Fungus Pudding How many can he flick before his sale profits become Taxable 10 or more. It is very hard to prove intent
Printable View
Fungus Pudding How many can he flick before his sale profits become Taxable 10 or more. It is very hard to prove intent
Maybe, but lawyers would advise about that, and it's more often applied to land and buildings, than businesses or shares in businesses.
Some aspects..http://www.thomas.co.nz/co3/articles...nsequences.jsp
From Westpac commentary :
"With the New Zealand economy the best of a bad bunch, we may see the currency strengthen further through 2013," Westpac said.
The dollar would push up against the Australian currency to the mid-A80 cents range, Westpac said, with the expectation that the New Zealand economy would grow faster than Australia's for the first time in many years."
Lucky we have a good and economically astute and responsible Government EZ :D
My humble apologies for leading you astray FP. What I meant is that it might take 6 months to tidy up a building and flick it on, a lot longer for a business, and so the latter is more likely to be under the radar, or fitting within capital gain rules, even if several businesses or ventures are being worked on at once. But we don't know what the rules are yet, because no-one is telling us. All I know is, Trademe was within the current rules.
Ha bl...y Ha, Iceman, you got me there. One all? I will try and rebut your post.
Firstly: Westpac used to be my bank, and I would never go there again. They do not have the customer's interests at heart. They only got my custom by buying out Trustbank Waikato, that was a real bank.
More recently, they have been setting themselves up with Federated Farmers so they could sell farmers more SWAP loans, for huge profits. http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co....px?storypage=6
So this navel gazing from Westpac might not be correct, but they'll be saying what they want someone important to hear.
The next part of your post takes this (on the face of it) good news, and makes a wild extrapolation that somehow National's reign has produced that result. Well we've moved from the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD to average unemployment, from strengthening tax take to a lower tax take, people giving up on applying for meagre jobs and retraining or leaving instead, and the government trying to sell off parts of state assets, just to get back into the fiscal surplus that Labour had achieved for years on end.
Labour encouraged jobs, and that resulted in a surplus. National is discouraging jobs by removing them from the public sector wherever it can, and that doesn't help the rest of us. Waged money cycles around, so whatever figures National might produce on savings, aren't that good at all. It's the loss of recycled cashflow that causes the problems.
Iceman, can you provide details of the public sector jobs that were surplus, details on the improved public service that resulted from the culls, and more importantly the names of the people that Ms Clark improperly installed into office. Because I bet you can't. Helen Clark was too politically savvy to be that reckless. That sort of behaviour is more like a National trait.
And I bet that if you added up the minuscule savings that National might have achieved in their wages bill, and then subtracted debacles like Novopay, more dole payments, reduced tax takes, etc, there would be no savings. Just a lot of unhappy people looking for jobs and the rest of us getting a poorer public service outcome.
National's mantra I heard on the radio today: Rural police stations have only one on duty after National raids staff for South Auckland, but there will be more on the front line as a result of new iPods and iPads rollout. Magical.
Contact Energy to drop 100 staff. Flat power consumption for the first time in decades, because National stands by and watches manufacturing and employment options decay in NZ.
EZ if you would stop posting every 10 minutes, your resulting freed up, and now productive time, could be devoted to income producing endeavors and would no doubt considerably contribute to reducing our national deficit. Now thats an attractive outcome....win win for everybody.
At least you're reading the thread BB, but you have no time to make up any bogus stories about Labour's deficiencies, as some are attempting?
I am far too modest to think that anything I do will affect the country's bottom line, but I am mindful of the big picture, and it's not good. Until you and a few others on the RIGHT around here can convince me otherwise, I'm hoping for (and expecting) a Labour win in 2014.
EZ, of course I can not and would not provide NAMES of the people we are referring to. After all I thought we were debating policies, not people. As for Contact, I am a shareholder and with their stated non further investment in electricity generation and flat demand, I see no problems with their staff reduction.
Each and every year about 250000 jobs in NZ get discontinued and another 250000 new jobs get created.Whats the big deal ? I know you dont like any0ne losing their jobs and everyone should be kept in their non competitive jobs. I just dont buy into this EZ and accept progress !!!
I agree that job flux is important and a normal process. But while National has been in, there are more jobs being destroyed than created. Our population hasn't dropped, it's gone up over the years. So the only way National could say recently that the unemployment rate was down slightly in the last quarter, was to carefully forget to mention that a lot of people simply gave up on finding a job in NZ. They went back to tertiary education, retired early, or emigrated.
National has a 'brilliant plan' for how to win over the voters before 2014. They will attempt to sell off part of our state-owned energy generating assets for a top price, to the sharemarket. The bonus, one-off money in the system will in theory help restore the govt to surplus. It is a relatively simple procedure to carry out, as long as the courts allow them to do it, and as along as the voters sit back and let them.
What will happen is that they'll get a very poor price for the part-assets, because the timing is terrible. Energy use in NZ is flat-lining, may even be dropping. The Bluff smelter is using 15% of our power, pays very little for it, and is still losing money. That whole plant could be mothballed, or moved overseas to a lower-waged economy. Then we'll have a lot of spare power capacity, and no-one wanting to pay much for it.
So let's observe what happens over the contract negotiations with the Bluff smelter. Will National do the opposite of what they did for the railway workshops, and provide a sweetheart deal for a major domestic power user, to keep them here? Because if they leave, National's highly touted partial asset sale is in deep doo-doo.
A bit off the main thread here, but reports in Aust are saying that RIO has decided to keep the Gove alumina refinery in operation. Given that the Tiwai Point smelter sources its alumina from Gove, this decision strengthens the case to continue at Tiwai Point. Implications for NZ govt; power prices; SOE part-privatisations?
Thanks Macduffy, I didn't know that. There is a lot of downstream work in NZ based on the Tiwai aluminium source too, of course. I certainly want to see the smelter stay here. Labour minister Clayton Cosgrove also says the asset sell-off timing is very poor.
A new report says our minimum wage of $13.50, which National stuck with, when Labour wanted to set it at $15.00, should really be $18.40 an hour, if people are to live in NZ with dignity.
Having been raised in the abject poverty of an Irish village, during and just after the WW2, I can honestly say that vyour comments on "living with dignity" on a minimum wage are absolute rubbish. My family and friends lived with dignity on no minimum wage and the alternative, no wage at all. We scraped together food and shelter as best we could, often with scraps of paid work in seasons when it was available. Now I belong in a society of pensioners and can observe that many live with dignity and reasonable comfort while others degenerate into a pathetic state that they themselves often create between casks of wine. Dignity is between your ears.
