I think I'm on very safe ground.
http://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-...-lies-updated/
And, I think the link between John Key and the word "lies" or "lying" would be fairly strong over the internet. Who is he going to sue? All of us?
Printable View
I think I'm on very safe ground.
http://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-...-lies-updated/
And, I think the link between John Key and the word "lies" or "lying" would be fairly strong over the internet. Who is he going to sue? All of us?
Oh dear ... now you've done it. EZ and his soul mates will regurgitate this unfortunate event until Inky comes home or Labour looses the next election (whatever comes first).
Not sure either how any responsible PM could allow such a terrible thing to happen. On the other hand, given that Inky is probably a Leftie (he used the sewer to escape), maybe the whole affair was just a political amnesty? Still concerning, given that he was incarcerated without having had his day in court first.
I suppose National is already briefing CT to start a campaign to limit larger public damage ...
It is a big list, some fibs/lies are bigger than others, sure.
Andrew Little has supplied his tax returns since 2010, from before he left the EPMU. Still no action on that from John Key, but he did spend all of Sunday checking with his two financial advisors, one in NZ and one in USA. So he didn't know for sure what was going on, and was a bit worried about it. It's all sorted now.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-promised.html
A blog on the Panama papers and an interesting comment about John Key, from Chris Trotter.
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2...rtant-are.html
Gareth Vaughan had an article about wide gaps in our financial services industry in NZ, late last year. It has taken the Panama Papers to galvanise the govt into, well, getting one of their mates to file a report.
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/78...-pacific-money
Weekend reading EZ
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...george-monbiot
labour not trying trying to come up with a coherent alternative - as George says "the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century."
Labour too like National - that will never get them in power
Very interesting article, W69. It sounds very accurate too. I'd much prefer a Keynesian approach to the neoliberal one, but as the article concludes, there has to be something in there about the environment too. If we grow the economy by whatever means is easiest at the moment, we'll end up with accelerated global warming, no-one wins. There's a lot there about the greedy few at the top, the mechanisms and the decades of combined effort that got them into the favoured position that they are in now. Knowing for sure that most of them pay hardly any tax, really rankles.
We'll need lots of lower cost, carbon neutral energy to dig ourselves out of the situation ahead. Maybe that's a core objective of any new political system.
Ah, yes! The greedy few. The rest of us are lily-white innocents.Quote:
There's a lot there about the greedy few at the top, the mechanisms and the decades of combined effort that got them into the favoured position that they are in now. Knowing for sure that most of them pay hardly any tax, really rankles.
;)
I didn't say we were, but the main fact is that once people get to be really rich, they tend to pay other specialists to minimise their tax, that is the step they take, the step too far, as far as I'm concerned. Once governments ensure that this process is made easier, they are complicit, especially if they don't close loopholes down when they are noticed.
Most National MPs are wealthier than, say, Labour or Green MPs. In fact National MPs with their "stated wealth" are still making up the top ten wealthiest MPs at the moment. There is a rumour that John Key is worth a lot more than about $50mill. In which case, a conservative 10% return on even $50mill p.a. invested in equities or other decent investments, not property holdings, is $5mill, and taxed at about 33% is an eye-watering $1.65mill in taxes p.a.. I bet John's not paying that, hence he's not going to show us his tax returns. But the IRD expects anyone on wages earning over about $45,000 to be paying 33% PAYE, and businesses as well are effectively tied to the same rates once they pull money out of the firm. Remember SMEs, the "backbone of the economy" and major employers?
If John Key wants us to believe that he's not using tax havens or other means of tax minimisation that normal people don't access, then he has to prove it by releasing his tax returns. And yes, by comparison, the rest of us are innocents.
John Key does not have to prove anything - he is subject to the same rigorous examination by Inland Revenue as is every other taxpayer. He is not a fool so he knows that "Giving unto Caesar that which is etc." is the simple and effective way. and protects you from the allegations of lies by the left.
