If National wins ...

[Minerbarejet]

Sure wouldn't with hanging on to the dough at 1% for 3 years.

Less tax, of course

[BlackPeter]

BP
I was intrigued about the " raming of highly unpopular socialist policies down the peoples throat". It seems to me that many of these " socialist " policies seem remarkably resilient and poplular. I note that along with National Super, Working For Families(i.e." communism by stealth" according to one John Key in 2006), interest free student loans, and 20 hours free early childhood education, have , in effect become protected species.

Hmm , socialist policies seem very popular amongst National voters as well. Its not so much as being ramed down throats, National voters seem equally enthused to dine at the free money cafe. If not, then why didn't John Key have the courage of his earlier convictions and reverse them?

No doubt ... once upon a time Labour had some good (or lets say reasonable) policies. Clever from National to continue them, aren't they? However this year when I asked Belg and EZ to inspire me with Labour's top policies, they came back with CGT and ridiculously increased minimum wage. Now everybody but some blind Labour supporters knows that the CGT proposal would just balloon our IRD staff and the compliance costs of basically everybody. Hardly more money in the kitty, but much higher burden on the taxpayer. Loose - Loose. Great for bureaucrats and accountants but bad for everybody else. A true Labour policy! And the minimum wage ballooning - just costing jobs. Better to have a lower salary and a job, but dreaming off Labours empty promise and living off the doll. NZ knew how damaging the Labours policies are and they used their brains to vote with the feet (moving away from Labour).

[BlackPeter]

Why would the majority of Kiwis not want CGT, PowerCo and a man ban?

1) At least 50% of voters are women, they should go for the man ban.
2) Surely CGT would not affect the majority of kiwis? Just those with extra properties.
3) Unless you have shares in a power company (which the majority of New Zealanders don't) then the PowerCo bill saves you money.

So...if those policies are good for a majority of new Zealanders...why didn't they vote for them?

1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

[elZorro]

1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

BP, I was talking to a candidate last night, this person was surprised by peers and swinging voters, and they'd spoken to a few. Reasonably intelligent skilled professionals. Did they know anything about Labour or National policy? No. What did they base their party voting decisions on? They'd line up David Cunliffe and John Key in their mind, and based on press, media and TV interviews I presume, vote for who they wanted to lead NZ. Maybe with the sideshows, there was too much information overload. Or maybe voters on the whole are a fairly easily led bunch.

Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).

Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.

Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/7...driving-yields

[Vaygor1]

Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.

Just watched it. Was torturous to say the least.
If, heaven forbid, Cunliffe is voted back in by the Members and the Unions (it won't be through the Caucus) then Labour will have no choice but to engage the Aussie band Mental As Anything for all the Party's official theme songs.

Apart from the very apt name of the band:

• The Caucus will play "Too many times" to themselves until the cows the come home.
• The Caucus and the voting public will play "He's just no good for you" to each other.
• The Unions and the Members will play "I didn't mean to be mean" to the Caucus.
• The voting public will buy up large on the hit single "The nips are getting bigger" with reference to Cunliffe having tỉts for hands.
• And, no doubt, Cunliffe will play "Mr Natural" quietly to himself every night.

[Banksie]

1) all of these women have a brain (and most use it, like their counterparts, the men) ... and vote for the best person to do the job, not for a quota woman.
2) CGT is damaging to everybody for hugely inflating our compliance cost and blowing up our bureaucracy to control compliance. Loose loose for everybody.
3) Powerco is just another layer of bureaucracy costing everybody in the long run more money.

New Zealanders are more clever than Labour thinks ...

Yeah - I know, I was clutching at straws with item 1.....

ElZ has talked about the Powerco...but CGT, is there any proof it will increase compliance costs or is this just a sound bite?

