Support for the ruling National Party has dropped sharply in the latest Roy Morgan Poll, from 48.5% to 42.5%, taking it to its lowest level since October last year.
The results suggests that the turmoil that has struck National within the past week has had an impact.
The Green Party was the biggest beneficiary, rising to 14.5% from 11.5%, while Labour spiked to 31% from the lows of 28.5% previously. This would give a potential Labour/Greens coalition 45.5%.
The poll was conducted from April 21 to May 4 with 847 electors contacted both by landline and mobile phone.
This poll covers both the release of Labour's, generally well-received, monetary policy and the more recent high-profile struggles in the National ranks - the resignation from Cabinet of Maurice Williamson and the start of the latest difficulties engulfing Judith Collins.
The support levels for Prime Minister John Key’s current and potential coalition partners doesn't offer much encouragement for National either.
The Conservative Party dropped to 0.5% from 2%, while Maori Party was on 1% (unchanged), ACT NZ (0.5%, unchanged) and United Future 0.5% (up 0.5%).
Potential kingmaker Winston Peter's New Zealand First Party is still bubbling along reasonably at 6% (up 0.5%).
The Mana Party is on 1% (unchanged), while support for the Internet Party is now at a record high 1.5% (up 0.5%).
53 Comments
It's all in the timing isn't it? Wonder when we'll start seeing dirt coming to the surface on the opposition?
I find it increasingly irritating thinking about the amount of time politicians spend on digging for and slinging mud at each other instead of doing what they are supposedley paid for.
Digging dirt is exactly what we pay the opposition to do. There are many countries where there is no opposition and no dirt dug, but you probably wouldn't want to live there. Digging dirt is a good thing, Democracy works not because we can vote people in but because we can vote them out.
For the life of me I dont see the relationship between the VSR Scheme and traditional monetary policy .
Can anyone anywhere either explain the mechanics of it or give me a link to some more info on how it would actually be implemented and actually work .
I really dont get it
VSR is simple: dont increase interest rates during good times, restrict income available to spend by forcing people to save more and encouraging them to borrow to their eyeballs and buying up large on many things including real estate, in turn fueling inflation and fueling even higher savings rates before they realise how stupid VSR is and return to increasing OCR by which time it will be too late and the bubble with burst as in 2007.
Yip we are only really a stock unit.....capable of production for someone elses gain.......don't work to hard......it is not worth it.........some stupid little people will come along and make some stupid laws and poof.....what you thought was yours.....is yours no longer........
The...Buy a house bus pick up the offerings of the other stock units and just cruise.......looks very appealing.......
that's the problem, my pitiful income gets swept up in the same "economic controls" that are placed on the high income and wealthy people. My mortgages get all the same OCR effects, my income gets hit with all the same VBR/KS costs used to suck up the "inflation"..... except I (and many others) have far less disposable income to wear such blunt instruments ... far less to stabilise against interest increases, far less to pay for my rent, far less to do earthquake and insulation etc upgrades (or other capital works for the benefit of renters).... and for compulsory contribution increases I (and others like me) would not only lose a larger portion of _disposable_ income... we'd actually get far less benefit from that loss than someone over the average wage.
The big thing is the drop in National didn't go to any of their support partners, so is genuine disgust rather than choose which flavour of National led you want to support.
Also, this is the polling period to the 4th, Judith Collins only began attacking journalists with made up allegations on the 4th. Williamson only resigned on the 1st. We are only going to see the effect of all that in two weeks with the next Roy Morgan.
The "sheeple" are finally awakening from their slumber to National Party "cronyism" and party & individual "vested interests" that have been rampant for so long ......... you can fool some of the people some of the time but ya can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Property investor income is rent; mainly offset by 'expenses' and often kept low. I dont think they even pay a kiwisaver contribution on profit (if any) from rentals?
So net effect of VSR on them; No increased costs on them, artificially low interest rates during periods of strong growth, borrow borrow borrow.
simon...
simple simon...
Interesting way of looking at the world bro.
expenses are the cost of operating a business. one doesn't get rent then deliberately throw away the money in "expenses" to keep tax bill (ie income) low. Expenses are the legimate operating cost of operating the property. Improvements, are capital items, and thus NOT tax deductible.
It's not a wage or salary, it's a proprietorship (sole trader) drawing from the business. So KS contribution is not appropriate. They can however make voluntary KS deposit.
This is clearly reflected in the fact there is no "employer contribution"...as there is no employer! A KS contribution, would have to be drawn off as addition drawings, then from some mystic nowhere more drawings would also have to appear to act as Employer Contribution.