'
No National on the surface is like Labour all the while implementing neo liberal policies in a slow and devious way. Labour has to pull back from centre right and move to the left. The younger generation need a helping hand in housing and leaving it to developers will never work.
westerly
I don't think you made the effort to read the article W69 posted, Craic. It spells it out, the neolibs set up the rules so they could dodge tax, thus more speedily bringing on more inequality. So John Key's just doing what almost everyone at the top is doing, most likely. He can prove me wrong, simply by furnishing his tax returns. It might be legal to do that, but is it morally acceptable? And is this the behaviour we expect from a PM? Or even an MP?
EZ, not sure about John Key, but your behaviour is clearly not morally acceptable. You throw mud and hope something sticks ... but it is you who sticks to the neck in some soft smelly brown mass, not John Key. You accuse John Key of something you are yourself. You call him a liar and a tax avoider. Given that you have not a shred of evidence to support your dirty allegations - what does this make you?
Put up or shut up ... anyway - daytr was long enough by his own on the ignore list. Up there you go ...
Look, Tim23, if you or I ever get to a point where we have more money than we know what to do with, remember that one way we got there might have been to not pay any tax or employ anybody, if we can help it. Those sorts of things are for fools. In fact, I've been advised recently, that even working is for fools.
We must think a lot more about being rentiers, about unearned income. Once we get to this happy state, we must then go to the next level, where we hide all of the income in some tax haven or more property (take your choice, or do both), and not pay any tax on our income back to the NZ govt. They of course, are inefficient with it, and do not deserve our largesse. While we're at it, let's ensure the govt that we put into play keeps unemployment high, govt debt high, and that these settings stay in place for decades. In lieu of taxes, some hefty donations to this party, and some advertising/sponsorship in exchange for devt grants and other lobbied govt policies, will keep the whole thing going. Remember, votes from the hoi polloi can be bought, it's a very simple rule.
Where does National get all their dosh from these days?
Lots of different people, W69. Apparently, they'll go to golf days and pay $300 a ticket. Or evening meals at $1500 a pop, with 3-4 MPs present. What sort of people can afford this, you may ask? Not the sort that don't even own their own house yet, that's for sure. But National seems to find enough of them to easily fund their campaigns.
Not atall - clearly we all can't succeed, if everyone was motivated you still get a gap. I like Labour because they are more inclusive for the greater good if you like. Good advice for you would be to read Duncan Garners Dompost column last weekend and you will draw the conclusion that NZ today is strongly shaped by Labour governments. 616337]Right on the money. eZ????
In his thinking, and obviously yours, National is for the rich and Labour is for the poor. Do you really believe that?
This is a great country for those that get off their arse. Those that do should not be knocked down by the likes of eZ.[/QUOTE]
I never said those with money are morally questionable but clearly some are but that's okay by you. As for ridiculous comments - take a look in the mirror. QUOTE=fungus pudding;616330]You are way off the mark. Having money does not make anyone morally questionable. That is absurd. eZ is riddled with paranoia, envy and hatred. Surely you can do better than firing around ridiculous comments as he does. Applying logic will get you further.[/QUOTE]
777, I don't hate success. For me, success is paying my way first as an employee, then as an employer, and earning foreign exchange through exporting efforts. I own property, but I use it, I don't rent it out. This means that any income I earn will generally attract tax, which I'm happy to pay. I don't go out of my way to invest in areas I'm not interested in, or arranging my affairs inside trusts, just to minimise tax. But many do, and they are now getting to the point of crippling NZ's tax base -helped along by National's policy settings, which they are using to bankrupt the Crown while ensuring they stay in power with what are effectively backhanders.
It's a shambles that Labour will have to inevitably fix up for the rest of us, just so National can get back in and do the same all over again. The Crown has lost about $4.9billion in capital in the last 8 months - have a look at the Crown Net Worth chart sometime, 777, and then get back to us about how the Crown can be going backwards, while the chosen few are getting richer every year.
Ez where would all your mates live if there were no property was rented out. Trusts pay taxes, although your Labour brethren would have you believe not. Get real. If there is a shambles developing, and I don't believe there is, then there is not a a hope in hell of Labour having enough ability to fix it. They are simply a bunch of twats with do direction or ability to do anything except to take a negative approach to life in general. Just look at them, they can't even find a party leader that works, nor is there anyone else to try. Nash and Ardhern are not capable although certain areas of the media are trying to promote them.
