Sorry about the incorrect attribution, FP. Should have looked more carefully, it isn't Craic's style to spout vacuous comments. If he doesn't have a good rejoinder and I'm on the money, he just doesn't say anything.
Printable View
Did you really expect an answer? LOL.
Not sure what planet you are living on to expect any sort of reasonable response from what you wrote.
This is becoming rather childish to say the least.
Right up with Key's playground antics.
Pulling ponytails, blaming everyone else for stuff ups and there has been a litany of them during his time as PM.
Happy to list them if you like...
Here we go again Daytr! Did John Key steal your teddy bear or maybe your girlfriend? Or maybe hes just better looking or richer than you? See if you can go more than two posts without mentioning him The problem is that only you care - the electorate don't really give a stuff about those things. A good stable leader running one of the most successful economies in the west - even the Australians envy us.
Has Fran O'Sullivan got this right? Is John Key setting NZ up to be a bolthole for the top 1%? It explains a helluva lot.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11611816
A TED video that informs this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
A couple of good current affairs segments over the weekend.
1) An expo on Northland 1 year after NZF took the seat. National representatives interviewed displayed National's lack of a plan for the region & how they want to dismantle existing infrastructure, instead of providing more! The region has started to boom in the last year & this government's policy is holding us back. The 10 bridges promised is now 4 and are still only at the planning stage!
2) A democrat that is close friends of the Clintons and worked in the Clinton administration I believe, visiting NZ was interviewed about the TPPA. His view that basically it was a corporate take over, that would make it much harder for governments to right policy that protects its people in regards health, welfare and the environment.
I can't believe that little story has been beaten up so much. Thousands of dollars of media exposure per word for National I guess. That said, it was a poorly thought out tweet by Sue, gifting them a win. I think I know where the defamed bach is, it's a nice one beside a walkway.
Just goes to show how careful MPs need to be. John Key makes plenty of mistakes, but wouldn't have put that thought into writing, at least where it could be viewed by public and the media.
It's very easy to find an overseas "expert" to say anything you like on TPPA, and face it, the grovelling media regards anyone from overseas as an "expert"! However I'd like to refer to you to your very own left left leaning Listener, in the second to last issue it ran an interview with the very highly regarded retired Governor of the Bank of England, Dr Mervyn King, who opined that TPPA was a good thing for NZ. Somewhat more expert than any Clinton groupie. Mervyn King is regarded as having played a major part in navigating the UK through the Global Financial Crisis and the European ones since then.
How many things can you get wrong in one post MVT?
Where did I say he was an expert?
I am not left leaning, well to be fair, I am on some things, but not on others, however I do think the Listener is a good quality publication.
Typically anyone who uses the word opines automatically triggers a fast forward switch in my brain, as it says a lot about the user in my view & its not good.
From what I have read about King, is that many lay blame for him not identifying the bubbles and reacting to what was gong on in the UK that helped caused the GFC. He may well have assisted in its recovery by cutting rates to almost zero , however his record is chequered at best.
I'm not sure you can trust 'economists'.
As expected, the economic future sentiment in regions like Waikato, Taranaki and Southland is strongly negative at the moment. Urban areas are still positive, along with house prices of course. House sales are included in GDP figures, and this govt then uses them to tout a 2% GDP increase for NZ over the last year. Meanwhile the value of our dairy exports plummets down from a high, forestry is going badly too. As John Gascoigne notes, it's time we had better indicators than total GDP, on which to base our progress.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/ne...+31+March+2016
I know he's right. Sometimes I've gone looking for a suitable chart to show the trend in an econometric indicator that I know will probably look bad for the National Govt. I'll look on govt websites and find that these graphs or charts don't exist. I can make my own graph/chart by using the spreadsheet data that they have to compile, but "they've" studiously avoided making it easy to see what's going on.
. Sometimes I've gone looking for a suitable chart to show the trend in an econometric indicator that I know will probably look bad for the National Govt. I'll look on govt websites and find that these graphs or charts don't exist. I can make my own graph/chart by using the spreadsheet data that they have to compile, but "they've" studiously avoided making it easy to see what's going on.[/QUOTE]
Thats easily the biggest admission you've ever made that you hunt around in the system, desperately searching for anything that you can possibly find to attack the government and when you can't find anything, you claim that the government must have hidden it. What do you do when you find anything that the government did right? At least the majority of voters over recent elections find enough good to elect National and keep them there. The negative attitude thatfreely admit to is a disease of the left and always has been.
