[QUOTE=elZorro;384611]Employing people to do 'non-jobs' is idiotic. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that applies to making an income. False or pretend jobs do more harm than good.
Printable View
[QUOTE=fungus pudding;384612]I agree of course. It's when people fail to understand that in the short term, such jobs that might be seen to be too cruisy for private sector observers, are in fact training for future employment, are reducing the unemployment welfare and other state costs, while increasing the tax base. And often, they reduce the very real costs that would otherwise occur down the line. The health and education sectors would also be applicable here.
The private sector has just demonstrated that they have little interest in training the youth of today, and giving them a break. As soon as their wage costs were the same as adults, they steadily dropped them out of new positions. Now they want the old setup restored, even with a minimum adult wage demonstrably not enough to live on, in these days of higher energy costs.
Jobs are critical to the American economy too.
http://www.incrediblecharts.com/trad...05-economy.php
This quote makes David Shearer look like a good prospect FP:
Quote:
Dullness in matters of government is a good sign, and not a bad one — in particular, dullness in parliamentary government is a test of its excellence, an indication of its success.
~ Walter Bagehot
Now what is the National govt up to? Are we to become a tax haven, is that the answer?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...step-backwards
Well the article makes it clear that only foreign owned companies will get the benefit of the changes, if they're voted in. And Google is making use of the system already, to reduce tax that should be due to the NZ govt for sales made to NZ businesses, paying it on a far lower rate to the Irish govt. Tax havens seem to be on a sliding scale, some like the Cayman Islands scream it out, and others like Ireland go below the radar as far as tax authorities go.
How about this for a policy: foreign owned businesses operating in NZ should pay NZ tax on all their net NZ revenue, just like the rest of us. If you or I registered our businesses in the Cayman Islands and ran from there, I'm sure IRD would be in touch. If the overseas-based business can't pay tax at what we think is a fair rate, then they should stay out of NZ.
But I think that was Chalkie's point: at least with the books being presented in some form, a minority shareholder can figure out the general picture. And of course, each business will have very good details about their income and expenditure in each country. Letting others know what the story is, and paying tax in that country, is what they have a problem with.
Google are at least paying 12% tax to Ireland, on income they earn from NZ businesses. If they were even less polite, there are many tax havens where the tax is even lower. I do think about that, when IRD sends me hurry-up and interest notices on tax I've already paid on time. Of course if you try ringing them up to resolve things, you'll be waiting in a long queue.
Quote:
Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 13 November 2012
Labour's test: will its values fit the 2020s?
The unemployment rate lifted again in September, on one measure, to 7.3 per cent -- just in time to lift Labour hopes at the party's conference this coming weekend. Actually, it is not so simple.
First, the participation rate -- those at work or looking for work -- stayed high. People are not (yet) giving up in despair. (Emigrants to Australia are another story).
Australia's participation rate is lower: people are giving up. On a participation rate the same as here, Australia's unemployment rate would not be as far below ours as appears at first glance.
Also, the household labour force survey (HLFS) from which the September quarter figure came is volatile and might have overstated the rate. Note that the HLFS recorded a 0.8 per cent fall in hours worked in the quarter while the quarterly employment survey (QES) recorded only a 0.3 per cent fall and its underlying trend measure is still up.
The QES is also a better match for electronic card transactions: though core retail sales were down through the September quarter, total sales, which include fuel and vehicles (both up), were up.
Next, note that high and persistent unemployment in the United States did not tip out the incumbent President. Exit polls gave a clear majority to Barack Obama of those rating unemployment the top issue.
Now add in persistent headlines of global gloom, which will have got through to most of the populace here, including those who take little interest in politics and issues. John Key, Bill English and Steven Joyce can plausibly say our recent economic slowing is imported. They can't fix the United States, Europe, China and Japan.
The point for Labour delegates gathering on Friday for a fuller-than-usual agenda proposing big organisational changes is that economic woe is not enough -- at least not yet -- to tip out Key-English-Joyce.
To lift its chances of a win in 2014 Labour needs to build a case that a government it led then would bring in transformative policies, on the strength of which employment and incomes would ride better through global ups and downs than under the Key-English-Joyce formula.
Conference delegates might note what one conservative American commentator said last week of the Republicans, who not only did not unseat Obama but failed in Senate seats they should have won and overall did not build on the momentum of 2010.
That commentator's advice was to "become a national party again by offering new ideas rooted in old ones".
Labour does not have the Republicans' demographic challenge: they pitched to a white America when the proportions of blacks and Latinos are rapidly rising. With roots among Maori and Polynesians, Labour is positioned to score from demographic change over the next 10 years or so. (Beyond that our more Asian future may tell a different story.)
Labour's challenge is that the "working class" on which it was based a century ago has eroded as manufacturing has automated and as services have come to dominate the economy. Labour needs "new ideas rooted in old ones": policies for the 2020s, reworked from its founding principles.
So, bigger than the delegates' litmus test for David Shearer -- if he doesn't hit it off with them, MPs will get edgy -- is a move to adopt a 50-page base "policy platform" that would be binding on all party members, including MPs.
Quote:
The draft platform states Labour's "values", which it claims as New Zealand values -- a version of "old ideas" it might "root new ideas" in.
The overarching values are freedom ("to achieve our individual and collective potential"), equality of opportunity, solidarity (mutual rights and obligations), intergenerational guardianship and the Treaty of Waitangi.
Among individual policy area themes: "the growing gap between the poor and rich", as an economic, not just a social issue (though it doesn't assert it is a factor in performance); "Labour is a party of action" in managing the economy; environmental sustainability ("without a healthy environment we cannot have a healthy economy or a healthy society", not a preoccupation in 1916); "real social security, fairness and realising potential", balanced with "responsibility"; "stable, predictable family and care environments" for early childhood; "public education"; "access to good health care" for "all of life", with a focus on long-term outcomes; "strong public services"; and "local democracy".
