The result of the next election will probably be in the hands of one Mr. Winston Peters. Fancy him as P.M?
Printable View
Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, and many of the Labour MPs and caucus members were around during Labour's last triumphant nine year term in office. 9 years, during which Crown debts were repaid, not increased to new highs, when unemployment levels reached a new low for the times, and when smokefree legislation and many other useful policies were brought through, the Cullen Fund, etc etc.
Don't be so patronising. It's John key and Bill English who need holding by the hand. If they weren't paying heavily for Crosby-Textor's neoliberal advice, they'd have been booted out long ago.
Little, Goff, Shearer, Robertson, Cunliffe, King, etc, would all be better PMs for NZ than John Key and stand-in Bill English have been. That's a lot of depth to choose from. Who have National got in the wings? The conehead marketer Steven Joyce, he's all talk too. Brownlee? Bennett(s)? No independent thought anywhere. Give me a break.
John Campbell had an interview on Radio NZ with a girl from a homeless family. It's a sad state of affairs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9UnyOoMIPU
Little? C'mon eZ, we've telling you eversince that Andrew is not a PM material. Have you Guys seen him smile? I meant a smile that comes from the heart that makes the eyes shine for that smiling moment? Little is carrying too much weight on his heart and thoughts. Disregard Goff and Cunliffe too please.
SkyCity imaginary construction jobs, another scam in the making. Interesting comments.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...go-to-thailand
Hey EZ - do you keep your eyes on the speedo instead of the road as the Minister of Police would claim.
I think the longer a party is in opposition, the less likely the electors are to remember its MPs in government positions and (to an extent, irrespective of the calibre of the people) the more difficult it is to perceive any of them in the position of PM. I think it is more likely that the National Party will lose the election rather than Labour (and Green) winning it.
[QUOTE=elZorro;623930]Wait a minute macduffy, James Shaw doesn't look like he came down in the last shower, /QUOTE]
Actually his biggest problem is that is exactly how he comes across. Be objective. Of the 'leaders' you have named the winner is Annette King who is not interested and probably unelectable because of her age. I can't help thinking Shearer would have become extremely popular if he had been given longer. He has shone since his demotion. The one I am watching is Stuart Nash although he's probably in the wrong party just like Damien O'Connor. That doesn't matter much. the parties are close enough to drift backwards and forwards over the centre line. They both do - which is why I'm a swinging voter.
[QUOTE=westerly;624045]I have voted Labour several times - which is not to say I would ever vote for the current dismal lot. As far as Crosby Dexter go I don't even know who the hell they are. I've only ever seen the name on this forum, but gather they're a PR crowd. All major parties have a PR agency surely; although come to think of it, Labour show no sign of any PR advice.
Really? Give examples when Shaw has looked put of his depth or incompetent.
Generally in my view he comes across very well.
However his co-leader doesn't give him much help.
The thing is The Greens are all too nice to stab each other in the back or have a leadership stoush,
The odd limp celery stick might get shaken violently.
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;623998]
Who is going to make the hard decisions around here?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/ne...y+14+June+2016
Just a matter of time before the Greens support passes that of Labour :-)
David Caygill, still working on the job by the sound of it.
Just a couple of the more recent Caygill actions I didn't know about. He's fairly determined to let the market take control isn't he?Quote:
Minister of Finance[edit]
When Douglas was fired by Prime Minister Lange, Caygill was appointed Minister of Finance in his place. After Lange himself had resigned, Caygill retained his position under both Geoffrey Palmer and Mike Moore, Lange's short-lived successors as Prime Minister.
In his last budget as Minister of Finance before retiring, Caygill lifted the quarantining of rental losses on investment property, allowing an investor to offset losses on their investment property against their other taxable income.
In 1991, a year after the Labour Party had lost office, Caygill was replaced as finance spokesperson by Michael Cullen, who was more moderate in his economic policies. Caygill continued to hold a senior position in the Labour Party, however, and when Helen Clark became leader in 1993, Caygill replaced her as deputy leader. At the 1996 elections, Caygill retired from Parliament. He was replaced as deputy leader by Michael Cullen.
