PDA

View Full Version : If Labour wins.....?



minimoke
24-07-2014, 08:56 PM
Over 300 pages on one topic about National winning for the upcoming election. What gives? So I'm here to start the shortest thread around.

Sorry can't contribute much since I cant envisage such an outcome.

peat
24-07-2014, 09:13 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3524601/simpsons-flying-pig-o.gif

fungus pudding
24-07-2014, 09:23 PM
Over 300 pages on one topic about National winning for the upcoming election. What gives? So I'm here to start the shortest thread around.

Sorry can't contribute much since I cant envisage such an outcome.

It's not impossible. It will be all about coaltions. Labour/Green/internet-mana are approx equal to National. That leaves Winston to decide who will be the govt. He'll certainly get plenty of baubles for himself. Doesn't seem to be anyome else capable of much in the party. My guess is he will go National. Labour will have to give juciest baubles to Greens.

elZorro
24-07-2014, 09:31 PM
Minimoke, I think what we are discussing on the other thread is whether National will hold onto power for another term (possible), but of course their chances of holding on in 2017 (if they get through this one) must be slim. 3 terms on, 3 terms off.

Now if the voters of NZ were really interested in holding National to account for the last six years of performance, and even without knowing for sure how Labour would have handled the GFC and ChCh earthquakes, I don't think National would get a pass mark in September 2014.

They are running a very good PR campaign, that's for sure. Very slick, they are spending the big cash (some of it taxpayers money), it's working so far. The public are completely oblivious to the slack job that National has done. It's in the stats. You won't see National noting about how they've paid off old govt debt (they haven't done that), or even show the borrowing record since 2008 (they have borrowed heaps). They have been inept, that's why.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me - one impressive thing that National has done since 2008. Just one will do.

Harvey Specter
25-07-2014, 08:02 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me - one impressive thing that National has done since 2008. Just one will do.
They have kept the economy strong enough that the RBNZ hasn't had to do zero/negative interest rates like some other OECD countries.
They have borrowed heaps to help the Chch rebuild without any effect on the countries credit rating.
Our unemployement rates were moderate compared to the PIIGS, despite have a very high (public) debt level.

I'm not saying they are perfect. Their biggest mistakes IMHO are:
- blindly not addressing the retirement age (for the sake of trust, rather than good policy)
- the tax cuts being mis-targeted to favour the rich to much
- not unwinding some of Labours bribes, like interest free student loans and WFF (while they have wound back a bit, I would have prefered them to do it more so, maybe matched by a reduction in lower tax rates to offset)

Harvey Specter
25-07-2014, 08:09 AM
Now if Labour did win?

The three biggest issues I see are:
- the NZ power scheme. If anyone has read the updates from the power co's this week, they are not the issue, it is the already highly regulated lines companies
- CGT. Could be good but Labour aren't proposing a market leading scheme (ie. due to excluding the family home)
- Will spending get out of control. Labour actually did quite well for their their frist 2 terms last time but as they got debt down (congratulations) they spiked spending massively which would have been disastrous leading into the GFC.

Over laying the top of this is will they have the power to implement the policies they want or will every policy have so many exclusions, exemptions etc to pander for all the 'minor' parties that they need to get something across the line. imagine every policy needing to have no impact on Northern Maori (Mana), German criminals (internet), the old (WinstonFirst), hippies (Greens), Unions (Labour), non asians (WinstonFirst), the Uni demographic (Internet), anti industry (Greens), beneficiaries (Labour)....

slimwin
25-07-2014, 08:16 AM
I like what national have done to the family court process on separation. Removing self interested lawyers as the first port of call.

fungus pudding
25-07-2014, 08:21 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me - one impressive thing that National has done since 2008. Just one will do.

Certainly - they have kept the socialists away from the cheque book.

fungus pudding
25-07-2014, 08:23 AM
How about "make the rich even richer while screwing the disadvantaged"? ... US Republicans, fascists and the Nasties would think that's a pretty good achievement.

The rich make themselves richer, not the govt. It's the poor that govts. prop up.

artemis
25-07-2014, 09:37 AM
..... - CGT. Could be good but Labour aren't proposing a market leading scheme (ie. due to excluding the family home) ........ ...

Article on interest.co.nz a couple of days ago about residential rental yeilds (though of course proposed CGT is a great deal wider than that, catching shares and most business and farms for example):

"The ANZ report said the implied yields nationally (from the median price and median rent data) had fallen from 7.8% in 1992 to 4.2% now. In Auckland the implied yield had fallen from 7.4% in 1992 to 3.6% this year, while in Central Otago-Lakes it had fallen from 6.8% to 3.4% over the same period."

They are very low returns, so what would happen if a CGT was brought in and interest rates continued to rise, which is probable. Rents will rise, owners (of all liable assets) will wear the cost now and on eventual disposal of the asset, sell up and move the proceeds elsewhere and not necessarily within NZ. (How about selling up the portfolio and buying a Brancusi for example.) I would like to see some fully costed scenarios of the various alternatives. Otherwise it looks like the policy is designed to reduce Auckland house prices and increase the tax take. But will it? Who knows.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/71070/rental-yields-residential-investment-properties-have-been-steadily-declining-early-19

Harvey Specter
25-07-2014, 09:49 AM
They are very low returns, so what would happen if a CGT was brought in and interest rates continued to rise, which is probable. Rents will rise

...

Otherwise it looks like the policy is designed to reduce Auckland house prices and increase the tax take. But will it? Who knows. Why would rents rise? If a landlord could put up rents now they would. Just because there is a CGT doesn't mean they will be able too.

If house prices fall, how will this increase the tax take? The irony (?) of the policy is that by the time it is implement and on stream will probably coincide with the next recession meaning there will be no 'gains' to tax.

Banksie
25-07-2014, 10:08 AM
They are very low returns, so what would happen if a CGT was brought in and interest rates continued to rise, which is probable.

Not necessarily true, if CGT and interest rates reduce house price inflation yields could improve. Sure, not for those currently owning properties with inflated prices, but new entrants to the rental market should see the benefit.

fungus pudding
25-07-2014, 03:27 PM
Um. I'd suggest wrong again.

I was on a good six figure salary and I did nothing extra but National's tax cuts made me heaps richer.

And the poor? Being propped up by the govt? Nope. The National government borrowed heaps from overseas to prop them up as more and more got further into poverty and the unemployment rate stayed exactly where it has been for most of the six years.

Keep digging FP ... ;)

What tripe. You got a tax cut on your income. Everyone did. Your wealth doesn't come into it. We do not have wealth taxes, only income taxes. But the reduction did not make you wealthy, if you are. On a six figure income at least 30% of your income is taxed at a much higher rate than someone on 70k or less. Reducing the trop rate from 39% to 33% was a good move unless you consider it's productive to have all sorts of people devising ways to legally avoid tax, and to have all sorts of under the counter transactions going on. You might have willingly paid the higher rate, as I did, but the avoidance industry has quietened down. Even Labour acknowledges that with their far more sensible latest top rate; although if they weren't into pleasing the envious and really wanted to boost employment and the economy, they would have set it below the current 33%.

fungus pudding
25-07-2014, 04:56 PM
Your grasp of economics is woeful! Lookup disposable income. Once you get it then figure out how much wealthier I am after six years thanks to the National Party increasing my disposable income.

And perhaps while you're at it - calculate how much wealthier a person on the average wage - and minimum wage - would have been with their measly tax cuts that got gobbled up by the inescapable GST rise.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Is a fish in a barrel called a Nastie?

If you think taxing someone at 33% and others at 10.5% is fair, so-be-it. I don't. It's damaging to the economy. There are far better ways to redistribute income which would far better assist the low paid and welfare dependants without discouraging earners or encouraging avoidance schemes and evasion. It all starts with a flat income tax. The very same % deducted from every single dollar earned no matter how or by whom. The waste caused by an escalating tax scale is tragic.

Sgt Pepper
25-07-2014, 05:54 PM
FP
What specific policy initiatives would like to see a National Government implement in the next term?

fungus pudding
25-07-2014, 06:41 PM
FP
What specific policy initiatives would like to see a National Government implement in the next term?

I cannot understand the question sorry.

Major von Tempsky
25-07-2014, 07:17 PM
Belge still doesn't grasp the elementary economics point that wealth is a stock and income is a flow, 2 different things.

It's like the news media who persist in printing such tripe as GMs sales are bigger than NZ's GDP. Again 2 different things sales is a measure of gross income, GDP is a measure of net income.

If you have pre-existing debt then you may not be wealthy at all.

Cuzzie
25-07-2014, 07:43 PM
Minimoke, I think what we are discussing on the other thread is whether National will hold onto power for another term (possible), but of course their chances of holding on in 2017 (if they get through this one) must be slim. 3 terms on, 3 terms off.

Now if the voters of NZ were really interested in holding National to account for the last six years of performance, and even without knowing for sure how Labour would have handled the GFC and ChCh earthquakes, I don't think National would get a pass mark in September 2014.

They are running a very good PR campaign, that's for sure. Very slick, they are spending the big cash (some of it taxpayers money), it's working so far. The public are completely oblivious to the slack job that National has done. It's in the stats. You won't see National noting about how they've paid off old govt debt (they haven't done that), or even show the borrowing record since 2008 (they have borrowed heaps). They have been inept, that's why.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me - one impressive thing that National has done since 2008. Just one will do. Such outrageous slander. Just as well you can't be sued for talking rubbish like that. I don't think you would have many people believing you anyway, but you carry on. Labour has never done any wrong and National can't do any right - Ahahahahaha.
EZ, la propagande est que vous ne trop mon ami. Silly vraiment.

Cuzzie
25-07-2014, 07:51 PM
Woops excusez mon francais, try this one ... EZ, la propagande est que vous aussi mon ami. Idiot vraiment. Yeah, that's better.

elZorro
25-07-2014, 07:53 PM
That's not slander, it's the truth, mon ami.

Cuzzie
25-07-2014, 07:54 PM
That's not slander, it's the truth, mon ami. Prouvez-le M.

Cuzzie
25-07-2014, 07:58 PM
Vous avez déjà admis votre lot a laissé une dette 13 milliards. Comment cela EZ?

Cuzzie
25-07-2014, 08:06 PM
Désolé, j'aime la langue française. J'étais en Provence l'an dernier et ne peux pas attendre pour revenir - bonheur. EZ, the $13 billion left by Labour, please explain? Merci.

Sgt Pepper
26-07-2014, 07:52 AM
I cannot understand the question sorry.

Based on the assumption that historically its seems to be 3 terms in three terms out than I guess if I was a right of centre voter I may have more robust expectations of the next National government than just holding the fort against the left.
I could imagine a wish list may be the following:

Further loosening of Industrial Relations legislation

Tax reform: moves toward a flattening of tax rates.

ACC: opening up ACC to private insurance completion

Asset Sales: selling Kiwibank, Transpower, and all Air NZ Shares.

Allowing depreciation deduction back into property investment.

Further reductions in Public Service numbers to 25000

Rolling back Working For Families

Reintroduction of interest on Student Loans

Private Health Insurance tax deductibility.

Kiwisaver: terminating the $1000 start payment as well as the $540 p,a tax credit

Raising age of entitlement to NZ Super to 68, and eliminating access to NZ Super if you elect to stay in employment over 65
Electoral: implementing a 4 year term of Parlament/ return to FPP.

Now I am sure there are others but do you think there is any chance of any of the above happening? If not youv'e got to ask what National has really delivered from a Right perspective apart from " we kept them out". And if that is the case when will conservative voters patience run out and they return to ACT? If you look at the last 6 years, apart from partial asset sales, the trophy cupboard is remarkably bare for the right.
Will the fruits of victory be, to quote JFK "be but ashes in their mouths"

fungus pudding
26-07-2014, 08:28 AM
Based on the assumption that historically its seems to be 3 terms in three terms out than I guess if I was a right of centre voter I may have more robust expectations of the next National government than just holding the fort against the left.



Baswed on that I assume the original question was a typo. It makes sense if I add a 'you' in there somewhere. However to answer it is beyond the scope of this forum, and my typing ability. I'll let you know when my book comes out. My main concern at present is silly stuff being thrown out by labour just scouting round for a winner. e.g. yesterday's announcement that future local city council amalgamations will be decided by referendum. Such a subject requires an extensive study and is far beyond the average punter to weigh up the pros and cons. It's that sort of binding referendums crap that is damaging the conservatives - yet Labour can't see it. Far beyond whether I like their policies or not though is the wider problem - they are just hnot ready to govern and certainly not in any position to be the leader of a coalition where the second party has strength of numbers - so I repeat, my vote will be used to keep them out.

stones
26-07-2014, 09:13 AM
Labour will not win!

fungus pudding
26-07-2014, 09:19 AM
Labour will not win!

Add the left block of parties and you might change your mind. :scared:

Joshuatree
26-07-2014, 09:24 AM
With so many media abusing their impartiality with transparently one sided team smarmy key spins there will be a backlash; certainly is my camp.

