No The dollars are real.
Printable View
No The dollars are real.
If you have a look back a few pages, I've already deconstructed the latest Colmar-Brunton poll. John Key is becoming less popular, and there are more voters sitting on the fence. They're not as sure about National anymore.
John Key said he's using his trusted lawyer for advice. Except he's deregistered himself, did so in February this year to set up Antipodes, a firm offering foreign trust advice.Quote:
There are a lot of people comparing what this government has done, compared with the Clark Government under Labour. Don't forget what it was like during that time, NZ started to come to an even keel, we started feeling like we were living in a great country again.
Here's the full data from Colmar Brunton, including historical trends.
http://colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-conten...016-prelim.pdf
W69 is right, John Key is becoming less popular over time, and of the people who are quite likely or very likely to vote in the next election, 13% won't say which way they would vote at the moment, or are undecided. That's higher than usual. People are starting to think a bit, but they're not sure about Andrew Little yet.
Just over 1000 people on landlines were surveyed in this poll. So they are older households, perhaps more conservative. Lots of younger households don't have landlines, or are unlisted. The error in the party vote is about +/- 3.1% for 3D certainty for National, and about +/- 2.5% for Labour. The percentages are also rounded up or down with no decimal point, we're not told the actual data.
Let's take a Labour-positive view of the results. National could have had 49.6% of the party vote +/-3.1%, so worst case is 46.5%.
Labour in best case is 28.4% +2.5% or 30.9%. Add 13% unknown/undecided votes and Labour could achieve 43.9%, that is statistically a small possibility. Add Greens, and a Labour/Green coalition would have power in 2017.
This poll was completed before the news about the tax havens was well known. It certainly didn't include the effect of the multiple articles about NZ's need to do something about it, and John Key's inappropriate response.
http://thestandard.org.nz/johns-keys...-not-a-lawyer/
EZ - Labour losing any support they may have had from the younger people like whats happening in Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...21-gobrv4.html
The National Govt adjusts for the Uber competition with Taxis, by simply relaxing the rules for both. This will end up doing some damage, surely. Of course the market wins, the public gets cheaper fares. But at what ultimate price?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU160...+22+April+2016
Taxis have been a joke for years. I have never lived in Auckland but I caught a taxi in Queen Street a couple of years ago and I had to direct the driver to a motel by Alexandra Park, Greenlane. English wasn't the drivers strongpoint.
They're all using ipads for directions now, apparently. From now on, taxis of all types don't have to display their rates. How would that work for you, if you were a tourist? Are we to be just like any overseas country, a cowboy's paradise?
More confirmation that I should ignore NZ Initiative emails to my inbox.
http://thestandard.org.nz/who-is-beh...nd-initiative/
They were so effective that the voters threw them out and show no sign of having their successors back. Cullen? I met him twice through a mutual friend and the short conversation, or his side of it left me quite stunned. Outside the local RSA The third party asked if he would like to go in, his reply was "no, just a bunch of old men drinking pints" The pair headed down the street to a cafe were the local lawyers had their coffee. The third party didn't get re-elected.
Craic, certainly that was a disappointing attitude from Cullen. Vote-wise, it might have been far more useful to Labour if he'd gone into the RSA when he was asked. You've bent many an ear about this episode since, I'm sure. However, on the scale of things, it's not a big mistake by him, and he did plenty for NZ which would make up for it.
I wonder if any of the National Party apologists on this thread would like to explain why, under National, we are the world's biggest climate change cheats, and why this doesn't matter. I think the Labour Party or the Greens could reasonably expect a big donation from Gareth Morgan soon, his foundation is in line with most of their policies.
http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-the-und...limate-change/
If Gareth Morgan comes on side with labour or the Greens, then I will be pleased. He has already alienated half the population with his much publicised views on cats and dogs. Now, just because he has a lot of money and rode a motorcycle around the world his opinion on things his very important on many topics- to him. Che Guevara also rode a motorcycle around but he at least befriended lepers and had an Irish grandmother.