The platform is work in progress and a section on initiatives will be filled in next year. Its importance now is that it amounts to an attempt by the wider party to reclaim a place in policymaking after being largely shut out in the Clark years.
The test is whether voters click. Too many in middle and less-well-off New Zealand didn't connect in the 2008 and 2011 elections. The new ideas will have to be not just rooted in old ideas but relevant and presented by a relevant leader. Skimming in on a soggy economy would not set up a long spell in office.
This weekend might be a start. Or a stall.
ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz
-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz
Good points from Colin. Will we see Shearer fire up some sound bites, I wonder. It wouldn't be too hard to do better than National with the economy, and employment.
As far as I am aware, the Irish idea was primarily to provide work for the unemployed by offering manufacturers from overseas, cheap land and very low taxes. It was not a tax haven as such but saved the country a ot of money they didn't have and created wealth through employment. I was one of those unemployed in Dublin in the mid nineteenfifties. Every time I hear of poverty, unemployment and hardship here I cringe. I scraped enough for my fare to Belfast and joined the British Army - I didn't have any money to get home had I been rejected. I was seventeen years old and for the next three years I allocated fifteen shillings a week to my parents.
Whats a shilling? He He.
It's about twelve or more times the value of some posters thoughts, published here. And about the current value of David Shearer to the Labour party.
Sounds a bit like the 30s depression years over here, Craic. I just find it bizarre that profit from goods and services sold to NZ businesses often all ends up overseas, one of the main reasons being lower taxes there. These business operations rely on NZ infrastructure to help make their profits. The Aussie banks are a big case in point too. At least (under threat of legal actions) they started to pay a sensible amount of tax here.
Craic, maybe things aren't going to get any easier.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10847429
National don't believe the statistics.
Interestingly, I have absolute proof that futurists are more often wrong than right by a large margin. I have a heap of American magazine going back to just after WW2., mostly Mechanix Illustrated and similar. One of the magazines has a page of predictions about how things, principally technology, will evolve in the coming years. Another has a page entitled "I wish they would invent............" sent in by readers. At a rough guess I would say that the predictors were wrong 80% of the time. The "wish they would invent" crowd were right 80% of the time. In the early fifties we were all told that with the current rate of population growth famine would destroy the entire world within ten years, so now, sixty years later we have an obesity epedemic. The gentleman from the DaVinci Institute can maybe tell us how, if half the world is put out of work through digitalisation or whateveritis who will be able to afford the digitalisd product. Somewhere out there, there is a 'central tendancy' that corrects everything and balances needs and wants.
Been there done that..blinding white light at the end of the tunnel....I think he's responding Dr. Ropata.
The Hillside Railway workshop has operated since 1875. Under this term of a National Govt we have this sorry situation:
(as posted, with missing words etc, NZResources).
So National has set in place a process to drop 90 workers off the govt books, allow the private sector to buy/take the most profitable part of the operation, and then Bradken will compete with the likes of Masport and A.G Price foundries, who are also well established but won't be finding things easy. This was easily done, just by ensuring Hillside didn't get the contract for a new fleet of wagons. Game over.Quote:
Quote:
Partial solution for engineering works will see redundancies
16 November 2012
A partial sale of the extensive Hillside engineering workshops in Dunedin will see the foundry operation continue and uncertainty for the balance of the operation.
After what was described as an extensive national and international search for potential purchasers, Kiwirail has entered into a conditional agreement to sell the foundry to the Bradken group.to continue an operation on site, including supplying parts to KiwiRail.
The sale is expected to be completed early next year.
KiwiRail’s freight business will now operate the heavy lift facility and the rest of the site will be progressively closed down over the next few months as work is either completed or transferred to the Hutt Workshops near Wellington.
Kiwirail’s Jim Quinn, said while it was unfortunate the company couldn’t finalise a purchaser for the whole business, he was pleased there will still be some operations continuing at the site.
“As one of only a few foundry operations in New Zealand, Bradken could see the potential for this part of Hillside and we will be contracting some work to them as required. But, as an international engineering enterprise, they will also be able to access a larger business market with more product scope than the foundry’s largely ‘rail only’ focus."
KiwiRail said it could not afford the future operating costs to keep Hillside open in the face of decreasing work.
"Hillside has made an important contribution to the development of rail in NZ since 1875 and this won’t be forgotten. Many will be sad about its
The big issue for Dunedin will be the retrenchments and the Otago Daily Times reported yesterday that nearly 90 workers face redundancy.
Bradken as a global designer and manufacturer employs over 6,000 to supply a wide range of consumable products to the mining and construction, rail and transit, energy and general industrial markets.
The company’s global footprint includes 34 manufacturing facilities throughout Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, China, the United States of America, Canada, Malaysia and Indonesia supported by a global network of sales and service facilities.
Sources: voxy.co.nz and odt.co.nz
For a kick-off Kiwirail is an SOE. This is not the govt's decision. But this had to happen. Hillside workshops belong in a bygone era. Of course it's tough for the employees, but the writings been on the wall for decades. Industries come and go and that's the world; and it's progress. Hillside once had over 800 workers who would build anything you wanted as long as you knew someone there. They ran a thriving business in clothes lines at one stasge. Management were allowed no say - it was run by the union. However that's all history. Dunedin will survive. It's amazing how things like this get so much publicity, but growing enterprises hardly get a mention. While hillside has wound down from 800 workers, the Otago University, Medical School, Dental school, Teachers College and the Polytechnic college have expanded by many thousands more employees. Dunedin is an academic city. There is no point in pretending it's a manufacturing place. That's change. There's nothing that can be done about it other than bs type propping up; and that's the sort of thinking that would still have a blacksmith's shop on every corner.