Remembering that a business' net profit belongs to the business, and not to the owner. (a common mistake from those whose herd mentality is forever stuck in labourer mode)
Could have simply said 'no, rental returns will not be included in compulsary KS under labour'... Didn't need a short story narrative or refresher course on high school accounting.
So they try to control inflation by simply limiting disposible income of workers earning a wage or salary? Good luck. My main point being, for me, if interest rates are relatively lower, I'll be more likely to buy further rental's that yield returns significantly above the low term deposit rates we would see under this policy. I'd focus on lower cost properties (best for yield anyway) and consider ways of renovating in a few years time to make them apealing to the masses of FHB's that will have fat kiwisavers despirate to use them on a house because late 60's is too far away
Since the days of Internet pre-Web, it is proper to include support for ones' position. Admittedly that was because such discussion happened between peers so it was prudent to show ones' reasoning, rather than just take ones' opinion out and wave it in everyones' faces.
No they don't attempt to control the wage/salary workers only. Do you see anywhere where wage/salary earners aren't allowed to start a rental business? In fact starting a business (trading) would be one of the most fundamental human Rights that there could be. More important than food, water or shelter!
What you will find that if there is low interest rates you will be competing with a larger pool of potential renters, most of which, like me have only shallow purses for the goernment to steal via rates and policies.
By putting interest rates up, the pool gets smaller, but those in the pool have deeper pockets. This means the prices actually go higher (elastic demand). But more importantly the governments cronies are in a better place to buy, and their pockets are deep enough for the government to get some blood....and for those rentiers to pass on the costs to those trapped under them.
Oh and yield + capital gain tends to equal 17. If you get good yield, chances are your cap gain is limited. Pay more for a better property, your rent yield is lower (costs are less common, but more expensive) but the property will tend to resell higher. and since capital gain is based on 100k lots..... and rent on $100- lots....
"expenses are the cost of operating a business. one doesn't get rent then deliberately throw away the money in "expenses" to keep tax bill (ie income) low."
Negative gearing.
Deliberately incure interest expenses above rent recieved to make a tax loss and recieve a third of income tax back. Theory being capital appreciation will make up for the loss and then some, and is not taxed if property is not purchased with the intention of re-selling for profit.
That's one spot I think that IRD should tighten up. In that Negative gearing should be indication of intention to trade - as I can think of very places brought negative geared that the owners can really say they'll never have intention to resell.
But basic no. One doesn't deliberately negative gear for tax purposes. Not if you know what you're doing or have decent accountant. Negative gearing does allow to recoup the interest and maximise purchasing power, but the same goes for any type of investment. Indeed my FX swings can act as negative gearing come balance date. Just as interest on share portfolios and trading/manufacturing business (sole trader/partnership) are in teh same negative gearing situation.
To do so with a company requires use of Look-Through-Company (revised LAC model) which you're best to talk to a qualified accounting specialist, but I'm told it relates to the shareholding proportions. Point being, you can still negative gear there quite effectively (in fact, if you're liable for child support payments, you pretty much have to if you want to survive financially)
That is pretty naive in two ways KH. Firstly Child Support assessments have the ability to look through the tax advantages. Secondly there are plenty of men out there that have had their children stolen from by the mother/family court combination but are expected to pay with their wallet when they would rather pay with their time.
so my mrs taking off with the kids as a meal ticket, and me losing (28+30%) of gross revenue , and 15% of net revenue (exc rent) makes me a "deadbeat"?!?
What I'm referring to is protecting ones' own _revenue_ in a business or rental or investment situation. personal income (net profit after interest and depreciation) is not of any concern to Child Suppoort, they just want to steal as much as possible from the poor bastard left behind - they completely ignore that the law puts caps on the amount and refers to "earnings" not income or revenue.... so much so that in an administrative review they tried claim some of a limited liability company I own (20 of 1000) shares in, had purchased extra feed and animals and paid money to IRD for provisional tax...CS tried to insist that those were all my personal "Earnings" and I should pay CS on the them.
I carry a company cell phone, they decided that it's value ($500) was "untaxed earnings".
Even through I pointed out the phone came free with the business plan and was compulsory for business purposes. Rather than admit that it was a work related item...they declared that the business plan cost was also personal earnings ON TOP of $500 for the phone.
Crikey Cowboy - I have heard many stories but this is pretty shocking behaviour. They sound pretty much like they are tarred with the same feather as ACC. This is abusive and bullying behaviour.