Hey craic - good to see you enjoying life and doing all those things
Glad you spending your National Super well - that is what its for, the small things on life as a reward for making NZ what it is today
I had a nice dinner in town at a Asian restaurant the other night, got the free bus into town another day to see that new rave NZ film, had oysters and chips on the beach for lunch yesterday etc etc. Thats where my Super went this week.
Thst Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a great movie by the way
I would suggest that most people don't understand Morgan's ideas on feral cats and dog control & that's because most people don't live in areas where Kiwi etc roam. If we don't eradicate feral cats, well as much as possible, none of us will have that amazing experience of hearing a Kiwi call at night. Obviously its not just the Kiwi these pests are endangering.
Winston Peters policy on creating jobs to get the possum population under control is forward thinking & courageous.
However this government will never take it on, as they don't do forward thinking. Unless of course they need NZF to form government in 2017. Then they will do more back flips than a Chinese gymnast at the Rio Olympics.
With a little tweaking Morgan's tax idea on housing I think could work as well. The biggest issue is probably for those who don't have much income, like retirees. So address that & I think taxing all assets appreciation as if it was bank interest, would sort a lot of of the imbalances in the economy right now. Of course its not popular, as too many Aucklanders have been made overnight millionaires by doing sweet fa.
Again, Craic, you sidestepped the important question. Gareth has been at least been spending some of his untaxed capital gain on some kind of centrist think-tank that has actually come up with some good ideas, and in the case of climate change, begrudgingly admitted there might be something to it. That was a few years ago, and now he's checked National out, to confirm the typically cynical way they've bought fake carbon credits, while screwing the local forestry industry down.
Effective for 9 years by the way. Left country in good shape to weather GFC, left us with WFF, Kiwisaver, Kiwi Bank, paid parental leave, same sex marriages, interest free student loans - this lot are in to their 3rd term what are their significant achievements or legacies? -
I'm so glad to have stirred up the left and their fellow travellers who deny being on the left but it's also heartening to know that a majority of voters are not taken in by by Morgan, Peters and the left. "This lot" have achieved a lot - they have created one of the most desirable living environments in the world and created a world travellers paradise that is evident from the tourist numbers. Read the news- read the facts - our debt is less than most and our future is better than most. My most pressing charity is Australia where I will spend a couple of weeks later this year and support their economy. And finally, I would like to express my thank to SeanMcKay who, this afternoon rode a horse called Night Victory to win and therby added $195 to my funds.
Another self congratulating post from Criac. No surprises there.
So the previous Labour government didn't get us in the dire position of the likes of Europe. Agreed.
They reduced debt, National have more than trebled it. There's the comparison.
Comparing us to countries that are basically insolvent is hardly a compliment.
Is the fact that NZ is currently a world traveller's paradise anything to do with the exchange rate? Which is linked to the low dairy payout? In which case, it's a fortunate bonus from a failed hope by National to make dairy the big earner. It has made our exported goods more affordable for overseas buyers, but also makes imported goods dearer.
I didn't back any horses today Craic, but I did pick up some cheap shop fittings from the failed DSE store nearby. I'll use those assets in my business, storing manufactured goods for export. I'm in a growing minority under National polices, and I'm small-time, so I'm not feeling the support of the National Party marketing juggernaut. You know, you really should look more carefully at their figures/data, they don't have a clue what they're doing. They can only borrow for so long, then what?
Hello - the living environment is about our geography and while you think the leader walks on water change the environment they can not - things that attract tourists like Rotorua & Queenstown Next you will be thanking Sky City for having a win in the casino - who cares? have been around for a while.
It must be sad to be stuck on the losing side.
A lot of us are losing with National in power.
Other than those who have made financial gain from National's open slather immigration policy that has seen Auckland housing prices get out of control, as well as a shortage .
Gareth Morgan said when he bought his first home, the average cost of a house was 3 times the average wage, now its 8 times!
The environment is one of the biggest losers, but then there's health and education as well.
The prison service, another that has lost its way under this government with the SERCO debacle.
There are many other areas.
In fact the list of failures is so extensive, its incredible Little can't make inroads.
It just shows how ineffective he is.
Labor made a big mistake not selecting Grant Robinson.
Him with Jacinda Ardern would have made a reasonably effective opposition and likely appeal to the young.