Life after politics[edit]
After leaving politics, Caygill returned to his original occupation, law. For some time, he was a partner at Buddle Findlay, a prominent law firm. He also worked for a number of government bodies, and was chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation. He chaired a ministerial inquiry into the New Zealand electricity market in 2000, and was appointed chairman of the Electricity Commission in 2007. He is a board member of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. He is the chair of the Education New Zealand Trust.[4]
In 2010, Caygill was appointed by the National Government as one of the commissioners at Environment Canterbury. He holds the role of deputy chair.[4] Caygill was appointed, in December 2010, as the Chair of the 2011 NZ ETS Review Panel.[4]
Forget about income per person, the Crown has been on a spending spree since 2009, borrowing against every NZer. The rate slowed in recent years, but accelerated again in the 2015 year. Now every person in NZ has a gross crown debt of around $25,000, a figure that was stable at $10,000 and lowering under Labour. According to this chart, Crown gross debt is now well over $100billion.
https://figure.nz/chart/v8SueeHsw4czJ9zc
The government making a show over consultation on the RCEP. Even Fran O'Sullivan is not impressed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...y+16+June+2016
@DawgBelly: This govt compensated a Saudi resident $11 million for his hurt feelings, Teina Pora gets $2.5million for 21 years wrongful imprisonment.
Just a tweet i thought interesting
Comment on CGT.
Especially for you eZ. As I have often pointed out a poorly designed CGT tax can be detrimental - particularly its effect of drying up, or slowing a market.
I've never been against a well designed scheme, but we'll never get one. It would be political suicide.
Anyway there's some comments in this article are worth a bit of consideration.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/why-cap...sing-bubble-gs
Not a balanced article, as he's trying to push a CCIT idea from the Morgan Foundation. In one example there, a person has $1mill already, and is faced with putting it in the bank and using the taxed interest to pay rent, or buying a house to live in, outright. The argument is that it's tax efficient to buy the house, and it's an unfair advantage. Therefore every capital situation should be taxed.
However, very few people have the $mill to buy a house in Auckland, and will instead struggle to pay it off, including paying interest from their tax-paid income. Unlike those property investors who get to claim the interest costs against their rental/lease income. It's not a level playing field now, and applying a capital tax across the board will make it even more unfair. That's why other countries don't do it either, but they do have a CGT along the lines of what Labour proposed in 2014.
Of course it's opinionm but follow some of the urls in the article referring to studies. e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/...ction_2_en.pdf
And a few of the others.
The whole point is that CGT is not an open and shut case of just implementing a tax and seeing no negative consequences, wnich is why I hold the view that it needs to be well thought through, comprehensive and with a repatriation clause.
Labour officially launch their campaign in Australia today. Big speech from Shorten a well as rolling out a few of mentors in old timers like Fraser and Keating.
For me it just confirmed that neither Shorten or Little just don't have what takes to be a Prime Minister
Might give Labour some hope if a miracle happened and a Labour PM happened in Australia
Good to see John Key defending Paula Bennett.
Apparently that stuff up after stuff up and some might even suggest bordering on illegal in the case of the leak from her office, its all a media beat up!
5 times Bennett has been asked to appear on the Nation since the homeless story broke and she hasn't been able to attend once apparently.
She showed her true colors in the Northland bi-election and was probably the most damaging to their campaign behind Mike Sabin.
Bennett is a liability, yet Key defends her.
The man's judgment yet again is flawed.
The latest Roy Morgan Poll shows that National's support is dropping, while the Labour-Green coalition concept is gaining votes. L-G are now within 0.5% of National, meaning NZ First has the balance of power.
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/68...6-201606201622
It'll be even more interesting when the Labour-Greens overtake National in the polls, surely can't be long now, hey FP?
John Key in January 2015
"Up to 143 New Zealand personnel will be sent, although the deployment will not be a badged mission. It will be reviewed after nine months and last no more than two years"
John Key20/06/2016
New Zealand will extend its deployment in Iraq for another 18 months and expand to a second military base, Prime Minister John Key has confirmed this afternoon
The perfidiousness of John Key is astonishing. It was like this right from the start, GST, his Tranz Rail shares transactions, by way of two examples, many others and no doubt more to come.
He makes Pinocchio look like an upfront guy who always tells the truth
I agree if looking at combined vote. As I have said often the next govt. will depend on who offers Winston the biggest, brightest or most baubles. Neither Labour or Greens have got a leader capable of PM role - and that's what Winnie wants.
Mind you, I thought the last election would produce a National - Winston first coalition.
I agree that if a CGT is introduced, it should be a comprehensive one. It should include a CGT on the family home.
However at the same time as this new tax introduction there should be tax cuts and changes. Instead of council rates there should be a council income tax (a couple of percecentage points on the existing tax rates?). There should be a tax free income tax threshhold for incomes up to about $15,000 and/or a GST tax cut and/or tax-free inflation allowance for investment income. A deduction against taxable income for those who pay rent (or mortgage interest) for accommodation should be considered to balance out mortgage-free home owners non-taxed benefit of occupancy.
However the vested interest of owner-occupiers would mean it would be politically devastating for a party to suggest a comprehensive CGT and radical tax over-haul.
Why would it be unworkable? I think different tax rates or rebates could fairly easily be applied to various levels of income from different sources. I also think an inflation adjustment for fixed interest investments would be relatively easy to implement compared to some existing requirements for investment income. The problems would be political.