This country needs two strong parties but unfortunately it only has one, and a bunch of misfits who know jack all about responsibility to run a country.
Dedication is one thing but you are on a hiding to nothing. Give up while you are behind.
What is foreign money? Would the Labour party reject donations in US dollars? - in Australian dollars? - in Chinese currency? Most of the major banks here are foreign owned. The sharemarket is open to foreign investment and Kiwis can invest their cash in dozens of other countries. Maybe a less emotive accusation wondering "how much foreign money surreptitiously fins it way into National coffers?" would help.
We'd have no way of knowing. However many of the National MPs are independently wealthy. For them, being an MP is more about status and power, than an income stream. One of the local National MPs has been informed by head office that he can't fund his own campaign by simply writing out a cheque as per usual, he'll need to actually make a public attempt at fundraising. How dreary for him.
So it is OK for you and eZ to be one eyed but not anyone that does not agree with you and you tell me to grow up. You are a laugh a minute.
Am I one eyed? I criticize both parties.
You only have to look back over the last few political posts I have made where I have criticized Little's leadership and given National credit over their proposed changes to Child Services.
I am waiting for a party to step forth with long term policy that benefits NZ as a whole.
Not the shortism we are seeing from the current government .
Calling a political party a bunch of twats is not only unintelligent, its generalist & ridiculous in this case.
What I meant is that the last few decades of political history have been recorded in books, in Wikipedia, on the web in other areas, and in statistical records held by the state. You just need to access those, and you might have a different opinion.
I found it strange that you mentioned "Labour brethren" when of course history also records that it's National that has/had strong links with Brethren Church members. That helped cost National the knife-edge 2005 election, after they were on a roll after employing Crosby-Textor the year before. They still employ them, arguably the world's best neoliberal campaign advisors. What's the common theme here? The National Party generally accesses bigger pools of funds, and uses that to buy votes with better advice, better marketing, better spin. And the funders are after the status quo, thanks, or more of the same.
And all Labour can do to counter the successful management of National by National is to waste its limited resources on backing a new loser at very regular intervals.
I hardly call successful management wracking up debt! Anyone can do that!
SERCO appointment was that good management ?
The teachers payroll disaster that went on for years.
The constant restructuring of DOC & they still can't get it right.
The squandering of $28M or whatever it was on a flag referendum.
CHC earthquake recovery project has been mismanaged and far too slow.
They haven't even spent a third of the $18billion allocated yet.
Why because I would make the government debt blowout further.
They have 60k extra people piling into the country every year putting stress on resources and infrastructure and all they do is spend billions on motorways.
Labour have a far better record in managing the economy than National do.
Unfortunately the current lot don't seem to be able to convey a plan hat people will buy into.
A decent opposition would tar National to shreds.
Maybe if you stopped elevating your own opinion to the status of infallibility and went instead to opinion of the majority of NZ voters you would see that you are probably wrong. Even the All Blacks might be '" torn to shreds by a decent opposition". The fact is National is the best team on the park now and your inability to see that is a problem for you.
Not unlike you Craic to make a personal jibe. Seems to be the modus operandi of the right.
I would rather have a party that was stagnant than one that charges off with random policy that hasn't been thought through.
I have lost count the number of back flips National have made under Key.
I concur, "a bunch of twats" that's plain stupid - too many gins last night? They are not a bunch of misfits either, just people dedicated to trying to make NZ even better. Mind you probably thought Clark & Cullen & co were misfits too, suspect the only misfit is you.
Thanks for adding a bit of pushback on the name-calling, Tim23. Cold, hard facts are all that is needed to win an argument about politics in NZ. You just can't compare the last 9 year term under Labour, with the 7 years we've had under National, without getting a bit grumpy about what we've lost out on.