Sgt Pepper
26-07-2014, 09:42 AM
Baswed on that I assume the original question was a typo. It makes sense if I add a 'you' in there somewhere. However to answer it is beyond the scope of this forum, and my typing ability. I'll let you know when my book comes out. My main concern at present is silly stuff being thrown out by labour just scouting round for a winner. e.g. yesterday's announcement that future local city council amalgamations will be decided by referendum. Such a subject requires an extensive study and is far beyond the average punter to weigh up the pros and cons. It's that sort of binding referendums crap that is damaging the conservatives - yet Labour can't see it. Far beyond whether I like their policies or not though is the wider problem - they are just hnot ready to govern and certainly not in any position to be the leader of a coalition where the second party has strength of numbers - so I repeat, my vote will be used to keep them out.

Still do you not think FP that sometime there may be a cohort of right voters who lose patience with National, and the assumption that " sorry folks, thanks for your votes and for some of you, your time and money, but its"Labour Lite" for the foreseeable future.

slimwin
26-07-2014, 10:45 AM
They still won't vote for that left coalition. They'll just not vote.

fungus pudding
26-07-2014, 11:05 AM
Still do you not think FP that sometime there may be a cohort of right voters who lose patience with National, and the assumption that " sorry folks, thanks for your votes and for some of you, your time and money, but its"Labour Lite" for the foreseeable future.

No I don't. National have done and are doing okay.

Sgt Pepper
26-07-2014, 11:37 AM
No I don't. National have done and are doing okay.

I suspect FP the next 3 years are going to be very interesting indeed.

Sgt Pepper
26-07-2014, 11:38 AM
They still won't vote for that left coalition. They'll just not vote.

ACT resurgence??

fungus pudding
26-07-2014, 12:10 PM
I suspect FP the next 3 years are going to be very interesting indeed.

I agree. I think if National get in this election they will have a very easy ride for a fourth term.

stones
27-07-2014, 10:02 AM
Add the left block of parties and you might change your mind. :scared:

My mind will not change fp.

fungus pudding
27-07-2014, 10:03 AM
What do you base that statement on?




Labour are likely to lose a lot from parliament, and there only hop of governing will be as heading a very strange coalition. If they don't get to govern they will have to rebuild, internet mana is a oncer. Greens have got as far as they ever will . .......

artemis
27-07-2014, 10:26 AM
If the left can 'get out the vote', and IMP's $$$ will help a lot with that, then they do have a good chance of forming the next government. IMHO.

janner
27-07-2014, 08:23 PM
What is wrong with bring back a Stamp Duty on Property ??

Xerof
27-07-2014, 08:51 PM
I missed the news today - did anyone see what the latest poll results were like?

Major von Tempsky
27-07-2014, 09:56 PM
Yep National 52%, Labour down 1, Key up Cunliffe down - what more could you want? :-)

Interesting possibility with the 2 threads now, if El Zorro and Belge and their frothing at the mouth left wing lunatics specialize in the other thread then the rest of us sensible people can have a good time on this thread :-)

fungus pudding
28-07-2014, 07:12 AM
What is wrong with bring back a Stamp Duty on Property ??

No need. NZ changed the system and now property searches incur a fee to replace stamp duty. When stamp duty was charged Lands and Deeds did not charge and this led to huge queues in their offices. Somehow that 'need' disappeared. Better all round and certainly eliminates another charge when buying a property.

stones
28-07-2014, 07:58 AM
Labour are likely to lose a lot from parliament, and there only hop of governing will be as heading a very strange coalition. If they don't get to govern they will have to rebuild, internet mana is a oncer. Greens have got as far as they ever will . .......

Aye aye to that

Sgt Pepper
28-07-2014, 08:03 AM
Yep National 52%, Labour down 1, Key up Cunliffe down - what more could you want? :-)

Interesting possibility with the 2 threads now, if El Zorro and Belge and their frothing at the mouth left wing lunatics specialize in the other thread then the rest of us sensible people can have a good time on this thread :-)

Quite right MVT
Left wing "frothing" lunatics can now just sit back and watch the unfolding political spectacle of National dealing ( or not dealing)with

plummeting dairy prices
mortgagee sales
Bursting of the Auckland Housing bubble
spiking interest rates
escalating industrial unrest in the health sector

Paula Bennett and Michael Woodhouse staging an in house National caucus coup in 2017 ( Tories fighting-what fun)

fungus pudding
28-07-2014, 08:05 AM
Aye aye to that

I could have added this is Winston's last term, if he makes it. Like all cults, Winston first will disappear with Winston.

fungus pudding
28-07-2014, 10:53 AM
Says a person who sees politics and policy as a personality contest. Sheesh. I despair.

You have no idea how I see politics, or anything else.

Cuzzie
28-07-2014, 10:56 AM
I see Argentina is on the verge of default again. Just last year Argentina was rated the most corrupt nation in Latin America, according to Transparency International, however corruption aside, it is yet just another example of failed socialist politics and policies. Think left for the negative. Can anybody name a Left Wing Country that is doing better than the average at worst at the moment or even just average?

What if Labour and their flock of political partners does win? The reason we are doing so well tradewise is because of the positive Government we have. That being said, not all Centre Right Govt. around the Globe have the same positive principles - Case in action, the Conservative Party in the UK and their P.M David Cameron. David Cameron, who as prime minister has played down his green credentials, has linked the winter floods and last year's devastating Typhoon Haiyan to global warming. "He's talking through his hat". "There's been no increase in their number or intensity at all. All the experts are clear that you can't link [these events] to warming, not surprisingly because there hasn't been warming." He's taking the advice of the alarmists & he now exaggerates Global Warming danger and so causes needless worry or panic. That's why fracking for shale oil is a no goer over there, even though it could save their economy. Most of the UK's shale gas deposits are in northern England & fracking could be the answer to the difficult question of how to rebalance the economy. Those in know, know that 99.5 per cent of what is used in drilling for shale is water and sand, and only 0.5 per cent is a "totally harmless" chemical, polyacrylamide, used in face creams. Back here in NZ a Labour led coalition with the Greens biting at their ankles are the alarmists & would see the end of all progress and drive unemployment to record highs.
Our National Govt. does not believe in hearsay or fairytales, they believe in research and finding out the answers for themselves. They know there is no danger period from fracking. No earthquakes just paranoid Greenies voicing misinformation faster than Cunliffe apologising. Here is their East Coast Oil & Gas Development Report (http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/natural-resources/pdf-docs-library/oil-and-gas/petroleum-expert-reports/East-Coast-oil-gas-development-study-report.pdf) with all the good oil so to speak.

Thanks Goodness we have a progressive Govt. right now. I want more people to get angry at Labour and their partners. Labour and their supports are all just talk - talk - talk. They are nothing and are showing us nothing apart from the usual bribes. I bet you there is one smart cookie that has added up the cost of these bribes and will release that info leading up to the election.:cool: The alternative to National running our country is an embarrassment. I would love to see support for Labour driven below 20% where they deserve to be. I for one will be giving National both ticks this election for the first time ever and hopefully National can Govern alone.

Cuzzie
28-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Thanks Goodness we have a progressive Govt. right now. I want more people to get angry at Labour and their partners. Labour and their supports are all just talk - talk - talk. They are nothing and are showing us nothing apart from the usual bribes. I bet you there is one smart cookie that has added up the cost of these bribes and will release that info leading up to the election.:cool: The alternative to National running our country is an embarrassment. I would love to see support for Labour driven below 20% where they deserve to be. I for one will be giving National both ticks this election for the first time ever and hopefully National can Govern alone.
Well what do you know, here is is - The expensive promises analysed (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11300032) Labour is up to $5.15 Billion & the Nats only $1.31 Billion so far. One way to buy an election - with tax payer money I suppose.

Cuzzie
28-07-2014, 12:22 PM
Gave up reading at that point, Cuz. Just too funny. :) $5.15 Billion too funny. Problem is I'm not laughing and nobody believes Cunliffe. belg?

Banksie
28-07-2014, 12:30 PM
- with tax payer money I suppose.

Well that is a daft quote. The only money any government has to spend is taxpayers money.

Edit:
Labour and their supports are all just talk - talk - talk.

Another daft quote, what can the opposition do but talk and argue before they come in to power?

Major von Tempsky
28-07-2014, 01:21 PM
Given that there aren't any examples of a SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST economy I'd say he's right on the button.

Venezuela? Russia? It's now a mixed Nazi Mafia command economy. China? It's a lot more capitalist than communist.

Cuba? North Korea? Ha! Ha! Ha!

bottlerboy
28-07-2014, 02:09 PM
Well that is a daft quote. The only money any government has to spend is taxpayers money.

Yes but all the good old "Tax and Spend" Labour party wants to do is tax you even more so they can spend up yet more (of course they know far better than you how it should be spent).
Conversely National have indicated that they would like to give us some further tax cuts in the future
(and apologies to Garrick Tremain for taking the liberty of modifying his original cartoon)
6056

Banksie
28-07-2014, 02:11 PM
Given that there aren't any examples of a SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST economy I'd say he's right on the button.

Venezuela? Russia? It's now a mixed Nazi Mafia command economy. China? It's a lot more capitalist than communist.

Cuba? North Korea? Ha! Ha! Ha!

Are the labour party socialist, in the same sense that Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are? Or are the labour party closer to the socialist ideal which is so successful in the scandanavian countries?

Sgt Pepper
28-07-2014, 02:19 PM
Given that there aren't any examples of a SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST economy I'd say he's right on the button.

Venezuela? Russia? It's now a mixed Nazi Mafia command economy. China? It's a lot more capitalist than communist.

Cuba? North Korea? Ha! Ha! Ha!

MVT
I know what you mean. Look at all those notorious Nordic basket cases. Norway, Sweden, Denmark,Finland. Poor people everywhere, no industries to speak of, well that is apart from:

Staatoil
Volvo
AtlasCopco
Maersk Shipping
Electrolux
Kone
Ericcson
Nordea
Ikea
Carlsberg
SKF
Novo Nordik
Coloplast
Hasqvarna
Stressless
Novodynes

Yes , you are right, obviously these silly people continually elect Social Democrat governments and look what happens:

Worlds highest per capita incomes
High tech, export driven industries of scale.

No we are better to put our trust in dear old Sir John Key( whoops sorry the Knighthood is apparently on its way late 2017or early 2018, which is interesting, because I thought he declared himself ,sometime ago as "a little bit republican"

Banksie
28-07-2014, 02:20 PM
Yes but all the good old "Tax and Spend" Labour party wants to do is tax you even more so they can spend up yet more (of course they know far better than you how it should be spent).

Why is paying more tax a bad thing - if our children are clothed, educated and healthy, our elderly are taken care of, and we all are fed, sheltered and secure?

fungus pudding
28-07-2014, 02:51 PM
Why is paying more tax a bad thing - if our children are clothed, educated and healthy, our elderly are taken care of, and we all are fed, sheltered and secure?

Mr. Laffer will tell you that.

neopoleII
28-07-2014, 06:35 PM
Staatoil
Volvo
AtlasCopco
Maersk Shipping
Electrolux
Kone
Ericcson
Nordea
Ikea
Carlsberg
SKF
Novo Nordik
Coloplast
Hasqvarna
Stressless
Novodynes

there is nothing wrong with socialist based societies if the society has an industry base and tax base to support high priced equality for its citizens.
sadly NZ hasnt got much of the above.
We have / might have a great petroleum future..... re statoil at the top of this list....... sadly the left wing of NZ politics want to shut down petro dollars in NZ.
We shut down or pushed off shore most of our best companies with the "most favored nation" to china policy from labour.
so whats left is commodities.... which leaves us as a supplier of "un value" added goods.
We have a rich country yet it seems the left wing is always trying to shut it down.
Even when our few entrepreneurs develop world first things...... its generally sold off shore...... as the left wing seems to stifle mass manufacturing.
The left wing in NZ is now controlled by the greens..... and they quote on their website that petro exploration is off the cards,
fertilizer manufacturing is off the cards, intensive farming is off the cards, more extensive "green" hydro power is off the cards,
and labour says exporting boxes of air is off the cards (washing machines).
we dont build cars anymore, so......
what would the left want us to manufacture?
That the rest of the tooled up world cant do cheaper than us?
I bet if you look around your home, you would struggle to find many NZ made items,
and none of those are high tech "green" manufactured items......
yet this is where the greens say they will find some several hundred thousand jobs that will pay "living wages" and above.
and we all know that a vote for labour in its current form means that the greens will have a massive input into any policy that is formed from the left.

so....... whats the magic product that will generate billions of export dollars??
show me that and I will vote for it.
until then..... we cant be compared to Scandinavia, who look after themselves first..... the rich, the average and the poor.