Unfortunately his sexuality would likely go against him.
It would be interesting to know if NZ is mature enough to elect a gay prime minister.
He's talking about the price of a house. Interest rates were as high as 4 times the current rate. The cost was much the same as today. Properties were normally financed through a solicitor's nominee company with first mortgage restricted to 66% of valuation. Second and third mortgages were sometimes available and expensive.
You make it sound like interest rates were at 20% for years, they weren't and in fact for the majority of the last 30 years were nothing like that.
Interest is a cost obviously, but this is about debt levels and entry costs. People trying save for a 20% deposit etc.
Do you think interest rates are going to stay low forever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fungus pudding;617292
He's talking about the [U
Daytr, it's Grant Robertson you're thinking of. But I don't think NZ is entirely ready for a gay PM, it would be risky for Labour to put him up as an opposition leader.
Andrew Little isn't the world's greatest public speaker. But the array of media and National Party hacks that are following his every move and word, looking for mistakes, is daunting. At the moment the press are starting to ask harder questions of John Key, but he's not under the same pressure. If he was, he should have been booted out for 'misrepresentation' by now.
Well what happens to those interest costs on the massive amount of debt that people have tied to these house prices when interest rates do rise?
We live in a world of bubbles that no one seems to have the political will to prick.
So monetary policy is set to accommodate fueling the bubbles higher.
I think that's how many people vote, not with their brains, but with the need to back which party they think will win, like it's a horse race. So the media and the polls are very important, even though both are fallible and can be jacked up in one party's favour, like iPredict was.
Paula Bennett is sometimes touted as the National Leader-in-Waiting. Paula, according to wikipedia, attended Taupo Nui-a-Tia college, from Kinloch, where her parents owned the small store for the area. She had a daughter when she was 17, and moved to Auckland where she had low-paid jobs, but was taxpayer funded to attend Massey University's Albany campus, where she became involved in student politics. Graduating with a BA, she then worked her way up the National Party ranks with paid employment and by running as a candidate.
On Q&A this morning, under intense questioning by Corin Dann about her new Climate Change portfolio and the 3-4 degree temperature change her govt is proposing by default, she mentioned the word hyperbole. Well actually, it was "hyper-bowl". It says a lot about the National Party, when they put a lightweight person into that highly important portfolio, it means they don't think it's important at all.
Well, it will be.
Last word from wikipedia:
Quote:
Bennett has also been criticised by opponents for a perceived hypocritical approach with regards to her attacks on beneficiaries. This specifically relates to her having relied on state support throughout her adult life to enable education and development of her career, only to remove the ability of solo parents to do the same through her removal of the Training Initiative Allowance. More generally, Bennett has often been criticised for policies such as requiring solo parents to enter the workforce when their children turn five, when this policy would have made her own education impossible.[31]
Unfortunately its not just his public speaking which is poor to say the least.
He's not articulating a clear vision of policy for the vast majority of people to follow .
He fails to effectively take on National despite their multiple failures and that says more than anything else to me.
You are probably right re the sexuality thing, but that's sad as it shouldn't matter.
And on the obsolete 2014 thread I'm sure Paula B will be absolutely delighted to be termed "lightweight" by EZ. All that without even joining weightwatchers :-)
There the point - you needed a decent deposit, 20% when I bought my 1st home in 1985 , interest rates hit 20% for a brief period so your x4 todays rate is briefly correct (I know I was paying that rate!) you certainly couldn't get in to a property with no deposit or less than 20%. The cost of my 1st house was x3 my salary so there you are Gareth is about right.
The tide eventually will turn - just ask Clark, Muldoon & Bolger - now theres 2 of your stand out leaders, at least under Bolger we didn't suffer a dictatorship - Muldoons the same guy who destroyed a wonderful super scheme brought in by the Kirk govt and yes we had to wait for another Labour govt to get the next super scheme - says a lot really.
I just saw Paula Bennett on Q&A re signing the Paris accord on reducing emissions.
She acted as if signing a bit of paper was a great effort and that it was a huge step forward.
National's policies fly in the face of reducing emissions.
Sponsoring oil exploration and a major sponsor of dairy intensification.
They have cut the budget to things like DOC.
