PDA

View Full Version : Nobody worth voting for



duncan macgregor
21-11-2011, 12:15 PM
National flogging off the assets.Labour borrowing like crazy.Act with rear end Brash.
NZ first, and Winstone.The greens, and farting cows. Good gawd guys is it just me or has the political system gone mad. The political system revolves on Govts borrowing like crazy wracking up unrepayable debt, to stay in power to keep the punters happy. It has reached the stage world wide where the whole monetry system is in danger of collapse.
Solution.
Run the country with a board of directors, like a company banning political parties. Each director being an expert in a given field. I would like to think that a business proven expert in a given occupation would have a stronger grasp on reality than the dummies that you lot are likely to vote in. I know in my field the billions of dollars lost in leaky homes simply because the rules were changed by people that havent a clue. Macdunk

POSSUM THE CAT
21-11-2011, 01:03 PM
Mac Dunk like the board of PRC or NOG amongst many others

777
21-11-2011, 01:16 PM
Selling assets down to 51% is fine with me as long as the funds are directed at infrastructure creation. New hospitals, schools etc. Saves borrowing money for these projects. If it is just to pay normal day to day spending then they shouldn't be sold.

fungus pudding
21-11-2011, 01:54 PM
National flogging off the assets.Labour borrowing like crazy.Act with rear end Brash.
NZ first, and Winstone.The greens, and farting cows. Good gawd guys is it just me or has the political system gone mad. The political system revolves on Govts borrowing like crazy wracking up unrepayable debt, to stay in power to keep the punters happy. It has reached the stage world wide where the whole monetry system is in danger of collapse.
Solution.
Run the country with a board of directors, like a company banning political parties. Each director being an expert in a given field. I would like to think that a business proven expert in a given occupation would have a stronger grasp on reality than the dummies that you lot are likely to vote in. I know in my field the billions of dollars lost in leaky homes simply because the rules were changed by people that havent a clue. Macdunk

Maybe there is nobody worth voting for in your opinion. If you really believe that you must then at least accept that some are less worth voting for than others. I always use my vote to the greatest effect against the party I least like. This time around I will vote Act as it seems to be the best way of blocking Goff who I would not like to see as PM, and I think their economic policies are nonsense. So work out who you dislike more than others.

duncan macgregor
21-11-2011, 02:47 PM
Maybe there is nobody worth voting for in your opinion. If you really believe that you must then at least accept that some are less worth voting for than others. I always use my vote to the greatest effect against the party I least like. This time around I will vote Act as it seems to be the best way of blocking Goff who I would not like to see as PM, and I think their economic policies are nonsense. So work out who you dislike more than others.That would depend on my location at the time. If in epsom I would vote national. I would then give my party vote to winstone to combat asset sales. That would get rid of Brash and winny the poo might save key from selling the assets. I dont think people are stupid enough to have a greenie labour Govt running the economy or lets hope not. My election enthusiasm is at an all time low so perhaps I will take your suggestion and use my vote as a protest. On the otherhand that might only encourage them. Its my opinion drastic changes are looming with numerous countries economies going under so lets hope whoever gets in has the guts to get this country back on track. Macdunk

fungus pudding
21-11-2011, 04:58 PM
That would depend on my location at the time. If in epsom I would vote national. I would then give my party vote to winstone to combat asset sales.

Surely as an investor you can see the benefit of levering these assets and lifting the balance sheet. I reckon it's criminal to hold assets and never review the situation. It's illegal for pvt. trustees not to actively manage for the beneficial owner. There's huge opportunities with some dilligence aplied to these things.

CJ
21-11-2011, 05:12 PM
Brent shearer disagreed because the cost of funds is 4% verses selling them at 7%. But what if our debt gets out of control under Labour and cost of funds gets over 7% like it just did in Italy.

He also doesn't compare it to what the funds will go to instead. Provided it goes into infrastructure or SOEs where the the return is equally as high.

My only criticism is that they want to sell 49% of all power cos. Why not keep 100% of the smallest one where they can keep the listed ones honest - you dont need 3 to do that.

fungus pudding
21-11-2011, 05:23 PM
A good idea? Really? Read what Brent Shearer has to say ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10765463

Still think it makes sense?