Sgt Pepper
28-07-2014, 07:23 PM
Neopole

I read your response with a great deal of interest and you make many valid observations.. I totally agree that to have the type of society as the Scandinavians have it is essential to "grow the cake". One intriguing, or should I say frustrating thing , about NZ is not the lack of talented entrepreneurs but they seem not to be able to scale up significantly. You may notice , for instance the adverts for Stressless chairs, started in Norway in 1948 and are now exported around the world, why cant we do something like that?, The Scandanavians have world scale paper companies, why cant we? The Danes are world leaders in Insulin manufacturing, are we too stupid? -no, lazy- no so WHY??

elZorro
28-07-2014, 08:51 PM
Neopole, you're only partly right. Labour doesn't tend to want to close down any existing manufacturing. They'd rather that we morph into higher value exporting. National say the same thing, along with holding down wages, reducing support from SOEs and the state, allowing the market to somehow do it for them. It doesn't happen fast enough, or with the expected results. As quick as Trademe got into a position where they were going to pay tax for once, the NZ owners sold to Fairfax and kept all the capital gain, tax free. Other businesses are doing the same. Just a few owners, like the late Angus Tait, have any benevolence about owning a big business in NZ, and keeping it in local ownership.

jennym
29-07-2014, 08:17 AM
one of the not so good efforts by national was to cut taxes at the time of the gfc. instead, they have had to borrow more than they should have.
thank goodness the past labour government used a part of surpluses to pay down sovereign debt.
we may be in ****ters ditch otherwise.

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 09:15 AM
Good grief, what a special needs man David is. I can already hear him crying out after he still loses the debate that is was rigged. Read more here. (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/david-cunliffe-won-t-boycott-tvnz-s-leaders-debates-6039943) My question to the loonie left here on ShareTrader is, "Do you think John Key will go to such special heights as the apologetic wonder and ask the same from TV3 & John Campbell?" I can already tell you that Key has Campbell number as we have seen in the past & will not need to go to such special need levels.
Am I cheesed off Cunliffe special request has been given approval? Hell no, TV1 are too professional to let that happen. Besides it would kind of like being the same as a referee giving the All Blacks all the 50/50 calls against Wales, the All Blacks are always going to win anyway. Nah, I see this as just another win, win, win for the Nats and just another vehicle to help drive Labour below 20% where they belong.



Help Labour find their new home below 20% - Vote for somebody who doesn't promise the world
- Vote for a party that just delivers.

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 10:01 AM
Good grief! More about Personalities? How about some comment on Policies?

discl: don't really read any of Cuzzie's posts as they lack substance of any sort, are frequently wrong and simply confirm that in NZ's voting population there are perhaps far too many are selfish and silly voters. belg, you have just caught up with me then. I only read your posts that you are quoting me from. You spam the board with such utter rubbish and I choose not to waste any time reading them period. It is very clear that you and EZ have your heads in the sand and can only see good where there is bad & bad where there is good. The pair of you are full time left wing bloggers that should spend more time generating taxes to help the poor instead of demanding others who work hard, pay more to the poor and useless. When you come up against a brick wall like me, you put on your too hard hat and move on. I don't blame you. I think your wasting your time with all non Lefty Loonies on this board too & the more you post the less likely they will be voting for the apologetic wonder. That been said belg, carry on talking. You're doing a great job for National.

777
29-07-2014, 10:25 AM
Cuzzie, thank you for your posts. They bring some sanity to this thread.

elZorro
29-07-2014, 10:43 AM
I think if you check, Cuzzie, you'll see your footprint over these two threads, sometimes several posts in a row. Maybe if you read some of our contra posts more carefully, you'd be less strident in your support of an inept National government. Their actions reinforce my view every day.

Looking into the respective policies and comparing them takes a bit more time, but it's worth it. Every vote counts.

Banksie
29-07-2014, 11:04 AM
Having a short history in NZ (I have only been here 5 years), I am genuinely interested in the arguments for and against the various political parties as these will help me make my choice on 20 Sept.

I do feel many of the arguments lack substance though. Often the posts state opinions or conclusions with no supporting facts. Maybe it is my naivete and for long term citizens the facts are self-evident.

argument:
In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident. The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.

An example of an interesting point of discussion was my query regarding paying more taxes, fp brought up an interesting concept, the laffer curve (he should have given his thoughts on this a little more substance though) and then belg repudiate this with his references to fitting the laffer curve (are we to the left or the right of that peak?)...and then we started name calling again.
Anyway - the point of my post - I am starting to judge the parties more on the quality of their supporters posts than the merits of their policies. It would appear to me that we are far more interested in playing the man than discussing the policies.

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 12:19 PM
Cuzzie, thank you for your posts. They bring some sanity to this thread.Cheers for that 777

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Examples please. Relish the opportunity to point out how deluded you, as a representative of the Nasties, are.

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #TeamKey (quiet voice: don't let anyone discuss policy. let the man-love flow to Key)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is fairly typical for starters.

I like the fact that John Key has not done any deals with the Conservatives. It's a strong and confident call. Needless to say Cunliffe wont be doing any such thing. He's got the, "I don't care, as long as I'm mayor", philosophy in his veins. What ever it takes - at all costs. Hmmm at all costs will be at our cost, not his.



Help Labour find their new home below 20% - Vote for somebody who doesn't promise the world
- Vote for a party that just delivers.

Sgt Pepper
29-07-2014, 12:38 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is fairly typical for starters.

I like the fact that John Key has not done any deals with the Conservatives. It's a strong and confident call. Needless to say Cunliffe wont be doing any such thing. He's got the, "I don't care, as long as I'm mayor", philosophy in his veins. What ever it takes - at all costs. Hmmm at all costs will be at our cost, not his.



Help Labour find their new home below 20% - Vote for somebody who doesn't promise the world
- Vote for a party that just delivers.


Hi Cuzzie
But JK has done deals with

United Future
ACT
Maori Party

Banksie
29-07-2014, 12:41 PM
Yes it is a good thing that Key as ruled out the Conservatives, but it was probably a safe bet for him. I noticed he hasn't ruled out New Zealand First though.

Unfortunately Labour don't have the strength of numbers to rule out coalition partners at this stage. They are waiting for the voters to decide, and maybe that is not a bad thing. If 10% of the population want Internet-Mana - then shouldn't they have a 10% influence on government?

That's the beauty of MMP, everyone gets a chance to be represented.

slimwin
29-07-2014, 01:09 PM
No they should not. They're the lunatic fringe.

fungus pudding
29-07-2014, 01:22 PM
No they should not. They're the lunatic fringe.


Who is? It would help if we knew what you are replying to. I assume you are referring to the post about Conservatives. They deserve to be there if they get 5%. Act and United are useful to National, and the silly MMP system requires partners to win an election. They are unlikely to bring in anyone on their coat-tails. Labour and National will gift seats whenever it suits them and it's fair enough under the rules. What should be re -introduced is the Waka jumping legislation to stop absolute nonsense like internet/mana which is two parties joining for the election yet designed to go back to separate parties when the new parliament resumes. Labour are burbling about making coat-tailing illegal. They should be more concerned with Waka jumping, but they won't mention that because Cunliffe is eyeing them up as potential partners.

Banksie
29-07-2014, 01:22 PM
No they should not. They're the lunatic fringe.

Are you talking about the Conservative or Internet/Mana? In either case, could you point out a policy that makes them the lunatic fringe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_fringe

fungus pudding
29-07-2014, 03:25 PM
Having a short history in NZ (I have only been here 5 years), I am genuinely interested in the arguments for and against the various political parties as these will help me make my choice on 20 Sept.

I do feel many of the arguments lack substance though. Often the posts state opinions or conclusions with no supporting facts. Maybe it is my naivete and for long term citizens the facts are self-evident.

argument:
In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident. The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.

An example of an interesting point of discussion was my query regarding paying more taxes, fp brought up an interesting concept, the laffer curve (he should have given his thoughts on this a little more substance though) and then belg repudiate this with his references to fitting the laffer curve (are we to the left or the right of that peak?)...and then we started name calling again.
Anyway - the point of my post - I am starting to judge the parties more on the quality of their supporters posts than the merits of their policies. It would appear to me that we are far more interested in playing the man than discussing the policies.

I'm not an author. A great book which explains so much, including Laffer's theories is 'The way the world works' by Jude Wanniski. Written in 1978 with zillions of reprints, so easy to find. Should be compulsory for economic students if not for everybody.

elZorro
29-07-2014, 04:32 PM
From Wikipedia:


He became a somewhat controversial figure in the conservative movement at the beginning of 2003 when he vocally opposed the impending US war with Iraq (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). On October 27, 2004, he publicly denounced George W. Bush (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/George_W._Bush), saying that "Mr. Bush has become an imperialist (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Imperialist)—one whose decisions as commander-in-chief have made the world a more dangerous place". Eventually Wanniski endorsed the 2004 Democratic (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party) candidate, John Kerry (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/John_Kerry), although he clearly preferred the Republican (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party) platform on issues related to taxation.[13] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-13)



Maybe Jude Wanniski figured it out in the end.

Sgt Pepper
29-07-2014, 04:50 PM
EZ
Just heard on National Radio that the Fonterra pay-out will be $6.00 per kg/milk solid. Fed:( Farmers dairy head indicated that at this price 20% of Dairy Farmers will make a loss . How serious will this get?

elZorro
29-07-2014, 05:28 PM
EZ
Just heard on National Radio that the Fonterra pay-out will be $6.00 per kg/milk solid. Fed:( Farmers dairy head indicated that at this price 20% of Dairy Farmers will make a loss . How serious will this get?

Well, there will be less of a 'tax issue' in the next financial year, so fewer farms sold. It shouldn't dent general purchases. Some of the bigger suppliers of farm equipment might be doing more second-hand items. Last I heard, the suppliers of new utes and wagons can't keep up with the demand. For farmers newly into farm or herd ownership, it'll be fairly tough. Still not a bad payout at $6.00 if they're set up for all-grass farming.

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 06:15 PM
Yes it is a good thing that Key as ruled out the Conservatives, but it was probably a safe bet for him. I noticed he hasn't ruled out New Zealand First though.

Unfortunately Labour don't have the strength of numbers to rule out coalition partners at this stage. They are waiting for the voters to decide, and maybe that is not a bad thing. If 10% of the population want Internet-Mana - then shouldn't they have a 10% influence on government?

That's the beauty of MMP, everyone gets a chance to be represented. Check this out then Banksie:
Labour leader David Cunliffe has denied he has double standards for refusing to rule out relying on the Internet Mana party to form a government despite deriding National for its coat tailing deals in Epsom and Ohariu.
Mr Cunliffe has accused National of manipulating voters by using the coat-tailing provisions to try to boost its support partners' chances through electorate deals in Epsom and Ohariu.
However, he will not rule out calling on the Internet Mana Party if needed to form a Government. Source NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11300818).

Now see this is exactly what I've been talking about - total arrogance. We the Labour party can do it, but if you the National party try, we will try to make milage out of it. Those who are not blind, see what just a fool Cunliffe is every time. The man is unfit to be a rubbish collector (no disrespect to rubbish collectors BTW) let alone the lead of a minor party like Labour. So yeah, not a bad thing banksie if he didn't think National could do the same thing as Labour. Double standards on steroids again from the apologetic wonder. You have to give it to Cunliffe though - He is the best comady act going in NZ right now.

Cuzzie
29-07-2014, 06:21 PM
EZ
Just heard on National Radio that the Fonterra pay-out will be $6.00 per kg/milk solid. Fed:( Farmers dairy head indicated that at this price 20% of Dairy Farmers will make a loss . How serious will this get?How will you explain the revenus National will start collecting from our new Oil & Gas fields that will start producing in the next few years? No doubt jealous loony lefts will start to celebrate every price crash that industry has too. You guys really are supporting NZ aren't you ... NOT. Try and think what is good for your country - New Zealand, instead of what is good for your selfish oned eyed policily views.

elZorro
29-07-2014, 06:45 PM
Beer O'clock Cuzzie? Just how much is the royalty on oil or gas (http://www.pepanz.com/news-and-issues/issues/economic-contribution-to-nz/)? The govt will get the GST and excise levies on any fuel, even if sourced overseas. Most of the recent NZ drills have been duds.

Banksie
29-07-2014, 06:47 PM
Check this out then Banksie:
Labour leader David Cunliffe has denied he has double standards for refusing to rule out relying on the Internet Mana party to form a government despite deriding National for its coat tailing deals in Epsom and Ohariu.
Mr Cunliffe has accused National of manipulating voters by using the coat-tailing provisions to try to boost its support partners' chances through electorate deals in Epsom and Ohariu.
However, he will not rule out calling on the Internet Mana Party if needed to form a Government. Source NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11300818).

Now see this is exactly what I've been talking about - total arrogance. We the Labour party can do it, but if you the National party try, we will try to make milage out of it. Those who are not blind, see what just a fool Cunliffe is every time. The man is unfit to be a rubbish collector (no disrespect to rubbish collectors BTW) let alone the lead of a minor party like Labour. So yeah, not a bad thing banksie if he didn't think National could do the same thing as Labour. Double standards on steroids again from the apologetic wonder. You have to give it to Cunliffe though - He is the best comady act going in NZ right now.