Emissions in NZ have risen steadily and continue to do so and National is avoiding doing anything about it, because its obvious they are in complete denial about man made climate change.
Labour is better in opposition because they have more practice at it.
A headline from the Conservative supporting Telegraph in 2013. The lesson? Be very careful about premature political obituaries
"It's two years away, but the 2015 election is already lost
Four factors conspire to make a Tory majority an outright impossibility"
I wonder how many NZ's use one of these. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...lth.../410842/
First homes were invariably financed by the State Advances with a 3 or 5% mortgage. Have a section and no deposit was required. You only reverted to other institutions if you did not meet S.A. criteria.
Houses were basic compared with those turned out by developers today. Bare section, no fences, paths or landscaping. The developer can maximise profits by adding all the extras (required ?) today.
Big opportunities for Labour to go back to their roots and look after the ordinary family.
Little doesn’t have to speak like a BBC announcer he just needs policies which match the needs of working people.
westerly
That sort of policy helps no-one. Sounded good at the time, but think how much cheaper homes would have been without subsidies. Great example was the sweat equity scheme in the 80s. It was easy to get a package deal to a house that needed work. A similar age and style of house in immaculate condition was always cheaper.
Nah, i'm not worried. It is so easy to bait these guys and a lot of fun reading their replies. It must be hell getting up in the morning and being so negative all day. You have to admire their dedication though.
Not sure what point I was meant to get though.
The old state advances schemes subsidised buyers with no or low deposits, and low interest rates. That puts more competition in the buying market - prices rise. Similarly the sweat equity scheme gave suspensory loans and low interest with low deposit. Any subsidy always ends up in the vendors' pocket. Never the purchasers'. Look at similar nonsense in Australia when the govt. gave first home buyers $15000. It simply added 15k to the properties in that market bracket. If they gave every home buyer a million dollars - guess what would happen! Just as property prices have risen higher and higher as interest has fallen and will taper off as rates rise again. It's an infallible law that the cost of money and the price of property are the opposite ends of a see-saw.
The same economic law tells us why the time to buy is when interest rates are high. Sell when they are low.
You sound like Bob Jones, FP. Although I rather suspect that if any Aucklanders had sold their homes the instant interest rates dropped, they'd have missed out on some good capital gains that are still going. How did that happen, according to your brilliant theory? Well actually, net immigration is strongly correlated with house prices, particularly in Auckland. I don't think the slightly negative correlation of house prices with interest rates would be as strong, but you could try to prove me wrong.
Oops, sorry, I reacted to the bait, didn't I, 777. You know why we have to react to the bait? Because the BS that's flowing around us, put out by CT and National, then parroted by the likes of you and FP, doesn't stand up to any sensible perusal of the facts.
No, you said interest rates were a big factor too. Here are the charts, according to you there would have been a boom in house prices around the GFC, when interest rates suddenly fell. Correlation between interest rates and house prices in Auckland, close to zero. Correlation with net immigration, close to 1. Case closed.
I don't think so. It's all about pressure, and it starts with new immigrants wanting a place to rent or buy. The govt controls immigration policy, they have set this up for a false economy because it suits them. You could argue Labour did the same thing early in their last term, I'm not sure of the history there. If the Reserve Bank controlled immigration, they'd have a handle on the housing bubble.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/au...+26+April+2016
No need for a government, eh, eZ? The good old RBNZ can keep the seat warm until Labour gets re-elected?Quote:
If the Reserve Bank controlled immigration, they'd have a handle on the housing bubble.
;)
@SamSachdevaNZ: Latest Roy Morgan poll has Nats 42.5 (down 3.5), Lab 26 (down 2), Greens 14.5 (up 0.5). Big riser NZ First, up 3.5% to 12.5 #nzpol
@roymorganonline: National vote lowest since 2014 Election as NZ First vote surges to 20yr high of 12.5% #nzpol @winstonpeters https://t.co/W9G8CcuSoq
Must be something wrong withnow they poll
Immigration is by far having the biggest impact on house prices in Auckland and now the rest of the country is starting to feel the impact as Auckland property millionaires cash up and buy in the provinces.