Oh dear eZ. Just because you may not find the negative side of an argument does not mean 'they' have hidden it. That's paranoia. If you spent as much time looking for good news, about anything at all, rather than looking for anti-National govt. to post here, life would be a whole lot better for you. You will find anything you look for about any political party - any economic report - any subject you care to name in fact. Give yourself a rest.
That's an absolute cop-out, Craic. You should be denying that this govt massages stats like no other previous govt in NZ, rather than having a go at me for trying to find out the truth.
If I have to chart a series of numbers to clearly show this govt isn't doing very well at some metric or another, why doesn't Treasury or a govt department always do the same? In the case of annual GDP, the solution to hide a whole lot of poor economic stats under that label is to keep net immigration figures high, to keep the pressure on housing, so new houses get built and other houses change hands. This increases the GDP figure, without having to show that export income is dropping like a stone in some manufacturing areas like dairy and heavy equipment.
National and it’s war on govt. expenditure. Student allowances paid, down from $78m to $58.7m since 2010. Rob Stock reports on the sneaky reductions in social expenditure in a Press article on the non indexing of government programmes.
Interesting that Govt. super. is not subject to this insidious erosion. John Key’s promise?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7833...se-of-families
westerly
Wow! Daytr and Winnie will be delighted with the upturn in the Northland economy. 69,000 cannabis plants grown by locals and harvested by the police. 41 firearms taken into police keeping. 124 locals arrested in the biggest operation in decades.
The National Party solution would be to place the chainsaw out on the front verge to see if the 'market' would fix it. Or pay a consultant to look at it, and failing that, clean it up and try to sell it as is, for some pocket money.
Anyway, nine times out of ten, a spark plug change will be the quickest solution Craic.
Mathew Hooton 2/6/12
The English doctrine is that it is better to engineer a political environment where voters are urging the government to do more.* Ministers, as good democrats, can then be seen to respond.* This, he says, is the key to achieving sustainable policy change.
On superannuation, the doctrine appears in play.
Mr Key’s 2008 promise was remarkable for its extremity: “National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy. We will keep this pledge and I will resign as prime minister, and as a member of our parliament, rather than break it.”
“What’s more,” Mr Key said, “as we cut taxes and grow average after-tax wages, we will progressively increase the amount of super paid to senior citizens.”
westerly
I might be right though, you're not changing plugs often enough, Craic. Anyway, a good spark plug would probably fire up that stale fuel, and everything will start working properly again.
Not to stray too far from this thread, it appears that the normal service life of a spark plug in a chainsaw is about 100 hours. Based on the number of your posts mentioning chainsaws, and even factoring in that you have enough of them to open a small chainsaw museum, you should at least have a look at the spark plug, Craic.
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/need-ch...aw-100576.html
Similarly, governments sometimes run past their use-by date, and three terms is about their limit.
Here are a couple of charts for you EZ.
Government debt to GDP levels under Clark v Key.
http://thestandard.org.nz/who-was-th...k-or-john-key/
Or just the level of government debt in a simple chart since 1993.
Key and Co sure know how to get the country in hock.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0-2011.svg.png
Craic, with the Northland economy neglected for decades the 'green trade' has been a big part of the black economy for almost as long.
And yes hopefully with the uptick in the local economy less people will resort to things like growing or selling drugs.
However we need investment in infrastructure both rail, road and also in services such as health.
Thanks Daytr, of interest is that to help fund the tax cuts to the wealthier voters, and keep things going, this National Govt has had to borrow $164mill on average, every week since they took office in late 2008. Now they're still borrowing to pay the interest, and the tax take is about to go for a big dive, unless they can keep immigration and house prices up. There's not much else working for this 'rock-star' economy. As someone noted in a comment on your post link, if everyone figures out what they've done, National will lose the next election and they'll never return to office again.
I spoke with Andrew Little this evening, he gave our group a short spiel, with no stumbling at all. Everything seems to be on track.
There is no stale fuel. A 20 litre can seldom lasts two weeks. Spark plugs are regularly cleaned. Dirty fuel is usually water that will not fire.
Craic, this analogy between your chainsaw and the National Govt gets better and better :). So you're saying you have fuel that looks and smells like fuel, but it's not firing. You should buy a can of spray Labour Engine Start and see if the chainsaw roars into life for a few seconds. That'll tell you it's fuel related for sure, before having to pull the whole carburettor/bureaucracy apart at the risk of losing some good parts.