I don't believe in coat-tailing, and I don't believe in waka-jumping (it was called floor-crossing where I lived before, was only used in one election, then they changed the constitution to outlaw it.) One of the things I will be looking at when I vote are policies aimed at resolving these issues. But, as it stands, this is the system we have to deal with for the upcoming elections.

Still - I don't think you are debating the policies here cuzzie, you are playing the man.

Sgt Pepper
29-07-2014, 06:51 PM
How will you explain the revenus National will start collecting from our new Oil & Gas fields that will start producing in the next few years? No doubt jealous loony lefts will start to celebrate every price crash that industry has too. You guys really are supporting NZ aren't you ... NOT. Try and think what is good for your country - New Zealand, instead of what is good for your selfish oned eyed policily views.

Cuzzie
I wasn't " celebrating" anything, I am genuinely concerned and worried for Dairy farmers because if they are under financial stress it will affect us all. As to the Oil and Gas Industry, I hope it continues to thrive.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 08:34 AM
Beer O'clock Cuzzie? Just how much is the royalty on oil or gas (http://www.pepanz.com/news-and-issues/issues/economic-contribution-to-nz/)? The govt will get the GST and excise levies on any fuel, even if sourced overseas. Most of the recent NZ drills have been duds.
I'm glad it was beer O'clock for you, I was busy helping my son work on his car. Thanks for your 2011 out of date data, but things have moved up just a wee bit since then - not too much. Up to $800 million in oil and gas taxes and royalties. So $800 million and all that based on what you call " Most of the recent NZ drills have been duds." I'm not going to dispute that because that statement is mostly true. So we still get 800 million a year in oil and gas taxes and royalties that go towards public infrastructure, including schools and hospitals from duds. Add the fact that your link "Just how much is the royalty on oil or gas?" (http://www.pepanz.com/news-and-issues/issues/economic-contribution-to-nz/) states that "Oil is our 4th largest export (after dairy, meat and wood), with a value of around $2.2 billion" & most of that done on duds. That is exciting to the utmost extreme EZ, because those in the know, know what's around the corner.
The East Coast Oil Basin is a massive oil field that starts North of East Cape and goes right down south of the Kaikoura Coast. Testing on the late Cretaceous to Paleocene-aged Waipawa and Whangai source rock formations has mainly been on-shore from the East Cape down to South of Castle Point. Estimates from an independent source has calculated after "state of the art testing", that TAGs East Coast permits they have excess of 1.7 billion barrels (http://www.tagoil.com/east-coast-basin.asp#) & NZEC have 20.9 Billion Barrels (http://www.newzealandenergy.com/Operations/East-Coast-Basin/default.aspx) Original Oil in place respectively. MES (http://www.marauder.ca/newzealand.html) & Westech Energy are the other permit holders on the E.C but has no independent figure at this stage.
Mosman (http://mosmanoilandgas.com/petroleum-creek-project) has just had a major breakthrough with their Petroleum Creek project near Greymouth which I'm sure you are fully aware of & back on the Taranaki Coast, where it all began, TAG are making plenty of money from all but one of their wells in the Naka & breaking news hot off the press NZEC has just (http://www.newzealandenergy.com/News-and-Events/News-Releases/News-Releases-Details/2014/New-Zealand-Energy-Receives-Copper-Moki-Mining-Permit/default.aspx)announced (http://www.newzealandenergy.com/News-and-Events/News-Releases/News-Releases-Details/2014/New-Zealand-Energy-Receives-Copper-Moki-Mining-Permit/default.aspx) that the Company has been granted a 943.7 acre (3.819 km2) Petroleum Mining Permit ("Copper Moki Mining Permit") in the Taranaki Basin. The Copper Moki Mining Permit (PMP 55491) has been carved out of NZEC's 100%-owned Eltham Exploration Permit (PEP 51150) to encompass NZEC's Copper Moki and Waitapu oil discoveries.
Great news EZ & I haven't even mentioned NZOG,Todd the Canterbury basin, or the very promising Great South Basin. Plus, I have not mentioned TAGs platinum mining interests in NZ;) - WHOOPS you did not hear that from me.
Now, I know quite a lot about oil & gas in NZ so are happy to talk about it all day long if you want.
It is fair to say the the pending O&G industry is about to exceed every other home grown industry befor it & if you are not investing in NZs future, then maybe go listen to Russel Norman.

6062

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 08:35 AM
Still - I don't think you are debating the policies here cuzzie, you are playing the man. I disagree, but you carry on think that.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 08:36 AM
Cuzzie
I wasn't " celebrating" anything, I am genuinely concerned and worried for Dairy farmers because if they are under financial stress it will affect us all. As to the Oil and Gas Industry, I hope it continues to thrive.
S.P, great reply and good on you too.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 08:56 AM
I disagree, but you carry on think that.

"Now see this is exactly what I've been talking about - total arrogance. We the Labour party can do it, but if you the National party try, we will try to make milage out of it. Those who are not blind, see what just a fool Cunliffe is every time. The man is unfit to be a rubbish collector (no disrespect to rubbish collectors BTW) let alone the lead of a minor party like Labour. So yeah, not a bad thing banksie if he didn't think National could do the same thing as Labour. Double standards on steroids again from the apologetic wonder. You have to give it to Cunliffe though - He is the best comady act going in NZ right now"

Cuzzie - could you please explain how the above post of your's is not playing the man? You have accused Cunliffe of being arrogant, unfit to be a rubbish collector, an apologetic wonder and the best comady (sic) act going.

Sgt Pepper
30-07-2014, 09:26 AM
S.P, great reply and good on you too.

In Dunedin we are hopeful of a gas find in commercial quantities off our coast looked really promising earlier this year, I think Andarko are going to drill again later

fungus pudding
30-07-2014, 09:30 AM
"Now see this is exactly what I've been talking about - total arrogance. We the Labour party can do it, but if you the National party try, we will try to make milage out of it. Those who are not blind, see what just a fool Cunliffe is every time. The man is unfit to be a rubbish collector (no disrespect to rubbish collectors BTW) let alone the lead of a minor party like Labour. So yeah, not a bad thing banksie if he didn't think National could do the same thing as Labour. Double standards on steroids again from the apologetic wonder. You have to give it to Cunliffe though - He is the best comady act going in NZ right now"

Cuzzie - could you please explain how the above post of your's is not playing the man? You have accused Cunliffe of being arrogant, unfit to be a rubbish collector, an apologetic wonder and the best comady (sic) act going.

Obviously Cuzzie's got this wrong. Cunliffe is perfectly fit to be a rubbish collector.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 09:42 AM
Obviously Cuzzie's got this wrong. Cunliffe is perfectly fit to be a rubbish collector.

Why FP...why, why, why.

I am beginning to think that belg's references to Nasties is fitting. I do not seem to be able to engage with National supporters without the argument degenerating into name calling.

I saw this particularly nasty post on one right-wing bloggers site this morning http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/07/hobos-house/. What was the purpose of being mean to the poor lady? Just because they don't like her policies?

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 09:49 AM
"Now see this is exactly what I've been talking about - total arrogance. We the Labour party can do it, but if you the National party try, we will try to make milage out of it. Those who are not blind, see what just a fool Cunliffe is every time. The man is unfit to be a rubbish collector (no disrespect to rubbish collectors BTW) let alone the lead of a minor party like Labour. So yeah, not a bad thing banksie if he didn't think National could do the same thing as Labour. Double standards on steroids again from the apologetic wonder. You have to give it to Cunliffe though - He is the best comady act going in NZ right now"

Cuzzie - could you please explain how the above post of your's is not playing the man? You have accused Cunliffe of being arrogant, unfit to be a rubbish collector, an apologetic wonder and the best comady (sic) act going.Banksie - mate no worries, you see Cunliffe is the face of Labour, he is their leader and the voice we hear from when there is an announcement. We see so little of the other Labour MPs that I for one can't even recognise most of them now. This is the way Labour is playing it and the way I respond, that's all. I can generalise and go into more specifics in my posts, but how much time has one got. You're right in a way and will accept the criticism that I'm too guilty of laying the blame at Cunliffe all the time. Labour as a whole should bear more of their failings for putting Cunliffe in power in the first place and the policies that have been released leading up to the election. I strongly feel that David Shearer was twice the leader Cunliffe is and Labour would be in a far stronger position now if they stuck with Shearer. He's a far more honest person for a start.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 09:50 AM
Obviously Cuzzie's got this wrong. Cunliffe is perfectly fit to be a rubbish collector.F.P you are right - I'm wrong.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 09:52 AM
In Dunedin we are hopeful of a gas find in commercial quantities off our coast looked really promising earlier this year, I think Andarko are going to drill again laterS.P you are so right, Andarko has not finished with NZ by a long shot. There is a rumour that they might be partnering back up with TAG Oil now TAG is on a roll. It is a well known fact that there is a huge amount of hydrocarbons (O&G) off-shore from the Canterbury Basin down to the Great South Basin with Port Chalmers, the birthplace of New Zealand's modern export trade, being right in the box seat. The only problem is the massive amount of money needed to find a decent pool offshore. The rewards more than make it worthwhile though. Of even more interest to you is the exciting leaked news about Platinum in Central Otago. It could be a nasty rumor, but considering who the source of this news was, I don't think that would be the case. D.D on that one.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 09:56 AM
Why FP...why, why, why.

I am beginning to think that belg's references to Nasties is fitting. I do not seem to be able to engage with National supporters without the argument degenerating into name calling.

I saw this particularly nasty post on one right-wing bloggers site this morning http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/07/hobos-house/. What was the purpose of being mean to the poor lady? Just because they don't like her policies?& belg's name calling is O.K? Maybe you are just showcasing that you have one eyed disease too. Fair play Banksie, you can't agree with belg about us being nasty going on just how nasty belg can be too. You talk about being fair, then maybe you should start preaching it too.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 09:59 AM
Banksie, maybe you should of quoted this story from WhaleOil (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/07/dirt-help/) How say you on that one?

fungus pudding
30-07-2014, 09:59 AM
Why FP...why, why, why.



I don't know why; I just assume it would be well within his skill levels.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 10:09 AM
& belg's name calling is O.K? Maybe you are just showcasing that you have one eyed disease too. Fair play Banksie, you can't agree with belg about us being nasty going on just how nasty belg can be too. You talk about being fair, then maybe you should start preaching it too.

No, belg's name calling is not okay. Sorry belg, but you have some valid points and well structured arguments, but when it comes to insults you are not doing your side any favours.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 10:16 AM
Banksie, maybe you should of quoted this story from WhaleOil (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/07/dirt-help/) How say you on that one?

Well, at this point the story is unsubstantiated, but if it is true it does speak to Cunliffes character...BUT...and this is the bit that seems to be constantly overlooked in the media and in political debates, it does not make one iota of difference to the parties policies.

Are we voting for policies or personalities?

I think this is the issue labour supporters are struggling with at the moment. They want the policies, they are just not convinced labour have the leadership to implement them.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 10:20 AM
...if you are not investing in NZs future, then maybe go listen to Russel Norman.

Good summary of our oil prospects, and they do indeed look rosy. I am just wondering why the sniping at Russel Norman. Is he anti-oil?

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 10:23 AM
No, belg's name calling is not okay. Sorry belg, but you have some valid points and well structured arguments, but when it comes to insults you are not doing your side any favours.Thankyou Banksie, good to see you indeed have two eyes.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 10:24 AM
S.P here we go South Island platinum tender awarded. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11298543) Sorry about Central Otago it's Murchison. Exciting times my friend.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 10:28 AM
Good summary of our oil prospects, and they do indeed look rosy. I am just wondering why the sniping at Russel Norman. Is he anti-oil? Turbocharged Anti- Oil. He is so green that he does not realise his suggested form of transportation, "riding bicycles" would just be a pipe dream without the oil industry.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 10:35 AM
Turbocharged Anti- Oil. He is so green that he does not realise his suggested form of transportation, "riding bicycles" would just be a pipe dream without the oil industry.

Yeah, I guess it was a silly question. What I was trying to get at, are the greens really against NZ making money from oil? I have checked through their policies and the only one I can see is that they are anti deep sea drilling. Seeing as we don't do deep sea drilling yet and many of the prospect are onshore or in shallow seas, would their policy have much of an impact on our oil revenue in the short/medium term? In the long term you would hope their other policies would obviate the need for deep sea oil.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 11:01 AM
Yeah, I guess it was a silly question. What I was trying to get at, are the greens really against NZ making money from oil? I have checked through their policies and the only one I can see is that they are anti deep sea drilling. Seeing as we don't do deep sea drilling yet and many of the prospect are onshore or in shallow seas, would their policy have much of an impact on our oil revenue in the short/medium term? In the long term you would hope their other policies would obviate the need for deep sea oil.
That's a funny one right there by the Greens - Deep sea scaremongering based on the Rena which was a ship hitting a reef, not a offshore oil rig accident. There is offshore drilling on the Taranaki basin that has been up and running for years now without any dramas.