Of course the flip side to your argument FP, is that most of the gear the Hillside workshops were producing is very heavy. Frieghting it into NZ by ship is now more expensive. The wagons were apparently 25% cheaper by being imported. Except the state now doesn't get the GST taxes, the PAYE, the flow-on profits from that part of the SOE, and will probably have to support some of those 90 families with social security. And then it turns out the imported wagons all had faulty brakes, meaning loss of service. The suppliers of the wagons are stuck here in NZ trying to fix them all. So 78% of Hillside is gone, the new AUSTRALIAN owner is going to keep 18 jobs there. Bet they got the plant at a bargain price.
Instead, National could have grown jobs at Hillside and elsewhere, like they promised to do at election time, but as usual it's just hot air. They cannot see past the market, it has to be done by the private sector, hands off. They can't see the advantages of being the government, what opportunities that provides. It's incredibly dumb, putting it politely.
Fungus Pudding where are all the jobs for these graduates going to come from. There are to many unemployed university graduates now. How many Media studies graduates do we need. Free trade is actually going to be arace to the bottom.
Well, put the walls back up as things were when I grew up. NZ manufacturers were so protected that everything we bought was overpriced inferior rubbish - for those who could afford anything that is. Go and spend a year travelling the globe, looking at various countries, their politcal systems, etc and you might just realise how good NZ has got it.
Put aside the progress we've certainly made, and even which parties (supposedly on the left or right of centre) made some of them, and we need to look at what's happening right now, FP. Some very bad signs from National policy are showing up, based on a read of the SST business pages today.
Unlisted farming equipment manufacturer Tru-Test increases its EBITDA to $5.9mill, but this was on sales of over $100mill, and that's a good result? Many others doing worse no doubt. The manufacturing sector is not moving quickly enough to become "bespoke, tightly targeted.. innovating and working on distribution channels' as CEO Greg Muir says they need to.
John Key was on TV3 this morning defending the path of so-called fiscal responsibility, which is to cut govt costs to match the tax and other govt income, and get NZ's budget back to surplus. Except they cut the income back in the first place by reducing tax rates, and by sinking the employed sector with their own redundancies.
Far worse from my point of view is Rod Oram's column, pointing out some things I didn't realise were happening. OK, Rod might not be a National party fan either, but he's generally fair.
He says that the Key govt is producing weak growth and environmental degradation. They're keen on more food and mining/oil outputs at lower cost. Our outputs are not growing as fast as the overseas markets, so the problem is not over there, it's here. [The govt can't tell businesses that we must all tighten up our costs and produce cheaper goods no matter what the exchange rate, and to watch out for the nasty overseas financial situation that is causing them to be careful in their spending, and at the same time trumpet their role in encouraging innovation and high-tech outputs. These things are basically mutually exclusive].
Even John Key acknowledged on TV that the hundreds of thousands of NZ businesses needed to be encouraged to take on more staff. Well, what signals are we being given? Exactly the opposite ones.
Rod went on to explain that this National Govt is working away to severely damage our clean-green image.
The Greens have forced the Key Govt to admit in parliament that the once-every-five-year report on the state of our environment has been canned (it was due next month). Instead they'll produce mini-reports. Many scientists thought the printed data was a bit tidied up anyway, but it usually painted a picture of steadily degrading waterways. The Key govt is also cutting back on the number of NIWA water monitoring points in our waterways. These have been set up over many years by NIWA and others are run by the regional councils. Too many boffins required no doubt, and too embarassing for farmers.Quote:
Remember Bruce Wills, President of Federated Farmers, Dec 2011: For the record, I don't define ‘clean water' as the ability to drink straight out of the Tamaki River, but the ability to see your hands in water without falling ill afterwards. When you look at all of your daily uses of water, where it goes and what happens to it, what does clean water mean to you?
The Key govt is also 'planning to introduce cost-benefit analysis into RMA consents for nutrient loading of rivers'. If this goes through (and I hope it never will) farmers will be able to degrade our rivers if they can show the 'economic' benefit. The Key govt wants to double food and beverage exports by 2025, to do that we'd need 75% more cows. Each cow being about 2% efficient in converting its food energy inputs, that's a great picture for our waterways.
Add this into the issue of us dropping out of the second phase of the Kyoto protocol to join USA, Canada, Russia and Japan, all heavy polluters, while Australia stays in, and we must hang our heads in shame environmentally.
Here are the adjectives Rod Oram uses to aptly describe the current govt: primitive, shameless, incompetent, unprincipled.
David Cunliffe provides more background.
Shearer's speech outlined.
Leadership challenge?
Fungus Pudding only the very wealthy think that. Most business owners do not. As the bulk of their customers have no money to spend. 100 customers with $10 to spend is better than 5 with $25 to spend
Well, he seems to be held in high esteem by his peers in the journalistic world. Don't shoot the messenger FP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Oram
Given that only 29% of NZ voters thought Shearer was the best leader of the opposition vs 28% for Russell Norman ..... isn't the fervent PLP support for Shearer coming from the other 3 future leadership contenders Parker, Robertson and Little, who don't want Cunliffe to steal a march on them?
[QUOTE=elZorro;385728]Actually I like the look of the background of David Parker, MVT. [QUOTE]
Perhaps you should have a closer look at his background.
Hmmm, according to the media this morning "many MPs refused to commit themselves for the February vote".
But then he'd (Parker) would make a good deputy to Cunliffe perhaps.
So, say Shearer gets a bit of a sympathy/dead cat bounce in the next poll and then inexorably, bit by bit his support keeps slipping away in the polls to the next February vote....
This whole debacle means little to the committed Labour voter who has followed his parents and would rather cut off his ear than vote National. Some, and I suspect quite a few, will be glad to see the end of Cunliffe. If he climbs back to the top and gains any significant support, then I suspect that Labour will be in more trouble than they can cope with. All the people he has alienated will be off together with Shearers supporters - we might even see a brand new New Labour.
New Labour-now where have I heard that before? Oh,that's right, it absolutely screwed the UK.
