SUM - Summerset Group

[Joshuatree]

No I don't think so as the land is intensively developed. One cannot rule out a reintroduction of death duties or a national superannuation surtax either. Anything that favors the young and penalizes the establishment is on the cards for a leader so young who is making up policy "on the fly"

More typical scaremongering; try something fresh please!
Labour intend to be in Govt for more then 3 years Roger; think about that.

[fish]

Shame you've bought politics into this thread. Oh well rebuttal time.National are being more left right and all over the place throwing so many tainted carrots around; so i think you're being a bit blinkered there fish Stephen Joyce has been proved to be an out and out liar and he has dragged his party down the gurgles this week including his leader and bennett as well.

"The National Government was handed a strong economic foundation by the prior Labour government. Helen Clark produced nine budget surpluses" then bill raised tax 18 times!!!!
.

I am sorry if you thought that was my intention-it was just to show that the current labour policies are made on the fly without giving consideration to the impact.I have actually voted labour,green,national and united future in the past.
I hate shallow thinking and bribery wherever I see it-no matter what party.
Current labour policy includes this and i have no illusions that any other party wont employ the same tactics.
We dont know what policies a labour party will actually introduce that might affect Summerset hence I feel this could drag the sp down.If you bribe all superanuants with a $700 winter bonus that will mean they have to find the money through tax.

[Joshuatree]

Fair enough fish. I think the retirement villages are pretty safe with the wall of oldies needing somewhere to go. At worst a small clip of the ticket maybe. A little winter warmer bribe it does seem like but good health means a temp of between 18 and 21 degrees keeps a lot of health issues away.

[Bjauck]

....If you bribe all superanuants with a $700 winter bonus that will mean they have to find the money through tax.

Swings and roundabouts. Perhaps a targeted heating discount for example would be more effective but more difficult and expensive to administer.

As JT posted there could be benefits. Extra money spent on a winter bonus, could mean some recipients can leave the heater and dehumidifier on for a bit longer. Maybe fewer cases of Winter chest infections/pneumonia needing treatment and hospitalisation - so government medical funding savings. Likewise $700 spent on goods and services will result in the government getting some back in the way of gst, tax on business profits and employees PAYE. It could end up being tax neutral.

[percy]

Swings and roundabouts. Perhaps a targeted heating discount for example would be more effective but more difficult and expensive to administer.

As JT posted there could be benefits. Extra money spent on a winter bonus, could mean some recipients can leave the heater and dehumidifier on for a bit longer. Maybe fewer cases of Winter chest infections/pneumonia needing treatment and hospitalisation - so government medical funding savings. Likewise $700 spent on goods and services will result in the government getting some back in the way of gst, tax on business profits and employees PAYE. It could end up being tax neutral.

Should the money be spent on power, the government will get half back by owning 50% [plus] of the power companies.

[BlackPeter]

...

As JT posted there could be benefits. Extra money spent on a winter bonus, could mean some recipients can leave the heater and dehumidifier on for a bit longer. Maybe fewer cases of Winter chest infections/pneumonia needing treatment and hospitalisation - so government medical funding savings. Likewise $700 spent on goods and services will result in the government getting some back in the way of gst, tax on business profits and employees PAYE. It could end up being tax neutral.

Tax neutral? Only if you believe in the "perpetuum mobile" - and physicists proved ages ago that this concept does not work. Unfortunately in any system there is friction ... and a bureaucracy is actually quite inefficient in that regard. Pity we can't use the friction energy lost by our bureaucracy and neither the hot air produced by our left wingers to heat our houses - hey, this would be amazing, wouldn't it?

The state has first to take a higher amount to pay the $700 ... lots of public servants need to be paid to just administer this additional bribe. This money is lost. And they won't get the $700 back in full either. Sure, there will be some GST and some other taxes on wages and services which are paid with these $700).

Say they first need $1000 to pay the $700 - and they might get back half of the $700 (50% is roughly our overall tax rate if you consider GST and all).

Pay $1000 to get $350. You call this "tax neutral"?

And paying every beneficiary and superannuitant pair every year $700 to reduce the winter tsunami on our hospitals does not sound very efficient either. Lets face it - many Kiwis just dress inappropriately in winter - and I don't think this is because they don't own long trousers, socks and jerseys. Sure -
there might be exceptions, but you can't fix them with another blanket subsidy. Unfortunately too many Kiwis just don't bother and prefer to catch another cold or flu which they then generously spread onto others. Have a look into our schools.