The Greens have a misinformation scheme running about fracking right now. Fracking is extremely safe with little damage caused anywhere since its conception. What can go wrong is, chemical contamination in water tables above and below the terrafirma & earthquakes. 99.95 % of Fracking is water and sand and the other 0.05% is a harmless chemical used in the skin moisturising industry. If there is contamination of the water tables, its mostly just water. There have been small earthquakes recorded decades ago when fracking first started up. This was caused by injecting the fracked water back into the cavities where they sourced the hydrocarbons from at great pressure and have caused faults to slip. Water is not injected like this anymore and here is one interesting fact the Greenies love to hate. Fracking in Earthquake zones like Canterbury can actually shore up faults. Once the O&G is taken in earthquake zones, faults bed themselves together and there is less slippage. Here's my tee-shirt - Frack to stop Earthquakes the Green way. :)
Banksie, the Greens want all mining and oil drilling to stop & that will affect the NZ economy greatly.

Banksie
30-07-2014, 12:37 PM
That's a funny one right there by the Greens - Deep sea scaremongering based on the Rena which was a ship hitting a reef, not a offshore oil rig accident. There is offshore drilling on the Taranaki basin that has been up and running for years now without any dramas.
I think the Green's policy is based on a little more than the Rena incident. There was also the gulf of mexico oil spill, and yes we have been drilling off Taranaki, but isn't that shallow water drilling as opposed to deep water drilling?


Fracking...
At this point I cannot comment, because I haven't done my research yet.


Banksie, the Greens want all mining and oil drilling to stop & that will affect the NZ economy greatly.
Have they issued a statement to this effect? All I can find is that they are against fracking, mining on conservation land and deep sea drilling https://www.greens.org.nz/conservation/mining.

Cuzzie
30-07-2014, 12:52 PM
I think the Green's policy is based on a little more than the Rena incident. There was also the gulf of mexico oil spill, and yes we have been drilling off Taranaki, but isn't that shallow water drilling as opposed to deep water drilling?


At this point I cannot comment, because I haven't done my research yet.


Have they issued a statement to this effect? All I can find is that they are against fracking, mining on conservation land and deep sea drilling https://www.greens.org.nz/conservation/mining.
I was talking locale, not international. If you want to talk international safety standards, Google first. It's not too bad at all as you will see.

We are mostly shallow water drilling, but there is deep water drilling too. Romney 1 well for example.

Anti fracking, mining on conservation land and deep sea drilling means the Greens want all mining and oil drilling to stop, does it not?

Banksie
30-07-2014, 01:00 PM
Anti fracking, mining on conservation land and deep sea drilling means the Greens want all mining and oil drilling to stop, does it not?

How is that all mining? You can drill for oil on land, drill for oil in shallow seas, mine for minerals anywhere you want EXCEPT on conservation land. I don't get to your conclusion at all.

I had a look at their fracking policy. I think the following is notable as they are not even ruling out fracking at some time in the future if it is found to be safe.

"[Fracking is] not well regulated by the Government at the moment because Regional Councils (who have limited resources and expertise) are charged with granting resource consents.
Fracking shouldn't happen until we know more about it and have a proper regulatory regime in place."

neopoleII
30-07-2014, 07:18 PM
direct from the greens website......

"Amend the Crown Minerals Act to stipulate that applications for new onshore and shallow offshore oil and gas permits will only be considered where they will contribute to NZ's transition strategy from fossil fuels to renewables and a low carbon economy. Enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements would be placed on any consented projects"

what this means is...... new permits will only be considered if the country is in need of fossil fuels in the future because the greens "vision" of 100% renewable or alternative energy is not meeting the demands of NZers..... ie.... no new permits for "export petro dollars"
read the greens policies several times and see what is really being planned.

We had this discussion quite a few months ago and exposed what the greens really want to do....... they are very cleaver wordsmiths.

so their policy is to provide only the resources needed to change from fossil fuel to green energy full stop.
all mining for profit is to be banned.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 07:47 AM
direct from the greens website......

"Amend the Crown Minerals Act to stipulate that applications for new onshore and shallow offshore oil and gas permits will only be considered where they will contribute to NZ's transition strategy from fossil fuels to renewables and a low carbon economy. Enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements would be placed on any consented projects".

Thanks neopoleII, I think that quote neatly summarises the ideological choice a green voter is making.

I suppose the question now is how likely they are to push this policy through in a Labour/Green coalition?

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 08:23 AM
Banksie, first you need to get up to speed on the Greenies, meaning , what they are, who they are & what they stand for. The NZ Green Party, all other Green Parties involved in politics Worldwide, Greenpeace NZ & Greenpeace International all - and I mean all come under the U.N umbrella. Now, I'm Green and used to belong the Greenpeace when they were Green too. I have solar panels for hot water, catch my own water, grow all my veggies without chemicals, upcycle, hunt & fish and so on. The only magazine I subscribe to is NZ Green Ideas. I'm Green Banksie - through & through. The NZ Green party aren't any more Green than Winston Peters, David Cunliffe or McDonalds for that matter. They have long since been taken over by those who have huge political ambitions. Their agenda is - Agenda 21. If you don't know what Agenda 21, then may I suggest to get up to speed on that one. This is the very reason why you get such strange mix messages from the Greens like opposing Wind Farms. You would think that they would be demanding them. Agenda 21 in a nutshell is about controlling peoples rights - total rights. Controlling the population - total control over everything. In other words the New World Order. The U.N is very much a political powerhouse and their flavor is center left to far left wing.Find out more about the U.N, do plenty of research on them and come back to me and say you are happy with them. You might do just that, but Banksie, but that would be you with only one eye open.

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 08:27 AM
How is that all mining? You can drill for oil on land, drill for oil in shallow seas, mine for minerals anywhere you want EXCEPT on conservation land. I don't get to your conclusion at all.

I had a look at their fracking policy. I think the following is notable as they are not even ruling out fracking at some time in the future if it is found to be safe.

"[Fracking is] not well regulated by the Government at the moment because Regional Councils (who have limited resources and expertise) are charged with granting resource consents.
Fracking shouldn't happen until we know more about it and have a proper regulatory regime in place." Misinformation by the Greenies right there. TAG Oil have just gone through this process with the Gisborne District Council. Check out what they had to agree to in order to get this resource consent:

Gisborne District Council (http://www.gdc.govt.nz/assets/Files/Resource-consent-application/Waitangi/TagOil-Decision-March2014.pdf)

Banksie
31-07-2014, 08:36 AM
Check out what they had to agree to in order to get consent:

I did a quick skim through the document and it looks pretty reasonable to me. I have 2 questions cuzzie.

1) Are the Gisbourne mayor and councillors Green party members? (sorry I know nothing about Gisborne politics.)
2) Which of the consent conditions do you think are onerous?

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 08:48 AM
I did a quick skim through the document and it looks pretty reasonable to me. I have 2 questions cuzzie.

1) Are the Gisbourne mayor and councillors Green party members? (sorry I know nothing about Gisborne politics.)
2) Which of the consent conditions do you think are onerous?
1) Meng Foon is the mayor of Gisborne and has a strong following. Very popular for a long time now. As to his & his councillors political leanings, sorry I have no idea.
2) None. As I said I'm Green through & through Banksie. TAG was happy to comply with all rules & all requirements - Good thing too.

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 08:49 AM
In the USA, Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing the U.Ns and Greenies Agenda 21 rubbish. Why we have a strong Right wing party in power right now, we should consider doing the same.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 08:57 AM
1)2) None. As I said I'm Green through & through Banksie. TAG was happy to comply with all rules & all requirements - Good thing too.


In the USA, Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing the U.Ns and Greenies Agenda 21 rubbish. Why we have a strong Right wing party in power right now, we should consider doing the same.

Now you have lost me mate. Are you for or against environmental policies?
Are you for or against the Greens?
Are you just having me on?

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 09:29 AM
Now you have lost me mate. Are you for or against environmental policies?
Are you for or against the Greens?
Are you just having me on?Banksie, go away. If you can't concentrate on what I'm saying, then go find something you can. I have answered your many questions with exactness and accuracy, if you can not compute then that is your problem - not mine.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 10:09 AM
Banksie, go away. If you can't concentrate on what I'm saying, then go find something you can. I have answered your many questions with exactness and accuracy, if you can not compute then that is your problem - not mine.

That seems a little unfair cuzzie, you said "I'm Green" - a support of the Green party no? You did capitalise the G. You then said we should consider voting out the Greenies Agenda 21? So you're against the Greens?

But fair enough, if you don't want to engage in the debate, you are welcome not to respond.

westerly
31-07-2014, 10:26 AM
That seems a little unfair cuzzie, you said "I'm Green" - a support of the Green party no? You did capitalise the G. You then said we should consider voting out the Greenies Agenda 21? So your against the Greens?

But fair enough, if you don't want to engage in the debate, you are welcome not to respond.

Banksie -- Cuzzie is not a fan of the UN or Agenda 21 It is a conspiracy for world control by the Greens.

"Agenda 21 aims to undermine your property rights and force you" to live in cities, Jake Robinson told Tea Party members at a meeting in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in April.

For Joe Dugan, leader of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party in South Carolina, "Agenda 21 is nothing short of treason."

If you don't know what Agenda 21 is, you're not alone - only about 15 percent of Americans do. It is a nonbinding U.N. resolution signed by more than 170 world leaders (including Republican U.S. President George H.W. Bush) at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro as a way to promote sustainable development in the face of a rapidly growing global population.

A small percentage of Americans say it is an attack on their very existence - part of a grand conspiracy to take away their gun rights, destroy suburbia and turn America into a modern-day Soviet state.

westerly

Banksie
31-07-2014, 10:52 AM
Banksie -- Cuzzie is not a fan of the UN or Agenda 21 It is a conspiracy for world control by the Greens.

Thanks westerly, yeah I gathered cuzzie is no Green fan - just trying to get him to commit to exactly what it is they stand for that he doesn't like, rather than what he "thinks" they stand for.

I was going to ask him which sections of Agenda 21 he didn't like, but I thought that might be a little bit mean because it is 351 pages long.

It does pain me a little that so many people seem to form their opinions based on other peoples opinions rather than facts.

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 11:10 AM
That seems a little unfair cuzzie, you said "I'm Green" - a support of the Green party no? You did capitalise the G. You then said we should consider voting out the Greenies Agenda 21? So your against the Greens?

But fair enough, if you don't want to engage in the debate, you are welcome not to respond.Banksie, you have not listened at all & there is no point in engaging with somebody like you who tries to change what I have actually said. Your problem will always be the written word, go back and read mine. I will not waste anymore of my time with time wasters like you. Smarten up a bit, don't act the fool and you might get some respect around here. Manipulation tactics by you will not be tolerated by me one little bit. BTW, thanks for letting me know earlier rather than latter what you stand for.

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 11:11 AM
Banksie -- Cuzzie is not a fan of the UN or Agenda 21 It is a conspiracy for world control by the Greens.

"Agenda 21 aims to undermine your property rights and force you" to live in cities, Jake Robinson told Tea Party members at a meeting in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in April.

For Joe Dugan, leader of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party in South Carolina, "Agenda 21 is nothing short of treason."

If you don't know what Agenda 21 is, you're not alone - only about 15 percent of Americans do. It is a nonbinding U.N. resolution signed by more than 170 world leaders (including Republican U.S. President George H.W. Bush) at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro as a way to promote sustainable development in the face of a rapidly growing global population.

A small percentage of Americans say it is an attack on their very existence - part of a grand conspiracy to take away their gun rights, destroy suburbia and turn America into a modern-day Soviet state.

westerlySo said by westerly blah blah blah. For the good oil on what I believe in, I would advise to listen to what I say about me, not what westerly wants to say for me - about me.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 11:28 AM
So said by westerly blah blah blah. For the good oil on what I believe in, I would advise to listen to what I say about me, not what westerly wants to say for me - about me.

Are you saying westerly got it wrong? You are not against Agenda 21?

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 11:34 AM
Are you saying westerly got it wrong? You are not against Agenda 21?
Hey pow, you don't seem to be getting the message - go away. Use your Google tool or something. Please do me a favor and stop asking me questions, I'm not your muppet. Go learn for you.

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 11:35 AM
Dotcom forced to reveal total fortune (http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/60397734/dotcom-forced-to-reveal-total-fortune.html)

Kim Dotcom has been ordered to reveal his entire fortune to a collection of Hollywood music and film studios he is battling in court.

In a judgment released today, Justice Patricia Courtney ruled that Dotcom had to make full disclosure of his assets, including those that were not subject to current freezing orders.

Millions of dollars of the internet entrepreneur's funds and assets, including cars, jewellery and property, have been frozen for more than two years under restraining orders accepted for registration in New Zealand.

A High Court judge ruled that the assets be released back to Dotcom, but the police are appealing against that decision, and the studios had launched their own battle to keep the known assets frozen.

