Labour / NZ First Government

[Bjauck]

That raft is what the current government thought they were doing. For the two areas you mention - housing related tax (more $ for the government so fewer $ for property owners >> higher rents), social housing (we told people to apply, and they did). So more tax money in = more to spend on taxpayer subsidised housing. Thanks taxpayers.

Is that too simplistic?

This Labour government’s raft was always a holed dinghy! They excluded contemplating a CGT on the family home for a start. And then they later excluded a general CGT. So then any increase in social spending necessary to pay for making rental accommodation less appealing to private landlords, by making NZ tenancy laws and regulations fit for the twenty-first century, was going to fall on the overburdened GST payers and income earners.

[Bjauck]

Again, there is a world of difference between land compulsorily acquired under Public Works Act vs private land taken to be given to Maori.

“Private” land is clearly not sacrosanct as the compulsory acquisition and government proclamation have shown. Just as the land was originally taken by proclamation, there is nothing legally to stop government to seek amendments to the circumstances in which compulsory acquisitions of “private” land can taken place. All land is ultimately the Sovereign’s.

[Zaphod]

Not so. As you are in the business of renting property unless you trade houses they are not part of the supply.
If you buy and sell within 5 years you'd get caught by the brightline.
So it would depend on the facts - how often you buy and sell.
Being in the business of providing rental accommodation wouldn't mean that you can't change your product on occasion.

Just asked my colleague - he said that he attempted to sell 4 of his properties held personally. IRD claimed that tax should be paid as he is in the property business. The missing part is that his brother is a developer, and consequently IRD have claimed that he is associated with a developer. Apparently the argument has not been resolved yet.

[dobby41]

Just asked my colleague - he said that he attempted to sell 4 of his properties held personally. IRD claimed that tax should be paid as he is in the property business. The missing part is that his brother is a developer, and consequently IRD have claimed that he is associated with a developer. Apparently the argument has not been resolved yet.

Yip - happens.
Lots of missing information there though - like how long has he owned them? Were they purchased and upgraded before selling? Were they part of a development by the colleague? One for the accountants I'm afraid.

[artemis]

Just asked my colleague - he said that he attempted to sell 4 of his properties held personally. IRD claimed that tax should be paid as he is in the property business. The missing part is that his brother is a developer, and consequently IRD have claimed that he is associated with a developer. Apparently the argument has not been resolved yet.

The associated person rule. I think it applies to individuals with up to 2 degrees of blood relationship, so brother would obviously apply. Different rules for companies.

[RGR367]

From NZ National Party handle on Twitter (@NZNationalParty): Dr Shane Reti MP has revealed more failures at our border. It turns out it’s not mandatory for a person in managed isolation to be tested on day 3, despite the Government repeatedly claiming that it is. Worryingly, no data is being kept as to who has had one or not.

[moka]

Paywalled

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12359365
Vote 2020 - Fact or Fiction: Did Jacinda Ardern's video with Dr Ashley Bloomfield break the rules?

The verdict:
On balance, the video itself does not seem to be an election advertisement.
There is no mention of the election or Ardern's campaign platform beyond reference to Government actions that are already underway. It is legitimate for a Prime Minister to visit and speak to staff at the agencies involved in her capacity as Prime Minister.
The danger lies in the proximity of the election, and the fact the video only screened on the Labour Party page. That page carries the livery of the political party rather than the government, and also contains campaign content.
If it was an election advertisement, the video would be within the rules of the Electoral Act because it carried Ardern's "promoter statement" setting out who was behind it.

However, Labour would have to include it in its expenses cap if the Electoral Commission considered it an election advertisement because it aired after the start of the regulated period on August 18.
There is a much stronger case to argue that it was inappropriate to involve senior public servants and government agencies in the video that was put together by Ardern's office, which primarily showcased Ardern, and which was only placed on a political party's media platforms.
Labour effectively recognised that by removing the video.

[iceman]

From NZ National Party handle on Twitter (@NZNationalParty): Dr Shane Reti MP has revealed more failures at our border. It turns out it’s not mandatory for a person in managed isolation to be tested on day 3, despite the Government repeatedly claiming that it is. Worryingly, no data is being kept as to who has had one or not.

I find this quite incredible and a bit strange. I've recently been through isolation at an Auckland Hotel. The literature waiting at the room clearly sets out the day 3 and day 10 (or 11) tests. Even though it doesn't say it is "mandatory" there is a clear expectation there and that is probably where the problem is once again for the Government. Lots of holes for people to use to avoid being responsible.

If it is true also that they have not been keeping data about these tests, despite having forms filled in from all those undergoing the tests and txt's having been sent to those testing negative for all tests, it is simply beyond belief that they don't keep this data. Incredibly slack.

[dobby41]

From NZ National Party handle on Twitter (@NZNationalParty): Dr Shane Reti MP has revealed more failures at our border. It turns out it’s not mandatory for a person in managed isolation to be tested on day 3, despite the Government repeatedly claiming that it is. Worryingly, no data is being kept as to who has had one or not.

Never was so not a failure.
There have been many cases of negative at day 3 but positive at day 12.
Also, though it isn't mandatory, everyone is actually getting one.
Reti is now doing the 'make a story out of nothing' unfortunately - I thought he was trust worthy but seems he's a politician 1st and not adverse to creating a story like his political masters.

[Balance]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ime-parliament

Cracks starting to widen in government’s virus response defence.

It’s all about show and no substance :

First the team of 5 million (puke),

then came the quarantine debacle,

So bring in Megan Woods who brought in the army

Then came the quarantine facility breakouts so bring in more personnel

Then came the second wave

And promises of testing were never carried out

So bring in more army personnel

And when it’s clear that Megan & Chris are not up to the job

Bring out Heather Simpson

But what do we find out?

A week after the appointment, she does not have a clue what she is supposed up be going!

" ........ the crack team of Heather Simpson and Brian Roche, drafted in to sort out the border-testing fiasco, didn't yet have any terms of reference, despite the pair being appointed a little less than a week ago. That effectively means Simpson and Roche are flying blind, each knowing roughly what their job is, but with few specifics."

What a mess of a government run by Cindy & her team of incompetents!