I wouldn't lose any sleep over it eZ. Have a day off.
Printable View
I would, but there's so much going on out there in the nasty Nats political world. Now it looks like John Key and National were keen on the flag change partly because it helps them get funds from wealthy Chinese immigrants, who vividly remember British involvement in Hong Kong. They want the union jack gone from our flag.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11619417
So do I along with a large number of Kiwis. So what? And reading what you do into raising money for a flag project is plainly ridiculous. No reason why he shouldn't campaign for something he believes in, and which he signalled many years ago, although it was long after Labour kicked it off. It's just plain paranoia when you look for something sinister in every action of Key or National. Have a long hot bath, add in some Epsom salts and stop worrying about what to worry about.
You have to have the last word, that's your problem, FP. So you see nothing wrong with a bit of stealthy fundraising for the flag change by top National Party members - we don't even know how much was raised or where it ended up, and we certainly don't know what deals were struck. Elsewhere in the country, Young Nats are engaging in illegal treating of tertiary students in a bid to bolster their numbers, and garner votes. At least they're open about it, but they'd better watch out in future, or it'll be reported to the Electoral Commission. They think they're a law unto themselves.
I've got some power hedge trimming to do first, FP. Maybe you should take it easy, after your hard work for the week.
More on the tax haven issue, from an economist.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...y+9+April+2016
I'm not a fool, FP. Maybe you are, for believing so much in the fake messiah, John Key. You want your cruisy position protected from CGT, that I understand. You shouldn't have to pay your fair share of taxes, after all, you're an important part of the productive economy. Any other goings on from National don't matter, as long as you're able to carry on as normal, collecting rent.
As stated often, I have nothing against CGT as long as it's a properly designed scheme. I can assure you I have paid plenty of taxes throughout the years. Furthermore I do not regard Key as any sort of messiah. Just a damn sight better than any other party leader around at the moment - and in the foreseeable future. National have been particularly - and quite unfairly - harsh on property investors. Something I should but don't moan about.
You're happy with CGT as long as it includes the house you're living in, and if you can roll over investments as you sell them, thus avoiding CGT altogether in your lifetime. So, no to CGT - be honest FP.
You're paying taxes, but they'd have been a lot higher if you couldn't claim back all your interest and investment costs against income. And at the end of it all, you won't pay any tax on your capital gains, the biggest part of the return most likely.
If National have been 'harsh on property investors', that's because you all pushed the rules on depreciation. That small but valuable loophole (the how-to-do-it published in books) has been closed off. Not to mention baches that were occasionally rented, another rort.
So Key, who is not a statesman, is a liar and childish in the House, fondles ponytails for kicks, and has not put up one decent bill or law that we can look back on as positive, is better than any other leader around at the moment? I must say you're not putting the barrier up very high, and so I can only assume that it's because he's the only leader of the right-wing parties that you'd vote for.
Don't be silly. Businesses can't be taxed on turnover. It could not work. Even a simple example, say a one man band plumber with some plant and a van has costs like interest, depreciation, maintenance etc. and would be out of business in a week if those costs were treated as profit and taxed. Self employed cannot claim interest on money borrowed to buy a house, or on maintenance. Now be a good boy and go and have that shower.
I don't like the way this country is going, that's for sure. It could be so much better. I guess you're doing your bit to make sure it stays that way, you're just protecting your position. That doesn't mean you can accuse me of anything, hurl abuse at me repeatedly over the web. How about you destroy my arguments carefully, if you think you can, FP. Otherwise, just don't reply.
Hmm - you mean the majority disagrees with you and this is not to your liking:p. I guess you are saying the people should stop thinking and just do what the Labour politburo suggests? Maybe they could, but please don't call this "good" or "better".
Sure - if we listen to your constant nagging, than the Labour party seems to push for a New Zealand occupied by a bunch of welfare dependant people without own opinion but shaped by the messages of the dear Labour Leader?
Not my view of good or better - and neither the view of a majority of New Zealanders. Lets hope that it stays this way for a long time to come. This country is great!
Not at all, Artemis. FP has a misguided thought that if he ever has to register his commercial properties as liable to a CGT, then so should every home owner. Despite the fact that private homeowners cannot claim back any interest or expenses on their own property they're living in, unless they gain some income from part of it. Most don't, of course. That's why, in any CGT that might occur later, private homes would generally be exempt. You could argue the same for a bach that is never rented out. FP continues to trot out this plainly unacceptable line, thinking it will help National's argument about not levying a CGT.