Here is a rather lengthy extract from a report by Victoria University that indicates it will not increase compliance cost or complexity:

Concerns have been raised about the administrability of a capital gains tax based on realisation. The tax would be relatively challenging to administer, but again the question is compared to what? The current tax system creates significant challenges for tax administration, as discussed in section 2. A good deal of effort is spent on policing the boundary between revenue and capital. If capital gains are fully taxed, that boundary is largely irrelevant since it does not change the tax consequences (with the exception of losses, where the distinction can be relevant). If gains are taxed at lower rates, the boundary would still matter, but there would be less incentive for taxpayers to artificially classify transactions as capital, which would improve voluntary compliance.

A capital gains tax is not simple to comply with, although it is not particularly difficult for listed shares and unit trusts. If compliance burdens are a significant concern, then small capital gains could be exempted from income tax (and the disregard could be allowed for other purposes, such as determining eligibility for means-tested transfer programmes).

For taxpayers with substantial investment income, the current regime is arguably more complex than the new one because the boundary between capital and revenue is so idiosyncratic. A rational and consistent definition of capital gain could be easier for taxpayers to comprehend and comply with.

On balance, we judge a capital gains tax as a plus for tax administration because it would strengthen the integrity of the income tax, reduce the incentive for tax sheltering and evasion, and rationalize the definition of income for tax purposes. Moreover, most other OECD countries successfully administer a capital gains tax, so New Zealand clearly can as well.

(source: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centr...rman_white.pdf)

[craic]

.What rubbish you produce. This country currently has a stable and successful economy, supported by a stable and successful Government, led by a Prime Minister who is highly rated and trusted by a greater percentage of the population than any of his opponents. If you don't believe me, get on a plane and go somewhere else and have a look - You will have difficulty finding any other place where people would rather live. As to the unemployed in Auckland paying hundreds of dollars per week for rentals, there are buses, trains and planes leaving there, on the hour every hour for places where they can get better accommodation for less than half the and can stay just as unemployed as they are in Auckland. What other facts would you like?
Quote from elZorro below ( Machine didn't do it right)


Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination, and trot out lines they've heard or read "somewhere". Very rarely do National voters bring real facts and data to the discussion (to do so would damage their argument).

Like your comments up above, BP. What costs, what savings are expected? With power companies, every one of them has a layer of bureaucracy and planning, when NZED only needed one layer for the whole of NZ. We're paying for that too. We're also paying old rates for energy which assumed major capital expenditure. Now the power consumption is flat-lining, so less capital expenditure. There's fat there all right.

Further to our discussion about families without work, in Auckland the average rental cost is $350 to $450 per week, see bottom of article. This gives a low yield for the landlord, but only because houses are so expensive. To the renter, this is a massive weekly cost.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/7...driving-yields[/QUOTE]

[Banksie]

ElZ said:

Even here on this thread, the fewer left-wing people tend to have quite salient comments about policy, and right-wing people try on character assassination

Craic said:

What rubbish you produce

Q.E.D.

[fungus pudding]

Did anyone catch DC on Cambell live tonight? That was comedy. Poor David shows lack of insight into Labour's woes and his delusions of grandeur are bordering on the pathological. He talks patronizingly about caucus colleagues and blames others for his failures. Is it possible we have a mental disorder playing out here.

Further insight into Cunliffe shown in interview with Susan Wood - newstalk zb this morning. He's certainly thick-skinned.

[Sgt Pepper]

ElZ said:

Craic said:


Q.E.D.

Banksie

What I find frustrating is the lack of engagement from National supporters when issues are highlighted. Case in point, the proposed referendum on changing the flag. I posted my views questioning
1. was there really a groundswell of public concern?

2. My main concern was whether the cost of $10 million to choose the alternative and another $10 million in the runoff referendum between the chosen design and our existing flag was a responsible expenditure of tax payers money from a government which tells us frequently how responsible they are.

Now its fine to hold the affirmative view in both . But what happened with the posters who support everything the government does is they often refuse engage any issue that may detract from the narrative of how wonderful and responsible the government is. Come on guys,, come out and defend your side, and if your not happy with something John Key does then dont be small minded, just say " well I generally support the government, and I continue to support, but on issue .........., I think he is wrong". Otherwise the lively debate we all enjoy is going to get a bit stale do you not think??