Presumably you and Mr. Shearer think the govt. should stand in the market for the remainder of Air NZ. Any other NZ companies you want them to buy?

GTM 3442
21-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Selling assets down to 51% is fine with me as long as the funds are directed at infrastructure creation. New hospitals, schools etc. Saves borrowing money for these projects. If it is just to pay normal day to day spending then they shouldn't be sold.

What do you think they're selling, if not Infrastructure ?

fungus pudding
21-11-2011, 07:27 PM
What do you think they're selling, if not Infrastructure ?

Exactly. In the same way pvt. investors, shares, real estate, and other equities sell assets to grow wealth.

Halebop
21-11-2011, 09:39 PM
As much as I'm enjoying the tax cut National gave me, I'm investing it, not spending it. While there may be a benefit to this, I'm not sure the billions in extra debt being incurred is worth the cost. Take the tax cut back and I'll accept a transfer of the infrastructure assets to the super fund or an infrastructure bank as a quid pro quo. The logic of lost earnings versus saved interest negates each other so I'm left with any level of foreign ownership of growing earnings being a worse balance of payments drag than debt that at least reduces with inflation.

While I still favour National (or a strategic vote that assists National), Key's consummate skills as a trader are beginning to look more like there is no plan.

If Labour used some better logic on capital gains (indexed, not 15% flat rated) I could be tempted to throw my lot that way. But I think a capital gains tax would need to be offset by lower income tax and I can't see that happening.

Major von Tempsky
22-11-2011, 07:55 AM
You don't want a plan, you want the markets to work so we can all improve our standard of living. Remember the Soviet Unions 5 year plans?

If there is "nobody worth voting for" then you are saying you prefer communism or fascism or anarchy which is what you will get by default.

CJ
22-11-2011, 08:39 AM
I agree with McT (I think). You dont need some big complex plan as it will be doomed to fail (especially if impletement by politians and govt servants). You want solid foundations and let the economy to sort it self out. Boring but true.

That is why despite 63% of business leaders thinking Key has no plan, 98% want him in for the next term.

In terms of Goff, while many may not like asset sales, I dont think many beleive in the alternative he is putting up, especially when you add in the Greens demands.

I still think Key could have appeased many concerns but saying he would keep 100% of Genesis, at least for the next 3 year term. It is the smaller of the ones so the effect on debt is the lowest.

fungus pudding
22-11-2011, 08:47 AM
As much as I'm enjoying the tax cut National gave me, I'm investing it, not spending it. While there may be a benefit to this, I'm not sure the billions in extra debt being incurred is worth the cost. Take the tax cut back and I'll accept a transfer of the infrastructure assets to the super fund or an infrastructure bank as a quid pro quo. The logic of lost earnings versus saved interest negates each other so I'm left with any level of foreign ownership of growing earnings being a worse balance of payments drag than debt that at least reduces with inflation.

While I still favour National (or a strategic vote that assists National), Key's consummate skills as a trader are beginning to look more like there is no plan.

If Labour used some better logic on capital gains (indexed, not 15% flat rated) I could be tempted to throw my lot that way. But I think a capital gains tax would need to be offset by lower income tax and I can't see that happening.

And it needs a repatriation clause, but Labour plans to copy the Australian model or per transaction basis. Huge problems with that.

Halebop
22-11-2011, 08:22 PM
You don't want a plan, you want the markets to work so we can all improve our standard of living. Remember the Soviet Unions 5 year plans?

If there is "nobody worth voting for" then you are saying you prefer communism or fascism or anarchy which is what you will get by default.