As an aside, I once did a rough apprenticeship in small motor repairs, and on one motor, after ignoring the advice of a proper mechanic who suggested I replace the spark plug first, I spent a great deal of time cleaning everything in sight, even the spark plug, sand blasting and testing the plug under pressure in a Champion spark plug machine. It passed the test. Still that engine would not fire. Finally the mechanic produced a new plug, it started first time.
One of my closest friends is a small motors mechanic and an avid Labour supporter. Until recently his shop and husqvarna dealership was just down the road. I gave him a tree every year and he looked after my saws. Now he is a very ill man and I must look after my own saws. The only thing my friend ever did wrong was that he introduced me to Michael Cullen once.
Are you being serious? He gives a short speech to 'our group' which I presume is a sympathetic friendly audience of supporters without spluttering - and everything is just fine and dandy all of a sudden. Well goodie goodie. He'll just sail into power in the dead easy, no opposition, gentle and soft world of politics then.
Or perhaps this is your idea of an April fool joke.
Just for Craic
https://videos.files.wordpress.com/X...leaner_dvd.mp4
westerly
National, looking very much like a possum caught in the headlights in regards their response to the Franz Josef flooding.
Plenty of warning and yet very little done. Even difficult to get comment from the minister .
Apparently they may send someone to write another report.
Speaking of planning.
What's their plan to cater for the additional 60-70k people per annum?
Billions spent on roads! Give me a break .
Where are the new hospitals? An aging population & a drift north and no major investment in health or new facilities, particularly in the regions.
How about conservation? With more people there will be more pressure on the environment.
We are already seeing it and yet National's feet are stuck in the mud.
Daytr, I will cut down another sixty-year-old pine next week and cut enough firewood to provide you with enough of the black stuff (carbon) to paint the Right black and you can have all the fun digging up the unimportant rubbish right through to the next election where the populace will demonstrate to you that they are interested in the metal not the dross and will probably elect a right wing government for record term. A gentleman by the name of Mr Mudhoo rode his horse to victory in the last race at Riccarton today and caused my to arise and refill my Glass with Kentucky Bourbon to celebrate but that was the last so it's out to the shed to make another gallon or so.
Oh dear. That new-found anti-spluttering seems to have been temporary and returned full steam for q and a this morning.
And James Shaw who claims to understand business would chuck money at kiwibank to help Aucklanders buy houses. The effect of that nonsense is of course to make houses dearer still. National assured of at least one more term even if Winston First has to be given some fancy sounding portfolio with associated baubles to coalesce.
FP, I notice that you have referenced Winston Peters on a number of occasions recently in regards National being able to secure a fourth term.
You obviously see Peters as a real threat to National's re-election chances.
In my view the biggest possible threat is if Labour switch to a leader who inspires.
My point is, if I was a National supporter, I wouldn't be protesting too much re Little.
In fact I would be keeping very quiet, hoping he does stay leader to the election. (I realise that's very difficult for the zealots on here)
As I say the biggest threat is that they dump him for someone much better.
My vote is always cast against the party I think will do the most harm. With every new Labour leader we seem to get a new bunch of policies, so who knows - maybe I'll vote Labour again one day. I'm quite sure Labour will not be in a position to form the next government, but that doesn't mean I want to see National sleep-walk to victory. Yes, they probably will need Peters, a complete toss-pot but a few baubles in his direction will do the trick. To sum that up - I don't really care which party wins, but I very much care what the policies are. In my life time Muldoon's National were probably the worst govt. and 1984 to 1990 Labour were the best.
Andrew Little can get some more media training, at least he doesn't have a hidden agenda like John Key. I think it's amusing that you have to admit that Labour had to tidy up after a disastrous National term in office, FP. They'll have to do that again soon, only this time it won't be with the help of a handbook compiled by Treasury boffins after they researched neo-liberal think-tank ideas in Chicago.
I was on one of the "National Roads of Significance" today, the disguised think-big project that rewards the large construction firms around NZ. A cop pulled over a driver in front of us who had been passing dangerously at the end of a multi-lane area. These big wide roads all end up back at thin sections sooner or later, and as the Easter traffic showed, they haven't solved much yet.
How stupid will these highways look, if we all have to trim back on fossil fuels and find more efficient transport, or not make so many trips because the fuel is too expensive or too dangerous with ongoing climate change? National will look like dinosaurs then.