Great words Craic and I can relate to it from my own upbringing. Dignity is not "provided" by the Government like too many people like to think. It is normally installed in people at a young age by family, which unfortunately is becoming less and less influential in NZ society
This is a conservative reading of the role of the government, Craic and Iceman. Is there anything else we need in our upbringing to avoid dependency on the state? Is family the best place for getting a start in life?
I don't think you'd find that is far away from Labour policy Iceman. According to the right-wingers, Labour can't get it right. If they make it too easy to stay on the dole, or create too many unproductive jobs, either way it's not 'real'.
Let's get back to facts. I don't think anyone likes being on the dole (unless they have some family support). I just have a quiet smile if I hear about a state-funded job that I don't understand the importance of. Most of that cash will be recycled into the nearby community, taxes and levies will be paid on it at each recycle, and the govt will get perhaps 50% of the funds back. No other group stands to do near as well from the transactions. That balances out the otherwise direct expense of unemployment and associated social costs. The rest of the country benefit from increased spend, in the retail and service sectors. So increased employment in the public sector is not the enemy, it's not a drain on the taxpayer, it's usually very good news. Labour showed that in their last 9-year stint, the data is there to see at Statistics NZ. Everybody did well.
A bit of humour from Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is at Craic's prompting.
Very perceptive, actually it's my wife who is the Python fan. I'm never sure how she votes.
I understand what other posters are saying, relative to the world population, we're doing well, nothing to grumble about. Well, we should be in a good position, we've only just got here in recent geological time, the climate is good, we have good education provided, and we haven't completely wrecked the place with overpopulation yet.
All the more reason to be unhappy with the fact that 7% of those who'd like to work here, can't, because there are less jobs going around. That profits are down almost across the board, so taxes are down, and govt services are being screwed down to match the lower income. This is the sort of time when businesses and enterprises, prompted by the govt, should get moving, sideways if necessary, into new areas with better profits.
So we look to the govt for a lead, and what do we see? For example, Novopay and Callaghan Innovation, so screwed down with tight finances, they can't do the very job they were set up to do.
Where in the world do you get the idea that someone has to employ you - that some other person or organisation has to set up a business and pay you to work in it? The reality is that we are all responsible for our own and our families survival If you do not have the wherewithall to provide and survive one of the successful ones MAY offer you help, financially or otherwise, in exchange for some labour or other favour. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work.
(QUOTE)
"All the more reason to be unhappy with the fact that 7% of those who'd like to work here, can't, because there are less jobs going around. That profits are down almost across the board, so taxes are down, and govt services are being screwed down to match the lower income. This is the sort of time when businesses and enterprises, prompted by the govt, should get moving, sideways if necessary, into new areas with better profits.
So we look to the govt for a lead, and what do we see? For example, Novopay and Callaghan Innovation, so screwed down with tight finances, they can't do the very job they were set up to do.[/QUOTE]
A couple of points: Yes - we are doing well relatively and will do miles better as world recovers - that is as long as no political party gets into power that wants to 'fix' things. Prime concern there is Labour/Green, or their chief interferers, Parker,Cunliffe and Russel. Education standards are poor - ask a school leaver to write a letter, or do the simplest mental mathematical equation. We are under-populated, although I have much sympathy for Enoch Powell's view.
And it would be remiss of me not ask in what way are these jobs you say are going around, 'less'? .
It would be remiss of me, in turn, to not research the Rivers of Blood Speech.
Is that where Don Brash got his ideas from? It nearly worked for him too.
The number of jobs available is not keeping up with the increase in population here, and the pay is being screwed down for new positions.
'
So yes, I hope Parker, Cunliffe and Norman interfere a small amount and try out some ideas, because unemployment, 'it's not working'.
Interesting how the market actually solved Obama's jobs problem and none of his job creation schemes worked....
I will waste my time again and suggest that unemployment doesn't exist - except in the socialist philosophy. A large section of the worlds population spend thei time hunting, fishing, building shelters and protecting threir families - they are not unemployed. A second section set up and run enterprises that profit them greatly by utilising the needs of others in exchange for a portion of their returns - they are not unemployed. A third group spend their time hunting, fishing, growing and building etc. and seeking to share the returns of the second section in exchange for bartered labour, they are not unemployed. The remainder sit on their arses on street corners seeking mana from heaven or the government - they are losers.
I had a fellow once on probation to me who was suddenly in the second category and I asked him what he was doing about it. He told me that he was getting up every morning and walking the length of Marine Parade with a sack, collecting bottles and cans and anything else he could find including money. He did very well from the drunken revelries of the night before, particulary on weekends. But it didn't last, people pay good money for that kind of enterprise.
But the Chinese in their new city apartments are now contacting westerners, speaking good English, and arranging trade opportunities for small manufacturers, sourcing components and finished goods from elsewhere in China, usually nearby. They have taken the initiative. They are now very good capitalists. They will increasingly consume a bigger portion of the world's resources, as they have a right to do.
Maybe Craic is right, too many are not working hard enough over here to get themselves a job, or to (shock horror) create one with their own efforts.
But my point is also that govt has a role in encouraging enterprise. They have a role in not abrubtly making a whole lot of people redundant on their watch, through ill-thought-out policy. They have a role in leading the country as a whole.
From my point of view, and regardless of the international state of play, they are letting us down.
EZ your singleminded,dogged determination to lay the blame on anyone and everyone and particularly the Govt is admirable in that it shows your perseverence. Somewhat less admirable is your apparent lack of ability to recognise and ahknowledge the responsibility of people to be proactive in taking control of their lives and their employment. Many, many of us have probably had or done jobs that we didnt really "want" or perhaps even hated, maybe at s**t wages. However we did it and probably used it as a springboard to haul ourself up the evolutionary ladder. Expecting the Govt to do that for us is just wrong....if you have special needs, or disabilities or mental health issues then the Govt should and does help. If you or your needy buddies are "waiting for the job that suits their status" or dont want to move away from Mum doing the washing for them then this falls into Craic's "loser" category. There is only so much any Govt. can do. Governments and political parties come and go. People who think, hope or expect the Govt. will rescue them just because ...well thats what Govt's should do are naive in the extreme and blinkered in their outlook. Take off the blinkers EZ... there are two types of people in the world...those who MAKE things happen for themselves and others and those who allow things to happen to them.
Only two types of people in the world? You don't think that maybe there are extremes that fit that statement, and that most of us sometimes take control, and sometimes go with the flow?
