Had a feed of fish fingers in between
Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
There’s a plot?
A great example of whataboutism when you cannot counter a fact, the fact here being that Jones did not declare the meeting and it wasn't recorded in his official diary.
But yeah, that's the same as Darleen Tana's husband's illegal employment practices somehow...
I must admit that I tend to stay out of this debate due to huge amount of uneducated, untrue and downright fucking stupid polital takes largely being posted.
It is a comparison between Jones and Tana for the benefit of the left.
You being a big shot in planning or construction and liking a drink would surely know how relationships are built.
Not having recorded a meeting recorded in his diary is not corruption in my opinion and is certainly less of a transgression than what Tana may have been involved in.
Of those things is a crime and one is unethical.... You were saying about shit takes?
It is a political thread. There is no science in politics or an educated high ground to take so don't try and claim it.
From the moment he entered politics to his antics during Jacinda's first term through to now, Jones has constantly shown what he's like. If he didn't kiss Winnie's butt so much, he would have been kicked out of NZ First years ago. The only thing that Winnie likes more than the adulation Jones gives him, is the sound of his own voice.
Interesting afternoon.... just finished a site meeting with an ex-client threatening to sue me. A few years ago, he approached me about extending a concrete terrace and providing a pergola over it connected to the existing concrete terrace and the new concrete. Although, under the Building Act, it didn't require a BC the builder insisted that drawings get done because the house is on "bog land" in Takanini.
Because houses in the area can rise and fall due to how much moisture is in the soil and because the existing concrete was never designed to have the additional weight on it, I designed it so that instead of just having brackets bolted directly to the existing concrete that the concrete should be cut and wider footings put in with starter steel epoxied into the existing concrete and through the new concrete footings. This was so the slab would rise and fall along with the pergola.
Instead, the client instructed the builder not to do that but to just surface fix the posts in the existing area and provide the footings to the new area as the client decided it was too expensive and unnecessary. He also told the builder to leave out epoxied starters joining the old concrete slab to the new slab.
So, went there today and it's an absolute mess. As I'd predicted, the old and new concrete has risen at different rates meaning the new concrete is currently 25mm above the finished height of the old concrete. The pergola is "pivoting" on the weaker brackets while the posts on the footings has remained in place..... given enough force, and the bracket will fail at the pivot point. Instead of using galvanised plates to join the posts to the beams as I'd detailed, he made the builder use cheaper plain steel brackets designed only for internal use and they're starting to rust.
When he asked me how he could fix it, my response was to say to pull the pergola down, lift up both bits of concrete and start again with fresh concrete (including the slabs), brackets and timber. He was not impressed and threatened to take me to court. So, my reaction was..... sue me if you want but what you've built is so far removed from what I designed, you won't get very far.
Because houses in the area can rise and fall due to how much moisture is in the soil and because the existing concrete was never designed to have the additional weight on it, I designed it so that instead of just having brackets bolted directly to the existing concrete that the concrete should be cut and wider footings put in with starter steel epoxied into the existing concrete and through the new concrete footings. This was so the slab would rise and fall along with the pergola.
Instead, the client instructed the builder not to do that but to just surface fix the posts in the existing area and provide the footings to the new area as the client decided it was too expensive and unnecessary. He also told the builder to leave out epoxied starters joining the old concrete slab to the new slab.
So, went there today and it's an absolute mess. As I'd predicted, the old and new concrete has risen at different rates meaning the new concrete is currently 25mm above the finished height of the old concrete. The pergola is "pivoting" on the weaker brackets while the posts on the footings has remained in place..... given enough force, and the bracket will fail at the pivot point. Instead of using galvanised plates to join the posts to the beams as I'd detailed, he made the builder use cheaper plain steel brackets designed only for internal use and they're starting to rust.
When he asked me how he could fix it, my response was to say to pull the pergola down, lift up both bits of concrete and start again with fresh concrete (including the slabs), brackets and timber. He was not impressed and threatened to take me to court. So, my reaction was..... sue me if you want but what you've built is so far removed from what I designed, you won't get very far.
Which way will Labour go? Wealth tax or CGT.