Does your Ex get all the money you have to pay in CS? Can you do a private written contract arrangement with her? This might see her get more money than what CS pays to her. Win Win situation for you both and of course the kids.
My understanding is that a set amount is paid in child support to the parent with the kids and the parent who is paying is subsidising parents who don't pay or who leave the country.
I'm an IR3 filer, and because they would return the money that they were overpaid (that I had to borrow to pay) I was unable to repair a property I had brought her out of... resulting in having to borrow even more to do the repairs and making huge loses when I had to eventually depose of the property to defray the cost of repair. So she lost out in the long run there.
Since then the farm/fx has pretty much soaked up most revenue, hopefully make decent profit this year.
For the private contract, she went to a lawyer and wanted 60% of all future income more 17 years. I got in an escape clause for if my income dropped more than 20%, which it did 6 months later when the company dropped overtime and standby payments. she also got all the family property except the house, which was held 50:50 tenants in common. I got the business debts of 7k. Sadly in my employment at the time I was 1k over the threshold for legal aid - 7k debt, moderate salary, equals my not affording a lawyer. Where she quit her job and got guaranteed legal aid (which I had to pay off when I brought her out of hte house 12 yrs later since legal aid had slapped a lein on the house). she still expects me to support her, and is trying to convince our eldest to stay at home and pay rent while at uni. ...me...wiping my hands of it. She goes on and off DPB depending on what employer she has pissed off this time: She got a scholarship for teaching, she chose early childhood and disabilities to go with her two younger kids to a different father... the scholarship was because she already had got a degree in Commercial Law, so qualified for the government grant
Oh - and BTW - deliberately setting up a trading enterprise (company or sole trader) that will intentionally act to lose money for it's entire existence ... is known as tax evasion. Very bad. Eventually it must theoretically have a corner to turn into profitability.
Trusts are different and are allowed to lose money, but they require inputs and taxes patterns to account for that. (can't negative gear the losses)
I find rogue apostrophes very distracting - they interrupt the flow of my reading and actually distracts from the point you're trying to make.
I assure you I'm not being a grammar nazi - there are many errors against grammar being committed on this here forum. I'm guilty of a few myself - the keyboard seems to be sticky at times and not all text appears in the post.
But rogue apostrophes are annoying as hell, and you had them in 2 consecutive posts.
No need to take it personally, I wasn't pointing it out to needle you.
Ok, point accepted.
Could I ask that you mention that you would like it removed in the future? It might go down a little better with myself and others.
I do honestly try with the grammar but I don't think in words via Internal Speech Dialogue. ISD is the normal mode for most people. This means I tend to have to type a description of what I'm observing/feeling, and it's rather difficult to observe, commentate and get the English syntax and grammar correct. Even simple things like getting the verb-noun structure is a trouble <- yes I was going to edit that, but I thought I'd leave it in as an example. I should edit it [ed: so as] to read "is trouble".
And for some insane reason even though I'm 100% certain of my there/their, my fingers always get the wrong one!
Regular readers will voucher for my issue with tenses and other root word variants.
The form you used is frequently used as a deliberate putdown. i.e. it's read as "I don't care what you wrote because you're an idiot who can't even get your "it's" and "its" correct so the rest of your post must also be utter garbage".
A similar technique is done when someone has transposed letters or words.
So my apologies.
Translating the poll results into MMP style results, and calculating out all the margin of error combinations, if this Roy Morgan result was how people voted at an election there would be about a 1% chance for a hung parliament, a 5% of Labour/Greens governing without needing NZ First, a 5% of a National lead coalition governing with needing NZ First, and a 89% that NZ First would be in the kingmaker position.
It is just one poll and with 20% of New Zealanders not having landlines I think we should be very careful of telephone polling. That said, most people I know who voted National really only voted for John Key and he's looking weak at the moment - especially in his dealing with Judith Collins. If he can't control his bunch (which Joe Public is uncertain of) then they will lose the swing vote for sure.
And a crap result, whichever bunch of lunatics get into power.
There is not one Party with a manifesto that has any inkling of how to fix problems and go forward, without compounding the problems they, repeat, they instigated between them over the past twenty to thirty years.
Whichever crony they were trying to impress, they forgot that we need a United Nation, without all the current divides that pertain and benefits that cause more harm than good, but the real people who need benefits, are forgotten.
We need a rule of law for all, not a bent one for some.
We need benefits for those that need help, not those that need a handout.