Your only problem is that you are on the right, politically. From what I've seen, this means that you'll have to take a very fixed black and white view, or none of the policies from the right will make sense. Armed with this philosophy, you can banter at great length about how the economy can be fixed simply by the govt doing nothing, and letting the market fix it all. Thus, apart from social services, education, and maybe roading, the govt has no right to take taxes at all. Brilliant!
Except, as you have stated, some of us are lazy. I think we're all a bit lazy, some of the time. So for the common good of everybody, what is going to prompt someone to go off the dole (assuming they cannot start their own job), and into work? The market will need to provide an interesting job, good conditions, and pay that makes it worthwhile for them to give up a big chunk of their life. Because that is the nature of work, and an employer has obligations to play fair.
By running down the state sector's performance and constantly reminding us that we're in deficit, coming out of a recession, the govt at once justifies sacking a lot of people, and tells the private sector to buckle down the hatches. So employers get lazy too. I have, for a year or so. I intend to do better in 2013, but I won't be taking on any new staff. Forget about me - what if you extend that to all the other employers out there? For example are you taking on extra staff, or are you sitting comfortably?
Oh Dear! Tonights Colmar Brunton tells us that we still support JK and Labour are still losing?
Not too many happy with the school closures, except the bean counters.
Results from 19th Feb.
Brainwashed or smarter than the average bear? Teachers are put in the top 25% of a bell-shaped curve for IQ.
Australia, meanwhile, has decided that the biggest firms don't need R&D tax credits. Anyone with turnover above $20billion that is. There's a rate change at the $20mill level, and for smaller firms the tax deduction is 45% of the spend. The saved $1billion cash is being spent on new innovation hubs around the country.
Quote:
Federal government announces manufacturing innovation precinct
18 February, 2013 Brent Balinski
http://media.rbi.com.au/MM_Media_Lib...ctory1_300.jpg Cuts to R&D tax credits to some of Australia’s biggest companies will fund a network of innovation precincts, the first of which will be dedicated to manufacturing.
Prime minister Julia Gillard and members of her government made the announcement yesterday during a visit to Boeing Australia’s headquarters in Melbourne.
Industry minister Greg Combet said that a three-point plan to boost manufacturing - focussing on local content, growing SMEs and establishing innovation precincts - would be funded through an end to research tax breaks for companies with revenues of $20 billion or more.
The tax break is equivalent to a 133 per cent tax deducation, according to Fairfax Media.
This would affect 15-20 companies and save an estimated $1 billion over four years.
"We think it's a prudent saving that targets the resources that are available in the most effective way to achieve jobs growth," Combet told reporters.
The plan for industry, called “Building On Australia’s Strengths”, was the result of six months’ work by Combet and bureaucrats. It is in response to the report released in August by the non-government members PM’s manufacturing taskforce, which made over 40 recommendations.
The Courier Mail reported before the announcement that “the innovation hubs will dovetail with the Asian Century White Paper by promoting export potential.”
The first innovation precinct will be dedicated to manufacturing and will extend over two locations in south-east Melbourne and Adelaide. The second will focus on the food industry and be based in Melbourne.
The delivery of the 10 precincts is budgeted at $504.5 million. They aim to examine ways of commercialising research.
“We need to increase the level of industry-led research and get better economic and business dividends from our research so that our economy can realise the opportunities of the future," said Combet.
The opposition claimed the innovation precinct plan was a re-announcement of a 2011 scheme for research innovation hubs.
"I was hoping for something of substance today," said Sophie Mirabella, the opposition industry spokeswoman.
"Like so many workers in the manufacturing sector, I'm bitterly disappointed."
Either Colin hasn't done the maths on the funds budgeted for Callaghan Innovation, or he has a very good idea what's going to happen. It's unlikely there will be an increased spend.
Quote:
Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 19 February 2013
The challenge of being a small, smart country
Bill English has set the budget date nice and early -- as John Key did the election date in 2011 and is likely to do in 2014. Now are English and Key -- and Steven Joyce, who is to make a science speech on Thursday -- up to the fiscal science challenge?
That science challenge -- not to be confused with the Prime Minister's science challenge for scientists themselves -- is to match richer small-countries' commitment. Governments here for two decades, including Key's, have not committed to science the public resources better-performing small countries do. Contrast the European Union's increase in its science budget this month while cutting its overall budget.
Joyce, who as boss of his new superministry is the minister in charge of science and other innovation, would protest that in the 2012 budget the government did lift investment in science and innovation and project a continuing lift over the next four years.
But even at the end of that trajectory -- and note that Key is talking up innovation as the key to enrichment -- Joyce would be investing below 0.6% of GDP, that is, below the OECD average and far below that of smart-rich-small countries with which Key's Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has been building a relationship. That investment underpins the success of Nordic countries, billed by The Economist this month as "the next supermodel".
Sir Peter brought together Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Israel and Singapore in Auckland in November in a discussion which linked science and innovation with economic analysis by David Skilling, once of the Treasury and now in Singapore, who argues that small countries, being flexible, can, if they act strategically, navigate global ups and downs better than big countries with lumbering political systems.
Gluckman, like the legendary Sir Paul Callaghan a notable innovator in his own right, is now teasing out with those countries a programme of joint projects.
There is a parallel with United Nations Ambassador Jim McLay's pitch for a Security Council seat in 2015-16: that small countries have different priorities from big muscly ones, not least in needing good global governance. McLay argues that small New Zealand contributes disproportionately to peace-building and other cooperative activities, has an independent foreign policy which gives it good credentials as a broker and conciliator and thus can be an accurate and energetic representative for small countries.
Another way of putting the McLay line is that New Zealand is a small, smart country. That is what Sir Peter wants us to want to be -- more than our fiscal commitment shows.
Joyce would protest, with reason, that his Callaghan Innovation Crown entity, with a tight focus on working with businesses to solve technical challenges and help them innovate, will do that by making more effective use of some of our scientists.
Actually, Industrial Research Ltd, out of which the new institute was created, was increasingly doing what the institute is to do. Callaghan Innovation looks less an innovation and more a managerial reshuffle.
There is also a risk, which will need careful management, that too tight a focus on technical assistance to firms will distract scientists from doing the science that generates unexpected commercial innovations, as Sir Paul's science did -- and that scientists decamp to another country (one of Sir Peter's other five?) to do that work.
The more scientists who do that -- after an expensive education at taxpayers' expense here -- the less will they be able to meet another Gluckman ambition.
