping it. Rest assured, you have been well compensated. If they had given the show away we would still have won, but as it so happens, when it was sold it was one of the highest transactions in the world that decade.

POSSUM THE CAT
04-06-2012, 04:09 PM
Fungus pudding I got a new phone connection faster in those days (1970) & with less hassle than in (2006). Shows you how poor the private management was. The installer moaned when he was asked to do the job properly instead of tacking wires round the skirting board in a near new house & if I remember correctly it cost $99.00. So do not tell me it was better under private management. There are still places in Auckland that you can only get dial up Internet.

fungus pudding
04-06-2012, 06:14 PM
Fungus pudding I got a new phone connection faster in those days (1970) & with less hassle than in (2006). Shows you how poor the private management was. The installer moaned when he was asked to do the job properly instead of tacking wires round the skirting board in a near new house & if I remember correctly it cost $99.00. So do not tell me it was better under private management. There are still places in Auckland that you can only get dial up Internet.

Hardly typical. Thank god they diappeared before cell phones and the internet came along. New connections often took months - faster if you could get a doctor's certificate. No matter what you think of today's service, it's miles ahead of the old P+T days.

Major von Tempsky
05-06-2012, 08:24 AM
On the world stage the item below is a lot more important than any temporary poll gain by Labour in NZ. Look for a famous victory by Scott Walker in Wisconsin tomorrow :-)

"Punching Out

Labor is already on the defensive. Although Ohio voters last year repealed by 61 percent a law limiting bargaining and requiring increased pension and health-care insurance payments championed by Republican Governor John Kasich, it has lost ground elsewhere. Governor Mitch Daniels and fellow Republican lawmakers made Indiana the nation’s 23rd so-called right-to-work state Feb. 1 by exempting nonunion employees from paying dues when working alongside unionized colleagues.

The rate of U.S. union membership fell to a record low in 2011, with collective-bargaining units representing just 6.9 percent of employees in nongovernment jobs, down from 7.2 percent in 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Numbers Talk

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the state’s second-largest public union, fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited an anonymous source.

While membership has declined, the numbers published by the Journal are “wildly inaccurate,” Bob Allen, a spokesman for AFSCME Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview and e-mailed statement. The union doesn’t disclose its membership numbers, he said.

If Walker is recalled, it will be “a shot in the arm for labor,” said Robert Reich, who was labor secretary under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Clinton campaigned for Barrett last week. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been part of a cadre of Republicans stumping for Walker.

Barrett and Walker hopscotched around the state today to encourage people to go to the polls. Election officials have forecast 60 to 65 percent of registered voters will cast ballots. While the recall will officially end with tomorrow’s vote, members of both parties said wounds will not heal quickly.
"