PIE income is one existing working example of taxing some investment income at a different rate than other income. So why couldn't any lower tax regime extend to other fixed investment income to make an allowance for inflation. I think currently the US and the UK for example have tax-advantaged financial investment schemes for individuals that are exempt from income tax and capital gains tax.
I think it would also be possible to introduce a rebate scheme for owner-occupier mortgage interest payments (I think NZ used to have such a scheme) and a rebate for rent payments to remove the tax advantage that mortgage-free owner-occupiers currently enjoy. That could be politically more feasible than assessing imputed rent.
Bring it on. It's years since I was a residential landlord, but if rent payments were made tax deductible I'd be back in like a robbers dog. Remember subsidies never quite land where they are aimed at; landlords rather than tenants being the beneficiary of such a scheme.
Two complete U turns in one day, impressive, haven't seen this flexibility since
Nadia Comaneci at the 1976 Olympics
10:19 pm on 29 April 2013"
Govt rules out fuel tax, road tolls for Auckland
21/06/2016
It concludes that while ongoing investment in new road and public transport projects will clearly be needed, greater use of technology and in the longer term road pricing -- or directly charging for road use -- will also be part of the toolkit," Transport Minister Simon Bridges said
Wasn't the extra petrol tax that gets added every year or so, supposed to pay for roads???
While having a look through the SST this morning (and I predict the demise of the business pages if they don't get some more advertisers) I saw this item by David Slack. He's being serious this time, and fair enough.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/so...ir-gel-is-good
Make no doubt about it, there is a lot to fix in this commodity economy of ours. While I can sense that everything won't be great worldwide until we find some cheap non-carbon energy to replace bountiful oil seen in previous generations, NZ can still do better, but we won't, with a drongo National govt in place.
Liam Dann with an article that's interesting.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...y+27+June+2016
The Brexit vote has certainly pointed out to politicians that many of the hoi polloi have had about enough of watching the massive divide between the haves, and the have nots. Liam says, don't rock the applecart.
In a similar vein, John Key's choice of Mr Shewan to look at his lax foreign trust laws has at least provided some momentum for change.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8149...foreign-trusts
However, while existing trusts will have to provide more details, they can also slither away before the rules come into force, and the 'tax rate' stays the same. That is, there is no tax.
I think Key is training for the NZ gymnastics team for Rio, with the amount of backflips, rolling over and u turns.
Mind you he's more looking like some running at the box and has mis-timed his run, its going to be nasty.
At least the pressure is off Paula Bennett as there are too many other things to concentrate on.
Such as his extending troups in Iraq, the investigation into foreign trusts says our regulations are not nearly stringent enough.
Only what the opposition and even government departments have ben saying for years.
Brexit was a big blow for the neo-liberals, Key should take note. People are fed up with the BS.
I agree, fungus. But let's not revisit the matter of how the language is changing, however much it hurts to try to imagine weighing an amount of backflips!
I've finally come to terms with the fact that English is a living language and that words mean what Alice's Red Queen says they mean!
Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.
My Oxford Dictionary defines amount used as a noun as "the total number" If you replace “amount” with the “total number” of back flips etc “ it would appear to be correct usage, but who am I to argue.
Of more importance is the irony of a National Party who made much of Helen Clarke and the terms “nanny state and auntie Helen” passing a Health and Safety Bill with such draconian punishments, we have Real Estate agents worried about whether they should give a safety lecture and have people sign a “they know the risks” indemnity form before viewing an open home.
Uncle John is really looking after us. I am not sure what has happened to self reliance.
westerly
Absolute rubbish. Amount applies to volume or mass. Number applies to things that can be counted (count nouns). An amount is something you can have less of. A number is something you can have fewer of.
You can have an amount of footwear, but a number of shoes.
An amount of traffic, but a number of cars.
You could have less footwear but fewer shoes.
Getting it right avoids ambiguity.
Yeah, well, this is getting off the very important topic of how to make sure National don't get back in, come the next elections..
I suggest some of the previous posts could be more applicable to the
Markets/Off Market Discussions/What's wrong with the youth of today/Poor grammar thread :)
Stuart Nash brings up some important points.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ay+1+July+2016
Later on in the comments, corporate tax evasion could easily be in the order of $10,000mill a year. Welfare fraud in NZ, that's more like $30mill a year. 300 times smaller. However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion.
"However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion."
Agree that there is a disparity there; I suppose the difference is because tax evasion is based on how much you give while welfare fraud is based on how much you take. I have a certain sympathy for welfare fraud, though. I was briefly unemployed after I sold my business a few years ago and went on the dole for about two months - it wasn't even enough to buy my groceries! It must be an incredible struggle for anyone on social welfare and we have one of the most generous systems around.