Joyce's speech on Thursday is to a two-day conference of science communicators which will focus on natural disasters science's role in warning the public and public agencies of risks and explaining events. Gluckman's on the same day is to the Institute of Public Administration on "communicating and using evidence in policy formation".
Quote:
Gluckman will develop a theme that has been a hallmark of his Chief Science Adviser's role: that good policy requires good advice which requires the best use of the best evidence -- and that science has a big role to play.
Most policy reflects politicians' instincts, prejudices, values or pragmatism and the inevitable tradeoffs politics and electoral success require. It is informed by advice from public servants who do usually trawl through evidence, including scientific evidence, but often, Gluckman says, the science is misunderstood, misused or misapplied. Politicians, interest groups and the media also often cherrypick or otherwise employ science to support a case or, as in climate change, declare the science "confused" as an excuse for inaction.
A report is due soon on a survey which found wide variations in government agencies' use or misuse of scientific evidence. Gluckman says protocols are needed, including peer review of expert advice.
That is quite a science challenge for Key and Joyce -- perhaps as big as their and English's fiscal one.
-- 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
There's been a bit of a debate on minimum wages lately. Rod Oram has waded into this.
But first, I have been berated by those on the right (who appear to still be in the majority!) because I have not provided a balanced view.
I don't have to - I'm not a journalist, but this popped up on a google search.
Why low minimum wages are a good thing..
http://www.aei.org/article/economics...mum-stupidity/
This article from the American Enterprise Institute has to be seen in context. This is a neo-conservative think-tank, also with impressive history, with over US$30mill of funding p.a. and nearly 200 staff. They seem to be keen on funding from Exxon Mobil, partly directed towards offering scientists $10,000 to critique the IPCC on climate change.
John Key not keen on a higher minimum wage. Of course he wouldn't need to live on that, he has got ahead OK, he's probably in the top percentile of IQ. It's what we do with the 'long tail' that is important here.
And now Rod Oram, who has been paid a smaller amount perhaps, to write a weekly article in the SST, based on his impressions of the state of play.
Rod Oram: "The Wages of Stupidity" Feb 17 2013, Sunday Star Times. Not available on the web, anywhere.
FAQ from Livingwagenz.org.nz.
Here's a leftish blog site with an interesting blog on Shearer. A good summary of all the main political blogs on the RHS of the page.
This morning on TV3, the Prime Minister faced the camera and had great glee in claiming that when Helen Clark was in power, Labour did "exactly the same deal" as National is doing with Sky City now. A convention centre in exchange for allowing more pokies.
He's hoping that's all the dumb and redneck voters remember -that punch line. Except it's bull.
In 2001, the sinking lid policy on gaming machines (that Labour introduced in 2003)hadn't been set up. The deal back then was a $37mill convention centre, in exchange for 230 pokies and 12 gaming tables. The new convention centre is on a different scale, $350mill, in exchange for up to five hundred gaming machines at the casino, in defiance of the sinking lid policy.
And the earlier decision was not made by the Labour government at all, but by the Casino Control Authority. Guess who ran that back then? Judith Collins (National, now Justice Minister) was the chair.
More rubbish from John Key about the number of gaming machines being lower now, than in 2002. Yes, of course, Labour's sinking lid policy did that. By 2008 when National got in, the bulk of the good work had already been done. How dare John Key and National take the credit for it. Every dollar that disappears from a local community into gaming machines doesn't get spent in the nearby businesses. 1/3 of it goes to govt, 1/3 to fat cat trusts or bars, and 1/3 to community grants. (Except for the casinos, they hardly pay anything back to local community causes).
A gaming machine is budgeted to take at least $1,000 clear a week. 500 machines would reap $26mill a year. Sky City's tender for the building was the worst deal of five offers, and it was accepted.
I, and most voters - well 49% anyway plus at least 1% for United Future, ACT, Conservatives, Maori Party... commend John Key for his initiative and enterprise. A huge new Convention Centre for Auckland and New Zealand.
Beat that.
All the Greens and Labour NZ know how to do is to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth.
Read what Labour in Australia is saying "The Greens (Australia) only know how to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth."
Try reading the Sydney Morning Herald occasionally - yesterday and the day before.
Labour in Oz is equivalent to National in NZ.
Where does that leave the Labour NZ supporters? Cloud Cuckooland.
You should be careful about agreeing with the Sky City jackup MVT. It's going to get very embarassing for National. Latest on the news tonight: Sky City want the govt to pay for the marketing of the convention centre. Plus other fine details no doubt. Please rebut my comments though, were any of those facts wrong? No, I didn't think so. Do your research before you jump in.
From a blog site, but sounds about right..
John Key said this morning that the new convention centre isQuote:
Facts: People at risk of problem gambling (not actual problem gamblers) are 1.2% of the population from MOH stats 2011. .. Charities that operate pub pokies are required to return a minimum of 37.12% back to the community or risk being shut down. The Casino only gives 2.5% back to the community, the rest goes to corporate profits.
"..bespoken, off the shelf, so is all a bit different"
Here's the meaning of bespoke ,John. I don't think there is such a word as 'bespoken'. It means the opposite of 'off the shelf', and it doesn't normally apply to buildings. Sounds flash from a distance though. This is our elected Prime Minister speaking - maybe David Shearer doesn't have to improve his sound bites too much, to compete. David has potential, according to Janet Wilson.
Here's an article about why Labour's capital gains tax idea is going to help even things out a bit. I don't rent out property, I prefer to use it to earn a living, for myself and several families. Bring it on.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-e...ectid=10865946
David Shearer was just on TV3, being questioned on his thoughts over John Key's role in the Convention deal, and the latest benefit fraud crackdown.
I liked everything I saw. He was very fluent, had no trouble at all getting his (really good) points across, he pinned John Key to the wall on the Sky City debacle, and that was fair enough. I think that what we saw there, was that he had real conviction about these points, and as Janet Wilson said, this swamped out the little 'advisor voices' that so often get him confused when fronting the camera. Shearer carefully pointed out that the govt is after maybe $20mill of benefit fraud, but don't apply the same rules to at least $100mill to $120mill of tax fraud that goes on every year.
If you added in the tax haven stuff, it'd be a lot higher than that. Fat cat rules are different you see.
One nation, one set of rules, yeah right.
EZ if you spend your whole day digging up points to defend/support your left wing politics, you wont convince anyone but yourself and you certainly will not benefit from the exercise. I am about to go outside and unload a truckload of horse manure now and thus ends my limited participation in this topic - have a nice day.