Labour being out of Government, party higher-ups will be well represented, including leader Chris HIpkins.
Members will swap war stories, whinge about the Tories, compare the quality of catering with previous regional conferences and, most importantly, strategise for re-election in 2026.
Top of the agenda, and why this conference season is not quite like the others, is a debate about tax.
Labour members love to talk about tax, much to the chagrin of leadership and election strategists who think the path to victory lies in talking about “how to spend it”, not “where it comes from”. Many members think differently and look at tax as a way of rinsing the right, as well as a means for building schools and hospitals.
The fact Labour’s recently elected Policy Council, the body charged with facilitating members’ debates on policy, includes two alumni from the office of Grant Robertson suggests members are keen for a debate.
It’s likely to go one of three ways. The party may choose a capital gains tax like Labour campaigned on in two elections (arguably three, let’s be honest, 2017′s promised Tax Working Group had one job: recommending a CGT), it may decide on a wealth tax like the one worked up by Robertson and David Parker last year, or it might decide to do nothing.
Let’s not overstate the relative unimportance of this discussion. This process is on the party side of the Labour Party and will culminate in a remit to amend the party’s policy platform that will be worded in a way that will not commit the party to one form of tax or another. It’s likely to say something about taxing all forms of income equally, which will allow the top brass, the party council and the parliamentary party, who decide on election policy for the manifesto, to fill in the “CGT vs wealth tax” detail.
Where members’ power lies is in making clear by implication which direction they would prefer the party goes.
The decision is likely to land upon something fairly progressive, unlike taking GST off fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, the policy Labour reanimated.
This is largely because of where Labour is in the lifecycle of political parties. After six years in office, fatigued by the daily disappointment of compromise, the leadership needs to reconnect with members, who naturally harbour greater ambitions than MPs whose sights are dragged earthwards under the weight of the baubles of (potential) office. GST off fresh fruit and vegetables just won’t cut it.
Hipkins knows this. He also knows that as the leader who cleared the decks of some of Labour’s most progressive policies last year, including a planned wealth tax, before losing the election, that the party’s unity depends on his ability to bring together pragmatists and idealists.
As the Herald has previously reported, Hipkins’ much-publicised rollback of a decision to “rule out” while leader any wealth tax or CGT was part of a bargain with members of his caucus for another uncontested shot at the top job. That doesn’t mean Labour is going to run on either of those taxes, but it does make it quite likely. The progressive part of the party cannot stomach another serving of moderation, GST-free or otherwise.
Hipkins knows that after a stint in Government, where the parliamentary party naturally grows apart from its members, he needs to engage in some reconnection. He’ll be going to all of the party’s regional conferences in person, meeting members face-to-face in a way that would have been impossible when he or Jacinda Ardern occupied the Ninth Floor.
He’ll rark up members with his second large speech of the year. By chance, the speech will also use the same structural device as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s from earlier this year: setting out a vision of New Zealand in 2040 (although Hipkins might use the word Aotearoa, which didn’t make it into Luxon’s speech). Hipkins had been thinking about using the device before Luxon’s speech - the fact that Luxon used it too clinched it, with Labour seeing an opportunity to present obvious contrasts.
The tax that Labour members and, eventually, the Labour manifesto eventually alight upon will depend on
two obvious criteria, economic and political.
A capital gains tax has good cover economically. The likes of the OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) have been urging politicians to implement one for as long as anyone cares to remember. They’re more popular than not overseas.
It’s a fairly easy tax to understand, and taxpayers would only pay it when they realise their gains. The right will run a scare campaign against the tax, but it’s hard to make a CGT too scary, especially when CGTs are popular in countries vastly wealthier and more productive than ours.
Tellingly, a questioner at Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ pre-Budget speech to the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce grumbled at the fact businesses were missing out on investment because investment incentives were so weighted in favour of property.
There are shortcomings too. As members reading policy discussion documents distributed by the Policy Council will discover, CGTs don’t raise much money very fast, particularly in an economic environment like the current one, when there aren’t very many capital gains to tax. Labour’s 2018-2019 Tax Working Group reckoned a CGT would raise just $400m in 2021/22 the first year it would have taken effect. By the end of the decade, however, the group reckoned it would take in $5.9b a year, or 4.2 per cent of all tax revenue.