However, the movie studios believed Dotcom had access to assets that were outside the scope of the restraining orders and was disposing of them.

The studios said that even if they were successful in their copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Dotcom in April, any judgment may go "unsatisfied" if he was disposing of his assets.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions, Columbia Pictures Industries and Warner Bros Entertainment in April filed the suit against Dotcom in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Warner Music Group, UMG Recordings, Sony Music Entertainment and Capital Records later joined the fray.

The studios said Dotcom had "facilitated, encouraged and profited" from illegal file-sharing on the Megaupload site worth more than US$100 million (NZ$117.5m).

Dotcom opposed the studios' application to reveal his assets.

The Megaupload founder argued that a judgment on the studios' US case against him would not be enforceable in New Zealand and there was no danger he would not be able to pay the studios if a ruling went their way.

Dotcom's estranged wife, Mona Dotcom, was an interested party and supported her husband's opposition to the application by the studios.

Justice Courtney said she accepted the studios' argument that Dotcom had access to assets outside the $11.8m subject to freezing orders.

Last month, he offered a $5m bounty to a whistleblower with information on any "unlawful or corrupt conduct" by entities associated with the US government or the Hollywood movie industry.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 11:40 AM
'Twas too easy mate :).

Question (not for you cuzzie).

How likely is it that in a Labour/Green coalition, Greens would get their way with banning deep sea drilling? Personally I think it would be highly unlikely unless they could mobilise a large section of the population à la Manapouri.

Banksie
31-07-2014, 02:57 PM
Cuzzie. That's quite offensive after Banksie has politely tried to engage you so that he/she can fully understand your objections. Surely your honour requires a polite apology and some explanation for your point of view?

Lol - to avoid future gender neutral pronouns I am happy to be referred to as he. (And I ain't an ACT politician or a graffiti artist, I just happen to live on the banks peninsula, hence banksie).

Cuzzie
31-07-2014, 07:23 PM
Cuzzie. That's quite offensive after Banksie has politely tried to engage you so that he/she can fully understand your objections. Surely your honour requires a polite apology and some explanation for your point of view? I think you are quite wrong belg and feel that if anybody should be apologising it should be banksie for using manipulation tactics like I told him and besides even if he didn't start doing that, I'm not wikipedia. The man was firing question after question for two days running. You may not value your time and spend all day blogging your spamfest, I've had enough of that & I have told him so quite clearly. If you don't like that then that would not be my problem, would it now? Just to make it clearer, banksie is incredible annoying - so much so that he is already 1/2 as annoying as you belg already.
That kind of rings true with all the Labour supporters that I know of, they are always whining about everything. The don't shut up and I just shake my head, stay silent and laugh at them. Cunliffe has the same trait, every time he talks I find him incredibly annoying. Am I the only one, is it just me or do others find Labour supporters annoying?

Banksie
31-07-2014, 08:01 PM
Um.... I didn't read much of this. It was far, far too hard.

I, like you (or as far as I've read thru your verbal diarrhoea permits), have limited time.

Should you want any response ... please practice concise, succinct English. Many thanks.

Is it just me? Or does The Cuz's message get lost?

Rather a strange lad old cuz. He gets annoyed when people ask him to explain his position. Kind of like a man pointing at dog and declaring "it is a cat, because I say so" then refusing to explain how he came to that conclusion.

Over the last 2 days, on this and the national thread, I have yet to see many hard facts coming from the national side of the debate. I am not saying there have been none (there have been a few that made me question my opinions), but they certainly haven't been coming from the more prolific posters.

nextbigthing
31-07-2014, 08:06 PM
I see Cunliffe managed to keep his mouth shut for a week and Labour got a 5% increase in the polls from it.

Sgt Pepper
31-07-2014, 08:50 PM
I see Cunliffe managed to keep his mouth shut for a week and Labour got a 5% increase in the polls from it.

And Sir John Key kept on talking, whoops. F:ohmy:rantic calls to Crosby Textor the order of the day, and being incredibly polite to Winston as well no doubt

nextbigthing
31-07-2014, 09:09 PM
Um.

Actually it was a case of the ultra right wing media in NZ (all owned overseas of course)

John Campbell is ultra right wing? Crikey!

elZorro
02-08-2014, 01:25 PM
Cuzzie and all Nasties .... In case you've forgotten why you're voting National, a great FaceBook page to reaffirm your wise decision.

Why I'm Voting National (https://www.facebook.com/Whyimvotingnational)

click on the pictures on the left and scroll through the picts.

Yes, some very good points made there, like this one..

slimwin
02-08-2014, 02:20 PM
We don't like or new mayor Belg. Came in on a cut Council costs ticket and doubled her staff immediately. There's no credible option though .

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 03:03 PM
Cuzzie and all Nasties .... In case you've forgotten why you're voting National, a great FaceBook page to reaffirm your wise decision.

Why I'm Voting National (https://www.facebook.com/Whyimvotingnational)

click on the pictures on the left and scroll through the picts.What do you expect from a bunch of retards. Wait, you like the page too right. That answers that than. Talk about nasties and true sicko colours coming through. Looks like they lost their benefits and have to work now. Poor blugers

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 03:18 PM
Rather a strange lad old cuz. He gets annoyed when people ask him to explain his position. Kind of like a man pointing at dog and declaring "it is a cat, because I say so" then refusing to explain how he came to that conclusion.

Over the last 2 days, on this and the national thread, I have yet to see many hard facts coming from the national side of the debate. I am not saying there have been none (there have been a few that made me question my opinions), but they certainly haven't been coming from the more prolific posters. I must be strange to you by not letting myself being manipulated by you. Not used to people standing up to you Banksie? Others will tell you on this forum that you're sure to get the sharp side of my tongue if you try tactics like that buddy. I hate little games feeble minded people like you play and with me, you will not get away with it. Simple really.

Banksie
02-08-2014, 06:36 PM
I must be strange to you by not letting myself being manipulated by you. Not used to people standing up to you Banksie? Others will tell you on this forum that you're sure to get the sharp side of my tongue if you try tactics like that buddy. I hate little games feeble minded people like you play and with me, you will not get away with it. Simple really.

Cuzzie, I have never insulted you, and I am not sure why (or how) you think I am manipulating you through the internet. This is a forum for political debate, why on earth would you post in it if you didn't want to debate the issues.

Sorry I have been questioning your beliefs, but if you really are not able to clarify and explain them, maybe you should reexamine them.

i am struggling to place you, you are clearly not a young person as you have a son with a car, but calling me feeble minded does seem a little immature.

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 07:21 PM
Cuzzie, I have never insulted you, and I am not sure why (or how) you think I am manipulating you through the internet. This is a forum for political debate, why on earth would you post in it if you didn't want to debate the issues.

Sorry I have been questioning your beliefs, but if you really are not able to clarify and explain them, maybe you should reexamine them.

i am struggling to place you, you are clearly not a young person as you have a son with a car, but calling me feeble minded does seem a little immature.
No Banksie, changing what I've said for your own good is a little immature. You fully know what I meant, so stop playing the innocent. But don't worry the one eyed left support club will take you into their fold and give you counseling.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 10:45 AM
Labour wants Conservation Corps back

This looks like a good idea from Labour:

Labour wants Conservation Corps back
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10344948/Labour-wants-Conservation-Corps-back.

But it was done before and stopped. Does anyone know what the rationale for stopping it was?

craic
04-08-2014, 03:42 PM
Yes. Many schemes, big and small, have been started by different Governments and Departments over the time that In was involved - from 1968 - 2002 - and each one would lead to the salvation of our youth. Sometime a shining example of success would be paraded, only to have that initiative end suddenly and the reason is always the same. A careful analysis reveals that the end doesn'y justify the means/cost. In employment schemes there is no measurable difference between the trainees and the non-trainees as far as obtaining work is concerned. For criminal offenders there is a similar absence of any evidence of effect on rates of offending. Alcohol and drug initiatives are the same. Schemes are only successful with individuals who voluntarily enter the programme to the point where many schemes would not accept people referred by the court. If you spend money and time on Joe Bloggs, training him to pass muster and get a job, it doesn't alter anything - someone else misses out on the job so you have the same number of enemployed youth anyway. Politician on both sides have been using this as a vote catcher for generations.
P/s The Conservation Corps ended roughly the same time as The Forest Service was disbanded and some were assimilated by the new Conservation Dept.? as full time employees and others released.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 07:31 PM
Thanks for the reply craic.

Sgt Pepper
05-08-2014, 08:05 AM
Yes. Many schemes, big and small, have been started by different Governments and Departments over the time that In was involved - from 1968 - 2002 - and each one would lead to the salvation of our youth. Sometime a shining example of success would be paraded, only to have that initiative end suddenly and the reason is always the same. A careful analysis reveals that the end doesn'y justify the means/cost. In employment schemes there is no measurable difference between the trainees and the non-trainees as far as obtaining work is concerned. For criminal offenders there is a similar absence of any evidence of effect on rates of offending. Alcohol and drug initiatives are the same. Schemes are only successful with individuals who voluntarily enter the programme to the point where many schemes would not accept people referred by the court. If you spend money and time on Joe Bloggs, training him to pass muster and get a job, it doesn't alter anything - someone else misses out on the job so you have the same number of enemployed youth anyway. Politician on both sides have been using this as a vote catcher for generations.
P/s The Conservation Corps ended roughly the same time as The Forest Service was disbanded and some were assimilated by the new Conservation Dept.? as full time employees and others released.

The biggest and best scheme finished in 1972. Compulsory Military Training

fungus pudding
05-08-2014, 08:16 AM
The biggest and best scheme finished in 1972.

Compulsory military training was a ridiculous and very costly scheme which removed those already employed from their work, disrupting workplaces, and achieving nothing approaching its stated intentions.

Sgt Pepper
05-08-2014, 08:47 AM
Compulsory military training was a ridiculous and very costly scheme which removed those already employed from their work, disrupting workplaces, and achieving nothing approaching its stated intentions.

I disagree with your perspective that military service was ridiculous and costly. regarding workplace disruption it doesn't seem to be an issue in
Singapore
Finland
Norway
Israel
Denmark
All of which have national service, none of whom are exactly economic basket cases are they FP. Besides in NZ CMT was a National Party initiative, and I thought the National Party can do no wrong???

fungus pudding
05-08-2014, 11:03 AM
I disagree with your perspective that military service was ridiculous and costly. regarding workplace disruption it doesn't seem to be an issue in
Singapore
Finland
Norway
Israel
Denmark
All of which have national service, none of whom are exactly economic basket cases are they FP. Besides in NZ CMT was a National Party initiative, and I thought the National Party can do no wrong???

I don't know why you or anyone would think that. In my lifetime National have produced the worst govt. we have had. Labour have produced the best. Forget parties. I don't care about them. Policies matter. At the moment National wins hands down. Even if Labour got their polices and direction sorted out, the party is not in any shape to govern.

Sgt Pepper
05-08-2014, 03:46 PM
Having worked in Singapore, Finland, Norway and Denmark and talked to businesses and locals about CMT it would appear nowadays the "compulsory" bit is pretty loosely applied and the "military" bit often never involves firing a weapon more than a few times but the "training" bit can be considerable and often with almost no "military" involvement.

Thanks Belg

Sorry for the distraction. Now back to the task at hand, National

elZorro
06-08-2014, 08:42 AM
The inconsistency is just too funny. Are you drunk, FP?


And by the way, FP would rather not see an introduction of CGT unless first home owners have to pay it too. And if landlords could circumvent the whole idea, by simply reinvesting when they sell any assets. Other than that, FP is right behind a CGT.

FP thinks that Labour is not ready to govern. They have policies that would help transform NZ in a positive way, they have a very clear track record that is diametrically opposed to the poor results National is leaving in its wake at StatsNZ, we know we're being hoodwinked by a liberal PR firm (Crosby-Textor) that National has hired at great expense to lead their campaigns.

fungus pudding
06-08-2014, 08:51 AM
And by the way, FP would rather not see an introduction of CGT unless first home owners have to pay it too. And if landlords could circumvent the whole idea, by simply reinvesting when they sell any assets. Other than that, FP is right behind a CGT.



You are right that I think it should be an exit tax. Traders are already subject to income tax which is almost always higher than 15%; but I have not said that I would not rather not see CGT introduced without the primary residence. What I said was the home should be included. If it was properly constructed with repatriation allowed then CGT on primary residence would become a death duty on the home in most situations.

craic
15-08-2014, 10:03 AM
Found the device yesterday whereby a particular poster can be blocked or "ignored" so I put one in. It certainly restores some reason and sanity to discussions and gets rid of threats and offensive remarks. It would also give Vince some peace by reducing the need to complain that some people have. For the record I have complained twice in the last few years, not about anything directed at me but about posts that clearly went beyond even the basic standards.

craic
16-08-2014, 09:39 PM
Great stuff! Blocked poster that I don't have to read.

fungus pudding
16-08-2014, 10:58 PM
Great stuff! Blocked poster that I don't have to read.

