If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

[QUOTE=elZorro;384611]

Well, everything in moderation of course. I don't have the exact answers, but when the local councils or Transit put down a new layer of temporary bitumen on a road surface, or seal an unsealed road, it's incredibly expensive. And it doesn't last, it requires constant repair quite often. It's a big reason for local body rates increases, as the price of oil goes up. Now compare that with the rail system, one area that has been allowed to decay over the years, in a bid to save taxpayers money. What money was saved? It actually cost us all a lot more, I'm sure.

Couple this loss of jobs and efficiency with less work in the manufacturing sector, because it hasn't been helped along in the last few years in particular, and we have a problem. An overview from government that was more focussed on keeping people employed and the tax base higher, than on helping a few towards millionaire status, would be helpful.

We're only a small country, it's difficult enough to ensure fair play in some business areas without handing over historically expensive state assets in a comparative firesale, whenever the govt coffers are short of cash.

Maybe Muldoon was right, we need another set of state-owned Think Big projects to get things going. History shows that most of those projects were very successful over the medium term.

Employing people to do 'non-jobs' is idiotic. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that applies to making an income. False or pretend jobs do more harm than good.

[elZorro]

[QUOTE=fungus pudding;384612]

Employing people to do 'non-jobs' is idiotic. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that applies to making an income. False or pretend jobs do more harm than good.

I agree of course. It's when people fail to understand that in the short term, such jobs that might be seen to be too cruisy for private sector observers, are in fact training for future employment, are reducing the unemployment welfare and other state costs, while increasing the tax base. And often, they reduce the very real costs that would otherwise occur down the line. The health and education sectors would also be applicable here.

The private sector has just demonstrated that they have little interest in training the youth of today, and giving them a break. As soon as their wage costs were the same as adults, they steadily dropped them out of new positions. Now they want the old setup restored, even with a minimum adult wage demonstrably not enough to live on, in these days of higher energy costs.

Jobs are critical to the American economy too.

http://www.incrediblecharts.com/trad...05-economy.php

This quote makes David Shearer look like a good prospect FP:

Dullness in matters of government is a good sign, and not a bad one — in particular, dullness in parliamentary government is a test of its excellence, an indication of its success.

~ Walter Bagehot

[elZorro]

Now what is the National govt up to? Are we to become a tax haven, is that the answer?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...step-backwards

[fungus pudding]

Now what is the National govt up to? Are we to become a tax haven, is that the answer?

It would be great, if only it was so.

[elZorro]

It would be great, if only it was so.

Well the article makes it clear that only foreign owned companies will get the benefit of the changes, if they're voted in. And Google is making use of the system already, to reduce tax that should be due to the NZ govt for sales made to NZ businesses, paying it on a far lower rate to the Irish govt. Tax havens seem to be on a sliding scale, some like the Cayman Islands scream it out, and others like Ireland go below the radar as far as tax authorities go.

How about this for a policy: foreign owned businesses operating in NZ should pay NZ tax on all their net NZ revenue, just like the rest of us. If you or I registered our businesses in the Cayman Islands and ran from there, I'm sure IRD would be in touch. If the overseas-based business can't pay tax at what we think is a fair rate, then they should stay out of NZ.

[fungus pudding]

Well the article makes it clear that only foreign owned companies will get the benefit of the changes, if they're voted in. And Google is making use of the system already, to reduce tax that should be due to the NZ govt for sales made to NZ businesses, paying it on a far lower rate to the Irish govt. Tax havens seem to be on a sliding scale, some like the Cayman Islands scream it out, and others like Ireland go below the radar as far as tax authorities go.

How about this for a policy: foreign owned businesses operating in NZ should pay NZ tax on all their net NZ revenue, just like the rest of us. If you or I registered our businesses in the Cayman Islands and ran from there, I'm sure IRD would be in touch. If the overseas-based business can't pay tax at what we think is a fair rate, then they should stay out of NZ.

It's pretty well impossible to assess where net profit was generated with a company operating acrooss various borders, who itrade with their companies in other countries. They move their profit to where tax liability is lowest - naturally enough.

[elZorro]

It's pretty well impossible to assess where net profit was generated with a company operating acrooss various borders, who itrade with their companies in other countries. They move their profit to where tax liability is lowest - naturally enough.

But I think that was Chalkie's point: at least with the books being presented in some form, a minority shareholder can figure out the general picture. And of course, each business will have very good details about their income and expenditure in each country. Letting others know what the story is, and paying tax in that country, is what they have a problem with.

Google are at least paying 12% tax to Ireland, on income they earn from NZ businesses. If they were even less polite, there are many tax havens where the tax is even lower. I do think about that, when IRD sends me hurry-up and interest notices on tax I've already paid on time. Of course if you try ringing them up to resolve things, you'll be waiting in a long queue.