Wrong again eZ. I can't be bothered going through it all again - you harped on and on about this when Cunliffe was embarrassing himself as your temporary god and I raised many points to think about. Suffice to say once again a CGT has many pros and cons. If I accept any politician's view on CGT it is Roger Douglas's.
What do you mean if?
They should have changed it 3 years ago when they were warned about this activity and again a year later.
We don't have the same level of governance or transparency as many of our Western peers so for Key to say we have full transparency is an out and out lie. We don't ask the right questions about the trusts to have any real level of transparency at all.
I mean if the govt. need to change it they will. Just because you think they should, or more correctly just because of your hatred of Key, does not mean they need to. You can be fairly sure they will assess the situation over the next few weeks, which will be a great relief to you no doubt.
What part of the secrecy of these trusts don't you understand?
Can we confirm the assets hidden in these trust aren't tied to organizations that fund terrorism? Drug trade? Arms dealing?
So its got nothing to do with my view on Key, other than yet again his government has failed to act.
NZ is on the UN security council for god's sake! And yet here we are, a place where money can be hidden with no questions asked.
It makes me laugh that both you, Craic and BP etc imagine what I do & think, such as hating Key or being a lefty.
Whatever entertains you.
So those of the right, what's your thoughts on Anne Tolley's plan to revamp child services?
No doubt there will be some rather disappointed that NZ doesn't figure in The Guardian's editorial on tax havens.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016...try-by-country
;)
Interesting and cynical way of putting it.
Lets hope we aren't a significant player, although according to the head of the organization that leaked the files it is highly likely that not only will their be criminal activity hidden in these NZ based trusts, but also NZ companies and high wealth individuals as well.
But its missing the point.
The point is we wouldn't know, because NZ doesn't ask enough of the right questions to have the level of transparency required by a 1st world county and member of the UN security council.
After 30 years of dealing with the results the only way is to revamp the parents. Anyone who goes into that line of work is mad. You will be given a whole bible of what you cannot do and just when you think that you have that off by heart, you will be given lessons on the sanctity of the tangata whenua and how they must be seen as the supreme authority in all matters. Meanwhile the left, the right and the centre will tell you where you are going wrong and how they would deal with the problem if they were in power, carefully ignoring the reality that they WERE in power, several times, and failed, several times.
Yes, why shouldn't we? We're high up in the table of less corrupt countries, so if we want to preserve that position, we should act. In Iceland, one in 33 of the population protested about their PM using a tax haven. That in turn caused him to step down, at least for the meantime. Maybe quite a few NZers are just lucky that their tax havens weren't on the books of a firm in Panama. A similar leak from Hong Kong would be interesting, I'm sure. How many tax dodgers are there, and how many trusts? This is amazing, that any worker lets the IRD take PAYE from wage packets, when those who can certainly afford to pay their share of income tax, have such an easy time hiding their income in any one of numerous overseas trust destinations. Those who are not quite at that level of chicanery invest in property assets in NZ, while trying hard to run at a loss, at least on paper.
Note sure if some of you read Duncan Garners column in Dompost 2.4.16 about legacy. NZ today has been shaped predominately by Labour governments when you have a good think about it. You could add nuclear free, floating the dollar & GST as well to the ones Duncan mentions; Kiwisaver, Kiwi Bank, WFF etc. National could include Employments Contracts Act, benefit cuts, price & wage freeze, Think Big and the abolishing of the super scheme brought in the Kirk Labourer government, not to mention the flag failure...
@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (1/4): NAT 50%(+3), LAB 28%(-4), GRN 10%(+2), NZF 9%(-1), MAO 1%, ACT 1% #nzpol
Unfortunately we may as well save the cost of an election next year
Even the greens are laggards - wasted their opportunity to be the real opposition
And this is why Labour is a lost cause
@ColmarBruntonNZ: ONE News Colmar Brunton poll (3/4): Preferred PM: Key 39%(-1), Peters 10%(+1), Little 7%(-2) #nzpol
This is interesting
@pitakakariki: @ColmarBruntonNZ Is the historical stuff still there somewhere?And is that Key's lowest PPM score since December 2012?