Same here.

craic
17-08-2014, 09:59 AM
Still working well! Even my horses made me a few bob yesterday. Bring on the election - and I'm still offering another grand on National Taking the treasury benches. Can't make enough to retire as I'm already retired but I might make enough for a coach trip to Taihape or maybe I might settle for Wairoa for a couple of Ostlers pies when my diet is over next year.

craic
21-08-2014, 07:02 PM
Seems that the brutal battle of wits has died down over the last couple of hour or has someone done something about it? Just posting to see what happens.

slimwin
21-08-2014, 07:32 PM
They've found other playgrounds (threads) to play on Craic. Same sh&t, differents threads. I wouldn't bother if i was you . There's a few that seem to be the same sort of blokes but opposites in the political spectrum.

elZorro
21-08-2014, 07:32 PM
Seems that the brutal battle of wits has died down over the last couple of hour or has someone done something about it? Just posting to see what happens.

Craic, both Belgarion and Cuzzie have been banned for the moment. A whole lot of posts have been removed, including some good ones. That's a bit tough.

Good luck in your horse betting in the next three-four weeks Craic. I'm not allowed to take on your other offer, but I would spend any takings from our earlier bet on a donation to Maungatautari Ecological Reserve. Your side of the bet hinges on whether everyone at National's head office holds the line, I think.

slimwin
21-08-2014, 07:57 PM
Hmm. Probably not a bad thing for people to cool down every now and again. How about a conspiracy theory. Only one got banned but it was the same IP address so they have both disappeared :)

elZorro
21-08-2014, 08:23 PM
Hmm. Probably not a bad thing for people to cool down every now and again. How about a conspiracy theory. Only one got banned but it was the same IP address so they have both disappeared :)

Good one! I hadn't thought of that. So Belgarion's bipolar theory might have been too accurate.

neopoleII
22-08-2014, 10:13 AM
""Only one got banned but it was the same IP address so they have both disappeared""
So how does that work? and where do you find this information?
Belg and Cuzzie the same person?

this internet stuff really worries me, seems to make chatting online a hazardous venture.

Banksie
22-08-2014, 10:15 AM
this internet stuff really worries me, seems to make chatting online a hazardous venture.

Don't worry neopoleII, the smiley face means he was just making a joke.

Edit: I hope dum-dum-dum. :)

slimwin
22-08-2014, 01:25 PM
Of course I was:-)

But yeah, everything you write on social media is out there forever.

Not a problem if your not doing anything wrong. If your a 1970's,
English or Australian entertainer, be afraid. ..

Banksie
29-08-2014, 07:51 AM
Interesting article here about someone's supposedly anonymous posts coming back to haunt them http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11315798.

Banksie
01-09-2014, 01:12 PM
Labour have announced a policy for commuter rail in Christchurch.

https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/christchurch_rail_final.pdf

This should please both the Greens and NZ First.

Harvey Specter
01-09-2014, 01:22 PM
Labour have announced a policy for commuter rail in Christchurch.This appears to have two issues.

1. Are there enough businesses in the Chch CBD to support rail
2. The train doesn't actually go the the CBD

Auckland is struggling to make rail a good option and needs to spend billions to ensure passengers get to where they need to be quickly (note: I think the CRL is justified) but I cant see it happening in Chch.

Banksie
01-09-2014, 01:52 PM
This appears to have two issues.

1. Are there enough businesses in the Chch CBD to support rail
2. The train doesn't actually go the the CBD

Auckland is struggling to make rail a good option and needs to spend billions to ensure passengers get to where they need to be quickly (note: I think the CRL is justified) but I cant see it happening in Chch.

1. Are there enough businesses in the Chch CBD to support rail
Eventually there will be the businesses back in the CBD, but even without that there is quite a lot of business along the existing rail route.

2. The train doesn't actually go the the CBD
Yeah it would need to link up with a good bus service, although the northern corridor Riccarton station is not too far from the CBD.

slimwin
01-09-2014, 07:19 PM
It's a re-hashed idea. Originally the first link from varsity to town was going to cost 400mil or something and that was years ago. They need commuter trains from pegasus and rolleston to park and rides on the out skirts. It's a waste of a lot of money. I honestly can't see it getting people out of their cars down here.

Banksie
01-09-2014, 08:17 PM
It's a re-hashed idea. Originally the first link from varsity to town was going to cost 400mil or something and that was years ago. They need commuter trains from pegasus and rolleston to park and rides on the out skirts. It's a waste of a lot of money. I honestly can't see it getting people out of their cars down here.
The $400 million was for a light rail system envisaged by Bob Parker. That system required all new rail. There have been other proposals using existing lines and stations, but I must admit I think they have been struggling to make the numbers stack up.

craic
01-09-2014, 10:08 PM
My very first job in Christchurch in 1960 I travelled to work by train every day. I lived in Lyttelton and worked at Mercers Stainless Steel straight across the road from the station.

Banksie
02-09-2014, 06:04 AM
By coincidence I do almost the identical trip everyday craic. Basically station to station, except I have to spend 30min in the car doing it.

Was as the road tunnel open when you lived here?

craic
02-09-2014, 07:10 AM
No. The road tunnel was years away but later as a Timber Inspector for the NZ Forest Service I relieved in Christchurch and drove back and forth through the tunnel to inspect cargo in Lyttleton wharf and at a couple of container depots (all wooden crates and boxes had to be passed by Forestry Quarantine in those days, both in and out) My fondest memory was having smoko at a cafe each morning, just up out of Lyttleton on the hill overlooking the port.And a confession, A lyttelton lass was my main reason for remaining in this country. It didn't last so I had to go to the Latimer (dancehall) in Christchurch and get a replacement and she is still here fifty-odd years later.
By coincidence I do almost the identical trip everyday craic. Basically station to station, except I have to spend 30min in the car doing it.

Was as the road tunnel open when you lived here?

OldRider
08-09-2014, 02:08 PM
What has been forgotten is what Sam Morgan did with his $700M, I don't know, but have seen
that he has taken an interest in other smaller companies, maybe the benefits of this
outweigh anything central government might have achieved. If he is able to repeat
his Trademe success over again I would think so for sure.

The problem for me with any capital gains tax is not today but next year and onwards. A steady creep
upwards and outwards I see as inevitable once in place.

GTM 3442
08-09-2014, 02:19 PM
Seems that the CGT has been catching peoples interest.

I understand that it is being introduced in part to have an effect on the housing market.

How will we know if it is having the desired effect? How will we measure its effectiveness?

What are the metrics which will be in place to determine the success (or otherwise) of this tax?

Think of it as "Show me the numbers"

And if the tax does not have the desired effect, will it be scrapped?

Snapper
08-09-2014, 03:00 PM
A few questions

How does it affect those people who are currently taxed on their capital gains anyway eg sharetraders and property speculators. Presumably instead of paying tax of up to 33% on their capital gains they can now just pay 15%?

Farmhouses are exempt from CGT but are farms (?) and what effect will it have on the ability of a farmer to pass on the farm to the kids?

With fixed interest securities, will you be able to pay just 15% on any capital gain (maybe make a full deduction for a capital loss?)

Hopefully David will already have thought of all of this and have a ready response.

Snapper
08-09-2014, 03:00 PM
A few questions

How does it affect those people who are currently taxed on their capital gains anyway eg sharetraders and property speculators. Presumably instead of paying tax of up to 33% on their capital gains they can now just pay 15%?

Farmhouses are exempt from CGT but are farms (?) and what effect will it have on the ability of a farmer to pass on the farm to the kids?

With fixed interest securities, will you be able to pay just 15% on any capital gain (maybe make a full deduction for a capital loss?)

Hopefully David will already have thought of all of this and have a ready response.

fungus pudding
08-09-2014, 03:10 PM
A few questions

How does it affect those people who are currently taxed on their capital gains anyway eg sharetraders and property speculators. Presumably instead of paying tax of up to 33% on their capital gains they can now just pay 15%?

Farmhouses are exempt from CGT but are farms (?) and what effect will it have on the ability of a farmer to pass on the farm to the kids?

With fixed interest securities, will you be able to pay just 15% on any capital gain (maybe make a full deduction for a capital loss?)

Hopefully David will already have thought of all of this and have a ready response.

Traders, investors, developers, builders etc will still pay the income tax rate. It's the one off seller, e.g. long term landlords, holiday home owners etc who will pay the CGT. There will be difficulty in knowing where to draw the line, but there is now, so no real problem. Not sure why you quote up to 33%. It would be up to between 36 and 40% if this scheme ever gets in.
Farms like any business can be bequeathed. CGT on such things will start from the value of the asset at introduction of scheme (excluding allowance for dwelling)

Banksie
08-09-2014, 03:14 PM
A few questions

How does it affect those people who are currently taxed on their capital gains anyway eg sharetraders and property speculators. Presumably instead of paying tax of up to 33% on their capital gains they can now just pay 15%?

Farmhouses are exempt from CGT but are farms (?) and what effect will it have on the ability of a farmer to pass on the farm to the kids?

With fixed interest securities, will you be able to pay just 15% on any capital gain (maybe make a full deduction for a capital loss?)

Hopefully David will already have thought of all of this and have a ready response.

Have you read through the policy? Some of these questions are covered.

https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/capital_gains_tax.pdf

Edit: Sorry FP - posted this before I saw your more comprehensive reply.

Snapper
08-09-2014, 03:54 PM
Have you read through the policy? Some of these questions are covered.

https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/capital_gains_tax.pdf

Edit: Sorry FP - posted this before I saw your more comprehensive reply.

Thanks FP and Banksie. I had a look at the link (should have done that first I suppose but too lazy, must have been Cunliffe's problem as well!) and it all seems fairly straightforward and well-explained. Still be a pain in the ass to administer, though, just like the FIF regime but on a much bigger scale. Speaking of the foreign investment rules, Michael Cullen was probably expecting squillions when he brought that in, my guess is it probably costs more to administer than it's worth. I think that the expected revenue from any new tax is often overestimated. Good for accountants though.

fungus pudding
08-09-2014, 04:02 PM
Thanks FP and Banksie. I had a look at the link (should have done that first I suppose but too lazy, must have been Cunliffe's problem as well!) and it all seems fairly straightforward and well-explained. Still be a pain in the ass to administer, though, just like the FIF regime but on a much bigger scale. Speaking of the foreign investment rules, Michael Cullen was probably expecting squillions when he brought that in, my guess is it probably costs more to administer than it's worth. I think that the expected revenue from any new tax is often overestimated. Good for accountants though.

There are far better ways to run a CGT, but I think it's at least another three years off, so Labour might consider alternatives before they settle for this, which is largely based on the Australian scheme, and that's a mess. They eventually abandoned their plans to destroy our GST system, so there is some hope.

Major von Tempsky
08-09-2014, 04:03 PM
It simply means that (a) turnover of real estate will plunge (b) sellers will demand a higher price to pay their CGT.

craic
08-09-2014, 04:22 PM
And remember, losers will be able to claim their losses.

fungus pudding
08-09-2014, 04:25 PM
It simply means that (a) turnover of real estate will plunge (b) sellers will demand a higher price to pay their CGT.

That's the downside. It stops things happening, and that's exactly what Labour decided with their reforms in the 80s. The experience when Rowling introduced the speculator tax in the 70s taught them a lesson. The market dried up and prices sky-rocketed. It was soon abandoned. These things always crop up in a rising market, as though it will continue to be a sellers' market forever. It won't and is best left alone. There are better ways ......

elZorro
08-09-2014, 04:51 PM
It simply means that (a) turnover of real estate will plunge (b) sellers will demand a higher price to pay their CGT.

When will it plunge, and why will it plunge? By how much? Won't the immediate effect be that many small-time rental property owners will exit before the tax starts, or early on in the CGT process? That'll make a positive change to home ownership. Sellers will only get a higher price if the buyers think that they are getting a better deal. But they'll factor in that if they're using it as a rental, it's not as good a deal as it used to be, and if they are buying a home to live in, they know that they have all the upkeep and the interest costs to pay, so that places a natural limit on their enthusiasm. There might be less buyers in the medium term, until everyone gets used to the idea. But we've always had big variations in the housing market.

GTM 3442
08-09-2014, 05:00 PM
It simply means that (a) turnover of real estate will plunge (b) sellers will demand a higher price to pay their CGT.

How about [c], whereby property is transferred into an ownership structure whereby a change of ownership will be by changing the ownership of the structure, not the underlying property?

And possibly [d], where various professions make a lot of money devising such arrangements?

fungus pudding
08-09-2014, 05:36 PM
How about [c], whereby property is transferred into an ownership structure whereby a change of ownership will be by changing the ownership of the structure, not the underlying property?

And possibly [d], where various professions make a lot of money devising such arrangements?