[elZorro]

Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 13 November 2012

Labour's test: will its values fit the 2020s?

The unemployment rate lifted again in September, on one measure, to 7.3 per cent -- just in time to lift Labour hopes at the party's conference this coming weekend. Actually, it is not so simple.

First, the participation rate -- those at work or looking for work -- stayed high. People are not (yet) giving up in despair. (Emigrants to Australia are another story).

Australia's participation rate is lower: people are giving up. On a participation rate the same as here, Australia's unemployment rate would not be as far below ours as appears at first glance.

Also, the household labour force survey (HLFS) from which the September quarter figure came is volatile and might have overstated the rate. Note that the HLFS recorded a 0.8 per cent fall in hours worked in the quarter while the quarterly employment survey (QES) recorded only a 0.3 per cent fall and its underlying trend measure is still up.

The QES is also a better match for electronic card transactions: though core retail sales were down through the September quarter, total sales, which include fuel and vehicles (both up), were up.

Next, note that high and persistent unemployment in the United States did not tip out the incumbent President. Exit polls gave a clear majority to Barack Obama of those rating unemployment the top issue.

Now add in persistent headlines of global gloom, which will have got through to most of the populace here, including those who take little interest in politics and issues. John Key, Bill English and Steven Joyce can plausibly say our recent economic slowing is imported. They can't fix the United States, Europe, China and Japan.

The point for Labour delegates gathering on Friday for a fuller-than-usual agenda proposing big organisational changes is that economic woe is not enough -- at least not yet -- to tip out Key-English-Joyce.

To lift its chances of a win in 2014 Labour needs to build a case that a government it led then would bring in transformative policies, on the strength of which employment and incomes would ride better through global ups and downs than under the Key-English-Joyce formula.

Conference delegates might note what one conservative American commentator said last week of the Republicans, who not only did not unseat Obama but failed in Senate seats they should have won and overall did not build on the momentum of 2010.

That commentator's advice was to "become a national party again by offering new ideas rooted in old ones".

Labour does not have the Republicans' demographic challenge: they pitched to a white America when the proportions of blacks and Latinos are rapidly rising. With roots among Maori and Polynesians, Labour is positioned to score from demographic change over the next 10 years or so. (Beyond that our more Asian future may tell a different story.)

Labour's challenge is that the "working class" on which it was based a century ago has eroded as manufacturing has automated and as services have come to dominate the economy. Labour needs "new ideas rooted in old ones": policies for the 2020s, reworked from its founding principles.

So, bigger than the delegates' litmus test for David Shearer -- if he doesn't hit it off with them, MPs will get edgy -- is a move to adopt a 50-page base "policy platform" that would be binding on all party members, including MPs.

The draft platform states Labour's "values", which it claims as New Zealand values -- a version of "old ideas" it might "root new ideas" in.

The overarching values are freedom ("to achieve our individual and collective potential"), equality of opportunity, solidarity (mutual rights and obligations), intergenerational guardianship and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Among individual policy area themes: "the growing gap between the poor and rich", as an economic, not just a social issue (though it doesn't assert it is a factor in performance); "Labour is a party of action" in managing the economy; environmental sustainability ("without a healthy environment we cannot have a healthy economy or a healthy society", not a preoccupation in 1916); "real social security, fairness and realising potential", balanced with "responsibility"; "stable, predictable family and care environments" for early childhood; "public education"; "access to good health care" for "all of life", with a focus on long-term outcomes; "strong public services"; and "local democracy".

The platform is work in progress and a section on initiatives will be filled in next year. Its importance now is that it amounts to an attempt by the wider party to reclaim a place in policymaking after being largely shut out in the Clark years.

The test is whether voters click. Too many in middle and less-well-off New Zealand didn't connect in the 2008 and 2011 elections. The new ideas will have to be not just rooted in old ideas but relevant and presented by a relevant leader. Skimming in on a soggy economy would not set up a long spell in office.

This weekend might be a start. Or a stall.

ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz


-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz

Good points from Colin. Will we see Shearer fire up some sound bites, I wonder. It wouldn't be too hard to do better than National with the economy, and employment.

[craic]

As far as I am aware, the Irish idea was primarily to provide work for the unemployed by offering manufacturers from overseas, cheap land and very low taxes. It was not a tax haven as such but saved the country a ot of money they didn't have and created wealth through employment. I was one of those unemployed in Dublin in the mid nineteenfifties. Every time I hear of poverty, unemployment and hardship here I cringe. I scraped enough for my fare to Belfast and joined the British Army - I didn't have any money to get home had I been rejected. I was seventeen years old and for the next three years I allocated fifteen shillings a week to my parents.

[slimwin]

Whats a shilling? He He.