Ha ha, so many experts on the English language. I always find it amazing what irks people . Probably my spelling of amasing will do the same as I've used the American spelling from my text predictor. And yet American English in many instances is more correct than what is spoken in England, well that is if you live in a museum. It seems modern dictionaries define amount as also a number of, whereas more traditional dictionaries say its an amount that can't be counted.... Shakespeare was the biggest changer of the English language, by introducing over 1700 words. He changed nouns into verbs, he joined words and just made them up. Typically I find people who get bogged down with such pedantic BS, don't see the wood for the trees.
At this point I take my leave.
Shamubeel Eaqub with a thoughtful piece on the Brexit vote result.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...ay+2+July+2016
Murray McCully finally caught out completely on Saudi Sheepgate .
How many times has McCullybeen caught out in dodgy deals during his career?
Did he lie to parliament re the threat of legal action by the Saudi billionaire?
It appears so.
Was it a bribe hidden in a government contract for services?
Key blames Labour of course. What a joke !
Did anyone see Key interviewed this morning on the Nation re housing.
He was like a worm on a hook, squirming from one diversion to another.
He didn't look comfortable at all. Nor should he.
Yeah, when your threshold for shame like McCully is as thick as a pachyderm it will take you forever to resign. He's an embarrasment to National.
McCully perhaps? It looks as though the grammar/language change distraction has taken root.
Turnball learns that the electorate is turning against the rich elitist leaders - even Australia not immune
I reckon Key is taking note and will stand down later this year and not run again.
I note that almost all of john Keys friends tat when overseas he likes to be photographed with have lost, or about go out of office
1. Stephen Harper Canadian PM - out
2. David Cameron . leaves in October
3. Barack Obama: finishes January 2017
4> Malcolm Turnbull ??
Poor old John, must be quite lonely
There's no housing crisis according to National and yet allocates $1bln of borrowing to build more roads etc.
They cannot afford to turn down immigration, as its their only economic growth model and building roads.
So NZ sacrifices quality of life for John Key's ambition.
No planning, complete disregard for the environment and the social & economic pressure on the most vulnerable New Zealanders.
Yet again National has to concede that there is something useful in Labour's policies that it can flog, since they are bereft of ideas themselves. The market doesn't appear to be acting as fast as net immigration is - and why should it - by being a bit slower the developers make more money from each sale.
The government can use its borrowing power to borrow at 2.5% or so, the big difference between this ad hoc policy and Labour's is that there is no bulk buying of components, no trade training provided, no concerted effort to build cheaper houses, no effort to force down the price of sections, just a helping hand to councils to reduce their borrowing costs for public works. The $1bill fund will be accessed by councils, who have to state their case, to get on the list of approved projects. So the govt will be interfering a bit in the market anyway, but only with councils, not the builders and developers. It's similar to the way they've handled R&D for businesses. Only the big businesses need to apply, for the rest of us, the paperwork is often too onerous for the small amount on offer in the way of part-grants.
Again this year, just 200 undergrad 400hr positions for science/tech projects over the summer holidays coming up. The applications were open for about 2 weeks, the spec has been tightened, just the 200 positions for thousands of undergrads who could have been employed in a good training area. Again, most of those few grants nationwide would go to the bigger firms, and firms with public listings, wealthy overseas investors, established firms.
Steven Joyce still spouting off about the R&D tax credits not having worked overseas (they get rorted?), he just forgets to mention that Labour's were audited tax credits.
From an article on what John Key could learn from the Liberal epic failure in the Australian elctiom
"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"
If John Key sniffs the political wind and detects any prospect of failure next year, he will bail.
Negative gearing according to Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing
National's $1Bln infrastructure debt policy is a drop in the bucket of what is required.
Its a cunning plan to divert the debt to councils and rate payers.
The government creates the problem, but blames others being councils for not solving it!
This BS that the level of immigration is due to Kiwis not leaving is getting tired.
Hello people not leaving is not immigration, its people entering the country.
Turn down the level of immigration!
We are not coping and it is creating a housing disaster.
When the housing bubble bursts its going to wreak havoc on NZ and be left for someone else to clean up.
Exactly
I will support taxable loss on investment property against other income if the government makes the interest on the mortgage for our family home tax deductible. That's never going to happen. Why, as a high income earner do I have to subsidise property investment?????
Interest is an expense against income in order to calculate profit.
Copied from Sgt Pepper's post....
"The hard-to-like Bill Shorten, on the other hand, actually had sensible policy that resonated with many. Shorten even stole some of Turnbull’s sensible ideas, such as removing negative gearing on investment properties"
Nothing to do with startups.