Note- TV1 didn't show the historical series as they usually do ....hmm
W69, I think we're still 17 months away from an election, and while I can't understand how National gets away with it, I have to accept the poll results. Within limits. While National/Act and 'Not-National' are fairly evenly balanced, Labour has performed the poorest between polls, and I think Andrew Little has to take a share of the blame. He will not be replaced before the next election, that's for sure. But he needs to get some more media training, it's not that hard is it? 17 months of Labour acting as though they will win the 2017 election in coalition, not being on the back foot, and perception will be reality. No ums and arrs in front of the camera, Andrew.
Good PR will work, National have proven it. But they've had their three terms, they're corrupt liars, they have achieved nothing, they have to go.
There are a lot of people comparing what this government has done, compared with the Clark Government under Labour. Don't forget what it was like during that time, NZ started to come to an even keel, we started feeling like we were living in a great country again.
Here's the full data from Colmar Brunton, including historical trends.
http://colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-conten...016-prelim.pdf
W69 is right, John Key is becoming less popular over time, and of the people who are quite likely or very likely to vote in the next election, 13% won't say which way they would vote at the moment, or are undecided. That's higher than usual. People are starting to think a bit, but they're not sure about Andrew Little yet.
Just over 1000 people on landlines were surveyed in this poll. So they are older households, perhaps more conservative. Lots of younger households don't have landlines, or are unlisted. The error in the party vote is about +/- 3.1% for 3D certainty for National, and about +/- 2.5% for Labour. The percentages are also rounded up or down with no decimal point, we're not told the actual data.
Let's take a Labour-positive view of the results. National could have had 49.6% of the party vote +/-3.1%, so worst case is 46.5%.
Labour in best case is 28.4% +2.5% or 30.9%. Add 13% unknown/undecided votes and Labour could achieve 43.9%, that is statistically a small possibility. Add Greens, and a Labour/Green coalition would have power in 2017.
This poll was completed before the news about the tax havens was well known. It certainly didn't include the effect of the multiple articles about NZ's need to do something about it, and John Key's inappropriate response.
I've had a look at the 8 months report on the Government Books. While they had a higher than expected tax take to produce a $300 mill surplus on operations, they also deferred over $500mill of predicted costs into the next annual year, and expect the tax take to drop away in the next quarter.
Our financial instruments held by ACC, Super Fund, also showed losses, which are on the capital side, but they are still important. A big loss of $5.1bill. So adding all that in, NZ's net worth dropped by $4.6bill over the last 8 months. Great going.
The NZ Govt is now spending more than $2,500mill on finance costs (interest) every 8 months, on a debt of over $84bill. That looks like 4.4% interest on average. $3,750mill on interest costs a year, that would pay for 150 flag referendums.
Interesting poll ...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...s&bid=30981464
Maybe its time Labour starts to listen instead of just telling people what they think is best for them ...?
Labour's spending a lot of time listening. There's nothing wrong with virtually any of the policies they put forward at the last election, it's just National are so organised and well funded that they're a tough nut to crack.
Which party would be better for NZ as a whole? No question, that's Labour.
Well, EZ - obviously everybody is entitled to their own opinion, just looks like that not too many other New Zealanders share your political views. Obviously nothing wrong with that, as we all know - the majority is not always right. However given that this is a democracy might it be an impediment for Labour to move back into government.
Interesting to note that not even Labour voters support Little ... only 7% of all voters (i.e. just a meagre quarter of all Labour supporters) want to see him as future PM.
Do you really think that trying force such an inept leader down our throats is evidence for Labours listening skills?
If yes, than I don't think National needs to worry too much about the next handful of elections, though it obviously would be better for the country to have a capable opposition instead of the sad bunch of naggers, bad-mouthers, mud-throwers and day-dreamers we have to endure these days.
Imagine what the loss would have been if the Government had borrowed more to invest into the Superfund, like you and your party wanted :ohmy:
EZ are you serious when you say there was nothing wrong with any of Labour's policies at the last election ? Have you forgotten that nearly 3/4 of voters voted against it ?
More likely NZ is a small country in a remote part of the world and despite our opinion we are of importance on the world stage, in reality we are not newsworthy. (Unless the antics of our PM are a little unusual) The majority of the world population would have no knowledge of NZ
westerly
Hi Macduff, well the Guardian is only one source (however one of the better media outlets around) and plenty of others, including the group that has released the documents is suggesting NZ has had a reasonable part to play in all this. Its early days and NZ will be one of many countries that are no doubt caught up in an unravelling scandal that has already seen one prime minister resign and pressure on another, being Cameron.