NZ is not alone, we'll all need governments that have some ability to look ahead and deliver policies that will help people cope with future events and technologies. Labour and the Greens, along with NZ First, could form a very useful coalition, and their policies have a lot in common already.
What's National's policy? Get in power, borrow $164mill a week using taxpayer credit, and bluff your way through using the media. It worked for over seven years. It shouldn't last for over nine years though.
"What's National's policy? Get in power, borrow $164mill a week using taxpayer credit, and bluff your way through using the media. It worked for over seven years. It shouldn't last for over nine years though."
A more useful way of looking at the government debt is as a percentage to GDP. Makes for a more rational discussion, don't you think?
Useful to put in the a graph from the UK as well, puts the last eight years into perspective. i think I remember something about an earthquake as well...
Attachment 7960Attachment 7959
Agree snapper, however comparing it to a bad performance in the UK to make National look good doesn't put it in perspective.
Perhaps comparing Labour's performance to National's is a better comparison. The difference is stark in comparison .
Apologies to those who saw this the first time around.
http://thestandard.org.nz/who-was-th...k-or-john-key/
Appreciate the work Snapper, at least you're making a good argument.
But it looks to me like National's policy is to borrow when they are in office, until the debt is around 30% of GDP, no matter which cycle they're in. If things are going well, they can reduce taxes to the higher paid, and even if the economy is not going well, they'll take any benefit that Labour has left behind. Look at the longer-term graph from 1986, and you'll note who is in office when the effort goes into reducing the debt below 30%. Labour, 1999 to 2008 . As GDP has climbed lately (higher new house valuations, finance fees, high immigration) the debt percentage graph has started curving back a bit. Don't be fooled, National is still borrowing quite a lot and will soon have to repay some maturing bonds, which will push it back up. They'll leave a big mess by 2017.
Yawn! I've pointed out once before....they teach it in Economics I from Samuelson (ok, there's probably a newer guy with a different name these days saying much the same thing with a few additions) but the National Debt doesn't get repaid, it gets rolled over (good stuff at such low rates of interest). Occasionally it is repaid to some extent as an instrument of monetary and fiscal policy to reduce liquidity in the economy. If a country is extremely improvident and borrows mainly or solely overseas without any thought to maturities and cashflow planning then they end up the creek without a paddle(think Greece and Argentina) but that's not NZ and our borrowing in mostly or solely domestic. Overseas direct investment in NZ is not borrowing, its a private sector decision and if they get it wrong through stupidity they go bankrupt.
Besides which have a look at the table of lenders and you'll see a whole lot of investors looking for a safe investment, superannuation and insurance companies etc.
For every left wing nitwit hiding under the bed at the thought of the Government borrowing (they don't when a Labour gov't does which is just a measure of their hypocrisy) there's half a dozen economically literate people laughing at you.
FP, we vote on similar lines i.e. policy rather than be dogmatic in regards right & left.
Although in some respects the Lange/Douglas era in were more right wing than National at the time.
Labour are struggling with a forming an identity in regards what they stand for, at least publicly anyway .
National however remind very much of Muldoon's era, with their big capital projects, particularly roads .
Their environmental policy is seeing NZ go backwards. They are now pushing for things like seabed mining!
They lack direction on combating the NZ diabetic epidemic . Of course they should introduce a sugar tax.
Even if the evidence is yet to be convincing that it reduces consumption over time, at least it would help fund the health costs.
Obviously a sugar tax alone isn't going to resolve the issue. Have warnings, like cigarettes etc.
Regulate the products.
Doing nothing is not an option .
Again National, left floundering .
Douglas modernised the economy and that was long overdue, particularly after almost 9 years of Muldoon - the most interventionist PM ever. Life in NZ had become as financially controlled as the Soviet Union. What amazes me is how rigidly Labour voters stuck with Labour while they introduced sensible policies that they had always opposed. And it took the NZ party to oppose National and bring about the change of govt.
I like the way you right-wingers rewrite history, you're all so full of it.
Douglas didn't have the smarts to write those neo-liberal polices, that was the work of Treasury boffins. The period from 1984 was brutal, and many lost their jobs. Some of you guys sailed through, but you're in the lucky minority, so have a bit of respect.
All through the Clark era when Labour were redressing these unequal imbalances caused by neo-liberal policies, the National cry was to refund taxes. In other words, the repayment of external debt was secondary. When the GFC fully hit, along with the earthquakes, NZ was in a very safe state to lend to. If National hadn't had that headroom, it would have been a lot harder. Even now Bill English is careful to point out that we are in a good spot compared to other nations with our external borrowing. So what you are saying, MVT, is that the level of borrowing doesn't matter, it'll get rolled over? Bill doesn't think so, he's keeping it locked down to 30% of GDP.