Teach them to dress appropriately, teach them the basics of hygiene (and how not to infect others), teach them how to properly heat and ventilate a house (saves the money for the dehumidifier), help them to insulate houses and to install proper heating systems (yes, this might require some one off help instead of an endless drag on the tax money).

Labour's policy is just another badly thought out bribe.

[Bjauck]

This is probably way off-topic now - but it is an election year with plenty of hot air from Left, right and centre!

Tax neutral? Only if you believe in the "perpetuum mobile" - and physicists proved ages ago that this concept does not work. Unfortunately in any system there is friction ... and a bureaucracy is actually quite inefficient in that regard....

Of course every action or benefit has associated cost. We need to decide if the benefit is worth the cost.

The state has first to take a higher amount to pay the $700 ... lots of public servants need to be paid to just administer this additional bribe. This money is lost. And they won't get the $700 back in full either. Sure, there will be some GST and some other taxes on wages and services which are paid with these $700).

There is a administative cost. (Public servants buy services and pay tax and gst too.)

Say they first need $1000 to pay the $700 - and they might get back half of the $700 (50% is roughly our overall tax rate if you consider GST and all).

Pay $1000 to get $350. You call this "tax neutral"?

Some of your estimated $300 (is that over-estimated anyway?) in administration will come back in tax too.

What about the hospital and other medical cost savings from healthier people in better insulated and warmer houses? There will be less tax needed to fund the hospital & primary healthcare system. So that could free up a fair chunk of tax money that could be applied for other things. So with tax receipts and the reduced need for health funding from tax receipts, I stand by my claim it could be neutral for tax.

Maybe the benefits will outweigh the cost. Also, the above does not take into account any additional intangible benfits such as quality of life for those who receive the Winter allowance. It would be interesting to see a potential cost/benefit analysis of the policy.

And paying every beneficiary and superannuitant pair every year $700 to reduce the winter tsunami on our hospitals does not sound very efficient either. Lets face it - many Kiwis just dress inappropriately in winter - and I don't think this is because they don't own long trousers, socks and jerseys. Sure -
there might be exceptions, but you can't fix them with another blanket subsidy. Unfortunately too many Kiwis just don't bother and prefer to catch another cold or flu which they then generously spread onto others. Have a look into our schools.

...no comment...

[Zaphod]

This is probably way off-topic now - but it is an election year with plenty of hot air from Left, right and centre!

Of course every action or benefit has associated cost. We need to decide if the benefit is worth the cost.

There is a administative cost. (Public servants buy services and pay tax and gst too.)

Some of your estimated $300 (is that over-estimated anyway?) in administration will come back in tax too.

What about the hospital and other medical cost savings from healthier people in better insulated and warmer houses? There will be less tax needed to fund the hospital & primary healthcare system. So that could free up a fair chunk of tax money that could be applied for other things. So with tax receipts and the reduced need for health funding from tax receipts, I stand by my claim it could be neutral for tax.

Maybe the benefits will outweigh the cost. Also, the above does not take into account any additional intangible benfits such as quality of life for those who receive the Winter allowance. It would be interesting to see a potential cost/benefit analysis of the policy.

...no comment...

Where is the formal costing of this policy? Surely it would have been an easier sell to the constituency, and harder for the opposition to rebut if this had already been produced.

If the policy was implemented I think a voucher or direct payment to the power provider would be more appropriate, as a cash payment is likely to be spent elsewhere.

[Zaphod]

No I don't think so as the land is intensively developed. One cannot rule out a reintroduction of death duties or a national superannuation surtax either. Anything that favors the young and penalizes the establishment is on the cards for a leader so young who is making up policy "on the fly"

This could be moderated by the pro-retirement party's policies, that will spray very large cash subsidies at their constituency.

Land-banking for retirement unit development could be hit under a land tax, but again we don't have any details of Labour's policies mostly because they don't yet exist.

[winner69]

Where is the formal costing of this policy? Surely it would have been an easier sell to the constituency, and harder for the opposition to rebut if this had already been produced.

If the policy was implemented I think a voucher or direct payment to the power provider would be more appropriate, as a cash payment is likely to be spent elsewhere.

Of course it will be spent somewhere (else) - haven't decided what to do with ours yet but a nice little bonus to do something (worthwhile) with.