The fact is that NZ does not insist on the same level of scrutiny that our peer nations do. Its being suggested that NZ has been identified as a soft target by those wanting to set up these offshore trusts. Sure we may not be waiving a tax haven banner like the Cayman Islands, however we may only be one notch down.
One thing I am sure of, much more will come of this.
I have been waiting for Winston Peters to say the line...
This is not the wine box, its the whole bloody vineyard! LOL
They are not mad, they are saints, well if you believe in saints.
Its certainly a vocation & you aren't in it for the money, that's for sure.
I know people who work in these care positions and I take my hat off to them.
Anyway I was going to say, on the face of it I like what National is proposing.
However I just hope its not a wolf in sheep's clothing, like much of the 'environmental' policy and its not just an attempt to save money or outsource responsibility. It appears they have learnt something from the SERCO debacle,. Not before time.
Fair enough, Daytr. My point though, was that it would be straining things somewhat to suggest that NZ could take a leading position, as it did in the apartheid issue, in stamping out tax havens around the world. Sure, the All Blacks rule, Helen Clark is (almost) universally admired, and we have a good reputation in many fields - but to suggest that the world will sit up, take notice and follow our lead - whatever it might be in this matter - while there are much bigger targets in the UK, Iceland, Russia etc taking the spotlight, is wishful thinking in my opinion.
MacDuffy, perhaps you could try a bit of research here. I had a feeling that Labour wouldn't have left a tax haven in place in 2008. Sure enough, they didn't.
When Labour modified the overseas trust rules in 2008, they left a PIE fund or effective interest rate for foreign owned trusts, of 28% tax. This was far from a tax haven, and I don't think there would have been much money flowing into this area at all. But, it had established a mechanism for something else.
2008, and on the back of good work by Crosby-Textor and accompanying BS, National got back in power. By 2010 John Key was openly stating that he wanted the tax rate on these foreign trusts changed. The new tax rate he wanted was 0%. In other words, it was tax-free, nil, no tax at all. He sent a small think-tank off to produce a report that agreed with him, and then they quietly, somehow, snuck it in as a law change in September 2011.
Edit: Labour, the Greens, NZ First opposed the bill, but didn't have the numbers by a long way.
Of course we can now see that enormous amounts of funds have flooded in, some of which have propped up the GDP figures indirectly, and also funded the National Party with donations I'm sure. And John Key had the cheek to say the rules hadn't changed since the Clark Government. One big rule did change. From a sensible tax rate, to none at all. That's the hypocrisy and utter lying that National should be known for, by now.
Don't believe anything John Key says without checking up on it, that's my advice. We are now a tax haven, no doubt about that.
Yeah, they dropped 3.54%. Considering the annual return since inception is 9.05% perhaps they are not doing so bad.
And for some unknown reason they pay tax, $2.9b over the last 5 years. John an Bill holding out their hands again but contributing nothing.
The fund has averaged nearly 11% over the last 5 years, perhaps National should have invested more instead of zero.
westerly
Yes, the Nats were lucky ahead of the GFC that Labour left them those good investment funds, had paid off most of the external debt, and had good policy settings that, by and large, had to be left in place. Even now, Labour and other lobbyists are forcing National to make small concessions in policy that make sense. But that hasn't stopped National from selling down assets, defraying costs, pruning back govt departments, experimenting badly with privatisation, and the usual right-wing tricks of playing with the statistics. But one of the worst ideas must have been John's uncunning plan to turn NZ into a Tax Haven. You arrogant sod, John.
We should all be marching on Parliament about this. John can't get away with letting one person carry out a study on it. We won't forget this, it won't get swept under the carpet.
Here's John Key being grilled by Guyon Espiner on RadioNZ this morning, about our tax haven. He's certainly on the back foot, wish we had video of this.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...-panama-papers
All of a sudden, he doesn't seem to know too much about the trusts and how they work. He's certainly not going to show us his tax records though. The last question was "have you used any trusts in countries that might be considered tax havens?" to which he replied timidly through the phone.."I don't believe so". Guyon quickly pointed out that the answer wasn't a 'no'.
I'm most disappointed Guyon didn't ask the other obvious question. Why did he instigate the change in the tax rate on these foreign-owned trusts from 28% to.. 0%? In other words, he applied no tax. John Key set up our status as a Tax Haven.