However if Labour hadn't ignored National cries from the cross-benches and prudently paid back almost all of NZ's historic debt, we'd now be paying the interest on 60% of GDP, not 30%.
Labour grew our economy with real expansion, National is trying to do it by sleight of hand with immigration and house prices. National's big export hope, dairying, is on the ropes. Large companies throughout NZ are feeling the pinch and are trying to bluff their way into 60-90 day terms with all their smaller suppliers. This grinding down of the economy has a way to go yet. The market is solving the issue of less external income, they'll wring some profits out of smaller enterprises and workers instead.
Did treasury write 'There's got to be a better way' as well or did Douglas manage it by himself? Wallace Rowling certainly thought so.
As far as losing jobs - did you ever stop to think how many jobs would have been lost if Douglas hadn't restructured the economy? No? Didn't think so!
I would rather the words of Brian Gaynor ( http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11468289) than the bored ramblings of a right wing economist.
Interesting how the right are so worried about the left they have to resort to name calling and derogatory remarks to boost their criticism of posts they disagree with.
Well MVT claims to be an economist, but has been caught out on many occasions on some pretty basic economic history and theorists that any economist should know. I must admit if was to dream up a avatar I think it would be more exciting than an economist.
There has been some discussion on here re tax avoidance. Seems NZ is right up there in regards tax havens and right under the nose of the government.
Thank god for leaks otherwise we would never uncover these things .
Again National caught napping & we are on the UN security council for gawds sake!
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/indust...nting-scandals
Wikipedia says that Roger Douglas changed his tune in the leadup to the 1984 elections quite a lot, and attributed the new thinking to a Treasury paper and Treasury advisors.
Quote:
A new direction, 1983–1984[edit]
At the end of 1983 there was a marked change in Douglas’s thinking. He prepared a caucus paper called the “Economic Policy Package” which called for a market-led restructuring of the economy. The key proposal was a 20 per cent devaluation of the dollar, to be followed by the removal of subsidies to industry, border protection and export incentives. The paper doubted the value of “picking winners” and saw only a limited place for government funding of economic development.[21] His colleague Stan Rodger described the paper as a “quite unacceptable leap to the right”. It immediately polarised opinion in the Labour Party.[22]
Douglas characterised the policy package as restrained and responsible, and an appropriate response to the country’s economic difficulties.[23] He acknowledged the contribution to the package of Doug Andrew, a Treasury officer on secondment to the parliamentary opposition, among others.[24] W H Oliver noted the close alignment of the package and Economic Management,[25] Treasury’s 1984 briefing to the incoming government.[26] His assessment was that Douglas was predisposed towards the Treasury view because its implementation required decisive action and because greater reliance on the market solved what Douglas saw as the problem of interest-group participation in policy-making.[27]
Division in Labour over economic policy crystallised when a competing proposal was submitted to the Labour Party's Policy Council. Its proponents included Rowling and others who had resisted his replacement as leader. It argued for a Keynesian use of monetary and fiscal policy. It was sceptical about the ability of the private sector to promote economic development. Economic restructuring was to be led by the government, which would act within a consultative framework. In this way, the social costs of restructuring would be avoided.[28]
There was stalemate in the Policy Council. As the 1984 election drew closer, Labour’s deputy leader Geoffrey Palmer drafted a compromise that contained elements of both proposals. The Palmer paper was broadly worded, and it made no mention of devaluation. It anticipated some form of understanding between government and unions about wage restraint. It allowed for extensive consultation about economic policy and stated that necessary structural change would be gradual and agreed.[29] When Muldoon unexpectedly called an early general election, the Labour Party adopted Palmer’s paper as its economic policy. Lange said that Labour went into the election with an unfinished argument doing duty as its economic policy.[30]
Lange was a lawyer and didn't have a clue about economics, as also as you can see above neither did Palmer, another lawyer. Hey Presto, Roger Douglas had some economic ideas and policies so Lange grabbed it with both hands. Lange didn't get re-elected, the electorate said, hey we need to give Roger Douglas a chance to complete his program and Lange was carried back in on Roger Douglas' coattails.
The state of Palmer's ignorance was such that he opposed devaluation!