I agree. So if Austrian is the plan - let's please enunciate that. So far the National government has appointed taxpayers as both the lender and insurer of last resort. Not very Austrian. It's the mixed mesages that leave me confused, not the meddling in the financial sectors. (And on the philosophy of economics, if we should have ensured financial stability by contrived mechanisms and intervention, then Austrian doesn't work). At the other end of the spectrum they stopped contributing towards the stability of my retirement by cutting the front loading toward super while incurring larger debts thanks to a tax cut. While I can save that tax gain, many won't. I can shrug and say bad luck them, but it will be my savings that get taxed to pay for their spending later on, probably by a labour government who will blame National for their lack of planning.

winner69
23-11-2011, 12:48 PM
By default I be voting Green on Saturday for no other reason then tey seem to be the only sensible and rational part around

Act knocked themselves out of the running when Brash and Banks god bless us came on the scene. NZ First never in the running for obvious reasons, Labour would never get my vote and this could be the end of this Party forever and National being the party with no big plan to get this country out of the crap doesn't deserve to be the government (unless you believe that throwing money at any problem that crops up is the way regardless of the consequences) .... and Key gives me the creeps as he slowly steals the country for his mates

Sounds like the country is well and truely stuffed if we rely on the politicians to save the day .... maybe the Greens can make the rest see sense

Halebop
23-11-2011, 05:44 PM
By default I be voting Green on Saturday for no other reason then tey seem to be the only sensible and rational part around

Act knocked themselves out of the running when Brash and Banks god bless us came on the scene. NZ First never in the running for obvious reasons, Labour would never get my vote and this could be the end of this Party forever and National being the party with no big plan to get this country out of the crap doesn't deserve to be the government (unless you believe that throwing money at any problem that crops up is the way regardless of the consequences) .... and Key gives me the creeps as he slowly steals the country for his mates

Sounds like the country is well and truely stuffed if we rely on the politicians to save the day .... maybe the Greens can make the rest see sense

Screw it, you've convinced me. You're also evoking memories of the only politician I've played hacky-sack with.

winner69
23-11-2011, 06:32 PM
Halebop - hacky sack!!!! - dare I ask who with?

Major von Tempsky
23-11-2011, 08:21 PM
We appear to be on the cusp of a major fundamental structural political change - Greens displacing Labour as the second political party. Australia has already arrived at this point according to some polls earlier this year.

Unfortunately it won't be until 2014 in NZ.

Halebop
23-11-2011, 08:24 PM
Halebop - hacky sack!!!! - dare I ask who with?

I so want to say Bill English but it was Nandor Tanczos - like you needed to ask!

JBmurc
23-11-2011, 11:33 PM
If I didn't need my export job to earn a living an I smoked heaps of weed I could just about think the greens in power would be a good thing
but sadly I need my job...an I take some time to read the greens Priorities as well as I still have a decent enough memory of the recent times of the greens rose tinted fix for NZ

Majority of the Greens Revenues plan is TAX--- ETS,Cap gain,increase levies,increase parking fees,fuel tax hikes,rego hikes,toll roads,more hikes more levies more PC control strict RMA enforced min 6yrs till your allowed to build anything unless 100% green tech used...
As well as increasing min wage,giving workers more rights that business owners,lower spending on roading (pot holes galore)


what we would get---mass increase in rail (old tech) windmills (old tech) massive funds to study new tech ..small car traffic jams
bonus extras 20%+ unemployment --lower credit rating 10-12% bank rates,huge drug trade,strict RMA police,PC control anti smacking laws,shorter jail sentenaces

elZorro
24-11-2011, 09:38 AM
I still think that a proper coalition between Labour and the Greens would be really interesting, and just maybe we'll get to see that after the election. Years ago I started reading about climate change and peak oil etc, but of course the Greens have been thinking about it for decades. We need more long-term thinking in NZ, and as someone else here said, a 5-20 year plan. The govt expects the regional councils to come up with these plans, which are audited. But govt itself lurches along on a three-year plan. Well, if they get the nod this weekend, we'll see National in its true form, there's going to be a lot of slash/burn.

777
24-11-2011, 11:58 AM
Labour/Green. God help us. There will nobody to left to govern within three years. Anywhere would be a preferable place to live than NZ. You are probably right though it will happen sometime. Just hope to hell it is not this Saturday. I'm not ready. By the next election I will be all sold up, money moved offshore and ready to go.

Watching the disaster from the outside will be a better place. Best of luck but be careful what you wish for.

elZorro
24-11-2011, 12:33 PM
Labour/Green. God help us. There will nobody to left to govern within three years. Anywhere would be a preferable place to live than NZ. You are probably right though it will happen sometime. Just hope to hell it is not this Saturday. I'm not ready. By the next election I will be all sold up, money moved offshore and ready to go.