This article says that Tax policy is in disary. Overdue tax now $7.8 Billion, comparable to the amount that Greeks owe their government, but don't want to pay. Student loans at $550million, just 5% of the uncollected. Child support payments are 29% the biggest amount. Overall despite targeted measures over a ten year period, tax collection has declined to dangerous levels.
Why go after benefit fraud? Why is the media not putting this the critical factor to John Key?
http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-f...se-outright-fa
For tax purposes it is counted as a debt to the state, imposed by the courts.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/exter...rdue-debt.html
Very good point Fred114. There are so few real journalists left. But it does kind of put the $20mill de facto benefit fraud into context. As Belgarion says, a right-wing person would look just at the overdue child support payments (which could mostly be onerous interest and fees added on), but overdue income tax, GST, and PAYE from businesses is also there, a big chunk of it. And that's the tax they've advised IRD they need to pay, it's not the income that has already slipped through to tax havens.
The answer is, National always trots out 'benefit fraud!' at some stage. Often it's dragged out when they're getting a hard time somewhere else. Maybe the system needs a tuneup every so often, but anyone who thinks a bit about the big picture will see that it's simply smoke and mirrors. The top 1% will be untouched by National, they'll likely get better and better deals from the state.
You think people should get away with benefit fraud?
No. Although I think there will be degrees of fraud, just the same as there are degrees of tax evasion. Some shouldn't be worth following up. Because at the other extreme will be people with multiple aliases using cashflow machines and burying gold or cash in their backyards, and people using every trick in the book to not pay substantial income tax if they can help it. You just have to look at the difference in the amounts involved.
$ 20 mill might be involved in de facto benefit fraud, $4.44 per NZer.
$7,800 mill is definitely owned in back taxes and fines, child support etc. $1733.00 per NZer.
So why knock out a new law for the smaller amount if you can't collect on the much larger amount? Because it may be a vote catcher. National -type voters are more likely to have an issue with taxes, and even child support. They probably won't be on a benefit though.
Solid Energy in trouble, looks like more jobs will be lost here, more infrastructure laid to waste. It doesn't mean we're using less coal - for years now, Huntly power station has been partly fed with coal brought all the way from Indonesia. Because it's a bit cheaper on paper. The power station was built at Huntly because there was a lot of suitable coal for it in the ground nearby. There will be other reasons for the slump in profits too, but again, some big picture thinking would help the situation, we could keep more people employed and the economy stronger, keep using local inputs if they are plentiful.
Quote:
Solid Energy in urgent talks with Government and bankers on debt level
Here's more detail about where the Huntly coal comes from, how it is blended.Quote:
Simon Hartley — 22 February 2013
The beleaguered State-owned enterprise Solid Energy – one of the West Coast's largest employers - has disclosed it is in talks with its banks and Treasury, over its “substantial” debt and the support required to turnaround the flagging operations.
During the past year, Solid Energy's total liabilities have been driven up by increased borrowings, from $614 million to more than $743.5 M, according to its annual report to June, released last November.
The $743.5 M includes cash provisions held, term interest borrowings and accounts payable.
More restructuring appears likely for its remaining 1,500 staff, when Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises (SOE) Minister Tony Ryall responded to the shock announcement by Solid Energy chairman Mark Ford yesterday.
English said at a briefing the Government would not let the company go into receivership. He would not directly answer questions about a taxpayer-funded bailout, but would not rule it out.
No mention was made on the question of whether Solid Energy was close to breaching banking covenants.
Ryall said Solid Energy was facing “very serious financial challenges” - its debt stood at $389 M and its interim result “will show additional losses.”
“The Government appreciates this is a very unsettling time for employees and suppliers and the company's wider stakeholders but it is a process which must be worked through carefully and properly,”' the ministers said in a joint statement.
A year ago Solid Energy was on the Government list for SOE floats, but this announcement will kill any chance of that happening in the near future.
English said: “World coal prices have dropped significantly [40%] which has contributed to the deteriorating financial position that Solid Energy is in now.”
Beginning in August last year, Solid Energy flagged the likelihood of a $200 M slump in revenue, followed shortly after by announcing almost 500 redundancies around the country.
Next, in November, its annual profit plunged 146% and it booked a $40 M loss; because of the slumped global coal prices. There was no repeat of the previous year's $30 M dividend.
Barely 20 minutes after Solid Energy's statement yesterday, English and Ryall gave short notice of the 4.30pm media briefing.
Following a global coal price high of $US350/tonne ($NZ419) in January 2011, the price slumped to$US140 by last September, but had since retraced some losses to trade around $US224 in June.
Three weeks ago chief executive of 12 years, Dr Don Elder, resigned, effective immediately, amid criticism of having too many developmental projects underway in recent years.
The lion's share of its more than 4 million tonnes of annual production is from the West Coast, and a relatively new $25 M lignite-to-briquette plant near Mataura, has been unscathed by restructuring, so far.
In an unusual move, Solid Energy chairman Mark Ford yesterday released a statement outlining the company's trading position was continuing to deteriorate, in spite of initiatives to reduce costs, preserve cash and restructure, in the face of low global coal prices.
“We are in discussions with our banks and Treasury on the debt and equity support required for future operations of the business.
“A restructuring and turnaround plan for the company is being prepared by the newly appointed board in support of these discussions,” Ford said.
He warned that Solid Energy was “carrying substantial debt” and the half-year result to be released shortly “will record a significant loss.”
*Simon Hartley is senior business reporter for the Otago Daily Times.
http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz...mal+beast.html
It would appear that part of the debt at Solid Energy is due to massive bonus payouts in the millions to top management. Wait a minute, it's an SOE. Surely part of the prescription is to not allow it to go bankrupt, to run it carefully, preserving jobs if possible. Don Elder left a few weeks ago, probably just as well.
It was "only "just over $ 20 million in bonuses over last 2 years EZ !!!! Yes it is indeed a SOE, the best form of business operation and ownership according to you and Shearer, so why is the Government now going to have to jump in and save it with tax payer dollars. What happened ? Oh that's right, all National's fault !