Maybe its aboutime for someone outside th Labour party to steal the initiative and create a party that is based on the principals of the olriginal socialists. The evolution of technology is rapidly reducing the need for"workers" to fill the varius roles and we are reaching the stage where we need to reevaluate the concept of employers and employees. Milliions of "jobs" worldwide are being replaced by bits of technologyand this will not lessen with time. How do we deal with the unemployment that that will cause? I am happy to live on pension and continue to brew the ethanol ( bourbon brand) that allows me to rave on at 11.22 on aWednesday night. I might even cut a cord or so of wood tomorrow to buy some more sugar to make some ethanol or I might do a bit more fencing. Ironically, at 75 I appear to be self employed as well as pissed as aferret. And I am more than happy with that situation
Hilarious Craic, but also disturbingly sensible given the picture you painted for us..
I would have very little to show for years of work without the abilities of employees and contractors. We should all move up in income together, it's like the sharemarket. You don't buy a share without ensuring there is a cohort doing the same. Now all I want is a govt that shares that view, I want to see the right messages coming out before I employ any new staff, and invest more in the business.
The govt. is not holding you back in any way. They want businesses to employ more staff, and have taken several sensible steps to make that easier for employers. So go ahead and employ as many as you want; you're also at liberty to pay them as much as you like. The govt. could help in that admittedly by introducing a flat tax, so as you pay them more, the percentage they pay in tax wouldn't rise, even though they would be paying more tax.
Look FP, that's great coming from you, when you've already stated quite smugly that you'd not be crazy enough to ever employ anyone. How many other right-thinking voters are like you - this is partly why there are so many unemployed.
I want to hear from govt that we're all moving into higher value work, that govt understands employers might need a push in the right direction, because they'll be collecting extra taxes from that work. I don't want to see that govt is ransacking their own companies and laying off staff, in a short-sighted manner. How does that encourage me to do anything apart from hunkering down?
Nothing smug about it, and nothing to do with 'right thinking', by which I presume you are talking about political outlook rather than meaning correct. (Incidentally, I have voted Labour more times than I have voted National. I am interested in policies - not parties, although the personel of the parties matters.) I simply choose to operate as a one-man band because I don't like the laws that apply to employers. I have several friends who are owner operators of their own businesses and each and every one of them is nervous, possibly over-cautious, about taking on a new employee. I'll bet you know some who are like that, and you probably are yourself, because the reasons you give for not employing more staff, are illogical.''I'm not employing more people - cos the world's not perfect, I don't like the govt., etc'' is nonsense.
EZ allowing yourself to be "hunkered down" is simply a defensive, re-active posture. Any neutral observer I would have thought would be heartened by seeing the Govt. undergoing cost cutting and belt tightening as is necessary. This shows they have the courage of their convictions and have a vision of the way forward. If you were a pro-active entity you would make decisions for your business based on the actual climate of your business not what the Govt "might" do or the current "global crisis". Trying to solve the "Govts problems" is a sure sign the owner has gotten distacted from what they know best..their own business.
BB, I didn't think you were a manufacturer (do you add value to goods?), but feel free to give me some more good advice. Cost cutting and belt tightening is a euphemism for putting previously employed staff onto the dole. Lean manufacturing, just-in-time manufacturing, reducing back office staff, more common phrases. It means the business or govt has given up on ensuring they have good profits to work with. They'll then be joining a race to the bottom - a battle we cannot win from over here. Let's take what we have here and add value to it, and certainly let overseas markets know about all the clever stuff we can do. The Chinese aren't backward at selling their products and services internationally via the web and email, why don't we?
EZ we look forward to you entering the Chinese marketplace and demonstrating you new found proactivity. Euphanisms are a fine thing to use...they lower the "hurt" factor. If you want to call it what is ..how about if we call it getting rid of overpaid, low performing pencil pushers and or the new equivalent and attempting to turn them into employable individuals with new skills and some hope for the future. As an importer/wholesaler I saw the writing on the collective wall many, many years ago and realized the only way to do business (in my field) was to import and market the imported products. Thereby employing myself and others along the way. It would have been an exercise in futility and loss making trying to create a manufacturing entity. What seems to be missing in your various posts is the ability to recognise that the Govt is trying to make the distinction between business that has a chance to compete and those that will inevitably be left wanting. I'm happy to give you some good advice ...what worries me is you wouldnt know it if you fell over it:)
No, that wasn't what I was saying, maybe you should read the post again FP. We all need to be finding our profitable places in the international markets. The market won't come to us. I have observed clients who do make the effort overseas, they almost always succeed in bringing back a lot of business for NZ manufacturing. It's just there's not enough of them confident in giving it a go.
Touchy there BB, yes I can see your agenda now. The National govt has decided which manufacturing businesses will succeed, it is only those with a turnover of 3 mill or more, if they are already spending on R&D. The rest can just struggle on, trying to get up this level. For the bigger firms, doors will be held open. That's very handy, a lot less paperwork for govt. Because it only applies to a few firms, and the fact that they probably don't need this part-funding or incentive anyway, is apparently beside the point. Think of the site visits, the press, the kudos. The National Govt's doing the job. Meanwhile tens of thousands emigrate or join the dole queue.
EZ as usual you are talking fast but but not necessarily with full knowledge of the facts. NZ has a net immigration (inflow) of 2.26 per 1000 inhabitants. Unemployment shows that Nz is ranked reasonably globally being 68 out of 199 with Monaco being #1 (no unemployed) and Zimbabwe at 199 with 95% unemployment. Perhaps you should try complaining to Mr. Mugabe...I'm sure he would be happy to listen to you.
I don't blame the companies for not doing their bit, FP. I'm not running a perfect operation either. But I am giving some other companies an edge, and I can pick up pebbles off the beach anytime I want to (Einstein quote). I'm just saying that for firms to ignore the GFC ructions, to note savings positions with the public cashflow and the general govt tightening up, there will need to be a carrot or two. So National can claim all they like about the brave new world, and spend a few million here and there. That's not going to work for the hundreds of thousands of small businesses. They have to start working on ideas that do target that massive sector. You know they'll never do that, because they'd need too many 'pen-pushers'.