Watching the disaster from the outside will be a better place. Best of luck but be careful what you wish for.

Well, it'll be a thoughtful, polite disaster. If Phil Goff was just a bit quicker on his feet he'd make a meal of John Key, Labour has more of the answers for NZ. You have to admit Muldoon was good at that.


New Zealand's prime minister at the time, Robert Muldoon, had a ready reply to complaints: 'New Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries'.

elZorro
24-11-2011, 08:37 PM
777, you should stick around. The best might be ahead of us. Labour's closing address.

http://youtu.be/Ksc1AAnGpsw

JBmurc
24-11-2011, 09:06 PM
What I don't get is Goff going on an on an on..... about National selling the country's assets doom gloom ,my understanding is the Nat government will float no more than 49%
--So we could see some more floats on the NZX could only been seen as a good thing for the small NZX to have some major blue chips on board,Superfund could invest more dollars into the NZX rather than overseas..

Now if you looking on the micro level how does one more safely grow wealth esp in tight credit market's ,borrow more money or sell down mature investments to grow new ones....

elZorro
24-11-2011, 09:33 PM
What I don't get is Goff going on an on an on..... about National selling the country's assets doom gloom ,my understanding is the Nat government will float no more than 49%
--So we could see some more floats on the NZX could only been seen as a good thing for the small NZX to have some major blue chips on board,Superfund could invest more dollars into the NZX rather than overseas..

Now if you looking on the micro level how does one more safely grow wealth esp in tight credit market's ,borrow more money or sell down mature investments to grow new ones....

Hi JB, trust you're doing well down there. I'm a bit attached to our power stations. These are not weak assets that need some growth money from the sharemarket. It's possible some of these assets are simply being used to appease iwi under their looming relativity agreement, see other thread. NZED used to have the best interests of the nation at heart. The more split up the power supply is, the worse for all of us. No one company will make the bold step of putting in a new big station that we'll need for real power security. Especially with the shareholders moaning on ST about poor quarterly profits. So in effect, we'll be paying more than we should for power, and supply will stay tight.

And that's all I have to say about that..

fungus pudding
24-11-2011, 10:09 PM
What I don't get is Goff going on an on an on..... about National selling the country's assets doom gloom ,my understanding is the Nat government will float no more than 49%
--So we could see some more floats on the NZX could only been seen as a good thing for the small NZX to have some major blue chips on board,Superfund could invest more dollars into the NZX rather than overseas..

Now if you looking on the micro level how does one more safely grow wealth esp in tight credit market's ,borrow more money or sell down mature investments to grow new ones....

The one they should float as a PPP is Kiwibank, but for illogical reasons it would be too unpopular, and Key has ruled it out.
It doesn't perform well to say the least, needs to be recapitalised, which a partial float would fix, and it would attract thousands of new customers. The punters would bank there if they held a few shares, and the bank could issue stock in lieu of interest for depositors. It could become a major bank and profitable. But of course the 'keep the family silver' crowd would react orgasmically. Pity we've got all these financial experts who know how to avoid great opportunities in the name of protecting us from nasty investors.

Major von Tempsky
25-11-2011, 10:15 AM
Go National!

And Go Green! (well, not really, but disappointed to see them slip back a bit against Labour instead of wiping Labour out as they so richly deserve).

Here in Chch there's 3 seats to watch with a hope of them moving out of the Labour camp into National :-)

fungus pudding
25-11-2011, 11:03 AM
Go National!

And Go Green! (well, not really, but disappointed to see them slip back a bit against Labour instead of wiping Labour out as they so richly deserve).

Here in Chch there's 3 seats to watch with a hope of them moving out of the Labour camp into National :-)

Do you not realise that a vote for Greens is a vote for Labour, or more correctly a vote for a Labour lead coalition - possibly making the Maori party kingmaker?

elZorro
25-11-2011, 11:56 AM
Do you not realise that a vote for Greens is a vote for Labour, or more correctly a vote for a Labour lead coalition - possibly making the Maori party kingmaker?

