By Hayden Wilson & Linda Clark*
John Key’s National Party has done what no other party has been able to do under MMP – won an absolute majority of seats in Parliament.
National campaigned exclusively on the value of “Brand Key” and in the end, despite everything thrown at Key over the long campaign, voters showed they still trust and have confidence in the Prime Minister. A number of factors helped National in the final days of campaigning:
- widespread distaste at Kim Dotcom’s interference in the New Zealand election, with a significant shift in the polls after ‘The Moment of Truth” fizzled;
- deep uncertainty about Labour’s ability to govern;
- fear about the role Winston Peters could play as kingmaker:
- questions about Colin Craig: and
- 48 hours of highly effective wall-to-wall advertising by National.
Labour’s vote collapsed, the Greens failed to capitalise, the Mana Internet experiment was sent packing and, after weeks of teasing pollsters with results that put Winston in the driver’s seat, voters played safe and flocked to National.
John Key's agenda
Key’s emphatic victory already puts him in the history books. But with his opposition now badly fragmented and weakened, Key now has an opportunity to cement National as the natural party of government. To achieve that he needs to keep his Government neatly placed astride the centre of the political spectrum. Key understands this well and has already signalled that any supporters hoping that Key and his strategists will use their emphatic result as an excuse to lurch right will be disappointed.
“We need to hug the centre ground,” he told TV3’s John Campbell.
To that end, even though Key does not need coalition partners he has offered ministerial posts to the Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori Affairs and possibly Whanau Ora), Peter Dunne (possibly Revenue again) and ACT’s newbie David Seymour. Given the new MP has no experience of Parliament, let alone Cabinet, any portfolio is going to be demanding and will look like patronage. Seymour seems likely to get Associate Education so he can keep close to ACT’s charter school initiative.
Third term priorities
National has plenty of unfinished business. But in the first part of this third term expect welfare, education, housing, public sector reform and the RMA to be high on the agenda.
Employment
The re-election of a National Government means Opposition pledges to remove the 90-day trial period, increase the minimum wage and move all public sector employees to at least the living wage are now firmly off the agenda.
In its last term National introduced a range of changes to employment law but was unable to progress them. The Government now has the numbers to push these changes through.
They include:
- Amending the good faith provisions of the Act. The changes will enable an employer proposing a decision likely to affect an employee’s continued employment to withhold confidential information in a wider range of circumstances;
- The extension of flexible working arrangements to all employees. Employees will no longer have to apply on the basis of caring responsibilities. Nor will employees have to be employed for six months prior to qualify;
- Removing the requirement for parties to collective bargaining to conclude an agreement unless there is a genuine reason based on reasonable grounds not to;
- Introducing the ability for employers to reduce employees’ pay in response to partial strikes;
- Exempting small and medium enterprises from the provisions of Part 6A of the Act relating to continuity of employment in certain restructuring situations. Another change to Part 6A will mean that employers will be allowed to negotiate the apportionment of service related entitlements they will have to pay. However, where the parties cannot agree, a default formula will apply so that the outgoing employer is liable for holiday pay and the incoming employer is liable for sick pay;
- Implementing changes to rest and meal breaks. Rather than specifying entitlements by reference to hours worked, the amendments would require the employer to provide the employee with a ‘reasonable opportunity for rest, refreshment and attention to personal matters’. The obligation to provide meal breaks would not have to be met where the employer cannot reasonably do so, having regard to the nature of the employee’s work. the parties may alternatively agree to provide compensatory measures, which must be reasonable, in lieu of rest and meal breaks;
- Improving the timeliness of Employment Relations Authority decisions.
National has also promised to strengthen the enforcement of New Zealand’s minimum employment standards, including using labour inspectors more effectively to identify employers who are not complying with minimum wage and annual leave standards.
National plans to invest $30m in WorkSafe New Zealand to strengthen enforcement and education, employ more health and safety inspectors, focus on high risk areas and bring in stronger penalties. Adventure tourism and forestry are two industries which should expect to be targeted.
Social Policy
National has promised to reduce the number of people on benefits by 25% by 2017. Given projections that growth will taper off during that time and therefore job growth should slow, that’s an ambitious target. But welfare reform has been a key feature of the Key Government and it will continue to be a focus. Paula Bennett has been a highly successful and motivated Welfare Minister. It is understood she wants a new role in the Key Cabinet this term, preferably a wider economic role. With her considerable skills as a ‘retail’ politician, Bennett may be moved into Energy or Environment where she can sell the Government’s controversial RMA changes (see below).
Under Bill English (who remains Finance Minister and chief policy strategist) there is to be a shift in how the Government funds social policy initiatives. Treasury will move to a return on investment approach under which budgets will be set according to clear targets. If those targets or outcomes are not met then the money tap will be turned off. The idea has been kicking around inside Treasury for some time but this term it will be trialled. The funding shift will form part of a wider review of the public sector and its effectiveness.
As part of its agreement with the Maori Party National will continue to support the devolution of money and service provision to Maori organisations under the umbrella of Whanau Ora. Bill English will be watching this closely. If it works, whanau ora could be a model for social policy delivery on a much greater scale.
RMA
In its previous term, National was forced to abandon its reform proposals when United Future and the Maori Party withdrew support. National now has the numbers to continue with its proposals, which include amending Part 2 of the Act, changes to the planning system, and freshwater reform.
In terms of Part 2 of the Act, the proposals include merging sections 6 and 7 into one list of ‘matters of national importance’ which must be recognised and provided for by those making decisions under the Act. Certain matters from section 7 will be deleted (for example, the ‘ethic of stewardship’) and new matters will be added to the list, including efficient provision of infrastructure, the management of significant risks from natural hazards and a new matter in relation to the built environment which is intended to provide for housing and other land use demands associated with population growth. It is likely that the Government will want to review its proposals for Part 2 in light of the Supreme Court’s decision of King Salmon, which changed the approach for the overall broad judgement carried out under Part 2.