The press are still mostly helping National out, but again, it's easy to deconstruct their arguments.
http://thestandard.org.nz/opinion-pieces-on-labour/
In the news today, we are being warned by scientists about the ongoing perils for our aquifer water from having the equivalent of 100 million humans defecating, without a proper sewage system, into our waterways. The dairy boom and quick bust was promoted under National as a major policy, and they are still working on irrigation systems to assist dairy farmers in regions that didn't formerly suit dairying, like Canterbury.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...y-secrets.html
Just watched Sunday Jonathan Coleman in denial re obesity reminded me of ex MP Katherine Rich from Food Council saying that people weren't influenced by marketing by alcohol companies - really Katherine? That's why Steinlager are involved with the All Blacks and of course we know that All Blacks tell you how to vote on polling day and which flag to choose... p
We can add the giving away of our water to corporations & foreign interests to the list of botch ups by National.
And just look at the list of directors behind these companies making a motza by bottling & shipping off our free water from our purest sources.
Jenny Shipley of course, is there a trough she isn't at? I can't believe she may have been considered for the GG gig.
Orivida all over it of course as is their involvement in the dodgy practice of ancient Kauri export.
But according to Nick Smith its ok and we shouldn't be charging for this precious resource!
Just who are these clowns working for!
Most of these clowns are in the property market too. A recipe for increasing property prices, to guarantee better results from a non-taxable gain, is to keep net immigration high. This has a flow-on effect in keeping wages lower. Of course setting up a tax haven here, makes sure that there is plenty of dodgy money looking for a tax-free investment too.
Gareth Morgan says the govt could easily be missing out on 25% of income tax.
http://thestandard.org.nz/what-tax-e...s-us-of-in-nz/
W69, you were wondering where National's funding comes from. Here's one source, the biggest living funder for the National Party in 2014. The story was on One News tonight, and it has been covered by RNZ earlier in the day.
http://thestandard.org.nz/mccully-th...e-niue-resort/
Again, there is some overlap between altruism and sheer commercial interests I think.
http://australia.etbtravelnews.com/1...-honours-list/
Gibraltar Trust uses a Christchurch accountancy firm, and on their taxation page we see a coded reference:
http://www.allottreeves.co.nz/our_se...vices/taxation
Wouldn't it just be great, if someone who is so generous to local causes would also be paying their normal taxes like the rest of us? Why do I get the feeling that these donations are in lieu of some otherwise payable taxes?
Shoot me down if you like, FP, Iceman etc, I probably deserve it.
El Z this is true of any one who donates to a registered charity (local causes)....even you. We all get a tax rebate against what otherwise would have been payable taxes when we donate to charity. I think it is a great incentive to see ones philanthropic contributions to go where one would want them spent, rather than down the bottomless pit of the consolidated fund.
Maybe, except if this family should really be paying several million in taxes but instead diverts it through trusts so then they've freed up money for "donations", it's not quite the same, is it? Anyway, an undisclosed amount goes to National or more likely ACT, according to this 2014 interview.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/chr...ding-an-empire
And still the polls show that the left is up the creek without a paddle. All the conspiracy theories in the world don't add up to an argument that the public will buy.
Jane Bowron had an interesting article yesterday.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...red-government
150,000 people protest Cameron's Torys and yet it hardly gets a mention in global media!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6987276.html
So who is this born-to-rule person who doesn't want to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, schools, just to use them when needed, and be a big-noter by 'donating' some of this shady tax money to causes which are probably aligned with their business interests?
Think carefully about the ramifications of this sentence of yours, Jonu. Actually you just parroted it, but if every wageworker refused to have PAYE deducted because it goes into a "consolidated fund", how long do you think it would be before your perfect world came crashing down?
You are going completely bonkers EZ. Must be the complete failure of Labour/Little that is driving you mad. I think you need to take a break.
You make it sound like wealthy donors don't pay any tax and choose to direct money that should go to IRD to their chosen charities. If my family Trust donates $100 to a charity, it gets a $28 tax rebate and $72 come from the Trust's tax paid money.
Time to stop with all the conspiracy theories, noone is listening. Come up with some decent policies and someone may start listening to Labour, if its not too late.
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of trust law, how charitable donations affect tax, what trusts are for etc. Your paranoia clouds your view about Key. You have no idea what he pays in tax although that doesn't stop you from claiming he's fiddling it as you did in post 10111. To claim property is somehow not 'a decent investment' is plain ignorance. (10111)
And in the same post your claim that someone earning around $45,000 pays 70% tax shows you have no idea how tax is applied. The tax on 45000 is actually 15%. The highest rate of 33% kicks in at 70,000. The total tax on 100,000 is 23%.