Pretty much National's fault. The company has deviated too far from its core business. Politicians have wanted to fatten the cow for sale and the business leaders, whilst taking massive bonuses to give maintain the illusion of certainty, have ventured into risky projects that have failed taking the company with it. According to Geoff Bertram, buring coal requires the capturing of carbon to avoid greenhouse gases. Don Elder initiated so-called "lignite projects" but technology not there. He took on massive expansion plans in the face of considered advice not to. Racing in to highly speculative ventures that are sold to us as significant, but turn out to be crap. Boom and bust. Same with Mighty River power write-down of $90M, another example of highly speculative deals that are made to appear a great investment, but actually profit arrived from highly risky ventures in geothermal in California, set up as a tax avoidance scheme to 'divert' investment. The Chile venture bombed. Such activity sucks attention of the board away from their core business, which in Solid Energy's case was to adapt to the collapsing coal price. The whole sector of SOE's have taken on gilt edged expansionist mode, that the National party are only too happy to fuel. The core business is simply a cash cow to fund risky ventures needlessly. Such a direction has lead us to the reckless exposure of market forces that will again strangle the cost of energy to consumers.
It's not National's fault, it's a result of their policy. If the volume purchased from a coal mine drops, of course the price per tonne delivered has to go up. Then it becomes steadily less cost-competitive in the interim. The value of coal dropping worldwide will only be a temporary thing. Once the USA uses up the new shale oil/gas, it'll be all go again. As the price of coal is currently cheaper from overseas, why has the domestic power price not dropped? Huntly sets the benchmark for expensive power, and all the other generators tag along. So the govt has made extra profits on power, and with the GST on power. When the older parts of Huntly run, it's on a powdered coal brew, most of it imported from Indonesia.
National's new plan is to run down Solid Energy so it's a mere shadow of its former self, but that then exposes NZ to a bigger dependence on overseas energy sources in the short to medium term. And it will also make a lot of people and equipment redundant.
Finally, National has allowed those $20mill of Solid Energy bonuses to be paid out, but they now intend to get that all back from de facto benefit fraudsters. A very few people got the bonuses, and hundreds of people who are probably on low incomes, are going to have to pay it back to the govt (minus the legal costs no doubt). That's 'fair', in National Party terms.
I see Fred114's points too, it's quite likely the Solid Energy business was being pumped up in these oddball areas, and it's backfired.
"Once the US uses up all the shale oil/gas".
You should do a bit of reading, Internet is ok for it, start with a Google search.
You'll find the US has so much recoverable shale oil/gas it will last for over a hundred years.
That invalidates your argument. Also, most countries incl even China, are making a conscious effort to move away from coal as an energy source.
Solid Energy is not the easy fix for Labour that you think it is and its present predicament has nothing to do with National, twist, squirm, writhe as you will to try to portray this. Anyone with any business nous at all knows this.
Touche, MVT.
Wikipedia states that there has been speculation that there might be up to 100 years of natural gas production available. That probably depends on whether coal fired power stations are converted to gas, as we did with Maui. We used up an internationally major gas field in a fairly short time. Also:
But I have to agree, it would be better for all of us if the coal (and gas) stays in the ground. We should be looking much harder at techniques for extracting biofuels from bacteria or algae, as that pulls the carbon back out of the atmosphere, instead of releasing more from ancient storage.Quote:
A June 2011 New York Times investigation of industrial emails and internal documents found that the financial benefits of unconventional shale gas extraction may be less than previously thought, due to companies intentionally overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves.[46]
However, in the meantime we have the ridiculous situation of NZers paying more and more for their energy, the price of coal dropping, and the govt (through SOEs) sacking NZ coalmine workers while they import cheap coal via ports and rail systems. We should be using the ports and rail systems to export more added value items. Heavy machinery, tech gear.
So proves the point EZ that Government should stay out of running businesses so shareholders (not tax payers) taking the risk will be rewarded or punished based on the business performance. Simple really.
But Labour, which appointed all the Solid Energy people involved in this fiasco, has the gut to criticise the Government making it sound like John Key did all of this. A bit like the school closures they so much criticise now, forgetting that in 4 years National has closed around 40 schools but Trevor Mallard closed 281 schools in his 9 years at the helm. They must think voters are all stupid and/or have alzheimers.
281 schools? I thought it was 115 at most , from 2002 to 2008, with another 90 voluntary closures. How many new ones were built? Happy to debate real figures.
The idea of the state owning a large portion of the coal production over here would be smart in terms of using assets consistently, providing mining training and employment, rotating cashflow around provincial areas. If we simply buy in coal from overseas, it's of no help in the local economy, and especially bad if the per tonne saving was only minor. The govt can easily recoup the balance from improved taxes from local production, and lower unemployment. They have already been mean in not passing on energy input savings to consumers. They've put themselves in the position of needing every bit of income from a run-down economy.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10867108
John Key must think I have alzheimers. His govt removed the R&D tax credits because they said small businesses will only be rorting the system. He has no faith in small and startup businesses at all. That's one of the reasons why we're in a mess now.
I think we're getting a bit distracted by "business nous". Being a "state owned enterprise" is a reckless and loathsome means to providing basic necessities, such as power and water. "Business nous" has only blinded leaders into conferring on themselves an appetite for free enterprise, rather than stewardship. Their actions have only confirmed how inefficient this model is for delivering basic services.
Hi Fred, I agree with that. Do you mean like the crazy idea of splitting up NZED into smaller competing state-owned enterprises so not one of them builds any more major power stations, because the effect on their individual books would be too horrendous? As it turned out, power demand has flat-lined, just as well. NZED did a good job of looking after our power needs, building installations when and where appropriate, for the good of the country. It acted as a steward, not a profit-making venture. As we are seeing, power prices haven't dropped, even though coal has, and as far as I'm aware, our hydro stations haven't cost a lot to maintain lately. Endusers still pay 25c a kWhr for power from them, even though we have a fair idea the actual running cost of hydro generation is under a cent per kWhr.
In the SST today, Rob O'Neill pointed to all the big failures in NZ lately, leading to more unemployment. In most cases they had "structural or cyclical issues that are industry specific".Telecom was different. This is a big business model that is certainly innovating too. They are buying equipment to make people redundant, and if they can't do that, they outwork helpdesks to overseas, or screw down fault services with contractors.
Rob then said that "We need a lot more F&P Healthcares, Orions, Datacoms, high-value manufacturers and software developers".
Amen to that.
Maria Slade and Rod Oram both had articles dealing with the casino deal in depth. As I had suspected, SkyCity is looking to add 500 gaming machines and another 20 tables, and this will generate an additional revenue of $41mill a year, according to Morningstar analyst Nachi Moghe. By comparison, the convention centre might find it hard to break even with all the competition out there, and if it did OK, the extra EBIT might be $10mill p.a. It's not about the centre at all, it's the gaming machines. Labour's policy of dropping gaming machines back over time, is going to be knocked back in favour of a greedy corporate.