John Key's stuck in this right up to his neck, maybe we can get him booted out over it.
The point I was making is that posters like you and EZ complain about Key/English beings stupid not to borrow money to invest in the Superfund and then also complain and blame them when the Fund loses money, which of course it will do on occasions despite being very well managed.
It is this sort of constant negative rubbish that has turned voters off Labour and sadly Labour doesn´t understand it.
They have been flat out releasing policy ideas recently, such as legislating interest rates, free tertiary education, universal benefits, no TPP, you name it. But noone is listening and they continue to go down in the polls with Little just above margin of error as preferred PM.
But like EZ keeps reminding us, they have good policy and good people so no need to change anything. Just wait for NZ to wake up and realise their brilliance. Doh
Great stuff, Iceman. All you're doing is poking the borax at Labour, and anyone who might vote Labour. I see you haven't leapt to the defence of John Key over HavenGate, or whatever it'll be called. That's because it's indefensible. If we find out for sure that JK has been dodging tax, (I bet he has) just like all his mates, you'd probably still vote National, you're that blinkered.
John Key and National are only staying in power through these elections because they have more cash, and most people don't ask any real questions about politicians.
talking about taxes etc..... whats up with this?
""Tax exemption
Salaries, grants and allowances paid by the United Nations are normally exempt from income tax.""
https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=SAL
makes you wonder where and how helen is depositing her salary.
as for trusts....... i have always disliked them....... they seem like a nether world entity that exists but are untouchable for all the wrong reasons in my opinion.
If you cant stand behind your name or next to your partner......... with trust.... then you need to hide or defend with a nether world trust.
and it seems that all governments support trusts.....
I don't like trusts either, accountants seem to like them, so that's not a great recommendation is it? I believe in standing by your good name and your spouse, too.
Regarding a post at the UN, I didn't know that generally their salaries are exempt from tax. The difference there is that Helen Clark applied for a job and won it, despite fierce competition. All of those rules and perks were laid out already, she accepted the terms.
However, John Key worked his way up to be the National Party leader within a short period of time, didn't do his groundwork (so obvious now) and has become PM. It's not a highly paid job, the hours are long, and he's supposed to pay tax on his income in NZ. He could behave like many ministers before him, and buy farms, forestry blocks, houses, commercial buildings etc, thus defraying his income with interest and trying to ensure a net capital gain over the period, until he steps down. John's more likely to be playing the markets, and he won't want to be doing that openly. A foreign trust or overseas vehicle would be perfect for that. Hence, IMO, the extreme evasion with the questioning from Guyon.
El Z, Key has said publicly he has two trusts, one a blind trust (ie one he has nothing to do with the running of, as H Clarke did before him) and another which he probably holds his personal assets in eg house. Both are based here. I think you are getting out of hand with all this baseless innuendo.
As I recall Key also donates his PM salary to charity, if I remember correctly from when he was first elected.
Jonu, there are other "vehicles" besides trusts that can be used, apparently. Could a blind trust in NZ be linked to another trust or vehicle, for example? John did say he uses the 'best people' for his tax affairs. Now you and I both know that's a reference not to their ethical position, but more on tax minimisation help 'within the rules'. He has to insulate himself from investments that would otherwise appear on the register. He surely knows a lot more about trusts than he's letting on.
Finally, that is a very old folk tale about John Key giving away his PM salary. He might donate a portion of it to charity, who knows. But he has never confirmed he's giving it all away, and yet people like yourself continue to trot that out as though it's the truth? Prove it, that'll be interesting.
One of the biggest charities in the country, The Labour Party, seems to be a little short on donations lately. But then its financial woes match it obvious drop in goodwill.
El Z, I recall him saying it (about his salary) when he was first elected. I don't know if he still does.
As for the trusts, all you have brought up is more baseless innuendo. I actually don't like Key. I think he is a moral jellyfish. But I think it unfair to sling mud in desperation.
Like you and me Key will get a tax rebate on his donations to charites as well
My tax return at the moment would be a very dismal affair. I told you all manufacturing is mostly in the doldrums since the GFC and National got in, and Glass Earth put me off investing in the sharemarket.