It is possible that the Government will appoint a new Minister for the Environment to carry forward its reform package, some of which will be controversial. Along with Paula Bennett, Nick Smith and Simon Bridges are two contenders for the role.
Labour
Labour comes out of this election badly bruised and rudderless. David Cunliffe performed well in the campaign but his party have lost connection with voters. Even in electorates where Labour people won, the party trailed in the all-important party vote. Labour’s overall result was its worst since 1922. Already the blood-letting has begun with various factions positioning themselves ahead of the inevitable leadership challenge. It is too early to say who will come through as Labour’s leader; its fifth leader since 2005. David Shearer, Grant Robertson and Stuart Nash are all interested.
There is speculation David Parker has already resigned as Deputy and while he claims to not to want the leadership, some will push for him as a steady compromise if the caucus can’t coalesce around one of the principal contenders.
Younger MPs Jacinda Adern and Louisa Wall are being talked up as deputies. But the party needs refreshing at every level. This is going to be painful and it’s going to take time.
Third term facts
There are 29 new MPs, 15 of them from National. The Greens brought in just one new MP, James Shaw. The Maori Party brought in its first list MP, Marama Fox. She is likely to become Party co-leader before Christmas. New Zealand First has six new MPs, most notably former MP Ron Mark who is tipped as a potential successor to Winston.
Parliament has 121 MPs, of which 37 are women. Winston Peters is the oldest MP at 69. The youngest is National’s Todd Barclay at just 24.
John Key is expected to announce his Cabinet towards the end of next week. The House is likely to sit on 21 October.
--------------------------------
* Hayden Wilson is a partner at law firm Kensington Swan and Linda Clark a special counsel at the firm.
113 Comments
I am surprised that a dope smoking hippie has managed to put together a more intelligent and coherent analysis of the election than I have seen yet, certainly from MSM anyway. He is showing a pragmatism and insight here better than is currently available from the Green party.
http://nandor.co.nz/2014/09/22/election-2014-the-aftermath/
Meanwhile, in the interests of retaining a little dignity in defeat, here is my list of three top tips:
Stop telling people they were stupid for voting National (or despicable for exercising their legal right to not vote)
Stop assuming national voters are all selfish and greedy – they may well have voted for National because they simply didn’t believe a Labour Green Government had, or could deliver, the solutions.
Stop saying that you think the election was rigged. The left lost. (This for the more volatile activists)
For progressives, this is a lost opportunity. It means another three years before anyone even begins making the kinds of infrastructural changes needed to become a 21st century nation. It means that at a national level a number of indicators are going to keep getting worse – from poverty levels and inequality gaps to worsening environmental quality and loss of ecological integrity. It means another three years of embarrassment on the international stage, as we continue to drag the chain on climate change and spy on our friends on behalf of the Club of Five. All masked by growth rates that sound adequate but are largely meaningless when it comes to the real state of the economy.
Disappointing but hardly traumatic.
His first two points are spot on:
Stop telling people they were stupid for voting National (or despicable for exercising their legal right to not vote)
Stop assuming national voters are all selfish and greedy – they may well have voted for National because they simply didn’t believe a Labour Green Government had, or could deliver, the solutions.
People on the left of the political spectrum use the internet to try and bully people into voting left. Anyone who doesn’t completely agree with them is immediately bullied and labelled stupid and/or ignorant. This online bullying immediately triggers an emotional response, the pre-frontal cortex shuts down and any chance of rational thought shuts down with it. It links neatly with point 2; National may not be perfect but they are a million times better optional than the dysfunctional left. I can comfortably say that the left would have been unable to govern effectively.
People who voted National aren’t stupid or ignorant they simply chose the best of some bad options. Left wing parties and supporters need to have a serious think about the arrogant and aloof way they behave toward the world.
You wrote:
"People on the left of the political spectrum use the internet to try and bully people into voting left."
I don't know that I would call out just the left on that, when we have people like Slater offering bullying as a paid service, and some on this site indulging in some pretty enthusiastic name calling of the left for as long as I can remember. I would imagine that some feel being described as deluded, lazy, greedy parasites for supporting the left is bullying behaviour to try and drive them out of discussion.
I would also add I think here is better than a number of other sites, in that there is a certain respect for evidence, as much as people may argue over its implications.
I'll conceed that the right does it too but it my experience they do it to a lesser extent. I'd love to post the last two months of my Facebook stream on here to illustrate my point. I have a even balance of left and right wing friends; not a single post from my right wing friends telling me how to vote but an almost daily barrage from my left wing friends essentially telling me how to vote and how to think.
Let's wait and see what's learned from this election.
Maybe you only notice your 'left' leaning friends on social media because an all alternate channel such as the MSM were largely dominated by National cheerleaders?
Just read the NZ Herald if you want to see some unbalanced and lazy right-wing journalism. The anonymous daily 'editorials' praising the government and attacking Labour continued on a non-stop basis.
No mention of middle NZ fear of a CGT, farmers having to cough up for the dirty rivers and Asian fears of future restrictions on immigration. Thinking about it National were a shoe in without having to name any policies. Labour could have fronted up with the guy who found the cure for cancer and they would have still been doomed.
The CGT will have to be revisited at some stage in the future. NZ will be broke without either it or increased income taxes. Having pollies who are multiple property owners in a lot of cases in charge of a CGT decision is like having the convicts in charge of the prisons.
So if a farmer has dirtied a river its bad to expect him to clean it up? Sorry I dont agree with that one.
CGT, actually Ive seen little or nothing that "middle NZ" is actually strongly opposed to a CGT? Property speculators, now yes sure, but they are more Middle Act than middle NZ.