In a very short time under National home ownership has become unaffordable for many & NZ is very quickly becoming an expensive place to live comparative to what it was only 10 years ago.
We have become a much more costly producer of dairy in that time as well.
Now we will have a million extra tourists. On the face of it a good thing.
Well that would he if the government had invested in the right infrastructure and toilets for freedom campers doesn't cut it.
But we have National highways of significance, Daytr.. unfinished, and with one big problem still unresolved: On public holidays when we head to the beaches, the little-used roads to the coasts are still congested. So we sit in traffic snarl-ups on our days off too.
Latest poll out. NZF biggest gainer followed by the Greens. I will be doing everything I can to influence an NZF, Green, Labor and possibly Māori Party alliance.
John Key opinion/policy on Land Tax in 2011, as reported in Interest NZ
Some of the options discussed by the Tax Working Group are not favoured by the Government, for a variety of reasons, and will not be progressed," Key said in speech notes prepared for the address and obtained under embargo by Interest.co.nz in Wellington."In particular, we will not be developing any proposals for a land tax,
His perfidiousness is breathtaking.
Grouch Marx has the best analysis of John Key
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.!"
Surprisingly, the confirmation by the PM that there are living in NZ Chinese prominent on China’s “most wanted list” has resulted in silence from both politicians and the media.
Is this because extradition to China could possibly result in death, or politicians fear any investigation into party donations by wealthy Chinese, or the fallout from mentioning Chinese immigration is to hot to handle.
Whatever the fact that corrupt immigrants seemingly can easily enter and reside in NZ is cause for concern.
westerly
This whole talk of a land tax for non-residents is just skimming the surface of the issue .
Its obvious immigration is the main driver, but because having 60-70k added to the population each year is the only growth model National has they won't do anything about it.
Meanwhile prices will continue north and the strain on infrastructure, resources and the environment will continue.
Well until someone else comes along to clean up the mess National leaves behind.
@economic_hitman: Global corporations run this failed geo-political/economic system. To change the system, we must change the dream of corporations.
NZ is part of this 'game' - whose going to teach corps thar greed is not good?
Greed is another term for survival of the fittest. It is a fundamental law of nature - of survival - and if you expect to change that, you will get eaten. Several prophets have tried and started new religions, only to demonstrate that they and their followers are as "greedy" as everyone else and will not tolerate others who disagree with their form of 'equality'.
Once again you open the mouth before the brain. Greed, in this respect was clearly referring to a human condition. Daytr your mindless pursuit of of the baubles of your own imagination and your stoic belief in every bit of nonsense that comes into your mind leaves me no option but to ignore this forum from this point forward. You can now have the last word with the assurance that, whatever you write, I will not read it. I will be too busy leading a very successful life under a National government on my few acres of paradise, content with my contribution to society. You and whatever party has the misfortune to have your vote can go on into the mindless foggy future you enjoy.
Sure as hell will miss craic. Tells it like it is.
It seems to me rather strange that someone whose only talent is they look nice and can pretend they are someone else, or play some form of professional sport rather well, or even read a tv monitor can be treated as a celebrity and be paid extreme amounts of money. However I also think professional sport should be relegated to the entertainment or business sections of the media. Sport is played by amateurs.
And then all those hard workers who capitalize on the (unearned in my view) profits of property and other transactions and then complain about being taxed are again in my view being a little selfish.
I am all for a progressive tax system.
westerly
How will we keep warm in winter once we have burned all the rich people?
I recon there would be enough fuel to last for some time.... :cool:
Seriously though, there is no crime in being successful, although the way we measure success is questionable imo.
Pay tax to the intent of the law and make the tax system fairer by closing down some of the gaping holes in the system.
Income tax and perhaps GST might actually be abed to be lowered or at least the government could actually fund services more fully.
I see John Key got his personal lawyer to lobby MP McClay about changes to the trusts structures that were being requested by IRD. About a year later the govt announced no changes would be made, status quo. So one person between John Key and his interests, and actual govt policy.
John's looking shaky now, folks. No wonder Craic's wandered off for a while, too many good replies from the lefties, and John's tenure not looking so secure. Daytr, if it makes you feel any better, last time Craic wandered off this thread, it was because of some of my posts. He'll come back, if National looks like more of a winner.