You really should learn a thing or two before you start throwing around preposterous allegations that seem to be aimed at anyone who has achieved a level of wealth.
You make good points EZ
I work in the health service and know full well the disconnect between what the government expects us to deliver and the reality of what funding will provide. On a broader scale you meet some people who have a curious disengagement of their societal obligations to pay their share, yet you know full well that if they wake up in the night with chest pain and their coronary arteries are occluding they will be the first ones to scream for an ambulance and expect the health system to deliver!!
FP, I might have got it a bit wrong. But not by much. The tax rate of 30% kicks in from $48,000 until $70,000, then after that it's capped at 33%. Not much higher though, than from $48,000 up, is it? And of course I assumed that other posters would know all about the scaled tax rate for lower incomes, I didn't need to spell it out.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrat...etaxrates.html
Now when someone is earning really big money, like say over a million p.a., they should be paying tax on almost all of it at 33% once it's in their own hands, not a company (28%), which you cannot deny. It's at this point, or earlier, that I assume the born-to-rule right-wing National/ACT types go and see their friendly tax accountant for advice. And yes, there will be some Labour voters there too, but a lot less in proportion. And any Labour types will probably use property as a tax offset, not a deliberate use of a tax haven.
We could do an informal poll, you right-wing guys seem determined to support any tax-dodging ideas, what would the correlation be I wonder?
eZ have read about PIE rates of tax. Even you can earn investment income at 28c/$.
So someone runs a company and pays 28c/$. When they pay it out as a dividend it is taxed by the receiver of that dividend at their marginal tax rate.
Hardly dodging of tax.
What are you talking about 777? I was making the point that the company tax rate is 28%, not 33%, but once the money goes out to shareholders personally, they'll probably need to pay the extra 5% anyway. Even the 28% paid at the company rate would be onerous enough for some shareholders.
Normal NZ company tax rate: 28%. Foreign Tax Haven tax rate: 0%.
I see 777 has explained to you that there is no tax advantage by channelling through a company. Dividends paid out attract tax at the recipients marginal rate - less imputed credit for tax the company has paid. I cannot understand your ignorance of such things when you have claimed to be an employer. Obviously you do not trade as a company so I presume you are a sole trader; even so you should know something of tax law. This idea that all high earners are tax dodgers is ridiculous. You were wrong about tax rates. Wrong about charitable donations. Wrong about company tax paid to individuals. You make ridiculous assumptions about political donations. The green eyed monster within will eat you up.
Stop trying to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, FP. I'm not talking about NZ companies or individuals paying tax at the prescribed rates to the NZ Govt. I know there's no long-term tax advantage there. I did not say that all high earners are tax dodgers. You cannot stop me from jumping to conclusions about John Key's affairs, since he refuses to show us his tax returns. I can only assume there's a good reason why he won't show us those. Then we move on to other high-flyers who are strewing donations about the place, including to National/Act, and find that their businesses are connected to foreign trusts, and/or are the recipients of large govt grants or lucrative contracts for their operations. What kind of conclusions did you think I, or any normal person would make?
There's no point in rebutting your silly allegations about National. They are firmly in your tightly closed mind.
As far as your claim that you know what you are talking about - here is one of your quotes which you seem to have forgotten.
' Now when someone is earning really big money, like say over a million p.a., they should be paying tax on almost all of it at 33% once it's in their own hands, not a company (28%), which you cannot deny.'
From todays NZ Herald
China seeks return of financial refugees
Key says New Zealand could enter into an extradition treaty with China, even though last year he said he wouldn't.
This could be the beginnings of real and present danger to John Keys tenure. According to the Herald the Chinese government claims up to 60 nationals have fled to NZ and as part of the crackdown on corruption they want them(, and their money?)returned. Should said individuals have had any historic or current association with the National Party, (i.e. donations) then it will be interesting to say the least. If Key caves in, and its looking that way, then watch this space.
Sgt Pepper, thanks for the heads up. It could be very tricky for JK and National.