Immigration should be halted until our un-employment and housing availability is down to acceptable levels.
regards
nzcoolie I would go further and say that the Greens have peaked and now you will see them slip away and get much smaller in the number of people they have in parliament. When you hear Russell comment that they could never be in government with National it makes you realise that they are way way left and very inflexible. Most of New Zealand are central, close to either side of central or are right wing. Many of them have green ideals including the Prime Minister putting his beer bottles out for collection the day after the election. There is no need for an increasing number of people to vote Green as they have got the message but they want to vote for inspirational people, not for left wing politicians who say they are progressive but in reality they want to keep us poor with their controlling socialist left wing policies. The Greens have been very quiet since Sunday morning. They will be in shock as their results were way short of what the polls were predicting. The leaders dress to look professional and statesmanlike but it is window dressing to try and fall us. It will be even worse for them in 2017. We could be in for many more terms of National in power which is not necessarily a good thing. All of the oppostion parties are looking pretty fragile including New Zealand First which is simply Winston Peters. Take him out and you are left with some pretty average people.
I dont agree with you on the decline. Also the Green's have never as such been in Govn with National. "way left" sure from Act's position. "inflexible" well actually the last few terms have seen the Greens pretty flexible where there is common ground. I mean even Peter Dunne rejected RMA changes.
They were in the perfect position to pick up votes from disgruntled National and Labour supporters who instead went with Winston and the Conservatives. They should have got 15% but they didn't. Why? Because the public have wised up to how seriously left they are when you strip out the Green policies. Because if you vote for them you vote for losers who have no say in parliament except for stuff like insulation. The Greens have done well to get people to think Green in their daily lives but that is it for most New Zealanders. They want inspirational and progressive leaders who will encourage them to get up and improve their lives, not hold us back with negative anti business policies. As the Greens go further backwards in strength the economy of this country will go forward.
gordon, I recon the Greens are doing a wait and see approach. If Labour restructures into a centre left party I think the Greens will stay were they are policy wise. If Labour fractures into lots of small parties or stays far to the left of centre I think you will see the Greens make a play for the centre left. The problem the Greens face is that National can take the wind from their sails all too easily; the Greens flagship policy of clean rivers was easily stolen by National late in the election by their announcement they will force Farmers to fence waterways.
The Greens will never be centre left until they drop their socialism policies and focus on sustainability and the environment.
Way way back I quizzed Russel on their push for ETS (and substantial raise in petrol price). I asked him how the poor families can afford if fuel price was up 20%, most of them need their cars for their 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet ? His response was they should ditch the cars!! Well that summed it up nicely, really..
NZC - i agree with DL as does the recent electorate voting decisions. However if NZ had the choice of CGT or much higher taxes which way would we go? Lets face it - we are going to need some additional revenue as the cockies will be bleeding at the current proposed payouts and forecast worse news.
"farmer has dirtied a river its bad to expect him to clean it up?" - completely agree.
I saw a poll that said 65% of Kiwi's support a CGT on property speculators but the devil is in the detail. The CGT has been promoted by Labour as "smashing the speculators that are driving up Auckland's property prices". When you put it like that the un-informed will support it; I'll not go into the real underlying causes of Aucklands house price inflation because they been hammered out here 1000 times. What Labour doesn't mention is all the other things that a CGT would capture that would impact Joe Average. In my experience of living in countries with a CGT it starts with a narrow focus but is gradually and quitely expanded to cover just about everything, in the UK they call them stealth taxes. They say it won't cover the family home but just wait a few years....
Happy maybe you should read this article...
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/13025/dirty-politics-g…
The common law for over a thousand years say they aren't allowed to dirty the rivers (more than necessary for movement and watering stock for stocks life requirement). and even then not in a way that damages others or violates teh sanctity of the river.
However clean up? how is a farm who doesn't have much business yield going to afford to pay for that? if it's even possible? In the end the consumer has been the one getting the savings on their products from cheap production methods. If you want the farmer to cover the risk of clean up, then we're talking insurance, and increased premiums, and that cost must be passed to consumers. How much are consumers willing to pay for better practices? if the answer is nothing more, then that tells you exactly whats going to happen
Never in the last 1000 years has NZ had so many pastures with such intensive farming methods and high stock levels; therefore higher levels of pollution than ever before. It's not my problem if the farm can't afford to fence off the river; if a factory next to a river can't afford to dispose of their waste appropriately it doesn't mean they can then dump it in the nearest river cause it's cheaper.
"However clean up?" - farmers don't need to clean it up, nature will do it for them for free, farmers just have to stop polluting the river.
If it means higher priced milk then that is the business proposition that farmers put to the market and consumers will decide whether or not they buy the product. Free market.
The consumer must pay for the services they demand.
What kind of business do you own? Are you using the state-fo-the-art equipment, staff and techniques right from the start?
No you wouldn't ... because you can't operate a business that way. It's the fastest way to go out of business in fact.
But in the case of a farm and factories... factories used to dump their waste whereever, and so did many homes. Dairies were small (due to technology) and built right next to creeks so the waste could be scraped straight into creeks. But dairy farmers decided that this wasn't acceptable many years ago, while factories and councils were still dumping waste in creeks. Farmers were _told_ by farm advisors and councils to dump their effluent INTO the creeks (preferrably while in flood).
Now I'm happy to do better, because I'm into environmental care, as are many other farmers. But my wishlist is an armlength long, and customers demands - like yours - are only truly as important as the money you're willing to by your mouth. If you want discount commodities, then you're not going to get the premium services you are hoping for.
But Fonterra isn't able to carry this cost through, so NZ farms become under-capitalised, and you must know how dangerous that is.
I own a company that manufactures dry food products that we export to China, Malaysia and elsewhere. I started baking at home, then moved to the Food bowl (govn initiative to help startup food co's) now the products are produced via a contract manufacturer. I don't pollute, my staff have no bins on their desks just a central recycle bin and organic disposal options. The company car is a Nissan Leaf, the office is in a residential area to reduce commute distances. Some of this cost me more but it's the right thing to do and it's sustainable.
You gave several examples of what we used to do, here's another, we used to detonate nuclear warheads in the pacific ocean but we don't anymore because it's terrible for the environment and we'll awaken Godzilla.