The main reason politicians hike taxes is that they reckon the public would rather money be spent somewhere else. That would be a difficult case to make for a capital gains tax right now. Labour would wander into a political storm to make the case for the tax, which in the short term would probably raise enough money to pay for a few months’ cost pressure in the health system.
The problem with a CGT is the risk is borne by the Government that implements it, while the reward is reaped down the track after some serious gains have been accrued.
A wealth tax is the opposite. Wealth taxes are fairly rare overseas, with only five of the OECD countries having one.
The idea has some political benefits. Labour’s scrapped wealth tax of 1.5 per cent tax on net wealth above $5 million would only have hit the wealthiest 0.5 per cent of Kiwis (to pay for large tax cuts for about 4.5 million income earners). That’s far, far far, fewer people than would be hit by a capital gains tax, even if it excluded a family home.
The smart behind the wealth tax is that if you even think you’re wealthy enough to pay it, you probably aren’t (people with net assets worth more than $5m generally know it). A lot of ordinary Kiwis have two homes - or aspire to.
The wealth tax brings in a lot of revenue fairly quickly - more than $3b in its first year. This was enticing to MPs spoken to at Labour’s caucus retreat this year, who could be observed mentally spending the revenue such a tax would gain, not unlike the way one contemplates, in great detail, the purchase of swathes of the French Rivera in the period between the purchase of a Lotto ticket and 8pm on Saturday night.
The real kicker of the wealth tax was the fact that Parker had designed it to be a “tax switch”, raising taxes on 0.5 per cent of people to cut taxes for everyone else. This might have contributed to the tax’s longevity - a future Government trying to get rid of it would have the unenviable task of raising 4.5 million people’s income taxes by $20 a week (for most) or finding $3.5b a year through cuts or other taxes.
For evidence of how impossible that might be, witness the pain National has endured finding a third of that sum in public service cuts this year.
If it all sounds too good to be true, well, it might be. The too-good-to-be-true argument is always the strongest against the wealth tax, partly because it’s impossible to prove or disprove until New Zealand actually tries it. Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) thought that on balance, the tax could be accomplished with minimal capital flight, but the fact so few countries had gone down the same path would have made it a challenging sell for Labour.
Hipkins, instinctively more conservative, might eventually land on a CGT as a compromise position. The caucus position is difficult to tell, with a few diehards on both sides of the debate (skewed slightly towards CGT), and most MPs in the “persuadable” camp.
He’ll come under intense pressure from the party membership who, bored of elections fought and lost on a CGT, are enticed by the boldness of a wealth tax, and what it could promise the electorate. Running two elections in a row on regurgitating failed tax policies from the 2010s may simply be unviable.
Hipkins, weakened by the election loss, might not have the power to resist them this time around and the last thing a leader wants is for a policy discussion to become a de facto referendum on their power within the party. Whatever the party decides, it needs to do it in a way that makes it look happy and unified. Hipkins and Parker emerging from a room with the red outline of “YTTEKIP” slowly fading from the former’s forehead simply won’t cut it.
A capital gains tax has much going for it including the balance of senior Labour members (as Labour has argued for more than a decade), but the political winds from the membership feel behind a wealth tax.
Thomas Coughlan is deputy political editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Wealth tax or capital gains tax - Labour’s big choice - Thomas Coughlan
Labour members will gather in Auckland today for the first of the party’s regional conferences.Labour being out of Government, party higher-ups will be well represented, including leader Chris HIpkins.
Members will swap war stories, whinge about the Tories, compare the quality of catering with previous regional conferences and, most importantly, strategise for re-election in 2026.
Top of the agenda, and why this conference season is not quite like the others, is a debate about tax.
Labour members love to talk about tax, much to the chagrin of leadership and election strategists who think the path to victory lies in talking about “how to spend it”, not “where it comes from”. Many members think differently and look at tax as a way of rinsing the right, as well as a means for building schools and hospitals.