FP's clutching at straws, now he's adding 28% and 33% and coming up with 70%? I might be fired up, but I think I have a reasonable idea on how tax rates work. In theory at least, if someone has annual private earnings of over a million dollars gross in NZ, they'd be paying about 33% of it to the govt in taxes. Some of it might be taxed in a company structure, the rest is made up of imputation credits, or basically a topup to the individual rates. NZ-based trusts don't seem to circumnavigate that taxation much, but foreign trusts and vehicles are a different matter.
We won't extradite people to China unless they meet the condition that they wouldn't be subjected to either torture or the death penalty," he said
Awwh, Johh Key, what an old softy
Jonu, I asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it. On what planet is it OK for most to have to obey the 'rules', but for wealthy others to completely bypass them? Planet Key? Where is that video when I need it!
Is this the kind of thing you're keen on Jonu? Go for it. Look at the left-hand-side PDF.
http://designertrust.com/
"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, helped by dodging the taxes ordinary people are forced to pay".
[QUOTE=elZorro;616731]Jonu, I asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it. On what planet is it OK for most to have to obey the 'rules', but for wealthy others to completely bypass them? Planet Key? Where is that video when I need it!
Is this the kind of thing you're keen on Jonu? Go for it. Look at the left-hand-side PDF.
http://designertrust.com/
I didn't see I had anything to answer El Z as you were off on one of you flights of fancy and proposing scenarios that I hadn't suggested.
I see this "Designer Asset Protection" web page has been in operation since 2005. Guess the previous lot didn't seem too bothered either. And am I keen on it. No, and never suggested I was. Do you take milk in your tea?
Jonu, I think you're missing something. Back in 2005, NZ's foreign trusts were paying tax of 28% on income earned in NZ. Labour left them in a sensible position, so there wasn't much interest in them. It was John Key's move to change the tax rate to nil after he got into power.
No I'm not missing anything. We were talking about tax minimisation in general and also charitable donations. I think any NZ chartered accountant will tell you they will minimise your tax. It's what they do. Should the tax system be more simple and transparent? I would say yes. Will any administration do this? No, they won't.
If we don't charge them tax for monies earned in NZ, they don't pay tax in any jurisdiction. Add to that, in general we don't have a clue who they are, or how many investments they have, whether the money is tainted or not, or what country they're from. Argo, we are a tax haven.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/worl...+20+April+2016
Well some of that is accurate. So Ez is not completely bonkers.
He is not referring to legitimate charitable support, he is referring to however those use foundations to minimize tax or rather ha pay tax elect where their funds go rather than pay tax. If everyone did this as EZ said, we would have no government income to pay for basic services.
The fact that you can set up your own church and claim charitable status is incredible to me.
Its about time Churches paid tax as well and they separate out their charitable works if need be.
I would just like to add some of the rhetoric on this thread is getting quite nasty and ridiculous.
Remember there is actually someone real on the other side of a handle.
More and more I see a personal jibe, before launching into some vitriolic response.
The other repeated bad behavior is taking the extreme of what someone is suggesting and basing the argument around that.
Says it all really,
3. Why should I invest in a New Zealand trust?
To keep your assets private and confidential
To facilitate wealth accumulation
To protect yourself against lawsuits
To legally minimise taxation
To place a barrier between you and government
To protect assets in the event of a family disruption
To leave an inheritance to your children's children
To create financial freedom
I can see why the wealthy like trusts. But then I am just green with envy.
westerly
Nope that's not it at all and I wasn't referring to anything directed at me.
I didn't say it was all one way either, so you are jumping to conclusions.
Of course people wont agree, that's quite apparent, but that doesn't mean they have to get personal or nasty about it.
I'm not saying I haven't done the same in the past either.
It was simply a message to perhaps tone down some of the personal jibes & attacks as it doesn't add anything to the debate.
Hardly a flight of fancy or extreme, as this sort of thing is a real issue. People think they can decide individually how their tax dollars can be used, rather than like the rest of society that pays into the government coffers for them to allocate. You mightn't like it but that's the system & if you don't like how they spend it, vote them out.
Is there a cap on charitable donations for tax deductability? If not there should be.
I would like to see all charitable donations removed from being tax deductible.
I don't think people generally donate to charity because of its tax deductible.