I agree that 100% swimmable rivers and streams is fanciful but we can do a lot better than we are.
"The Hamilton District Court has ruled that the city council will not be prosecuted for its 800 cubic metre spill of untreated wastewater into the Waikato River earlier this year." - stuff.co.nz
Looks like residents of Hamiltion better get their gumboots on, they've got a river to clean
I agree - middle 'swing' voters I know who voted National last couple of elections but Labour in the past don't have a problem with CGT. They see family and friends struggling to get into property and realise it doesn't affect the family home.
I think a CGT is more of a hardcore National supporter's fear that's passed off as a bigger concern than it actually is to try and keep it out of New Zealand. An investigation into how many journo's own investment properties would be interesting...
... aw come on ... behave yourself ... David Cunliffe was misunderstood by the stoopid voters ... 75 % of them couldn't abide the fellow ... obviously they were wrong , mistooken , ignorant yobs ....
But look , another 3 years and they'll mellow , they'll warm up to him ...
... oh yes , me old mucker Cunny should continue to lead NZ Labour ... he's bloody brilliant , a genius ... looks in the mirror and sees the most wonderful person ever to grace the NZ parliament ... even if he is a man ....
... a dead duck ... hardly !
.... well , OK , Cunnie's a little singed and charred perhaps .... crispier than a steak on an Aussie BBQ ....
But he's doing alright by us ....it wasn't until the post-election wash-up that I realised what an incredible asset DC is .... oh yes.... I'm reformed .... Gummie's a believer .... right ....
Three things : remove Cunliffe
Squelch the power of the unions to meddle in party affairs ..
... put the power to elect their leader 100 % back into the hands of the surviving Labour Party MPs ....
... reckon that'd put them back on the right path ? .... ummmm .... left path !
Well pretty easy to see what Key will do ,just look at the narrow minded agenda of any other right wing government around the world and you will have the answer. Bash the poor, slash/remove welfare, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Deregulate at the expense of the majority so the few can make a killing. i expect he will soon be updating that fleet of BMW's he knew nothing about, oh then he remembered when someone came up with an email, still John was a currency trade a Wolf of Wall Street , just the sort of guy you need running a country, but who is he running it for ?
I am one of the rich so under Key we made a killing when he guaranteed finance company investments, not sure how many billions that cost NZ tax payers, but we did very well out of it, made a killing on a Wellington property paid no CTG and my top end tax rate was reduced, making a healthy return on the state assets he sold.. I think John pays 2,6% tax while someone on minimumum wage page 28%.
No CTG on property, wow what a free ride for the rich, a CTG tax could clear the national debt in a few years , its going to take alot longer by reducing benefit payments from people who don't even own or could ever afford to own their own property. Anyway its a wonderful world , well that is if you happen to be rich, sent from my laptop while enjoying Thailand, where 0.65 of the population own 46% of the wealth and land, average wage, peanuts, very deregulated oh and 16 million live below the poverty line, thats the end result of right wing politics, so i wonder who is being bullied here.
Well he's said he wants to hog the centre. If he succeeds he could even go 5 terms. Ergo he just has to setup for the longer term. So sign up for the TPPA which is a right cluster **** on most NZers if ever there was one. Labour/Greens get in and find its hands are tied on the RMA or anything else.
though I must admit I fail to see why such legislation cannot be recinded as long as the cost/impat of that is accepted.
regards
Although the TPPA is secretive i have been given to understand from information on other trade agreements that once signed they are not so easy to recind. The UK trade agreement allows for the NHS to be further privatised but not to be re-nationalised. So i hope that changes to unpleasant surprises on areas that do change our lives are not just wishful thinking. has John got the interests of all the New Zealand people at heart or is he influenced by being a member of the elite rich boys club and perhaps having spent too many years in American corporate banking, who would you trust ?
Yes, very hard to recind, however if the pain of keeping is worse than the loss from dropping, ppl will I hope take it.
I fully expect the TPPA to shaft us, eg we may well sign it and find Congress balks on its terms and refuses to sign it. Meanwhile if the US has the will to go for it, Obama will probably not push for it, his replacement yes probably.
JK will be looking at the export potential for his farmer consituency, I suppose. Plus of course in effect the TPPA can put whats left of the RMA out to grass and allow wholeasle pillaging and polution a right wing wish.
"At his heart" who knows on that one. Put it this way we seem to import toys n stuff to the point of our own bankruptcy...so maybe we are to blame as much as anything else.
"trust" not JK in the least and I think Labour would also sign it, hence and I trust labour about as much, pretty much zero.
regards
Steven, thankyou for an honest answer,in a world weighted in favour of rich people and anywhere America is involved i agree getting shafted is usually the end result.
I sometimes pinch myself when i see the tax benefits i get, knowing that some poor s od earning peanuts is being shafted, i don't think being business friendly should mean not paying our fair share or deregulating at the expense of the environment or the most disadvantaged.
I'm not asking for tax advice.
I'm asking you to back your (frequently fallacious) comment: "I sometimes pinch myself when i see the tax benefits i get,"
like several other of your comments it looks like you're pitching comments with personal experience...but to those who actual have skin in the area, you appear to be "talking from the left" (ie repeating BS)
As in the porperty area, there aren't any tax breaks that are available - there are all the standard deductibles because they relate to the businesses oeprational expenses.... if anything property is a little worse off now the the main building is no longer depreciable (due to capitial gain balancing).
Well i have operated many businesses in several countries and i can assure i have never paid anywhere near the amount of tax as the guy who is on PAYE. There are so many things i can put down as allowances, not just in New Zealand but also in the Uk , including airfares , fuel and whole raft of things, depreciation .I have many friends who brought large amounts of money to New Zealand and paid zero tax since they arrived ,having bought businesses.