Those sort of arrangements trigger an early CGT payment, calculated on the difference between date of the start of scheme until date of transfer. Then a second CGT will be required by the new entity on sale, so nothing achieved.

fungus pudding
08-09-2014, 05:57 PM
When will it plunge, and why will it plunge? By how much? Won't the immediate effect be that many small-time rental property owners will exit before the tax starts, or early on in the CGT process? That'll make a positive change to home ownership. Sellers will only get a higher price if the buyers think that they are getting a better deal. But they'll factor in that if they're using it as a rental, it's not as good a deal as it used to be, and if they are buying a home to live in, they know that they have all the upkeep and the interest costs to pay, so that places a natural limit on their enthusiasm. There might be less buyers in the medium term, until everyone gets used to the idea. But we've always had big variations in the housing market.

People think twice about flogging off their old properties to expand their activities into newer/bigger etc. It slows properties coming on to the market. It's happened here before (spec tax) and happened in Australia. Landlords simply hold longer. Investors generally need every cent possible to make the next move and paying out 15% on top of legals,commissions etc. often kills the deal. I have plenty of experience of that in Australia. Try doing a deal there and see how quickly CGT raises its head. I think a CGT is fair enough, but only as an exit tax. In other words when the cash is withdrawn for personal use. Otherwise the money is just a tool left in the system and no need to tax it. So with a repatriation clause it's far more acceptable. Think stepping stone farms, owner occupied factories, warehouses, etc that are wanting to expand. A classic example is motel lessees who have built up a business and want to sell the lease to tackle a freehold. that's a common situation. (I feel sorry for them even without a tax) I've mentioned this before, but drive around some industrial areas in any Australian city. Ask yourself why there are so many ugly buildings. It's because they go to ridiculous lengths to build on/up/out/over carparks - anything to avoid trading their properties.

elZorro
08-09-2014, 06:59 PM
FP, commercial people in Australia pay a 30% CGT. Private people get some discount, and it's then taxed at their income tax rate(s) for the year.


How much capital gains tax will I pay (For Aussies)?Companies will pay 30% tax on their capital gains (the current company tax rate). For individuals the rate will be your income tax rate for that year.


So it's quite a different rate. Ours is going to be 15%...

Major von Tempsky
08-09-2014, 09:12 PM
"Ours is going to be 15%...."

Only if you win the election which you are in no danger of doing....

couta1
08-09-2014, 09:37 PM
NZ is not ready for a CGT nor having to work till 67 nor having a whole lot more marine reserves thrust upon us by those nutty greens so yes more of the same please, red and green can wait another 3 years at least:cool:

elZorro
09-09-2014, 05:26 AM
NZ is not ready for a CGT nor having to work till 67 nor having a whole lot more marine reserves thrust upon us by those nutty greens so yes more of the same please, red and green can wait another 3 years at least:cool:

I think you said it right at the start, we're still not (collectively) ready for a CGT. When you say "we" you mean the top 20% or so, and that's despite it being obvious we have to move to a CGT, to be fair to the other 80%. The top 20% are probably not core Labour voters either. So I will take what I see on this thread with a grain of salt.

National voters do need to take a look at themselves sometimes. Are you voting this way simply to hold on to whatever you have already? Aren't you just a bit interested in what might happen if the economic settings were changed to be more in line with other countries? I contend that we should all be doing better.

fungus pudding
09-09-2014, 07:57 AM
I think you said it right at the start, we're still not (collectively) ready for a CGT. When you say "we" you mean the top 20% or so, and that's despite it being obvious we have to move to a CGT, to be fair to the other 80%. The top 20% are probably not core Labour voters either. So I will take what I see on this thread with a grain of salt.



The question over CGT is will it do more harm than good? the Australian model has, so we need to do better than that.

craic
09-09-2014, 08:07 AM
We are all rats in a barrel. No matter what you do some will be climbing over others to try and reach the top. Some will be on the bottom. Even if you adopt the finest socialist methods and organise the rats to construct a pyramid that might reach the top only a small percentage will be at the apex and the remainder will mostly be in the bottom layers. And please don't tell me we are humans not rats, I have never met a rat who wanted to harm me in any deliberate or malicious way. Since the beginnings of time they have been following us around, cleaning up our mess as they go. My birthday is 4th October.

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 08:08 AM
CGT has a huge administration footprint. It means a bigger government. Do you not think it big enough already?

Discl: Apart from our own home, I own no property (neither property stocks nor physical asset)...but have registered with IRD as a trader and so already pay CGT on my share trading profits.

A vote against Labour is a vote against a broad-based CGT, which is a vote against bigger government and administrative waste.

Sgt Pepper
09-09-2014, 08:12 AM
The question over CGT is will it do more harm than good? the Australian model has, so we need to do better than that.

I still think an argument can be made, in terms of efficiency and transparency that it may be better to lift GST to 20% rather than a cumbersome , complex CGT. In so far as reducing pressure on government expenditure I have a proposal of which I would be interested in others opinions

Stop National Superannuation transfers to those over 65 who elect to stay working. Over 21% of over 65 s work, this trend will go up, but of course neither main party will address this inequity because they are too scared.

fungus pudding
09-09-2014, 08:22 AM
In so far as reducing pressure on government expenditure I have a proposal of which I would be interested in others opinions

Stop National Superannuation transfers to those over 65 who elect to stay working. Over 21% of over 65 s work, this trend will go up, but of course neither main party will address this inequity because they are too scared.

Hard to implement. Easier to make it universal than introduce a complex system for full/part time workers, those with a small extra income etc. The surcharge was an attempt to reduce super to those with other income. What about those who don't work but have investment income? They are often big taxpayers and the super is just a small tax rebate. Removing super would discourage pvt. investment schemes. Bad idea.

artemis
09-09-2014, 08:26 AM
I still think an argument can be made, in terms of efficiency and transparency that it may be better to lift GST to 20% rather than a cumbersome , complex CGT. In so far as reducing pressure on government expenditure I have a proposal of which I would be interested in others opinions

Stop National Superannuation transfers to those over 65 who elect to stay working. Over 21% of over 65 s work, this trend will go up, but of course neither main party will address this inequity because they are too scared.

Agree with raising GST, though probably need a tweak to the lower tax thresholds. Even though people on lower incomes spend more of it than others, GST is still very progressive.

Re super for those over 65 working - how would this distinguish between people working and those who receive more passive income such as interest, dividends, rents, drawings from a business owned but now managed by others. I think you are really talking about means testing. In other words - broadly - ping those who have been thrifty, reward the profligate.

artemis
09-09-2014, 08:30 AM
Note sure what the stats are in NZ but in the US the top 20% usually lean slightly towards the Democrats (left - kind of). The problem area is the next 40% which lean heavily to the right. Men especially. Haven't seen stats for NZ but I'd be surprised if it was much different. UK is similar as well.

I live in central Wellington, in a very high value suburb. Of course I don't know about the political leanings of many but of the ones I do know over half vote left. And I know this either because they have said so or have hoardings on their property. Which supports Belgarion's observation even though only anecdotal.

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 08:50 AM
I expect you have two "accounts" - one for trading which attracts tax and another long-term account which attracts no tax except on dividends. If not - have a look at doing it.



Belg - I think you'll find that the IRD class you individually as either a trader or not a trader...regardless of the number or types of accounts you have. Managing someone else's account as an investment portfolio is of course another matter.

Major von Tempsky
09-09-2014, 08:54 AM
I think Belge needs to cast his net wider than just looking at little old ACT in little old NZ. e.g. the Republican Party in the US has been criticizing BIG GOVERNMENT for years, already controls the House and is now tipped to take the Senate in the mid term elections. In France the Prime Minister has now said that Marine le Pens party is at "the gates of power" and the polls say that Marine would beat Hollande in a Presidential race. There are lots of other examples, the days of big inefficient socialist government are numbered.

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 08:56 AM
To answer your question you'd to explain why bigger government is a problem.

It's not seen as a problem by die-hard socialists and/or communists. It really depends on your worldview w.r.t. how much State control of the lives and property of a nation's citizens you believe is justifiable.

Sgt Pepper
09-09-2014, 08:59 AM
Hard to implement. Easier to make it universal than introduce a complex system for full/part time workers, those with a small extra income etc. The surcharge was an attempt to reduce super to those with other income. What about those who don't work but have investment income? They are often big taxpayers and the super is just a small tax rebate. Removing super would discourage pvt. investment schemes. Bad idea.

FP
Do you think there is an ethical dimension to this as well though.National Superannuation is not a super scheme as such, it is a universal, age related benefit, If you are under 65 and get caught claiming a benefit and are working you end up in jail. but over 65 its OK?? I quite understand how young people look at this and get quite angry

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 09:04 AM
In countries where CGT has been implemented the effect is generally trivial after the initial set up as the CGT generally replaces a whole bunch of administratively expensive taxes that were trying to do similar things by stealth. The key thing is to keep the tax simple.


Actually Belg, the extent to which administration and compliance costs & issues reduce or outweigh the benefits of a CGT scheme it is very much a concern of CGT promoters...or rather should be. See pages 2 and 3 of this Vic Uni report for a summary or pros and cons:

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centres-and-institutes/cagtr/twg/publications/3-taxation-of-capital-gains-ird_treasury.pdf

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 09:07 AM
I think you'll find that you're wrong. ;) I'm pretty sure this was covered at least once on the newbie thread. The answer will be there somewhere.

If you're finding it difficult to believe what I'm telling you, Belg, try phoning IRD. They will make it very clear to you.

Once a taxable trader on their books, you remain a trader.

Sgt Pepper
09-09-2014, 10:33 AM
I think Belge needs to cast his net wider than just looking at little old ACT in little old NZ. e.g. the Republican Party in the US has been criticizing BIG GOVERNMENT for years, already controls the House and is now tipped to take the Senate in the mid term elections. In France the Prime Minister has now said that Marine le Pens party is at "the gates of power" and the polls say that Marine would beat Hollande in a Presidential race. There are lots of other examples, the days of big inefficient socialist government are numbered.

Major

If you think that a neo fascist party(Le Pen) coming to power anywhere is good for humanity then I suggest a good hard look at ones moral compass may be in order.
Regarding those terrible socialist governments then please explain to me the success of the Nordic Countries who have had virtually perpetual LEFT OF CENTRE governments since the 1930s, hardly economic baskets cases are they??. By the way have you ever considered that if you were to wake up and develop serious chest pain during the night and get rushed to hospital, admitted to ICU and have your coronaries stented, you can thank your survival on those terrible socialists for instituting a national health service all those years ago.

elZorro
09-09-2014, 12:06 PM
Major

If you think that a neo fascist party(Le Pen) coming to power anywhere is good for humanity then I suggest a good hard look at ones moral compass may be in order.
Regarding those terrible socialist governments then please explain to me the success of the Nordic Countries who have had virtually perpetual LEFT OF CENTRE governments since the 1930s, hardly economic baskets cases are they??. By the way have you ever considered that if you were to wake up and develop serious chest pain during the night and get rushed to hospital, admitted to ICU and have your coronaries stented, you can thank your survival on those terrible socialists for instituting a national health service all those years ago.

Sgt Pepper, you shouldn't pick on MVT. He has a moral right, surely, to have the best of both worlds. There is no need for him to pay anything more for the public good services of an over-engineered government, and he has further rights to tax-free capital gains on his investments, while company and income tax has been reduced to the point where the govt budget has been in tatters for years.

After all, future generations will pick up that tab, and that's only fair.

minimoke
09-09-2014, 01:26 PM
Note to others. BC is wrong.

Suggest they peruse this thread: http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?6220-Tax-on-Capital-Gains-Trading-vs-Buy-and-hold

(BTW - can anyone remind me of the court case back in 89? where court ruled that a single individual with two "accounts" was able to claim capital losses?)

You're not thinking of Hillyer King Court of Appeal decision on 2007 which activities form multiple trading accounts weren't taxable?

(Oh, and Bobcat is incorrect. Its the accounts which are shown to be in the business of share trading or shares purchased with the intention of selling which will attract tax and IRD's eye. If you are buying seperately for income (which is generally taxable at source) then IRD wont be interested - or they may be but don't have a leg to stand on. Thats why it is best to run separate accounts - easier to prove intent rather than having all trades/holds/sells out of one account.

Bobcat.
09-09-2014, 01:57 PM
Note to others. BC is wrong.

Suggest they peruse this thread: http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?6220-Tax-on-Capital-Gains-Trading-vs-Buy-and-hold

(BTW - can anyone remind me of the court case back in 89? where court ruled that a single individual with two "accounts" was able to claim capital losses?)

The only thing I found interesting on that link, Belg, was Phaedrus in 2009 telling you that the market needs you to buy the stocks that he and others are unloading in a downward trend!

Others' posts of various opinions on what IRD might or might not do to people with two accounts under the same name who are trying to claim losses on a 'trading' account whilst avoiding tax on the other 'investment' account, are simply wishful thinking. Either send us the link to the relevant IRD policy, or to the judges ruling in the court case that you've mentioned...otherwise we'll just have to assume that once again you're merely talking tough through a hole in your head.

nextbigthing
17-09-2014, 08:16 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10510157/Fears-investors-would-shun-shares-under-Labour