None of the reasons you have given justify your stance that you won't employ because of the govt. In fact everything in all your posts is no more than anti-National govt. nonsense. National aren't perfect but they're a long way ahead of the current Labour lot, who have no hope of governing without the frightening thought of influence from the Greens. Open your eyes - the govt. doesn't run your business - you do, and while you may not get your beloved R+D credits, there must still be revenue generating avenues open to you. If you can't be bothered, but just want to moan about the govt., why are you still in business?
Oh....ok so I MISSED something (obviously on purpose) because you SHOULD have written it.. but didnt..EZ you should have gone away for the weekend early..might have helped clear your head. Skilled and trained in what?? Pounamu carving? Advanced linguistic neural pathways engineer? Running on empty again bud.
EZ it would appear that you (along with all your equally needy labour mates) have a fully developed sense of entitlement but a lightly formed view of how and where that entitlement is going to be derived from. As much as you would like to believe that its the Govts yob to help you...its just financially impossible to be hand holding every single small business. At some point the Govt, (whether it be NAT or LAB) has to say..up to you to get pro-active, get out there, stop complaining and pull your finger out. Confucious say man with finger in has limited ability to move hand.
FP and BB, I'm just very pleased I don't think like you two. Where did I complain about how tough it is, because we're doing well and paying good taxes from here. If anything I'm employing more staff each year. And our firm is doing a lot more to help the economy along than you two appear to be doing. Maybe that's because I'm not in it just for me. My firm provides some of the income for several families. My sadness is in seeing National undoing the good work that Labour put in place over two terms. In fact National is undoing the work of generations of workers, and here I mean anyone who works in NZ earning a living.
No matter how crude you'd like to make your posts BB, they don't make any better sense, and I'm a bit like Barry Crump. No matter what I might think, I won't be unseemly enough to put it into writing.
Lets face it EZ...we know and hopefully you do, that underneath the confused posts and contradictory comments that you make...the basic fact is YOU LIKE COMPLAINING. If labour was in power you would be complaining about them. I understand this need. For many people its a usefull distraction from other things that are pro-active, productive or positive endeavors. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once with a serial demonstrator with a double sided placard..one side was "Republicans ruining the economy" and on the other was "Democrats ruining the economy". Bottom line is he was going to complain about someone, regardless of the facts. This type of behaviour is simply a waste of time. Obviously you believe in your own mind that National is "bad" but there is no real developed grunt behind that ..just a shallow emotional reaction. Sort of like a childs arguement..they cant reason so resort to the tried and true " because". You can be as "unseemly" as you like...doesnt bother me.
At least your last post was out of the gutter BB. You should have a look over my posts elsewhere, I'm not always in attack mode I'd hope. I'm as optimistic as the next person, maybe more so. But I don't like being lied to by anybody, especially politicians. Take it from me, that in the one small area of govt policy I know a bit about, National have lied about their reasoning. Now I can see why that was, they are committed to gutting the public sector while they are in office. Simple thinking. They have to remove any policies that require staff, and R&D tax credits were potentially just one of them. Despite the very real opportunities this policy presented for the wider NZ. All our trading partners have a policy like this, or remarkably pro-business tax concessions. Don't start squawking again, I'm not proposing that we go this far. But National did the opposite, they took the small incentive away and then set the barrier to other incentives well above most businesses. Some of the cash they freed up from this area was then concentrated in grants to a few big firms, all of whom were already doing well above average. They had to be, or they wouldn't have received the grants, under the criteria.
Then to compound this lie, National MPs are strutting around pretending that they are pro-innovation. They're more likely to take us back 20 years. How long will it take the manufacturing sector to build itself back up again? If as you say, all of these firms were doomed and we are far better off without them, try remembering the fine line between a firm employing hundreds for decades, with the owners enjoying a small profit, and the firm closing down manufacturing completely for the lack of some small incentives, perhaps a simple one-off adjustment, offset by future tax revenues, as compared to unemployment costs. FPA for example (missed out on recent grants because their R&D percentage was too low). F&P spun out FPH. Why couldn't they have spun off numerous other tech businesses, given a bit of room?
If NZ firms allow in overseas shareholders or are bought out, over time the NZ IP is often simply keyed into computers and whisked off overseas. R&D is nearly halted in NZ while this process is completed - it's very obvious looking back - and then it's gone. It's not that these NZ firms were old dogs, they had good IP, they just weren't encouraged during tricky periods of their life cycles. A useful policy would be that any govt assistance had to be held in NZ owned and domiciled businesses for x years, or refunded.
Labour aren't perfect by any means, and I admit the rank and file don't seem to dress as smartly as the business-like National party, but some of their policies were very useful, and I liked the look of NZ when they were in office.
How about you tell us what National are doing that's helping the economy pick itself up.
Typical result of Labour's ill thought out policies, this one being one of the worst and most stupid Clark & Cullen introduced during their 9 year rampage :
Fourteen Australian-based Kiwi student-loan borrowers may be bankrupted or stripped of their assets for repeatedly failing to repay their debts.
Inland Revenue is pursuing the Kiwi expats through the courts as part of its drive to collect overdue repayments from overseas borrowers.
The first legal action against student debtors overseas was prefaced by a warning letter sent out to 45 people late last year.
That was enough to galvanise most into action, but some remain recalcitrant.
"These borrowers continue to ignore their repayment obligations despite numerous contacts with them by our staff," said Inland Revenue collections manager Richard Owen.
"The others have been able to resolve their situation with our staff and have made repayments toward their student loan debt."
Mr Owen said judgment would be obtained in New Zealand, and Inland Revenue would apply to have it sealed in the Supreme Court of Australia if the borrowers continued to renege on their debts.
That judgment would then be enforced using several possible remedies, including charging orders, asset seizure and even bankruptcy.
Another option was garnishee notices, which would make the debtors' employers send a proportion of their wages directly to Inland Revenue.