I can remember a particular year when i cashed up over a million in property value/and income and only paid 10% , now my point is i see that as pretty good. If you consider i pitch from the left because i see a society where people are treated evenly well so be it, but being that right wing politics has made us into consumers who serve the machine it is in our best interests that those at the bottom who spend all their income have more to spend, that generates business, in my businesses i sold things to people.I also like the idea of hanging on to what i have earned and history has shown that when money is only moving in one direction , there comes a time when those who consider they are not included in society take matters into their own hands . New Zealand may be down the list , but when the time arrives we need to live in gated communities with security guards its time to take note.
I would say selling public assets to those that can afford them disadvantages those that can not, guarantees on finance company investments was great for thos ewho could stack millions away an dget 10/12% for doing nothing paid by the John Key government , but not so rosy for those who picked up the tab when they went bust.
I also think live in a poor man shoes for a year before one decides that they are any different from anyone else.
The guy on PAYE can not have his wages paid via an offshore company or use the loop holes available to those who can afford to use and employ the tax advisors to do so. I see another member has posted a fine example if you wish to take advantage.
The PAYE person is selling their time (labour) for a price. The produce they sell costs them nothing beyond their own personal upkeep.
Some PAYE people upskill and specialise to gain a higher rate of return. These come out of personal spending as they're consumables used by the person - and before I look just another apologist - I do think such spending should attract a "tax-compatible expense rebate" just as a business would receive.
The business owner gets taxed the same personal rate as the PAYE person. Fringe Benefit Tax is supposed to catch any perks that a business owner gains from use of business assets/services for personal consumption. There are some small exceptions, cellphone use, moderate computers, cars donated to business use - these generally reflect the inappropriateness of having to duplicate these items (carrying two cellphones, two numbers)
The business gets taxed at the highest rate as it is not a natural person and therefore does not receive the benefit of natural citizenry, and it also does not have the consumption overheads that a natural person has. However the income of the business, which escapes the mentality of most people, is NOT it's revenue, it's not even it's Net Profit. It's the retained earnings (before taxation but after depreciation). This income is taxed. If this is kept in mind most of the IRD and accounting rulings make perfect sense.
Its when we start getting into avoidance that things get tricky, and it can be annoying when IRD and government (and public) fail to understand what is a straight forward system - tax income, tax consumption - and try to get things taxed that shouldn't be.
although banks playing games with debt to capital transfers certainly muddy the waters.
Thanks for that advice NZ coolie, i have used Spanish offshore companies based in Giblalter.
I am in Thailand at the moment so perhaps i should put the Mai Tai down and get some business done.
I am not so sure about crowing about anyone its more stating the reality ie accepting the truth and not making up stories or fantasy to appease conscience, or pretending its really great to be poor and that if they budgeted better they would be have a wonderful life.
Yes the TPPA is irreversible from what I understand, Jane Kelsey has alot documented for more info, for sure JK works for his mates back in the US and not our country, but we must do what we can to stop the TPPA cant let them win this one as well!!! Join the protest in November or sign petitions.....................
Thanks for that i will keep an eye for petitions and protests , i usually find free trade agreements are not so free where America is concerned.I can't understand why so many people vote against their own best interests , anyway they will learn the hard way unfortunately they take the rest of us with them.
" a CTG tax could clear the national debt in a few years"
No it couldn't. CGT in any form that is proposed is not payable until the property is sold. People simply will not sell houses if you slap a tax on them that rakes in tens of billions.
" Anyway its a wonderful world , well that is if you happen to be rich, sent from my laptop while enjoying Thailand, where 0.65 of the population own 46% of the wealth and land, average wage, peanuts, very deregulated oh and 16 million live below the poverty line, thats the end result of right wing politics, so i wonder who is being bullied here."
Would you care to explain what the hell Thai poltics have to do with NZ?
As there is not a capital gains tax on property sales , which i would exlude primary residence from the exact revenue would not be able to be quantified.I know it may fall beyond your remit but i have lived in many nations where there is CTG on house sales and i can assure they still sell millions of properties every year and aside from CTG you don't end up paying a realestate agent $50,000 for the privilege.
Being that property is a high value area and the returns can also be very high ,perhaps this would explain why other countries do apply CGT on property, New Zealand i am given to understand is the only country that does not and i am sure this is not because NZ is an advanced nation of superior financial knowledge.
The relation to Thailand is that if one carries on along a system of privilege, one law for the rich and another for the poor , deregulation and tax systems that favour the rich , Thailand is exactly where you are heading.
"As there is not a capital gains tax on property sales , which i would exlude primary residence from the exact revenue would not be able to be quantified."
Yes it can be quantified. Labour have done this. It's no where enough to pay of the debt in a few years.
"The relation to Thailand is that if one carries on along a system of privilege, one law for the rich and another for the poor , deregulation and tax systems that favour the rich , Thailand is exactly where you are heading."
NZ does not have one law for the rich and another for the poor now does it.
I think in New zealand nothing is straight forward if you can find a complicated ill thought system its available in New Zealand. We can play silly games, but the bottom line is you can sell a property in New Zealand without paying any tax hence why there is so much talk of introducing CTG in this area. I could write a tax manual which could also say in some cases you will not pay tax, my daughter works for the IRD perhaps i get you a copy.
I can sell a property in a lot of countries wiithout paying any tax. Heck I can even sell a building I don't own and not pay tax. Either way, it is what we call "illegal".
The reason for the talking of Capital Gain tax in NZ is:
(1) more cash to IRD
(2) some of that cash into the never ending balck hole of government spending
(3) it's paid by the guy behind the tree
(4) only rich people will pay it, so it's easy to sell to poor voters
(5) the rich people can use vehicles which recover any tax paid and can pass on what little might be outstanding to the gullible poor voters, so moderately easy to sell to rich voters
(6) the rules will have exclusions
(6a) which due to (1) and (2) will start to disappear as soon as the legislation is in place.
But there are no Tax Benefits to having property over other assets.
*People don't pay Capital Tax on disposal of second hand cars or other personal items.