If NZ hadn't had a floating dollar over the last year or so, and a flexible economy, we wouldn't have been able to cope with the dairy crisis, it would have been off with cap in hand and begging bowl to the IMF.
FP and MVT have destroyed my argument, or have they? Treasury put those ideas together, not Douglas, and the ideas in turn came from neoliberal think-tanks and suchlike based in Chicago, USA. Treasury officials spent time there, their economists at the time were firmly in this camp.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2321
Douglas published his book in 1980; four years before his appointment as Finance minister. Although not in policy form it did signal his thoughts. His contribution to NZ is probably the major achievement of any politician of the last 70 odd years; but don't read it. Keep thinking Treasury dragged him down the path he followed.
I always find it intriguing that you are dismissive of any Labour politician regarding their academic credentials. He " was a lawyer" etc. I note you conveniently ignore that Bill English has an English Literature degree and Steven Joyce has a degree in Zoology.
Have to agree on this one. NZ trusts with overseas settlors have been a nice little earner for some members of the legal profession for a couple of decades now and it is time that the non-transparency of these trusts was done away with. Peter Dunne as Minister of Revenue resisted calls to change this state of affairs a few years ago and just said it wasn't a problem and there was no need to change anything. It's not a good look and makes us look flaky.
Totally up the buhoi.
Nowhere did I challenge Lange's and Palmer's academic qualifications, that's a figment of Pepper's imagination, just because he WISHES I said it, or even thought it, does not mean I did, in fact I didn't. What I was challenging was his expertise in a field totally different from his own.
Some people can master a different field through sufficient reading and experience, Lange and Palmer obviously couldn't. Another one who couldn't was Robert Muldoon, he got a conceded wartime troops pass in the Economics 1 part of an accounting qualification, thought he was a brilliant economist, said it was his hobby, and then proceeded to demonstrate he was a dunce and had an anti Midas touch. He was the most left wing Minister of Finance in practice since the Labour Government of the 1930's and 1940s. He also kept overruling Treasury because he thought he knew better than Treasury. Another notable on the list is Noam Chomsky who is qualified in linguistics and a total duffer in economics. Similarly Rand Paul and his father in the US.
I expect the other answer to your comment is that Bill English and Steven Joyce are sufficiently modest and realistic to take advice from Treasury and MBIE and colleagues who do have the relevant qualifications and experience.
Roger Douglas had part of an accounting degree, but he did have an open mind so he could see what wasn't working and he read widely and did his homework.
Unconvincing
Oh I see, Bill and Steven are just modest wee souls who do everything that MBIE and Treasury say. Just admit it, " I don't like Labour politicians, I don't care how competent they are, I just don't like them.
from 1984 George Orwell
Quote 11: "She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her." Part 1, Chapter 6, pg. 67
What a day. Contrast Helen Clark confirming her bid for the post of Secretary General of the UN, and John Key's need to support the bid in public, while being roasted for NZ's tax haven policies in the house. TV1 was gentle on him tonight, Radio NZ had a more balanced view.
I'm not sure why a wealthy person or corporation would go to Panama to find a tax haven, and have the firm recommend NZ trusts to them, if it wasn't untraceable. If the owner of the money doesn't have to be registered on the file, surely that's a tax haven. I've traced at least one NZ-based individual prominent in the minerals sector, to tax haven companies. They're doing it, no doubt about it.
Seems to sum up the results of "rogernomics",
"Over 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced serious problems: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world;[42][43] the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically;[44] marked increases in violent and other crime were observed;[45] the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992;[46] and health care was especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle-class people.[47] In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised.[48] Between 1985 and 1992, New Zealand's economy grew by 4.7% during the same period in which the average OECD nation grew by 28.2%.[49] From 1984 to 1993 inflation averaged 9% per year, New Zealand's credit rating dropped twice, and foreign debt quadrupled.[50] Between 1986 and 1993, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6% to 11%.[51]"
westerly
Although I loathe to keep this historical debate going.
Lange was the leader & a charismatic one at that, he had a great intellect and was one of NZs best orators.
Being the leader he must get quite a bit of credit for the changes that were made to modernize NZs economy.
Some of the change was probably done too rapidly, however it set up NZ for the next 40-50 years.
MJ Savage another great Labour leader must stand out FP, only 50 years earlier than Lange/Douglas.
Back to NZ being a soft target for hiding money.
How would we know what this activity is hiding. Terrorist funding, drug money, money laundering from criminal activity or just straight tax evasion.