Getting more and more impressed with James Shaw, Green Party (One News). He's really good in front of the camera. Why couldn't Andrew Little have come up with those lines, and delivered them with assurance? We have to make these chinks in the armour open right up if we want a change of government.
Got to wait for more revelations, which is scheduled for today, from Panama Papers for me to have any verdict on the PM's Trust set up. But keep the the conversations going as I have never voted National or Labour for the past 3 or 4 elections :p
I guess it can't be proven either way. It certainly seems likely, 777. Even a couple of ex-farmers I know reckon they can't trust John Key further than they could throw him. At their age, it's not very far. This is a sea-change in support, as far as I'm aware.
No problem, John Key can dispel all the rumours by simply showing the nation his tax returns for the last few years, as Andrew Little has done. I'm sure we'll all be most impressed if it turns out John has paid over a million dollars a year in income tax to the NZ govt, which would be expected from his rich list status. Now, that would hurt, but it's also a fair amount if you earn over $5mill of income in a year. How many rich-listers would really pay that sort of tax, I wonder? How hard will they organise their affairs so they don't pay it?
http://thestandard.org.nz/mossack-fo...l-on-the-arse/
That might be stretching it slightly, but Key did ask him to ring McLay.
Why should this lawyer get preferential treatment. Why wasn't he just referee to the IRD?
The IRD urges the government to review foreign trusts in Dec 2014.
Why wouldn't the government have taken their advice ?
Something smells, big time.
AMAZING - must see chart
@bernardchickey: Here's the most interesting chart in NZ's political economy right now. Migration and NZ First support. https://t.co/idDni18Smk
i was not aware that the inland revenue department was a political football and that its board / governors were / are influenced by lawyers
or voted in politicians.
but then its easy for commentators to make up stories or scenarios to make a political point.
here is the ird charter
Inland Revenue's Charter
Inland Revenue collects money to pay for public services. We help people to meet their obligations and receive their entitlements. We work within the Inland Revenue Acts and other relevant laws, and our actions are consistent with the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi. .
and the source for more "real" info
https://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/comm...r-charter.html
Well Neopole, you should be by now.
Its a valid question.
Why didn't the government heed the IRDs advice on reviewing foreign trusts?
Because JK didn't like the idea, and certainly his tax advisor didn't.
http://thestandard.org.nz/tax-haven-...-for-national/
John made sure the tax rate on foreign trusts went from 28% to 0%, then he later protected these trusts from review by inference. He was just on TV1 about it, blustered his way through. Yeah sure, we have to wait for the OECD, and there's no point us stopping our tax haven here, as there are others available overseas.
Oh, fair enough, that makes perfect sense, as long as you're the one with money in these trusts. Show us yer tax returns John.
EZ - you must find 5 minutes to read this brilliant piece. One day there will be an uprising / revolution (or tyranny) in NZ - maybe Labour should lead it (nah it has to besomebody else)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...itter-share-di
Democracies end when they are too democratic.
And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.
National are now looking to privatize child serviced with experimental social bonds.
I like some of the things they are suggesting with the actual service, however there is absolutely no need for privatized funding.
Just fund the services properly. If they think it can be successful just plan it, implement and do it within government.
Meanwhile they are selling off a major component of Kiwi bank .
Why on earth are they looking to commercialize a bank set up by the government to assist Kiwis get into a house, at the time when they need it most ?
What are they thinking.
They are out of touch and out of control.
I must be a slow reader, W69. That took longer than 5 minutes to read and digest. It's certainly well-written. I think I can identify with that frustration and simmering anger that was mentioned, on behalf of the vast majority. Inequality has increased, however, not decreased.
Is John Key our muted version of Donald Trump? Does he like to just make up new rules, cement old ones, continue with his investments which are his wealth base while in office, and change policies on the fly when it suits, just to stay in power? He was also a political outsider, which is interesting.
Quote:
Colin James's Otago Daily Times column for 3 May 2016
A character reputation being put to the test
Is someone who does not pay a fair share of tax a person of "good character"?