*People do pay tax on second-hand sales IF they are done for trade purposes (2nd hand dealer)
*People do pay tax on stocks and other paper assets, because there is a solid implication that the instrument is designed with resale on a trading market as a profit making endeavour.
all business cost expenses of operating a house for hire or resale, are just the same for other businesses in NZ.
If anything they are worse than cost expenses of trading in stock or similar paper instrument for profit - The cost of purchase of a kept house, the before purchase costs aren't recognised as tax-claimable expenses. In a business operation, before business operation costs aren't claimable by the business, but legal and other expenses used to puchase a property and to find suitable for trade property are claimable - however as a trading operation tax is due on the profit.
Yet tax on disposal of fixed assets is the same process for leased property as it is for any other owned/leased asset/security. if it's a loss, then claim it, if it's sold at profit over book - pay tax, if it's sold at above purchase or valuation then that's market movement (inflation).
The only time this is in noraml question is working out whether it's personal property (like a car or toy) or whether it's a business transaction (second hand car dealer, speculator). Land-Property is no different
Sorry reading your comment again i see you know about as much about CTG on property sales as David Cunliffe.
In other OECD countries CTG is excluded on primary residence,i gather you thought it would be applied, its more about curbing speculation in an attempt to make houses places you live in.
"In other OECD countries CTG is excluded on primary residence,i gather you thought it would be applied, its more about curbing speculation in an attempt to make houses places you live in."
NZ already has a tax on property speculation. You seem quite ignorant of that fact.
The point was for you, i have lived and traded property in other OECD property , paid CTG and still made a killing. However at the end of the day property is a high value area and if any inroads are to be into debt reduction , common sense would indicate drawing revenue from where there is revenue to be drawn, ie wherev the money is. i am sorry if i have failed to impart information to you that you can understand. I am a business person i have also been involved in business solutions, must admit in other countries i have no difficulty in being understood.
The language is simple to understand, but I'm no ignorant sycophant to be wow'ed into submission.
You claim great tax benefits - but there aren't (in NZ). You claim you've undertaken tax avoidance in NZ.... but if you're done so and got a tax benefit, then it's highly likely you've actually slipped over into the evasion territory. It's an area that is very easy to take advantage of, but few people have actually abused the privilege, so isn't in the public interest to tighten up. But you say you have made a tax evasion through such methods? I certainly have not, my operations run hard enough to the wind that I dare not take any such shortcut.
But your comments read like some of those US self-help books that say you've got to get into a personal business and then you can write off your house, your car, your insurances, power, phone, etc as taxable expenses.... I discussed this with one such author and said to him "so what about Fringe Benefit Tax...on cars that's around 45%" When he understood more about the NZ laws, he got frightened (and then refused to talk to me - I was scaring his fish. His entire system worked on evading tax through that method).
So if you really think there are tax benefits in NZ to property ownership, then I would like to here them.
He's one from mine. One residencial property I owned, I had a girlfriend renting it. we had been in a relationship for a couple of years and we'd often helped out each other with small things as friends do. But she moved from her job and then decided to retrain in Hospitality. Because I owned the property, I could decide whether or not the rent was to be raised, and I could subsidise the other rooms so she didn't have to worry about flatmates or could kick out bad flatmates without financial concern. this allowed her to study her chef's course. Also this meant I received the services of a personal chef for a small stripend, and the price of top quality supplies. None of this "priced to sell" commercial restaurant limitations - and she got practice (and fed) on a range of dishes that she would never have afforded alone, had guaranteed accomodation without irritations; I had a good tenant, great food, and the property was tenanted (even if I did have to make sure it was subsidised at the bottom of the market price) - now there were a few tax benefits in there, but to get those I had to make sure the property received appropriate rental income (declared) and no avoidance/evasion.
I strongly recommend such "renaissance style" deals to people. It's great for the artist and a great benefit for patron. I'd seriously consider such arrangements too, for young people starting out if you're both working. A slight drop in rent or other subsidised costs, that allows the other trade student to work their craft (and expertise) to benefit of all.
That's -my- capitalism. Maximising the opportunties and results from limited resources to benefit of all. not just petty cash demands.
Cowboy , assuming you understand good and bad capitalism which i see you do, helping others is a social act, nice to see that you hold those values.
I would not discuss my personal affairs in detail on an open forum, but i can assure New Zealand has some benefits that other countries don't, i was already a very wealthy man when i came here so i don't suffer any hardship, but i have seen levels of poverty that i did not witness in other countries .i am inclined to say you don't get rich by working for someone else, perhaps you might disagree.
I appreciate your points.
I was raised on a farm in a rural NZ community in the Wairarapa. Wairarapa stretches from the Rimatunga Hills just north of Upper Hutt, to Woodville by the Manawatu Gorge, bordering Hawkes bay. It stretches from the Tararua (and connected) Ranges which the Manawatu Gorge and Manawatu River flow through to the East coast. A width of several hours travel by car compared to the single hour across the Manawatu or Horowhenua to the West coast.
This area has a population (and thus income) which doesn't even rate it on most computer/survey drop down boxes, including the governmental ones.
When I was growing up, my parents had to purchase the farm from their family. This left the family in poverty until I was about 25, well after I left home. There were times when the family had to cut corners, and when I was very young, shoes were something adults wore. At times we had to harvest roadkill as meat. It wasn't a life of shortage, as we had enough to get buy, with sacrifice and hardwork. When I left for University at age 17, my parents gave me $500 - to them it was a fortune, especially from a background which said you got your kids through Primary school, and that was all you owed them. That's $500 bought about half my textbooks.
I don't think I could work for someone else anymore. It was hard enough when I got my first jobs. We were used to self-employment, and doing the job. Having heirarchy and contracts and mangers was just ludicrous. As were a hundred other little things urban workforce take for granted.