We need work and income that is sutainable and housing that is truly affordable, not a landlords delight.
(And yes, those that bleat, when a half percent rise, is in the offing).
We need to look after our own people, not import more problems.
We need more people who do not think a Legal Highs or booze on benefits or a low wage is really living.
We need to get back to basics.
We need change.
Seen no sight of that at all from these MMP wanna bees. Too many idiots in one place, for so, so long, with vested interests in such a small country is totally unsustainable.
Even when they fail the Country, the Justice system, The Electorate, there is no come back.
Even when they Rob citizens to pay their debt, they get a telling off, in a luxury house of their choosing and a pension to add insult to injury.
Even when a Banking crisis occurs, or a Finance Company rort happens, they rob the savers, the workers, not the people who caused the problem.
The Bankers and the debtors and the vested interests.
We keep repeating and regurgitating and belching out factors, that crime does pay.
And it actually, really does.
Or so it seems.
About time for a change, in my book.
And perhaps a look towards a brighter future, not more of the same.
And if anyone mentions Dot.com...being the saviour...forget it.
I could explain, but cowboys are known to be ruled by being a six shooter, not a straight shooter. (And that is a joke, not an insult).
No, one rule of Law, one rule of Taxation, one rule of expenses deduction, one rule of Mortgage risk and reward, one Rule of immigration, not buying your way in, as per the bent systems twisted to suit.
No, we need quality workers, quality rules, not exceptions due to huge sums of money from who knows where, earn't who knows how, without provenance, without fear/favour.
A simple example. Using you comments.
Some have been stealing bread, a euphomism for money the semi-legal way and I know at least one Bridges that has been asleep, just recently, not sure who was underneath, but was asleep on the job, do not know, whether it was relevant or not, in decision making, but no one should be asleep at the wheel, ruining any National Park of ours. We need wide awake people, with eyes wide open to the damage they can cause, by hasty decisions and to our environment that some do not even know, exists.
We should also not reward Civil Servants asleep on the job, but that is another debatable matter.
No, my rule of thumb, is that if we have problems now, interpreting rules to live by, then someone can easily benefit, can easily deceive, can easily get away with murder, it just depends on perspectives.
If a person used to steal a loaf of bread during a famine, in the UK, they would be sent to the Colonies.
Now, I would not wish Australia on any Kiwi (sarky), but now Kiwis go there to escape the Famine of work, hereabouts.
No befits available, they are Kiwi.
Reverse that...let an Aussie any where near the Promised Land of Kiwi....benefits can apply and often do, in fact they can rape and pillage legally and fractionally steal from every Kiwi known to man (Or woman) and get away scot free with the loot.
Because we unfortunately have too many Australian Banks...why the hell do we.??. What did we do wrong. Why can they and the Reserve Bank arrange to steal at whim, in collusion with others from those who did no wrong.
And we imported other Banks to do the same.
My 1st Rule change.
Kiwis rules, for Kiwis sake.
Benefits do not accrue to any one not a resident, that includes Aussie Banks.
2nd.
Fractional Reserve Banking does not apply. Full stop. It is not gambling we need, it is certainty.
Let the comments, begin.
"No, we need quality workers, quality rules, not exceptions due to huge sums of money from who knows where, earn't who knows how, without provenance, without fear/favour."
This I consider a great elephantine-sub-domicile issue.
If we need quality workers, then why have our leaders and system not moved to develop them from our own ranks? Why do why put up with a society that seems unable to produce such people? Not only this, but quality workers normally receive larger and better quality benefits, why can't we not create a NZ society that sees that happening for our own children?
If I give [foreign] bread [quality jobs] to the country they call me an employer,
If I ask why is there no bread [quality jobs] for my country's people they call me a socialist.*
* apologies to Helder Camara, the Archbishop of Recife in Brazil, who famously said: 'When I give bread to the poor I am called a saint, but when I ask why they have no bread I am called a communist.'
We actually have dumbed down our schoolings, universities and expectations.
With a result of almost total fiscal imprudence.
We became a nation of house flippers, land bankers and inflationary addicts a bit like America. I giant ponzi in the making.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/05/02/these-best-cities-to-fli…
We even dumbed down our Building regulations and look where that got us.
Of course the Banks and the State encouraged this, it was/is the economy, to all intents and purposes.
The overheads have expanded beyond all belief.
It now takes two idiots and an imported fractionally reserved bank loan to survive.
Or a business banking on other Countries doing the same.
Even Cowboys should realise, our customers are now our problem.