This unfair advantage was picked up by an equally outraged Rod Oram:
"This very sweet deal sends a very clear message: If you want to build a convention centre, school, road, hospital, prison or any other form of infrastructure (in NZ), don't bother with the appropriate processes. Do an end-run around the competition - deal directly with the prime minister.
This is no way to run any country".
A small item in today's newspapers.
NZ is now assessed by Moodys as having a higher credit rating than the UK - NZ Aaa, UK Aa1.
Despite EZ's opinion, one would have to say that this reflects favourably on PM John Key's financial stewardship. :-)
Iceman steady as you go down an ever steepening slope
Hello PTC, thanks for the moral support. I'm like a leper out here - apart from Fred114.
It would seem that Labour did indeed preside over the closing of 281 schools in their last term. Some had a roll as low as 17, some closed voluntarily, but there you go. Mallard's handling of it was a bit rough too, I seem to remember. I'd guess many of those schools were in rural areas, and are part of the increasing size and reduced labour requirement of many farms.
At least Labour don't make a habit of lying about what they're up to. If National had been able to run the place properly (after Labour left it in such a tidy state), you right-wing people wouldn't need to preface everything with "well the whole world's finding it tough, we're doing better than most, Moody's think we're better than the UK".
National haven't been able to find the tiller yet, we're a rudderless boat being swamped in a vicious market-driven sea.
I seem to remember some rather obvious and blatant lies told by Cullen and Peters about a certain phone conversation with Peters....
EZ of course many of the schools Labour closed should have been closed. But if you are going to debate it, be consistent. National is closing 15 schools in Christchurch after the biggest natural catastrophe NZ has ever witnessed, many of them with severely damaged buildings and/or land. This surely is relevant. It should also be mentioned in the same breath that 13 schools are either being rebuilt or built new in Christchurch.
What are you referring to about lies ? National campaigned clearly on all major policies before the elections, including 'unpopular"policies like partial sell downs of SOE's and also gave more advance notice of the election than anyone has done before ! I think John Key has stuck very much to what he has said he would, whether people like it or not
The SkyCity deal is one area Key has put himself on shaky ground. As a commentator put it today, he is parking that aside in some sort of suspended or alternate reality while he waits for the press to forget about it. He clearly used selective facts to present National as having positive policy over gaming machines, when it was Labour's policy origination.
I don't know Christchurch very well, and so I assume some of the noise about the schools closing is the final reality that suburbs near them, will never be built on in future.
My main grump about National is that they are doing their best to leave small businesses out in the cold. And with them, the prospects of employment for many. National is lying, right now, about the new innovation scheme, Callaghan Innovation. They have only funded it to about half as much as it needs with the current staff.
Labour's reshuffle brings some hope to the ranks: David Clark has been given the job of going head-to-head with Steven Joyce. He was on TV this morning, he's very good. Dynamic, enthusiastic, fluent. I think Jabba Joyce will be in big trouble there.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Shearer-revea...4/Default.aspx
The vast majority of voters, particularly Aucklanders, see no need to apologise for getting Auckland a huge new Convention Centre, free, with extra tourism, employment, profits, self respect as a city - you have to have a bent for defeatism, punctiliousness, finickiness and losing sight of the overall objective and muddling your priorities to get it wrong.
As Australian Labour said of the Australian Greens - the Party of Protest, opposing growth and jobs. That's the anti-convention centre people in Auckland to a T.
ElZorro what did you expect when they elected a professional gambler for Prime Minister (what else is a foreign exchange trader) But I am not that much of a Labour fan either. My belief is most politicians would qualify to be certified blithering idiots.
janner do you qualify alongside the politicians. I overheard a person asked a minister of the church if God loved crooked politicians? When the minister replied no. He was then asked why he made so many of them? Could you name some totally honest ones? You are accusing us of talking with forked tongues (basically being liars) for expressing our honest opinions. My honest opinion of your post gives me the impression that you think the sun shines out of John Key's rear end.
[QUOTE=BIRMANBOY;394941]Read the POST more carefully...even my cats have longer attention spans than you.
SPwould technically be better BB. I thought we were discussing politics. However I think PTC's posts are of top quality considering he's mature enough to think twice about right-of-centre policy.Quote:
..even my cats have a longer attention span than you.
Last night (or was it this morning) John Key was asked if using ACT to get back in in 2014 would be a trifle embarrassing. He said that since the National Party is only slightly right of central, and he's basically centrist, there is a bit of room available to head right, but that National's best results come when they head back towards the centre.
Here's a clue about what to expect from National before 2014. They'll start looking like Labour. Only for long enough to try to get back in, however.
What is their real agenda - we've been seeing that already in 2013. They like to see lots of unemployed, for one. This means businesses that are left, the bigger ones in general, are doing very well. As an employer, I get the odd contact from other employers. They're saying that in the provinces you can get a highly skilled equipment operator for $25 an hour, who also takes charge of other staff. You have trained commercial painters earning just $16.50 an hour. These are not wage rates that will set your family up. But people have to take those pay rates, or nothing. Take off rent, the costs of getting to work, and there's not a great deal left. 20% of NZers are struggling to make ends meet now, according to a survey.
[QUOTE=janner;395002]
I heard this figure on National Radio this morning. The terms were vague but the percentage had gone up.
Article: PR from National. Sure.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10867563
Read the comment from Murray.
Corin Dann exhorts the govt to remember about jobs.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10867482
I'm surprised you'd listen to a station called "National radio" EZ. Lol
EZ. I have gone to the site you recommended..Read Murray's comment.. See below.
" murray
09:07 AM Tuesday, 26 Feb 2013Yet another promotional piece from the National party press secretary Fran O'Sullivan.
Meanwhile, in the real world, youth unemployment grows, industries close, jobs are exported and our kids lose hope. And this clueless government just sits on its hands and concentrates on it's prime mission of transferring the nations wealth into private hands. "..
Nothing in Murray's post refered to 20% struggling..
You say...
I heard this figure on National Radio this morning. The terms were vague but the percentage had gone up.
When asked you give a VAGUE reference to a VAGUE radio programme..
Not good enough EZ... Simply not good enough..
Run along then... There's a good boy !!...
Don't get so wound up Janner, have I ever been wrong? The figure was actually 22%, not 20%. Here's a link to what I heard on National Radio 101FM.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...make-ends-meet
No reply.. Ooops .. Sent 10:38. Past lock up time.. :-))
Maybe reply tomorrow..
What do you mean, My little cabbage, I am English??
I have to admit google provided my phrase, so I hope it's accurate. :D
Genesis has predictably made good profit in the last 6 months. (Your power bill has accordingly been reduced).