Mr Owen said taking legal action was a last resort. However, borrowers living overseas needed to be aware that "they may have gone away, but their student loan has not".
Inland Revenue is also in the final stages of contracting private tracing agencies and debt collectors to act on its behalf overseas.
New Zealand Union of Students' Associations president Pete Hodkinson acknowledged that some people were taking advantage of the student loan scheme.
"If we can get those people to pay, that's fantastic - chiefly because it's their behaviour that's used to justify dropping student support," he said.
But he criticised arbitrary policy changes such as the slashing of the overseas repayment holiday from three years to one, which came into effect in April.
"We don't believe that any student overseas for longer than a year should be considered a criminal because of that shifting of goalposts."
Inland Revenue has collected $42 million in the two years since the start of the repayment drive, or about 10 per cent of the $418m owed by students living overseas that is overdue.
Iceman, the earlier cohort was put through university entirely on the taxpayer, and now students are required to pay for a small portion of their tertiary education costs. It's still a lot of money for a student. National has just arbitrarily changed the rules and wonder why students are having trouble paying it back. IRD is getting mean in all sorts of areas, when the big picture is what they should be looking at. Foreign companies running businesses in NZ and using tax havens and royalties, etc to get the profits back out. Overseas owned banks making $700 a year profit out of every NZer - an incredible ROI when mortgage interest costs are under 10% and the margin in theory a lot less. How are they doing it?
Students, unemployed, sickness beneficiaries and pencil pushers, these are the targets for the National govt. If we could only get rid of them all, or make sure they aren't getting a free ride off the crippling taxes we're paying..
But in fact we all have times in our lives when having the state on our side is important. And NZ taxes are light on average. IRD and govt needs to concentrate on the bigger income earners and asset holders, if they're looking for more (proportional/fair) tax income.
Lots of students and their families have taken on a much bigger loan than they should have or indeed needed, because of the crazy 0% interest policy Clark introduced on the eve of election when polls were showing her down and out. I do not feel sorry for any students having to pay their FREE money back at a reasonable rate when they've entered the workforce.
But the story here is that govt money is not really loaned to students. In previous years those students fees were all paid for. So it's a bookkeeping entry, reducing the overall cost of tertiary education per student. In any case the interest cost wouldn't be much. It was a fair enough election ploy, and note National haven't taken that back, too many votes, and too useful. The student loan cash partially flows into the retail sector, and then govt collects tax on it (GST, PAYE, income tax, levies). So they're doing even better than they were before the student fees were established.
Are 18 year olds ready for the responsibility of $20,000 loans though? That is my concern. Of course the govt would be able to collect the repayments more easily if they could keep graduates in NZ, and in good employment. National is letting the market do that on its behalf, and the market is turning away.
eZ, last numbers I saw, some time ago (mid 2011 ?), showed that around 88,000 student loan borrowers are living overseas and the total student loan debt stood at $2.3 Billion, with around $200 million overdue. National has introduced various initiatives to make it easier for borrowers to make voluntary payments in line with the the contracts they signed, such as early repayment discounts etc. But at the same time they have got tough on defaulters (basically people that have no intention of paying back) chasing them both in Australia and the UK. This has recouped significant amounts of money for the Government and I understand there are clear signs people now realise the Government is intent on getting the money back so voluntary repayments are increasing. This is good. Remember many of these borrowers are now high income earners, many overseas, and they should be paying the money back. For NZ residents they increased the repayment rate from 10% to 12% of earnings but only for those earning more than $370 per week. Again, good job.
How things were done in the past is irrelevant. The people (students and their families) that took on these loans on very favourable terms with clearly set out obligations to repay, should honour it and pay the money back when they are in the workforce and can pay it back. The young farmer who takes over his farm from his family does not get interest free loans to buy the farm but yet they know and accept they have to pay the loan back, WITH INTEREST !
Thanks for the data, Iceman. The average bad debt from the overseas graduates is $2,200 each based on that, but I'd be unsure that all of the debtors are in full-time work. Sure, they should honour the contract. Part of having student loans is the govt making sure that those who go on to tertiary education have a good think about how committed they are. Not a bad result in itself. How hard should the govt chase this overdue debt with possibly thousands of individuals, when it took them years to rein in the big Aussie banks for dodging NZ taxes worth a lot more?
While it may be very hard for many farmers to make a good annual profit from a substantial investment, the entire cost of the loan interest on the land and their living quarters is an expense against income, and unlike our graduates overseas, this income will generally keep coming in, they cannot be easily made redundant. Farmers are also usually able to buy and sell their major investment at suitable times in the value cycle, providing a tax-free capital gain.
Iceman Even at $370 per cash in hand who could afford to make payments on there student loan. Let alone a gross $370.00 Are you dreaming just as hard as these idiots in the Govt. that set it.
PTC, the point I am trying to make is that there are many many people that are now earning good money with no intention to pay. I don't agree with that attitude. Simple really. Those that struggle, such as people earning net $ 370 p.w., have many many ways to "cut the cloth" to suit their repayment ability, just contact IRD and deal with it. So NO, I don't think I am dreaming at all.
Iceman are you suggesting a token payment of 1cent that would probably cost at least $5.00 to process or are you prepared to come up with your solutions to living on $370.00 per week especially in Auckland.
I think you have twisted my words quite a bit PTC. I have been talking about the need for students to pay back their loans. Many of them are now in high incomes overseas and can easily afford repayments. They are the people that are being targeted by recent Government initiatives and I wholeheartedly agree with it.There are various options, including "payment holiday"options for low income people to use. I do not have any solutions for people living on $370 pw, in Auckland or elsewhere and never claimed to, but don't think the solutions will be through a student loan scheme !
Hmm, I have 4 adult children and they have all paid their student loans back....does that mean there is something wrong with them....
One of them lives overseas - in Montreal, and another one of the 4 paid back her loan while she was overseas - London.
So it is possible. You don't have to lie, cheat, steal, vote Labour......