Not gathering sufficient information has opened us up to all sorts of dodgy activity.
The government was warned on several occasions in recent years to act.
They sat on their hands.
Key in his usual way, is trying to play it down.
Nothing to see here.
What will be the distraction to take away further scrutiny ?
We have already had a referendum , what else can he conjure up?
Here's a good article about our trust system from The Standard.
http://thestandard.org.nz/deborah-ru...oreign-trusts/
There's more good detail in comment '2', from what looks like an insider in the legal area.
The solution is simple, we collect more information from foreign trusts, and we force the few NZ lawyers who are only earning a total of $20mill a year from this despicable work, into the AML system, which must be an overseas standard.
We're already bringing up the rear. Currently NZ's rules for foreign trusts are the loosest in the OECD.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...y+6+April+2016
Agree, so why hasn't National done this already.
The risk has been raised at leapt twice in the last few years.
In your previous post you said Lange destroyed his party.
Strong words. I am a little young to remember fully, but I would suggest he was a very good leader in his first term '
Ego & the rift got in the way in his 2nd.
And of course this "tax haven" situation was never allowed to exist under Labour ?
I wouldn't get too excited about NZ's "ranking" in the tax haven league tables. After all, Britain has been described as the world's most efficient tax haven because of its extensive variety of exemptions and deductions - why else would so many ultra wealthy foreign nationals choose to be domiciled there?
It's a sad fact that unless some form of comprehensive international agreement puts an end to it, countries will continue to compete with each other to attract capital through various types of "incentives".
That's no excuse. We don't make anything significant out of it, it's only helping the corrupt system along worldwide, so we should do our best to stamp out the practice on our own shores, where we can immediately make an impact. Maybe as Labour pointed out, some major sources of cash from these trusts are being spent on housing assets in NZ, for a double whammy. No external income tax to pay, plus a near certain capital gain with no capital gains tax in NZ. It would all boost our GDP figures quite well in that case, just what National needs to hide their truly abysmal economic performance. Bonus, NZ is not widely known to be a tax haven. Not yet, anyway.
Craic, I have no doubt that given the new revelations, a Labour Govt would act on trusts. They, at least, do have principles.
I just signed a petition to clamp down on these trusts. The headline read NZ arrests student over non repayment of loan but lets this stuff go un challenged. I see the same when I hear Paula Bennett going after people on social welfare and yet they turn a blind eye to much of the white collar crime. I'm not saying they shouldn't make examples of people who cheat the system, but after all of them & particularly those who aren't desperate, are already wealthy and just want more at the expense of others.
I agree Daytr, think I signed that too. If you looked at the costs to the state of estimated social welfare fraud and compared it to tax evasion through trusts by NZers, untaxed capital gains, I think one lot of figures would be a lot smaller than the other.
In a year where we are seeing the future demise of over 1,000 manufacturing jobs across various firms, another 50 this week from the Justice Dept and 500 from NZPost, surely if the govt wanted to reduce welfare dependency, then they would be trying to encourage the SME sector to innovate and create new niche manufacturing jobs. National makes polite noises about that, but it's not enough.
Not enough to discourage those with free cash to invest, away from their tax havens and easy capital gains with unproductive property, back into real enterprises that employ people. That's what makes this a very sad picture.
Tax evasion. Lawyer trusts etc.
Some activity may be legal due to loopholes. So close the loopholes. Clamp down on hiding assets and offshoring to avoid paying tax.
Why should we worry about foreigners storing thir rescources here? If the chinese or the Mongolians or whoever are storing money in Australian banks in NZ in trusts, where's the problem? The banks have a bigger lending base and the problem is for the Chinese or Mongolian taxtakers who are missing out. Flags of convenience have been around for years.
Craic, you're now drifting to the extreme right-wing side, away from public opinion on tax havens, just like John Key earlier this week. Vernon Small suggests you start rowing back.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...y+7+April+2016
Put aside the political point-scoring for a moment. It has been easy pickings for Labour and the Greens for a few days. It'll get better.
But anybody who knows they pay their fair share of income tax as it's due, be it with PAYE, prov tax, terminal tax, company tax, and in addition doesn't use trusts to hide their wealth as old age creeps up, is playing fair. Many of these people don't have spare property for capital gains either, so they miss out on the other big loophole for tax in NZ. It annoys the hell out of me to know that some people think it's their God-given right to heavily arrange their affairs in such a way as to dodge income tax. They are generally asset wealthy, otherwise why bother? The assets they need to use for this subterfuge are unproductive things like bullion, cash in a trust or tax haven, property, rural farm land etc.