And with the additional revenue the government saves, they could set up a fund where charities can apply for grants etc.
[QUOTE=jonu;616743]
The same applies - wealthy or not. Some people have a need for a trust, although there's a hell of a lot of people who have set up trusts which more often than not is no use, but have been advised to by an accountant or lawyer. One real advantage is they are stronger than a will but I'm damn sure I wouldn't have one.
I don't think that's the real issue, Daytr. If someone wants to donate $10,00 of their income to a cause, partly just to claim back their average tax rate, that's got to be OK. It's the people who don't pay their hundreds of thousands, or millions in tax, naturally due to the NZ govt, by using low tax vehicles, and then donate a portion of that in splendiferous ways to visible charities, that upset me. Maybe a cap on normal tax-deductible donations within the lifetime of the donor would be sensible. I'm conscious that Labour received a large estate gifting a few years back. We don't get many.
Bryan Gould on the Niue deal.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11625546
Yes there is that & I wasn't arguing that point. However there are many 'charities' that shouldn't qualify for tax deductibility and they spoil it for the legitimate ones. Too many holes in the system.
Dr Claire Robinson was on TV1 just now giving her opinion on Labour's "Missteps" and putting her own spin on Andrew Little's political knowledge. Using her valuable airtime to further poke the borax, she implied that unless Labour change the opinion polls in the next two months, the 2017 election will go National's way. She has worked in a National administration and travelled with ministers, which doesn't give her much credence as an ambivalent political analyst. These types are actually on TV to help gain students for their uni courses, so any PR is good PR. What's worse, she has tried this stunt at about the same time, last election. So an easy interview for TV1, which allows someone to spread some BS, quote some inaccurate details, and make it harder for Labour.
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/1...et-this-go-by/
Labour has been making inroads, not because they are that clever at anything at this stage, but because National has been corrupting the political practices of NZ since at least 2005, and voters are finally starting to notice it.
What a load of rubbish! "Labour making inroads.............and voters are finally starting to notice it" What mystical poll have you seen? What spot of evidence have you for this? el Zorro, I am rapidly coming ot the conclusion that you and Daytr are National party plants, stratigically planted to ensure that anyone, foolish enough to follow your thoughts, will quickly become scared that there are more like you on the left and rapidly return to supporting the most effective government we had had in years
Haw haw, good one Craic! What have they been effective at, pray tell?
Increasing inequality, yes, they're good at that. Running up a $70bill overdraft for the taxpayer? Hell, I could do that, no problem. What National has done to NZ overall, is monstrous.
Come on, give us some examples of this "effective government". This is an online forum, not a bar chat, let's have some real facts.
Agree, as 1) Labour hasn't made inroads to National's popularity, or nothing of significance anyway.
And 2) National are absolutely shocking managers. One stuff up after another and racking up debt and selling assets all the way.
I was just reading the cost of one of the previous National government stuff ups that cost the country in the order of $25Bln or more.
And that was the leaky homes saga.
The current government has cost us a hell of a lot more than that.
Easily $50Bln more in debt and with $12Bln still not been spent on the CHC rebuild.
And how many billions of dollars of assets sold in that time as well?
Great managers ! Yeah right.
The national debt is well within manageable proportions compared to most countries and in every government, the party in power is seen to hold the debt while the opposition holds a big banner with the amount written on it in an effort to scare the electorate. I, as a pensioner, will spend up to $300 today on horses at an obscure meeting in Woodville. Now some will call me a waster or a fool or whatever but Friday night I will go out to a show and dinner and on Saturday I will go to the Club, drink some ale and spend some more on the horses. Now I may win, I often do but either way I can afford this lifestyle in NZ so if you feel that you are hard done by or mis-managed here go and visit or live in some of the places I have been to - and that includes Australia and the UK.
Daytr this forum is full of your past real and imagined and thepositions you held i finance and banking and the like. Levity is part of my nature and nothing amuses me more than those who think so highlyof themselves and their opinions that they come on here, day after day telling everyone how they would right the world. Just for laughs, I Had forty dollars on granite Ridge in the last race and it won. I might even get another win before the day ends. And took about $250 off the last race - it gets more riveting all the time