I'm presuming they did useful courses that gave them job prospects at the end. No underwater sheep farming papers.
Well done by them. Most of the defaulters could just as easily as your children pay back the money us tax payers LENT them for free, but for many of them the feeling of entitlement is above the feeling of responsibility when it comes to dealing with the Government, i.e. us taxpayers
That can't be right. I distinctly recall Dr. Cullen being challenged when he made the loans interest free, that there would be less incentive to repay any faster than they absolutely had to. He dismissed that and absolutely assured us that they would now repay faster their loans because the overrall debt would be less with interest gone.
Cullen always was completely convinced his thinking was faultless...smart guy but certainly did not get it right there. Interest free but wheres the buy in, where's the responsibility, where's the penalty. A good idea but lacking sufficient substance would be the report card. Maybe we should automatically revoke any degrees or certification unless repayment terms are being complied with. If you dont pay your house mortgage payments the banks will certainly take action. Whats the difference?
Isn't it already enough of a penalty for students, that they have to pay for an increasing proportion of their tertiary education?
I'm all for the creativity behind the Hobbit movies, but to ensure this transitory project stayed here, the government and local bodies coughed up nearly $100million, defrayed against the higher employee taxes and spend no doubt. So it's a business transaction, commonsense. But the tax benefits went to a smallish group, some domiciled overseas. Could we have done a sweetheart deal like this on something that had longer-term and tangible benefits for NZ?
Student loans are spread around hundreds of thousands of NZ-trained students, and the outstanding amount is only $200mill. It's a business deal, that money will come back in the end. With interest, effectively, from higher productivity. Cullen's no mug.
The sweetheart deal only had to be coughed up because some dim-witted unionists (most not even from NZ) thought they could get free money on top if what was already a fair industry wage. The actual actors were not complaining. How about we send that bill to the union.
Has anyone been studying Labour's new housing policy and what do people think ? Sounds great. Build 1.15 houses on average PER HOUR over the next 10 years and all costing under $300,000. I'm in :) Mind you, Labour's finance spokesman got his numbers wrong when asked about this and said it was indeed ONLY 0.15 per hour. OMG, lets pray he will NEVER be our finance minister and that we don't get a Labour/Greens/Winnie Government with this lot in charge !!
The proposal is beyond belief - and they know it. It's a vote getter for the gullible. If Labour believed it possible they should do it now; they'd gain enough kudos to clean up in the election. There's no cost involved they say, no law changes required, so nothing stopping them issuing bonds right away, even though they're in opposition. They could start taking options on sections priced under $100,000 today. Perhaps 150,000 in Queenstown, 350,000 in Christchurch and 500,000 in auckland - they are the areas they identified as highest demand. Go for it Labour - get them signed up before Christmas. Show those skeptics!
That's something i don't hope for too. The housing policy needs to be looked at though. I'm all for cross party consensus on ideas that are good instead of the default mode of rejecting ideas because the other party thought of it. Land availability has to be a big part of the equation. Economies of scale can only do so much.id like to know what it would do to existing prices as well.no point putting tens of thousands into a negative equity situation.
Same here FP. No doubt at all that we need some policy changes in housing (and superannuation, working for families and interest free student loans) but with a half arsed democracy like we have in NZ today, it will probably never happen. I am really missing eZ responding from the extreme red/green fringe to the last couple of days discussions. Surely he is not too embarrassed !!
No, I'm not worried, the policy does seem to require the completion of one house every 1.2 hours (10,000 houses a year or 833 houses a month) but on the other hand there were consents issued for 1762 dwellings in NZ last month alone, the best since 2008. Maybe 1200 building teams would be needed on sites, with many others in the wings supplying materials. How strong would the economy be with this sort of 10-year project? Would it enable people living in garages on the backs of sections to be housed properly for once? Not to mention the taxes flowing to govt from the enterprise, and the amount of unemployed who would be given trades training and employment in many different areas.
The other question is whether the all-powerful private sector would do this sort of thing under its own volition. No, we wouldn't, not enough profit, but the govt, and only the govt, will be able to see the other side of the returns.
I agree that to get lower cost sections near Auckland will be the hardest part, but with such a large project with a big capital base, surely some stable land can be reclaimed from somewhere. Good planning would ensure these houses didn't impact on other real estate overly much, and that they didn't become run-down areas in later years. In any case, everything's relative. No doubt our older state housing areas look palatial in the eyes of slum-dwellers worldwide. New housing would be built to much better insulating standards for example.
In my early days (1960+) in the industry, State Advances could build adequate houses without reference to local bodies and their building regs. They had their own set of rules. As an example, they could use OB Rimu untreated for framing while all the others had to use copper-chrome-arsenate treatment and many other variations. Virtually all of the bungalows they built from the mid-forties are still standing and provide more than adequate housing. Local body-imposed costs have risen over ten-fold in recent years and this and other factors like the use of inadequate building materials and their subsequent costs have sent the local bodies into a state of seige where they are buried under their own regulations. Also the idea that any new house should provide the full cost of all its water,sewage, roading according to a formula that is generous to the existing ratepayers, is nonsense. The growth an advancement of a town should be spread among ratepayers because they are the ones who gain from that growth. an example - Mains water comes to my front gate, a gate which I share with my neighbour. He has a mains water supply while I rely on rainwater. The council ran a pipe to our front gate for him for about $2000 to supply my neighbour with town water. I suggested that they run two pipes to the gate in the same trench and collect $4000 for the same work plus an extra water rate each year. They refused unless I paid for the mains along the road to the next property at a cost of thousands. I declined and decided on an extra tank for rainwater afor $2500.
When you say "market value" I assume you mean what a property developer would likely want for it? Wouldn't the govt be capable of arranging the purchase of a rugged farmlet, which values land at well above its earning capacity if farming, but still well below urban section costs per Ha, and using its large capital base to turn it into flat ground for building on? Preferably near existing services.