Liike I said, wouldn't that be interesting FP?

POSSUM THE CAT
25-11-2011, 12:11 PM
Would it be even more funny if John Key has to go crawling to Winston

J R Ewing
25-11-2011, 01:28 PM
Well here is my take FWIW:

ACT. I've been a long term supporter, but last time I only voted for them because Roger Douglas was standing. Douglas and Prebble used to promote some constructive policies. Rodney Hyde's perkbusting role didn't pull my chain - even before he was shown to be a hypocrite. Somehow Don Brash doesn't inspire me. And I detest the rort that is being attempted in Epsom.

Greens. I actually like many of their environmental polices, but the socialist baggage that they bring along with them rules them out for me.

Labour. Have come up with some constructive policies such as the retirement age and Capital Gains Tax. But they seem to want to pay for it all by penalising those with initiative who enjoy a modicum of success (Micheal Culen's Rich Pricks?). Their flag is nailed firmly to the mast of the disadvantaged, vulnerable, at risk or otherwise unfortunate. They don't seem to want my vote! And, like most of the country, I just don't much like Phil.

NZ First. I just don't trust the man, and wouldn't buy a used car off him. I was very pleased to see him out last time and I hope it stays that way.

National. John Key seems like a nice chap doesn't he! But for the life of me I can't see why we would sell those assets, and most of the rest of the polices are too centrist/left wing for me. I mean, it not as if we are actually doing anything about closing the gap with Australia, is it? I hate socialism in the guise of right wing politics, but NZ loves it. Key might be the most left wing PM we have had since Muldoon!

If McGillicuddy Serious were still in the race, they would have my vote. But as it is I guess I will stay home tomorrow.

But perhaps I should put in a futile vote for SM in the referendum!

Lego_Man
25-11-2011, 03:31 PM
Well here is my take FWIW:

ACT. I've been a long term supporter, but last time I only voted for them because Roger Douglas was standing. Douglas and Prebble used to promote some constructive policies. Rodney Hyde's perkbusting role didn't pull my chain - even before he was shown to be a hypocrite. Somehow Don Brash doesn't inspire me. And I detest the rort that is being attempted in Epsom.

Greens. I actually like many of their environmental polices, but the socialist baggage that they bring along with them rules them out for me.

Labour. Have come up with some constructive policies such as the retirement age and Capital Gains Tax. But they seem to want to pay for it all by penalising those with initiative who enjoy a modicum of success (Micheal Culen's Rich Pricks?). Their flag is nailed firmly to the mast of the disadvantaged, vulnerable, at risk or otherwise unfortunate. They don't seem to want my vote! And, like most of the country, I just don't much like Phil.

NZ First. I just don't trust the man, and wouldn't buy a used car off him. I was very pleased to see him out last time and I hope it stays that way.

National. John Key seems like a nice chap doesn't he! But for the life of me I can't see why we would sell those assets, and most of the rest of the polices are too centrist/left wing for me. I mean, it not as if we are actually doing anything about closing the gap with Australia, is it? I hate socialism in the guise of right wing politics, but NZ loves it. Key might be the most left wing PM we have had since Muldoon!

If McGillicuddy Serious were still in the race, they would have my vote. But as it is I guess I will stay home tomorrow.

But perhaps I should put in a futile vote for SM in the referendum!


Before you condemn Epsom as a rort, consider the Maori seats, which give Leftwing parties a potential 6 seat bonus added to the size of Parliament every single election. As far as im concerned the Epsom shenanigans are just a small way to even the ledger.

J R Ewing
25-11-2011, 03:57 PM
The Maori seats are a rort as well, as evidenced by the poor party vote support for The Maori Party and Mana. More or less the same case with Peter Dunne and the Jim Anderton party.

We have a bad system. You can't really blame anyone for taking advantage of it.

elZorro
25-11-2011, 05:45 PM
If people would just vote for the policies they like, rather than the people presenting them in front of the TV cameras, maybe we'll get a better result long-term. It takes a bit more work though, some reading. Don't trust the TV presentations all the time. JR, it was a long time ago that thinking people decided that those at the richer end of the spectrum could, and should, shoulder proportionally more of the tax burden. An increasing gap between rich and poor is no good for anyone in the end.

