If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

Wait for the big hue and cry from Federated Farmers about Labour's small proposed tax on water use for irrigators etc. Funding needed to clean up waterways.

At the same time, in the Waikato, home to the biggest number of dairy cows, the district council is calling on more famers each year, and finding 23% of them are fully compliant in their dairy effluent treatment, to local body standards. Many others have ponds big enough, but can't prove they are sealed. Others have ponds too small to contain rainstorm conditions. It's expensive to change this, and the council gives them time to do it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...15+August+2017

10% of these dairy farmers visited, were clearly too far outside the specs.

Don't forget, dairy effluent is just a small part of the total effluent left on a farm. The rest are point sources spread through every paddock and race, and none of this can be controlled at all. Riparian strips can keep some of it out of waterways nearby, but in many cases the Waikato ground is porous, so there's no escaping the main fact.

More cows lead to more waterways damage under current systems, unless farmers can find a way to contain all effluent or neutralise it on their farms. Maybe barns aren't so bad after all.

Water quality is going to play a part in the elections, and I respect the idea of user-pays. If I had an operation that impacted on the environment, I'd be happy to pay towards my share of that.

Actually - I do think the water tax (or better a royalty on water) is a good idea. Properly implemented this will be a very effective tool to help us to better allocate a finite resource and to clean up our rivers and lakes. Good on Labour for starting the discussion and I hope the other parties continue a constructive dialogue. This is clearly more an opportunity (if implemented with thought) than a threat (if implemented the Green Party way).

What might bite Labour however is that it is at this stage a still quite undeveloped policy with no proposed rates but only the horror proposal from the Greenies (10c / l which either would be grossly unfair to a selected few or it would kill not just our agriculture and industry). I know, not Labour's fault, but guilty by association.

Otherwise - it feels Jacinda is making these days as well some sensible noises. Let's hope that some of the always backwards looking hard lefties don't spoil her chances. No matter how this goes - I clearly prefer a capable opposition party to the lame ducks we had over the last 9 years keeping the left benches in parliament warm.

[dobby41]

Actually - I do think the water tax (or better a royalty on water) is a good idea. Properly implemented this will be a very effective tool to help us to better allocate a finite resource and to clean up our rivers and lakes. Good on Labour for starting the discussion and I hope the other parties continue a constructive dialogue. This is clearly more an opportunity (if implemented with thought) than a threat (if implemented the Green Party way).

Yes - tax isn't a good word for it.
They need to ensure that water has a value so it gets used properly.
If some farms become uneconomic because they have to pay for one of their resources that was proviously free then they probably shouldn't be running anyway.

[winner69]

National all for free markets, yet they have demonstrated a remarkably poor understanding of what they actually require.

Time for a change eh JT ....but Labour won't be any better I fare

[winner69]

Bill's useless - must think there are a few votes in it for coming out and saying such things

Or maybe he read The Herald and thought he better sgree

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11904502

[BlackPeter]

Bill's useless - must think there are a few votes in it for coming out and saying such things

Or maybe he read The Herald and thought he better sgree

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11904502

OK - easy to criticise, but we clearly have the problem that the LVR restrictions seem to stifle the building boom NZ needs.

How would you address the problem?

[Major von Tempsky]

Yes, Jacinda 17 wet t-shirts might do the trick....until she got arrested that is...

[Bjauck]

OK - easy to criticise, but we clearly have the problem that the LVR restrictions seem to stifle the building boom NZ needs.

How would you address the problem?

Possibilities:
1. Encourage investors to invest in new residential housing by removing tax breaks when investing in exisiting housing (eg negative gearing)
2. Introduce a stamp duty for investors in existing housing stock
3. Overseas based investors restricted to investing in new building
4. Eliminate GST on new builds
5. Reduced rates on new housing (for a period?)
6. Development levy to be payable as an annual rates surchage.

[dobby41]

but we clearly have the problem that the LVR restrictions seem to stifle the building boom NZ needs.

Is it clear that the LVR stifled building given that for new builds the LVR is either 90% or doesn't apply (I can't recall what it ended up at).
Or is the issue that banks won't lend because they are risk adverse now?

[BlackPeter]

Possibilities:
1. Encourage investors to invest in new residential housing by removing tax breaks when investing in exisiting housing (eg negative gearing)
2. Introduce a stamp duty for investors in existing housing stock
3. Overseas based investors restricted to investing in new building
4. Eliminate GST on new builds
5. Reduced rates on new housing (for a period?)
6. Development levy to be payable as an annual rates surchage.

I agree that there must be other options - though most of your proposed options appear to make our tax laws just more complicated and less fair. Not a good start. GST and rate fiddling as well as targeted tax breaks just increase the need for more bureaucrats as well as tax advisors ... none of that adds value to the productive economy.

Can you think about a way which would help our economy and simplify the tax system instead of blowing up the bureaucracy?

What about removing red tape for building projects? Simplify our ridiculous and inefficient planning environment? Economies of scale for our building companies (encourage good apartment buildings), address the work shortage in the building industry not just by more immigration but by introducing and facilitating training programs. Our building industry is hopelessly inefficient - investigate why building in NZ is so much more expensive than e.g. in Australia or in the US (both have similar lousy building standards) and promote better and more efficient ways to work.

So much to do for any government before they need to further complicate the tax laws ....

[fungus pudding]

Possibilities:
1. Encourage investors to invest in new residential housing by removing tax breaks when investing in exisiting housing (eg negative gearing)
2. Introduce a stamp duty for investors in existing housing stock
3. Overseas based investors restricted to investing in new building
4. Eliminate GST on new builds
5. Reduced rates on new housing (for a period?)
6. Development levy to be payable as an annual rates surchage.

1, 2, and 3 designed to push investors into development. You miss the point. Building a dwelling is not difficult. The shortage is land ready for development. Every new house built by an owner adds to the pool, just as much as if built for rental. 4 and 5 no help. There is no shortage of home owners prepared to build, and development companies happy to build spec for owners - but land supply is dfifficult and processes need to be sped up.