The private sector won't do this by themselves in any big scale, it's too risky to see through. But the govt would know that all sections will be built on, because they'd be ready for the next phase with their (I presume) contracted building teams from the private sector. Without any risk, margins can be a lot lower, and in any case the govt has added tax benefits that a property developer can't hope to match.
10,000 houses in a year, and maybe some of these could be apartment or terraced dwellings, and one completed every 1.2 hours, day and night. National MPs threw scorn on those figures in the house, and at first glance it looks fanciful.
But this report shows that up to 30,000 dwellings were consented in one year in NZ, just a few years ago. Who's looking silly now?
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/P.../Price-History
I noted Craic's point, there have been a lot of extra costs loaded into property development. As part of the issue with a tight economy, regional councils rely on fees from property improvements to defray their general ratepayer costs. I think you did the sensible thing under the circumstances, Craic. Setting up tidy semi-rural urban developments on marginal farms, near existing urban areas, could benefit all nearby landowners with improved services, free of charge. Yes, there would be some negatives too.
I just had a quick look at a drystock block on google, it's 25km by road from Papakura, but each 0.1Ha section unimproved would cost $10,000, and you could probably fit about 200 dwellings on the farm. 10km from SH1 might be a bit too far, but I'm just making a point. Each Ha on that existing farm could not be earning the owner more than about $3,000 a year.
So who's going to rebuild ChCh then? Creating huge amounts of builders will just mean huge amounts of unemployed builders ten years into their career. It all sounds like a great idea but also a fantastic pipe dream. I doubt the people living in garages can afford to pay anything for a house so it would have to the govt paying for all the housing. And by the govt I mean us. I'd be willing to donate money to an education program teaching people if they can't afford to have one child then they can't afford 4,6 or 10. It's all got an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff feel and sure as poo going to lead to another generation of welfare dependant people producing welfare dependant generations.
Yep, I must admit there is that possibility Slimwin. I'd assume these new houses would be purchased by families with at least one good income. A stronger economy over the next 10 years gives everyone time to get organised. It stretches to opportunities in the forestry sector, where our timber is used internally in housing framing instead of going offshore as pruned logs. Having newer housing stock available at a sensible price will free up older rental housing in more urban locations. Nothing wrong with your idea for education programmes. First things first, every school leaver should have a good opportunity to enter the workforce. Where are the trade and manufacturing jobs now?
Private developers are champing at the bit to do just that. The problem is to get land rezoned residential in high demand areas. Local bodies tightly control zoning. If such a propositon does become available pvt. developers swoop on them now if they are in an area where there is demand. Cost per ha looks low on rural conversions, but then surveying and development, or supplying services, roading, sewerage, drainage, water, electricity, phone connections, curb and channeling etc. etc. will bring the cost to over $100,000 per section. The govt. won't be able to do it cheaper - they'd put it out to tender just as pvt. developers do already. The bond part of their scheme is nonsense. Money isn't the problem. It's affordability, and bonds won't help.
P.S I should add that the rugged land you speak of is no help. By far the cheapest land to build on is a level site, where a dwelling can be built on a concrete pad. Get away from that, and costs sky-rocket.
Thanks for that FP. While researching something else I fell over this little gem, maybe you are right about private developers. Although ex-MP Bob Clarkson behaves like a Labour person - he had the idea first. At least near Tauranga, $300,000 is possible. Only some of the dwellings will be at the cheaper end. I think he's bought a big bulldozer, so must be under way.
http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/ne...homes/1261051/
Taito Philip Fields, Donna Awatere...?
Well I mean with a bent towards socialism, trying to correct the free market if it needs it, recognising that a society or country is judged by how it looks after the weakest, etc. Although some of the comments after that article imply that the actual story is more complex than it looks. However those numbers give me some hope that Labour's idea is not fatally flawed at all. It could well be a goer.
Thinking that the left is the only parties with social awareness is simply incorrect. The disagreement is over how to get to a solution. Dragging society down to make people equal has helped no country ever. The much vaunted Scandinavian model has just implemented welfare reform in recognition of their burgeoning welfare problem. Looking after the weak (hate that term) is a must but not at the expense of those that create the means to support a viable country.
Of course if we mined a little more like the Nords we'd have the means.
He's not 'correcting' any market. He is simply meeting a need in the market. That's what developers do. That is what all manufactureres do. It is what all service companies do. And it all works well apart from the odd distortion when some govt. can't wait for market adjustments that always arrive eventually, so tries to gain a few brownie points or votes from the gullible, and stuffs everything up in the process. e.g australian govt. gives first home buyers $14,000 towards a first home, which immediaterly puts houses up by ........, you guessed it ....$14,000 Problem becomes how to get rid of it. Or American govt. - mortgage interest made tax deductible. Now it's bludy impossible to get people to pay the mortgage off. Romney was going to remove the deductability and drop tax rates to compensate, which would have been an excellent scheme - unfortunately most of his other ideas were not.
All that might be fair comment FP, but NZ's population is destined to rise in the next decades. Average house prices are already 7x the average wage, and this is well above historical averages. The housing market is only slowly changing to reflect this, part of the reason being the object of the developers understandably preserving some profits. With many families on reduced incomes and in tough times, a big housing policy like this has much to recommend it. There is a big market there for cheaper homes, and private developers (in general) won't be targeting that sector because there is no profit to be made, just substantial risks.
Central govt has all the cards here. A booming economy will increase the tax take, provide training in a wide range of skills that are useful in many other jobs, reduce welfare dependancy, and of course this effort can be geographically targeted to where the biggest needs are. The Christchurch rebuild is also important, but in that case it is a replacement of housing stock rather than additional good quality housing in a city like Auckland, where a big proportion of new NZers live.
It's also a straightforward transaction: the house is built alongside services to a target price, and it is sold, freeing up the capital quickly. The private sector gets to be as involved as it wants to be.
Slimwin, I still think this type of idea benefits everyone, and the sooner it gets started the better.