As for working for others? There are some very rich government and council employees in NZ, and some serious 7 figure incomes in companies like Fonterra (in contrast to on farm incomes). I don't remember if the Higher Salaries Commission is still handing out fistfuls of OPM. so some get rich - and that's why I detest globalisation. Some get rich, ie a very few, and the globalisation means, they are drug-lord wealthy, and just as rare. If you have one global bank, you only have one Rockefeller, everyone else doesn't get a look in. How does that differ from some Baal or Despot?
"John pays 2,6% tax" - link please... I heard he gives 100% of his salary to charity.
"a CTG tax could clear the national debt in a few years" - link please
"still John was a currency trade a Wolf of Wall Street" - Judging by your grammer and sentence structure I'll assume you're a few MaiTai's down. Don't worry about the links by the way, we can all see you're ranting non-sense.
Sorry if you struggled to understand my sentence structure, i assume you are unaware of John Key's history and how he helped to hit the NZ $.
If you wish me to do your research there is a fee attached, i am a capitalist and like John Key find NZ a very acceptable nation for rich people, i think you will find you heard wrong ref John and his charity donation, not that he needs his salary as he made a fortune when he was a gambler on the currency markets. Don't get me wrong i am a great fan of Johns and having employed 100's of salesmen i love one who can fool most of the people all the time, never known a bloke get so far on so much BS he is great.
I must admit i was highly amused by Nationals election broadcasts, claiming this rock star economy was way ahead of many OECD economies , then they went on to list several economies that are on the edge of collapse and people believe such b s.It has indeed been a long recession with many victims.
Gross exaggeration never helps an argument Phil.. one HSBC economist based in Australia called in a rock star economy, none in NZ, and I certainly never heard National claiming it to be so. Yes the media jumped on HSBC's comment and as the MSM always does, brainwashed the many who started to quote it and some still do now.
Thankyou for your judgement, fortunately my economic planning did allow me to retire a multi millionaire aged 50 and i did pay CTG on a lot of property and managed to survive. I am not saying that right wing politics did not ease the passage, with favoured tax structure for people like myself and John, long may he reign.
I loved the guarantee to finance company deposits, that gave us twelve percent for a long period and all paid for by the ones who did pay tax.
Everyone can structure themselves it is not like is only available to the few. Good on you if you made plenty of dosh.......maybe you could start teaching some of the less fortunate people how to do the same as yourself.....that would help them out more than any Government or Government Agency could ever do!!
Sorry about passing judgement.......
The Thai people haven't had it easy and it's not Right politics that is the problem.
If you look at GDP/wealth as a cake that is shared between all of us , you will find that if 10% take 90% of that cake and leave 10% for the 90% they will need some pretty fancy planning to be anything other than poor. i always look at poor people as doing me a favour, but i must also be very careful not to abuse too far, because one can only have so much security before the poor man decides he has had enough and he is coming for me. Poverty is often a trap and very hard to escape.
The bottom line is we are rich at the expense of the poor, i know for many this is a hard pill to swallow and they will have all kinds of reasons to dispute said, we are also all born with different attributes and many of us are more clever than others, but i accept my wealth was created in part by a tax system that is by any stretch of the imagination a fair one.
GDP and wealth are totally different things, in fact, they're almost opposites.
I take 1mil and sit on it - first year 1mil GDP, second $0 GDP.
I give you $20 to wipe my boots, and you pay someone else $20 to do it for you, and pass it around 100 people, thats $4000 GDP...but boots are still dirty and no-one is any wealthier or better off.
So you can't use either marker as a cake. They simply don't have "cake-like" properties.
Raw resources do have a few "cake-like" properties - ie it's limited, it can be shared (unlike the increasing factor of GDP; like cake its consumable (unlike wealth, if resources are consumed they are gone but consuming wealth can create more wealth OR reduce it)
So treating the economy as a cake is a very poor metaphor, and if you rely on that metaphor to derive your answers they will be inaccurate (aka "wrong")
Many people are poor because wealth is not a priority for them. Others are wealthy from external factors (readiness, family, mentors, luck - and usually a huge amount of hard work and willingness to make sacrifices) ... this has nothing to do with "at the expense" of the poor
As i said people will come up with a million reasons as to why wealth does not come at an expense to others, you did pretty well, perhaps i should have qualified at any given time.
If i employ people at a wage that is very low that is my gain and their loss, if i sell you a property at an inflated price that is your loss and my gain. if i sell you bonds claiming they are triple A rated that is my gain and your loss, I use the cake scenario to keep it simple ie the KISS system.
Your KISS system is how you transfer the dosh.
Your KISS system relies on using the structures to your advantage.
Your KISS system can only work as long as the system allows the structures to be there.
It is Government legislation that allows your KISS system and the transfer to occur.
If we abandoned the structures in the system and all people were on a level playing field as individuals rather than structured in a certain way then there would be a slightly different ball game........
It is the professionals like politicians, lawyers and accountants etc who create the system and the structures that drive the wealth transfer as they ensure the gain/loss game board works for them.
Abuse and neglect of individual rights by legislators, public servants and busy body people and groups who don't respect individual rights that allows all transfers to take place.......I agree some people like yourself rise through the system and learn to use it to advantage and that is why I suggested that I hope you help others by teaching them the system.
No one is truly wealthy regardless of their assets and the performance of those assets when individual rights have been eroded anywhere. Any Politician or political party should only have one responsibility and that is to ensure that individual rights are up-held everywhere......the left side of politics doesn't get this simple philosophy and so we have all the business structures from the right as a form of protection against the left.
The left have to accept the business structures simply because they want money to fund their spending promises or whatever else they desire.....It is always interesting to read a little Chinese history......Chinese people had to declare themselves either a Red or a Black. Now we all know what in the red and in the black mean financially but very few people make the correlation as to how being in the red or black financially is actually related straight to the politics of a time.
Really depends if you want a fair system, i think a lot of the things that made me money stink, but i love right wing politics they always make some serious cockups and that opens a doors.
I mean the finance quarantee was no brainer 12% signed sealed and delived , but also guaranteed to destroy many finance companies. Selling public assets at giveaway prices, over valued currencies its not exactly rocket science.