Major von Tempsky
26-11-2011, 07:17 AM
Don't worry about closing the gap with Australia, if the climate warmists are right then it will simply become too hot to live in and they'll all come crawling back to NZ.

Besides which Australia's economy is now very narrowly concentrated, mining and exporting coal and iron ore. This has caused a record surge in the Australian dollar which is killing off all their other economic activities including tourism. Bankruptcies and unemployment follow as in the Queensland tourism industry.

As some educated cynic noted, the reason that National is ahead in the polls here is that a lot of the ignorant unwashed Labour voters have emigrated to Australia.

fungus pudding
26-11-2011, 07:36 AM
If people would just vote for the policies they like, rather than the people presenting them in front of the TV cameras, maybe we'll get a better result long-term. It takes a bit more work though, some reading. Don't trust the TV presentations all the time. JR, it was a long time ago that thinking people decided that those at the richer end of the spectrum could, and should, shoulder proportionally more of the tax burden. An increasing gap between rich and poor is no good for anyone in the end.

'The rich get rich - and the poor get poorer', that's been the catch-cry of many down through the ages. Another boring old cliche. Fortunately it's not true in NZ. Living standards for all sectors have risen. Yes, they could be better, not by screwing the rich, but by enriching the country, and one important factor is to allow entrpeneurs to flourish, encourage them, destroy the tall poppy mentality that is so noticeable in NZ - perhaps our most defining charateristic. You simply cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor. Since we cannot all be rich, the only way to bring about equality is to make us all poor. I have no doubt that would make some people very happy.

elZorro
26-11-2011, 07:36 AM
Don't worry about closing the gap with Australia, if the climate warmists are right then it will simply become too hot to live in and they'll all come crawling back to NZ.

Besides which Australia's economy is now very narrowly concentrated, mining and exporting coal and iron ore. This has caused a record surge in the Australian dollar which is killing off all their other economic activities including tourism. Bankruptcies and unemployment follow as in the Queensland tourism industry.

As some educated cynic noted, the reason that National is ahead in the polls here is that a lot of the ignorant unwashed Labour voters have emigrated to Australia.

If that's true, Major, isn't it a hollow victory for National voters, that when it comes time for the Hoi Polloi to get tradespeople in for a job on their property, they have a struggle to get anyone there, and some wanting a cash deal. Why? they have been underpaid for too long. Take the carpet industry. Landlords and business owners continually seem fascinated with secondhand, grubby carpet that belongs in a skip. I've been told they expect tradespeople to come in afterhours and do a job that looks like new, while pricing on a metre rate standard. But there are enough people desperate for extra cash, that this work will get done eventually. Not that many years ago I met a painter who was eagerly sought after by rental owners. He only charged $15 an hour, it was all under the table. The situation didn't seem to bother the rental owners. That was the price they were prepared to spend for a qualified tradesman working with solvents all day.

FP, I agree with you that our businesses need some impetus. I disagree strongly that removing government red tape will do that, there's not that much there for most businesses now. Any that think so must be in a special situation with a big reward in the offing, or should pull their heads in.

Labour's R&D 12.5% tax credits for any business (I see there is to be a cap of $800mill over 5 years, and paid for by speeding up ETS levies on farmers) is a good idea, but all parties should look hard at the ability of small business to access the CRIs. In my experience, there is a $50,000 price tag on the picking up of a pen. That's what the CRIs think of our business sector, despite a big chunk of their operating funds coming from the taxpayer.

fungus pudding
26-11-2011, 07:48 AM
If that's true, Major, isn't it a hollow victory for National voters, that when it comes time for the Hoi Polloi to get tradespeople in for a job on their property, they have a struggle to get anyone there, and some wanting a cash deal. Why? they have been underpaid for too long. Take the carpet industry. Landlords and business owners continually seem fascinated with secondhand, grubby carpet that belongs in a skip. I've been told they expect tradespeople to come in afterhours and do a job that looks like new, while pricing on a metre rate standard. But there are enough people desperate for extra cash, that this work will get done eventually. Not that many years ago I met a painter who was eagerly sought after by rental owners. He only charged $15 an hour, it was all under the table. The situation didn't seem to bother the rental owners. That was the price they were prepared to spend for a qualified tradesman working with solvents all day.