The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) OK-ed tax-haven law firm Mossack Fonseca clients Rafael and Federico Grozovsky (also convicted of serious pollution in Argentina) to buy land in Taranaki.
John Key and his personal lawyer think that harbouring trusts here through which foreigners escape tax at home is good for us. It earns millions of dollars.
But beyond the dollars lies reputation. Small and with zero clout, New Zealand trades on a reputation for commercial and political cleanliness.
The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) bothered about that reputation in 2013 and proposed tightening the law: it reported international "criticism, including claims that New Zealand is now a tax haven in respect of trusts". Key's lawyer got an inside track to the Revenue Minister and IRD was stopped in its tracks.
Good for Key's lawyer's business. Not good for the country's reputation.
Also not good for that reputation was confirmation last week that Ukrainian and Russian greenhouse gas emissions credits, mainstay of the emissions trading scheme, are "hot air".
That is, like tax evaders, they are fraudulent.
Paula Bennett initially arrogantly dismissed that research, then at the weekend said climate change "is actually about our identity and us as a country" -- that is, our reputation.
The tourism sector, too, bothered last week about reputation: poor water quality is a risk to its primary drawcard for foreign customers, our (not-100%-pure) landscape. It complained that only some of the Land and Water Forum's recommendations have been acted on.
Key's conduct on such issues is instructive.
He initially dismissed the Panama papers exposure of this country as a nice place for dubious sorts to do business as irrelevant because of a 2013 OECD "clean bill of health".
When, oops, that didn't work -- not least because of his career at Merrill Lynch, a player in the shenanigans that led to the global financial crisis (GFC) -- he got his accounts examined and, it appears, a clean bill. Then he got John Shewan to do an inquiry with relatively narrow terms of reference.
Then came the Taranaki purchase. Key said the link to Mossack Fonseca was "irrelevant". The Grozokskys had not been found to be not of good character. Oops. Well, the OIO could force them to sell and the OIO was being "beefed up".
Put that with the "jihadi brides" scare he pumped up, using (misusing?) briefings by Security Intelligence Service director Rebecca Kitteridge. Turned out they all went from Australia. That is, there was no evidence of radicalisation here and so no basis for winding up fear.
Then suddenly on April 17 Key floated a possible land tax on foreigners buying houses.
Remember (1) the cabinet rejected a land tax in 2010 when the tax working group considered it, (2) National said before the 2014 election there would be no new taxes (then suddenly in the 2015 budget slapped a capital gains tax on quick re-sales of houses) and (3) last year Key scoffed at Labour suggestions that foreign buyers were a distorting factor in Auckland's wild market.
How come Key's switch? Key said governments have to respond to events regardless of election promises. People understand. (As they would over the pension age but that is another matter.)
Key in effect was saying that an election is a mandate to govern, not for individual commitments. That is the exact opposite of his claim that his 2011 election mandate included the specific of selling down state-owned enterprises even though there were two-thirds majorities against selldowns.
If there is a land tax in the budget, National will have legitimised for future Labour-led cabinets both tax on income from capital gains and tax on wealth.
These are major changes of tax principle.
But Key is a politician of presentation, not principle. He is good at it: mud doesn't stick.
An example: Key blunts the bad news of young people not affording spiral-priced houses by shining a rosy spotlight on those made wealthier by rising prices of houses bought a while back and gifted with more post-mortgage income because interest rates have fallen very low.
The flipside is debt, driven by recent buyers' huge mortgages. Westpac economists calculate that the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is back above its frighteningly high pre-GFC levels.
The higher that debt, the less the debtors have to spend to keep the economy buzzing.
That poses a challenge for Bill English, whose cabinet mandate is to maximise gross domestic product (GDP) growth. (On Friday the Economist pronounced GDP deeply flawed as a measure of material wellbeing, a topic explored here in the past, but English sticks with GDP as his measure.)
Nevertheless, on budget day Key will assure us the economy is just fine. And, as with the Panama papers, climate policy, housing and much else, most will think that plausible.
One day it won't be. Meantime, on to the next Key show.
Colin James, mobile 64-21-438 434, landline 64-4-384 7030, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, www.ColinJames.co.nz