Now I passed Politics101 a long time ago (no bull) and of the very few things I remember, it was that politicians are our representatives, and have to be almost purer than the driven snow. That's why some of them step down at least temporarily, after even minor scrapes like buying wine on their ministerial credit cards. So it is proper that an MP would be able to back up their word and produce a tax return if they were asked. You know we'll never get one out of John Key, because it won't line up with what he's saying most likely.
He is a pathological liar, that's what I think at the moment. Filter everything he says, because he just makes stuff up on the fly.
Found this interesting chart. Has NZ GDP per capita over the years broken down into 'tradables' which in this case is the Primary Industries (agriculture, forestry and fishing) and Manufacturing sectors. All other industry sectors are in Rest
Seems primary industries and manufacturing were in the decline before Nats took over ... and hasn't been doing too badly over the last few years
The truth, based on your last post is that he is a winner and you are a loser. You can't make it in manufacturing because you can't produce a product that people want to buy at a price they are willing to pay. And you are scared of the sharemarket because YOU made a mistake with whatever Glass Earth was. If that is the kid of thinking that is the Labour party, then I am happy to see them in back paddock.
I think you're too keen on making stuff up as well, Craic. What has my situation (which a few years back was extremely good, thanks - I paid a lot of taxes) got to do with the Labour Party? I just happen to vote for them, and I help out in a local electorate. You're straying so far off the thread it's not funny.
What do you think about John Key's fabrications? Is it proper for a PM? Should he be booted out for lying?
W69, are you reading the same graph as me? In about 2008, primary industries manufacturing took a steep dive and didn't start pulling back up until 2013-2014, probably helped by a higher milk payout. Even now, it hasn't reached the level it was at when Labour were in power. Yet National is supposedly the friend of the farmer and anyone in the primary sector! I don't happen to be in that area of manufacturing, but some of our output gets used there. We also export.
That graph does imply that anyone stuck in the primary manufacturing sector with all of their capital, has been doing worse than in other areas of the economy. No wonder everyone's piled into the housing/commercial sector, but does it mean that National presided over an unbalanced economy for the last seven years, and did they do much to correct it?
Jonu, you could try linking up the dots. Andrew Little has called JK's bluff, and JK backed out of the situation with a typical smart-arsed comment in the House. He didn't answer the question though. He's a very slippery eel. Quite a few members of the press seem to have figured all this out, though. They'll wait for their chance.
John Key told all of us very recently that the foreign trust settings were unchanged from when Labour was in power. One of the settings relates to the tax rate levied. John Key made sure that rate was dropped from 28% (sensible) to 0% in September 2011. It was rammed through despite opposition from Labour, NZ First, the Greens. They just didn't have the numbers to stop it. Did John think no-one would bother to look back at the record? That's the precise time when we started to become a tax haven. John Key did it.
Still no fabrication or lies. Also Key was saying that the necessary questions weren't asked under Labour either. This is what hasn't changed. Are you saying taxing dodgy money from overseas suddenly makes it OK?
El Z your obvious frustration at Labour's inability to get any traction against Key shouldn't result in you making baseless claims in this forum.
Read this link carefully. Foreign investors can set up a trust in NZ, invest in a fund run from NZ that in turn invests only in foreign assets or financial instruments, but after JK's 'new tax rate', they'll pay no tax on that income. NZers who invested in the same fund, will have to pay tax at the PIE rate (28%). The extra advantage that hasn't changed I guess, is that foreign investors don't necessarily get their trust details bandied about, unless they are unlucky enough to be resident in a country we have a tax treaty with, and someone asks IRD in the correct way. No treaty, no details are passed on, full stop. In which case they'll probably not document their trust if they think they can get away with it, or they'll invest somewhere else.
When the tax rate was 28%, there would have been hardly any takers for these PIE funds. Then came the JK difference (NO TAX) and suddenly the money came flooding in. The settings were OK when Labour set it up, because the fair tax rate discouraged that type of investor. Maybe the trust rules need looking at too, but it's the combination of the trust rules and the new zero tax rate that constitutes a haven.
Since a trustee for a foreign trust has to produce a utilities bill and a passport to prove they are resident in NZ, but then only needs to state that the settlor is foreign based, with no further details provided, what is to stop a NZ fraudster from setting themselves up in a foreign trust here? The massive advantage is that they can then effectively invest in one of these foreign equity PIE funds, and pay no tax on the returns. As soon as the tax rate for one side is 28%, the other 0%, the obvious is going to happen.