Rental owners are hardly the ones who want the cashies. There will be some, but it'sgenerally domestic consumers, not businesses who promote the black economy. It's brought about by the tax rates. The higher they are the bigger the black economy, the lower they are, the lower the black economy. Simple really. That is why the introduction of GST and the corresponding lowering of income tax brought about the massive boost to the tax take. It suprised the govt. and the IRD who were expecting to close the escape net, but didn't realise how big the hole in it had become. It was at its worst when Muldoon raised income tax to 66cents in the dollar. I remember paying that - it was a disaster. That's the sort of thing that makes doctors take the day off and paint their own houses to cite an extreme example.

elZorro
26-11-2011, 08:14 AM
Rental owners are hardly the ones who want the cashies. There will be some, but it'sgenerally domestic consumers, not businesses who promote the black economy. It's brought about by the tax rates. The higher they are the bigger the black economy, the lower they are, the lower the black economy. Simple really. That is why the introduction of GST and the corresponding lowering of income tax brought about the massive boost to the tax take. It suprised the govt. and the IRD who were expecting to close the escape net, but didn't realise how big the hole in it had become. It was at its worst when Muldoon raised income tax to 66cents in the dollar. I remember paying that - it was a disaster. That's the sort of thing that makes doctors take the day off and paint their own houses to cite an extreme example.

A guy I know has been building up a residential property portfolio for years. Block flats, all sorts. He still works for someone else, uses their computer (during work time) and work vehicle after hours to look after his properties, and bludges the odd favour from mates who are tradespeople. Does this sound like a person who will pay top dollar for anything? And at the end of it all, under current rules he'll pay no capital gains tax, which will be the major profit from the whole tight-arst enterprise. He won't have employed anyone full-time, won't have manufactured or exported anything, and the assets will probably look just as tired as when he bought them.

JBmurc
26-11-2011, 09:31 AM
A guy I know has been building up a residential property portfolio for years. Block flats, all sorts. He still works for someone else, uses their computer (during work time) and work vehicle after hours to look after his properties, and bludges the odd favour from mates who are tradespeople. Does this sound like a person who will pay top dollar for anything? And at the end of it all, under current rules he'll pay no capital gains tax, which will be the major profit from the whole tight-arst enterprise. He won't have employed anyone full-time, won't have manufactured or exported anything, and the assets will probably look just as tired as when he bought them.

the best growth in property in NZ was when labour was in power if there ever was a time to get tough on property it was during their term but they didn't care while properties locally went up 100-300% some buyers holding for only months before taking massive Cap gains not a word from Labour now it's the smartest Idea since sliced bread LOL an National are only looking after rich mates
Under national spec builders/property developers/large landlords etc are worse off----no more LAQC ,less depreciation right offs,higher GST ....

Outside our own property/rentals I paid tax on any short term property over the years

fungus pudding
26-11-2011, 09:32 AM
A guy I know has been building up a residential property portfolio for years. Block flats, all sorts. He still works for someone else, uses their computer (during work time) and work vehicle after hours to look after his properties, and bludges the odd favour from mates who are tradespeople. Does this sound like a person who will pay top dollar for anything? And at the end of it all, under current rules he'll pay no capital gains tax, which will be the major profit from the whole tight-arst enterprise. He won't have employed anyone full-time, won't have manufactured or exported anything, and the assets will probably look just as tired as when he bought them.

I know what you mean. My first job was with the govt. Post and Telegraph workshops. I used to rip them off something wicked - but only to try and keep up with the others. I was nowhere near as good as most though. You name it - if we couldn't flog what we wanted, or buy it in - we made it. Those who really wanted to up the perks didn't muck around - they transferred to the Railways workshops. Not only did most of my co-workers avoid paying top dollar for things, they generally avoided paying any dollars for anything.

elZorro
26-11-2011, 01:35 PM
There were a few stories going around about gear being flogged from the Huntly Power Station too, when it was under construction. There was a cost overrun, but it still got built at a reasonable price, and is still a good asset after all these years.