I always thought rewarding those who create wealth, by that i mean the people who do the work, so they can spend and generate wealth was a much more healthier policy than only rewarding the few. Business structure does not have to be bad or slanted to deliver, there are rich people who do have empathy, our current form of capitalism is seriously corrupted, if money only travels in one direction ,the end game is not a happy one. I am also not just talking NZ, if the global economies suffer banking fraud NZ is not immune, nothing has changed much since the last one so expect a bigger one next time.
fair for who? the spider or the fly?
- -
I prefer to reward those who can do the most benefit.
Rewarding only those who work, rewards the compliant and unimaginative.
Rewarding only the clever, promotes the sociopaths and the cunning who see themselves great by the distance they are above others.
Rewarding only everyone, destroys the reason for work entirely.
Rewarding only the creative and imaginiative promotes waste and trival-ness and ego-seeking (like we see with big consumer promotion events - the great and flashy and...a complete waste of resources).
so we have to reward many of those, so we reward by enabling those who seek a better system - as opposed to our government and training and coporate system (which currently rewards sycophants, sociopaths and conmen more than others)
How to reward them?
(1) use our strength to inform
(2) use our strength to keep the system on the rails
(3) be just, decent and fair-dealing ourselves
This is not giving away our strength, as the extreme left would often have us do, sucking us dry for their causes before moving to their next victim. But simply holding things steady and giving a hand up when the proposals are sound.... which is why I dislike government/council assistance... they give away money that isn't theirs, for doctinal policies, into an economic framework which they don't understand. By increasing private handups, there is the massive advantage of cooperative mentoring, and people can reward the people whose values they believe in...and since they're risking only their own resources, not resources strongarmed from others, those values are linked to the action of encouragement (if both parties are wrong, they fail; if right, the economy for all is helped)
Actually I think treating an economy like a cake is a very good metaphor. Our entire economy is based on "eating a cake" Be it oil, iron ore, wheat, these are effectively finite things, either as a one off item like oil and iron ore or wheat in the limit as to what can be grown per year. It also flows on that by eating all the cake today and in fact easting cake that is supposed to be there tomorrow but will never exist (debt) we are as a generation acting like the top 10%, everyone after us is going to be very poor, if they even survive.
regards
Stephen ,i use the cake example as a way for people to put things into perspective. What always makes me laugh is that if those of little faith actually had first hand experience of the cake theory(which they do but are not even aware of it) they would be the first to object. Take another view point invite 10 people around for dinner then take 90% of the food for yourself and tell your guests the remaining 10% was to shared equally between them, its very bully in the playground stuff but when that scenario becomes an economy people lose touch with the reality.
Now would they be voting for that kind of host to run their country ?
Yes indeed and to see such poverty is very sad, there are many poor nations full of rich people. i was told that many houses if you can call them that have no kitchens hence why bangkok is full of street vendors trying to scratch a living. Then at the other end there are luxury resorts.
and throughout Asia, crammed in the alleyways between the luxury hotels, live the staff of those buildings, and between them, their support economy.
I get frustrated everytime a leftie whines about water quality and housing standards, when some of those developed Asian nations, the family (extended, or course) live in one or two bedroom "huts" with crude toilet facilities and rain water caught and directed to barrels for potable water, and occasionally a hotplate or gas ring to do the families rice/wok on.
India is similar in places.
It's not like they are in poverty either, they just tend to spend on consumables or give the money to the temples.
Go back a hundred years and many of those who you descibe as whining lefties suffered the same abuses as exist in Asia , the day they stop protesting is the day they start going backwards which is indeed happening in most western economies as the wealth divide once again is on the increase.
Its always the determined few who create change, some call them whiners others are thankful for the improvements that they have made for all of us via protest, Ghandi,Mandella,Luther King to name a few great whiners of the 20th century, great men who did not just accept what was thrown at them, but if you want bad water just keep quiet , i am sure the suppliers will be more than happy to generate the extra profit.
I was not very impressed with David Cunliffe, although John came across as a silly schoolboy almost boasting about how clever he was to have a family trust, Cunliffe is obviously not well versed in how us rich people arrange our finances. He should have said there is no CGT on primary residence regardless of how ownership is structured, as we know it is only another form of tax avoidance, its more about how we view tax evasion or if we are on the receiving end of the benefits of not paying our taxes or one of the people who do pay more than their fair share. I would certainly employ John to advise me on how to pay less tax anyday of the week, not sure if that makes me a good Kiwi mind , but is my job to look after those who can't keep up.
I think DC was just another rich guy looking for another party, he found it,perhaps not the best party in town. He will favour his rich mates and bankers thats his tribe,birds of a feather,does that make him evil, i am sure he does not see himself that way, but i would not want to be poor on his watch.
" my job to look after those who can't keep up."
If that is your job (and it certainly isn't mine), what is their job (and are they keeping up their end of the deal)? Or are you just not doing your job properly, since many don't seem to be able to stand on their own yet...or is charity only for those that you keep in poverty (some kind of pecking order thing)?
I'll highlight my previous comment with a real life example.
I was talking to an US person about tipping.
They are "nice people" and therefore would give a dollar to a homeless person on the street.
But, on a forum, they were complaining about having an open (free) bar and people were tipping the wait staff a dollar per drink. He thought that a dollar was entirely unreasonable, and was far too much, considering the drinks were free.
Theres the conundrum though - if the person was homeless he would happily give a dollar to feel charitiable - but should that same person start to come up in the world, then he would begrudge that exact same dollar, to someone who was trying to better themselves. This is not human nature, it's rank pettiness.
I agree with much of what you said, but Americans are very much divided Republicans being quite nasty people, but would you consider the dollar given to the homeless person is to appease conscience, where as the dollar to the bar staff is how they have been controlled programmed.
I don't like the concept of making up the poor wages paid by employers in way of tips.
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.