John Key said we had a tax treaty agreement with Malta the other day. Turns out we don't, but Malta was also mentioned a lot in the Panama Papers. He just made it up, then he said (when tackled on it by Corin Dann) that this was the advice he'd been given. That's either a fabrication or a lie also. Who in their right mind would give false details to the PM when they know he's going to answer questions in the House? He will never say he just made a mistake and adjust the record, he'll carry it right through. The USA, UK, Australia and another 57 countries have double-tax treaties with Malta, we don't. Maybe John was thinking about his time in Merrill Lynch. Anyway, he was wrong, he made up his own facts, as he often does.
We should now have a reporter ask JK who the staffer was that gave him the wrong facts, and then John would have to tell us another porkie.
He bothers to lie or make stuff up, because he's trying to singlehandedly defuse any situation he's in, without admitting any fault. He generally gets away with it, but don't forget, he's not a trader anymore. He's the PM of NZ, he has to uphold the standards of public office.
I'm writing as a concerned voter, not part of the Labour hierarchy, that's for sure. Labour ran a clean campaign in 2014, I expect they'll do so again for 2017.
Vernon Small on Key's assets. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...-of-his-assets
Some of the comments are interesting.
"As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people" says Bernie Sanders
Little should be saying "as long as Wellington is bought and paid for by Key's American bosses, NZ can't build an economy that works for people"
I think National have been in power long enough to take responsibility for all matters pertaining to governing NZ.
This blaming a party that has ben in power for 8 years is ridiculous.
The fact is, it was brought to the government's attention three years ago & again a year later and try decided to do noting about these foreign trusts.
Just ask yourself why do foreign trusts exist at all?
And what business has someone in the prime minister's seat entering into a blind trust !
This fiasco over the Kermadecs is a complete botch up by the government.
Why on earth wouldn't they have consulted with Māori?
Are they naïve, arrogant or just plain stupid.
Not for the first time National are seen to be ruling by the seat of their pants.
Do they actually think things through? They have done so many back flips in their time in government its clear they don't.
Really? So what is a prime minister to do with his/her assets to avoid accusations of conflicts of interest involving those assets?Quote:
And what business has someone in the prime minister's seat entering into a blind trust !
Oh, and Helen Clark had a blind trust when she was prime minister - according to the NZ Herald.
W69, I think this comment piece goes along with that. Very interesting observation by Tom.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...+13+April+2016Quote:
What are democracy and social welfare, if not compromises accepted by the rich and powerful as a trade off to protect their stashes?
And more about the Antipodes firm:
http://thestandard.org.nz/can-we-trust-john-key/
If you want information on NZ foreign trusts this may help http://www.nexustrust.com/productandservice.htm
westerly
Thanks Westerly, but what I was looking for was the substance to El Z's slanderous accusations of fabrications and lies. As is often the case when things are debated in online forums and in the media, the goalposts are shifted slightly all the time, without points and accusations being proven. When someone is caught out they just jump to something else. Politicians are masters at it and so is El Z.
Jonu, as you say politicians are masters at covering their tracks. The first qualification, and possibly the only one for a politician, is being adept at public speaking. If you call changing their mind subsequent to what they first said backtracking, forgetfulness, or even lying probably depends on whether you believe what they are saying is true or a cover up and your political allegiance. Just google backtracks or lies along with whoevers name and you get all sorts of views.
westerly
Westerly no doubt you have noticed MPs are very careful not to call each other liars outside the House. There is good reason for this. If El Z has proof of lies that would stand up in court he should state it with confidence (he hasn't yet); if not he should have his cheque book at the ready to pay out whoever he slanders by calling them a liar in a public forum.
@Dovil: Considering I know the PM trims his pubes, had a vasectomy and pees in his shower you'd think showing a tax return would be the least of it.
(From twitterland)
Apparently there are 70 heads of government mentioned in the Panama Papers which will be presumably be disclosed as investigators make there way through the vast amount of documentation which has been leaked. I note this afternoon, in response to a question the Prime Minister said " I have had no dealings with Panama"
Why have I found out about this via the Guardian and not the NZ press?
Why is the government not commenting?
What is John Key going to do about it or his he going to try and dismiss it with a joke?
Will the Labour party formulate a policy to prevent such happenings on their watch?
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Ha! Ha! EZ quoting Bernie Sanders approvingly. Now all we need is for him to quote Jeremy Corbyn approvingly. Talk about the anti-Midas touch!