I don't want to get offside with anyone, I'm just stating facts about what some choose to do for their investments. If some of that effort from smart people who know how to run a business was redirected into manufacturing (a niche area is a good start), it would go a long way to helping the entire country, and maybe in the long term those investors would be a lot better off too, they won't even need tax dodges or perks. But you don't see many business people standing up and saying this, because most business areas have just a small amount of inside knowledge that helps gain the edge (it might take a few years to gain it). Government needs to provide the push, in the same way they pushed many of us to insulate our old houses finally.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 08:10 AM
Let's see - 48% for National, 1.1% for ACT, 0.7% for United Future and 2.8% for the Conservative Party = 52.6%.

That's a mandate for asset sales and practically anything else u want :-)

fungus pudding
28-11-2011, 09:29 AM
Let's see - 48% for National, 1.1% for ACT, 0.7% for United Future and 2.8% for the Conservative Party = 52.6%.

That's a mandate for asset sales and practically anything else u want :-)

Conservatives were against asset sales, so is Dunne but will probably abstain rather than vote it down.
Never mind - it's a great scheme. I'd like to see all SOEs become PPPs. Unfortunately it will take two decades to get there.

Major von Tempsky
28-11-2011, 10:41 AM
Au contraire Belge old mate, look at the NZ media this morning and you will see that Key says that the election result is specifically a mandate for asset sales. He is claiming it.

The 52.6% for the conservative parties is a mandate for practically any centre-right change John Key wants to make. Naturally he won't make any way out raving looney left or raving mad greenie changes.

In fact some observers go so far as to say the conservative parties got just under 60% if you include Winston.

I don't - Winston doesn't actually have a coherent political philosophy and can't be categorised as Right or Left or Centre. He's just an opportunist totally lacking in principle.

His modus operandi is to find an issue, any issue that the polls say at least 5% of the voters are worried about and he's in favour of it.
He's extreme right on immigration but that's accidental, it's purely because it scores over 5% that he's anti immigration. Similarly with national super, because OAPs over over 5% of the pop he's in favour of it. If 5% of the pop wanted to change from driving on the left to driving on the right he'd be in favour except its immigrants who want to drive on the right and OAPs wouldn't want to change.

elZorro
03-12-2011, 09:13 PM
Au contraire Belge old mate, look at the NZ media this morning and you will see that Key says that the election result is specifically a mandate for asset sales. He is claiming it.

The 52.6% for the conservative parties is a mandate for practically any centre-right change John Key wants to make. Naturally he won't make any way out raving looney left or raving mad greenie changes.

In fact some observers go so far as to say the conservative parties got just under 60% if you include Winston.

I don't - Winston doesn't actually have a coherent political philosophy and can't be categorised as Right or Left or Centre. He's just an opportunist totally lacking in principle.

His modus operandi is to find an issue, any issue that the polls say at least 5% of the voters are worried about and he's in favour of it.
He's extreme right on immigration but that's accidental, it's purely because it scores over 5% that he's anti immigration. Similarly with national super, because OAPs over over 5% of the pop he's in favour of it. If 5% of the pop wanted to change from driving on the left to driving on the right he'd be in favour except its immigrants who want to drive on the right and OAPs wouldn't want to change.

Here's Brian's article on asset sales. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10770465

The market will want a capital gain on the first listing. Already Genesis for example, is estimated in full at below 2billion, say 1.7billion. They own a few power stations beside Huntly. The four big generators making up the older part of the Huntly station and the apparatus with it, would cost over 2.5 billion to replace (quoted 3-4 years ago too). So this estimate is for the written-down value of the assets, not replacement value. But Huntly is good to go for at least another 20 years, because a good outer frame was built over it, and maintenance has been kept up. Apparently some other stations around the world are not as tidy.

So I think there are lots of reasons to stop the asset sales as proposed. We won't get a fair price, and if we did, the market will hate the sharemarket result, and no more will be sold anyway.