Take the same amount of wealth and start up a new business enterprise like manufacturing, and NZ would be overloaded with job opportunities. But no, many wealthy people can't handle the idea of paying a fair bit of tax with that business model. They don't care if their wealth is tied up in unproductive assets, as long as it's safe and they don't have to pay too much tax. When applied collectively, this attitude holds NZ back hugely. National/Act voters therefore, can't possibly be interested in a brighter future for NZ. They're in it for themselves.
Really! And what if that is laundered money for terrorism, drug cartels or tax evasion.
We wouldn't have a clue because we don't ask enough questions.
Of course its our problem and National should have remedied it when it has been raised on several occasions in the last few years.
Even Larry Williams on NewstalkZB agrees with you, Daytr.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11617271
From wiki:
Larry Williams Drive features live crosses to reporters, political commentary and quickfire news talkback. The first hour includes interviews with newsmakers, political editor Barry Soper, financial analysts, overseas correspondents and sports journalists. The second hour includes interviews with newsmakers and experts, and a topical panel discussion with commentators like David Farrar, Tim Watkin and Cameron Slater.[52][53][54][55] Business and finance experts like Cameron Fisher, Fran O'Sullivan and Rob Hosking appear in the final hour of the programme.[56] Susan Wood, Greg Boyed and Tim Dower serve as the programme's substitute hosts.[57] Williams has been described as "short on humour, long on suspicion" - as someone who "seethes and snarls" and feels "personally affronted" by the news stories he covers.[58] He has remained in the drive-time position consistently since 1987, appealing directly to peak-hour commuters. The show includes 15-minute news updates, hourly news and sports bulletins, and regular editorials. It has also featured many on-air arguments - during the Blackheart campaign for Team New Zealand, for example, he often argued with fellow host Murray Deaker.[58]
For reputational sake, we really need to PLUG any LOOPHOLE about any overseas aliens setting up any kind of "Trust" here, be it a company or a personal trust sort of. It's all about respect first and foremost.
Hmm - I guess I agree based on ethical considerations that it would be preferable to avoid to profit from the proceeds of crime and tax avoidance.
However - there is fine line to hypocrisy. As a country (and initiated by Labour) are we happy to be in business with mass murderers (the Chinese regime kills more people per year than all other crooks in government together), we are happy to make deals with regimes ignoring the most basic human rights (Saudi Arabia and China, of course). We are happy and proud to be in business with basically any corrupt and murderous regime (no matter whether this is Belarus, some Banana republic or some African despot).
I suppose - this must be o.k., given that governments of all colours proudly supported all of above. Given all that - is doing business with some people who might try to reduce their tax bills or hide some money from whoever really the worst thing which could damage our reputation?
As well - look at Switzerland, they basically live from hiding other peoples money (some of it probably legit, some of it certainly not) ... did this ever hurt their reputation?
And regarding saving taxes .... I guess the Irish have (rightly or wrongly) a reputation for eating potatoes and drinking whiskey ... but do they have a bad reputation for helping companies to save taxes?
I really think that there are more pressing matters to safeguard our reputation ...
It very different BP. These trusts could be hiding or laundering the very proceeds from this type of activity.
Also you could almost add every country in the world to that list.
US has probably killed more innocent people since WW11 than any other country.
The illegal Iraq war, detainment without charging people.
Illegal drone strikes that we hardly ever hear about.
Even Australia has started this very dubious practice with some Kiwis having been caught up in it.
Can anyone remember when the world wasn't regarded as being in some kind of mess or peril?
In my own time there's been the 2nd WW, the Korean war, the cold war, numerous economic and/or financial crises, an untold number of undeclared wars, atrocities, minor and major massacres. I'm just thankful to have been born and lived most of my life in Godzone!
:mellow:
A quick youtube tune from the UK. Does this look familiar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=vbLGG5UGEKw
FP, what definition did you apply to "Tax Haven" to come up with that response? A fairly loose one, I think. That's a lie, basically.
Just because we don't pop up on the list like BVI or Cayman Islands, doesn't mean we aren't doing our bit for foreign tax dodgers and money launderers.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11618057
And this site - they say that NZ isn't a tax haven, and then go on to describe how it all works very effectively as a tax haven, 'without the stigma'.
http://www.trust-nz.com/en-nz-as-offshore.html