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10867822
National has decided to increase the minimum wage. By 25c, to $13.75. Woop de doo. It's small enough that hardly any employers will need to bother doing anything.
But National will now be able to say that "we have increased the minimum wage".
Never occurred to EZ that those on the minimum wage are using it as a stepping stone, experience then switch, or are not after a brain surgeon wages but a bit of part time pin money or are handicapped in some way and in some sort of care....
Thank goodness the govt will be able to go ahead and sell off part of the assets previous generations worked hard for (MRP), to secure cheap power for the country in later years. They need the money so desperately (of course they could simply print it instead).
But not before National had to restate their position on water rights. So it's a small win for common sense and respect for the Treaty.
ElZorro I believe the National Gov't gave the maoris lake Taupo so can they now divert or Export the water if they cannot charge for it
Not sure what you mean there PTC. From what little I think I know, 50% of the special trout fishing licence for Taupo is paid to the local tribe. They also have to be consulted on anything affecting the lake and lake bed, for example the golf-ball promo area near the main street pays the tribe members to collect golf balls hit into the lake. The effect of all this is that anything impacting on the pristine state of Lake Taupo has been under control. It remains one of the cleanest, clearest water bodies in the world. And that alone feeds tourism. You can still find old untouched areas of Taupo if you look, and that suits me fine.
el Zorro Iron man competitors were each asked to pay a fee for the swim leg. As it was regarded as a commercial enterprise as an entry fee was being charged. Apparently they have full rights to charge any commercial venture that wishes to use the lake. When the power company is privatised it becomes A commercial enterprise so could it charge for the water or divert it elsewhere. I would like to know all the legal infrastructure of this. I Suspect this could be an absolute legal minefield.
EZ.. Where did you get the information that the ..
" previous generations worked hard for (MRP), to secure cheap power for the country in later years " ..
EZ..
They borrowed the money.. Not to provide " cheap power for the country in later years " ..
They borrowed the money to provide themselves ( The greedy self centred bastards ) with POWER.
For their " Radios ".. " Milking sheds ".. " lights " .. " Pumps ".. Jobs...
You and I ( well maybe I as a none State tit sucking person ) have helped to repay those borrowings..
Are we .. The majority .. Not alllowed to use and direct the investments made by our Fore Fathers ( sexist statement ) for greater use.. ??..
Seems to have totally escaped EZ that the Gummint will still own 51% of MRP....
Russell Norman put Bill English on the spot today: the state asset sales will in fact make the govt books worse, technically. I told you they do their homework, the Greens. The return on all the asset sales is going to be less than 5-7 Billion. Less than 10% of one year's tax take. If National knew what they were doing, they'd have made this amount in extra taxes over the last 4 years. But they're just plonkers. The tax take has drifted down from Labour's high point.
Janner, Labour did their level best to repay old debts a few years back, and anyway we did really well in the 60s and early 70s, when all the hydro assets were being built. Your problem is that you're in a generation where energy costs are higher. Hold onto your hat, because unless some stuff gets sorted out, it'll get a lot worse. That's partly why we're all struggling.
At last, some hope for local manufacturing. Part of the reason is the high transport costs to ship goods to market.
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar...YKuaTGE.mailto
Russell Norman is a clown. Made another mention in an opinion piece by Brian Fallow.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10868175
He did not put English on the spot at all. English simply replied that owning Solid Energy has not made the books look better in the last couple of years and if it was as simple as Norman claims, we should just adopt his policy of printing endless money and buy up all the supermarkets and other businesses in NZ. Based on what you and Norman say, the way to balance the books is for the Government to own all businesses in NZ.
I am surprised you haven't mentioned the good news we've had this week EZ. A few examples:
FPA creating 100 new high tech jobs in NZ,
ANZ business outlook survey the most optimistic for a long time,
large increase in building consents,
economists forecasting on average 2.5% growth PA for next 3 years.
And King Salmon adding 4 new salmon farms creating an estimated 170 new jobs, which is a direct result of current Government's changes to the law, removing the nuts moratorium policy of Labour that saw NOT ONE new aquaculture farm built between 2000-2010 and almost killed the industry.
From NZResources/RadioNZ:
Yes, that's very good news that Haier/FPA will employ about 100 engineers to work on new R&D projects here. Haier have been as good as their word so far. Now it's up to current and new staff to come up with some suitable results.Quote:
English puts some truth serum into SOE debate
1 March 2013
Finance Minister Bill English told Parliament yesterday that the Government books could be worse off if it proceeds with its plan to sell off part of State-owned power companies.
However, Radio New Zealand said English told Parliament the partial sale of shares will help boost the capital markets and impose private sector disciplines on the State owned enterprises (SOEs).
During Question Time Green Party co-leader Russel Norman asked English whether the half-year economic and fiscal update revealed the operating balance before gains and losses would be $441 million worse off over the next five years if the sales went ahead.
English said it did, but argued that other measures show the Government would be better off.
He warned against putting too much confidence in the forecasts, saying last year the Treasury had predicted that Solid Energy would make a profit and got that spectacularly wrong.
Source: radionz.co.nz
Salmon farming projects - sounded like a lot of cash to get through the hearing stages, for a project where the sea would clean up any problems if the farms ceased operating. According to King Salmon anyway. Fish are much better at converting food to flesh, than land animals in general. I didn't know there was a moratorium. It's taken 4 years into a National term for anything to happen, so maybe it's not as simple as it sounds.
Yes it has been a long and expensive process for King Salmon to get this through and they did not get all they wanted. But I think the decision now is a fair compromise between the opposing views and allows economic growth in a very sensitive and beautiful environment , without undue environmental risks. My next door neighbour is a marine biologist and did some of the research about effects of salmon farming in the proposed areas and agrees with KS that nature would fairly quickly clean any residual effects left from the farm should it be discontinued.
I think we can both agree that this decision has been a good compromise.
"Another opinion poll has shown National riding high and holding a big lead over Labour.
The Roy Morgan poll released on Friday puts National on 47.5 per cent, up 3.5 points, and Labour down four points to 30.5 per cent.
A One News Colmar Brunton poll on February 17 gave National 49 per cent and Labour 33 per cent, followed by TV3's Reid Research poll a week later showing National holding 51.4 per cent and Labour 32.6 per cent.
In all three polls National's support is higher than its election night 47.31 per cent.
Labour is also up on its 27.48 per cent election result but the gap between the main parties is still close to the 20 point mark.". :-)