We will now sell to almost anyone to survive. That is what a ponzi is, until it isn't.
Nothing can go wrong, can it.?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101648483?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Crelated%7Cs…
For it to be a Ponzi, the crew at teh top would have to be reaping a wee bit off each of the layers under them and paying themselves off with everyone elses money, with a promise to the majority that one day they too will enjoy the benefits of the pyramid.
The money handling system (banks, tax system) would have to be without intrinsic value, exisitng and paying themselves just to channel the money around and filter it a bit at a time up the ladder. Collecting small chuncks from the payees, into the pool, and pushing it up to the pilot "leaders".
In return those paying in at the bottom of the pyramid would have to make do with promises of "better times" and future renumeration for joining and contributing.
Bonus would be paid out at the top for special efforts and recognitions - the notice of the ponzi effect, is that others lower down in the scheme have no way of qualifying for those bonuses, no matter how hard they try.
My style is to question the status quo. I write with a twist, to make others think.
The problems we all face today are bent and twisted to suit, so are the rules, the rulers and the systems we contend with.
Why can one man dictate the exchange rates?. Who does he favour.?
Is an importer, better than an exporter. Is there economies of scale, or are the scales manipulated to suit.
Why tax one aspect, but leave others alone to prosper at the expense of others.
Whose rules do we follow. Those who make the rules, or bend them.
Why do some need accountants to fiddle the books and others not account for their unlawful actions.
Why can some appeal to others, but certainly never appeal to me, with what they did.
They ruined peoples lives. When is restitution ever going to happen.
When was a blue collar crime ever appealing, but those who lost everything have no one to appeal to.
When is a pension not a pension.
When is a Kiwisaver safe from those who stole Kiwi's savings.
What will change.?
When will people cotton on.?
Here is what I mean by that...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1405/S00276/nzers-being-set-on-road-to…
It is irresponsible to represent these small percentage changes on data collected from 847 people as being significant and important. There is such a huge margin of error considering that the number of voters is in excess of 2 million. A tiny poll like this is a complete waste of taxpayer money.
Well the last sentence shows a) your blinkered politics and b) total ignorance. The Roy Morgan poll is run by a private business, yet you cannot even be bothered checking that simple fact.
The rest of your post matches it. ie
a) the polls are consistant in their sampling give or take a little and hence while a 6% drop so fast would be a bit much to believe given the recent national PR disasters not un-reasonable.
b) Noise, in the last poll National were a bit above trend, some of that 6% is that correction.
c) If you look at the trend rather than the noise it doesnt look good for National. As always its a Govn that loses the election and the last few weeks seems to have been significant.
regards
The latest findango with the Imm Minister travelling to the Chinese gentlemans hotel shows the pecking order that National has set up. "On bended knee indeed" Not a good look John Key. Also when is the new hotel going to be built that was promised in the original visa for this Chinese guy.
I see there is no mention of revoking the visa etc for the Chinese guy after he has been found guilty of wife bashing. A foreign student was sent home after smoking a funny cigarette - this apparently is a worse offence than wife bashing in National's eyes. One rule for the rich - stuff the rest.
NZ is for sale folks. Time to give someone else a go to see if they can raise the bar.
Kiwis so dumb Lah!
I shall be charitable, this Friday Joke is not about Politicians. But it could well be.
The Red Cross realized that it had never received a donation from the city's most successful lawyer. So a Red Cross volunteer paid the lawyer a visit in his lavish office.
The volunteer opened the meeting by saying,'Our research shows that even though your annual income is over two million dollars, you don't give a penny to charity. Wouldn't you like to give something back to your community through the Red Cross?'
The lawyer thinks for a minute and says,'First, did your research also show you that my mother is dying after a long, painful illness and she has huge medical bills that are far beyond her ability to pay?'
Embarrassed, the Red Cross rep mumbles, 'Uh . . . No, I didn't know that.'
'Secondly,' says the lawyer, 'did it show that my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind and confined to a wheelchair and is unable to support his wife and six children?'
The stricken Red Cross rep begins to stammer an apology, but is cut off again.
'Thirdly, did your research also show you that my sister's husband died in dreadful car accident, leaving her penniless with a mortgage and three children, one of whom is disabled and another that has learning disabilities requiring an array of private tutors?'
The humiliated Red Cross rep, completely beaten, says, 'I'm so sorry, I had no idea.'
And the lawyer says, 'So . . . If I didn't give any money to them, what makes you think I'd give any to you.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
BOTH POLITICIANS AND NAPPIES NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.