The fact Labour’s recently elected Policy Council, the body charged with facilitating members’ debates on policy, includes two alumni from the office of Grant Robertson suggests members are keen for a debate.
It’s likely to go one of three ways. The party may choose a capital gains tax like Labour campaigned on in two elections (arguably three, let’s be honest, 2017′s promised Tax Working Group had one job: recommending a CGT), it may decide on a wealth tax like the one worked up by Robertson and David Parker last year, or it might decide to do nothing.
Let’s not overstate the relative unimportance of this discussion. This process is on the party side of the Labour Party and will culminate in a remit to amend the party’s policy platform that will be worded in a way that will not commit the party to one form of tax or another. It’s likely to say something about taxing all forms of income equally, which will allow the top brass, the party council and the parliamentary party, who decide on election policy for the manifesto, to fill in the “CGT vs wealth tax” detail.
Where members’ power lies is in making clear by implication which direction they would prefer the party goes.
The decision is likely to land upon something fairly progressive, unlike taking GST off fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, the policy Labour reanimated.
This is largely because of where Labour is in the lifecycle of political parties. After six years in office, fatigued by the daily disappointment of compromise, the leadership needs to reconnect with members, who naturally harbour greater ambitions than MPs whose sights are dragged earthwards under the weight of the baubles of (potential) office. GST off fresh fruit and vegetables just won’t cut it.
Hipkins knows this. He also knows that as the leader who cleared the decks of some of Labour’s most progressive policies last year, including a planned wealth tax, before losing the election, that the party’s unity depends on his ability to bring together pragmatists and idealists.
As the Herald has previously reported, Hipkins’ much-publicised rollback of a decision to “rule out” while leader any wealth tax or CGT was part of a bargain with members of his caucus for another uncontested shot at the top job. That doesn’t mean Labour is going to run on either of those taxes, but it does make it quite likely. The progressive part of the party cannot stomach another serving of moderation, GST-free or otherwise.
Hipkins knows that after a stint in Government, where the parliamentary party naturally grows apart from its members, he needs to engage in some reconnection. He’ll be going to all of the party’s regional conferences in person, meeting members face-to-face in a way that would have been impossible when he or Jacinda Ardern occupied the Ninth Floor.
He’ll rark up members with his second large speech of the year. By chance, the speech will also use the same structural device as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s from earlier this year: setting out a vision of New Zealand in 2040 (although Hipkins might use the word Aotearoa, which didn’t make it into Luxon’s speech). Hipkins had been thinking about using the device before Luxon’s speech - the fact that Luxon used it too clinched it, with Labour seeing an opportunity to present obvious contrasts.
The tax that Labour members and, eventually, the Labour manifesto eventually alight upon will depend on
two obvious criteria, economic and political.
A capital gains tax has good cover economically. The likes of the OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) have been urging politicians to implement one for as long as anyone cares to remember. They’re more popular than not overseas.
It’s a fairly easy tax to understand, and taxpayers would only pay it when they realise their gains. The right will run a scare campaign against the tax, but it’s hard to make a CGT too scary, especially when CGTs are popular in countries vastly wealthier and more productive than ours.
Tellingly, a questioner at Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ pre-Budget speech to the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce grumbled at the fact businesses were missing out on investment because investment incentives were so weighted in favour of property.
There are shortcomings too. As members reading policy discussion documents distributed by the Policy Council will discover, CGTs don’t raise much money very fast, particularly in an economic environment like the current one, when there aren’t very many capital gains to tax. Labour’s 2018-2019 Tax Working Group reckoned a CGT would raise just $400m in 2021/22 the first year it would have taken effect. By the end of the decade, however, the group reckoned it would take in $5.9b a year, or 4.2 per cent of all tax revenue.
The main reason politicians hike taxes is that they reckon the public would rather money be spent somewhere else. That would be a difficult case to make for a capital gains tax right now. Labour would wander into a political storm to make the case for the tax, which in the short term would probably raise enough money to pay for a few months’ cost pressure in the health system.
The problem with a CGT is the risk is borne by the Government that implements it, while the reward is reaped down the track after some serious gains have been accrued.
A wealth tax is the opposite. Wealth taxes are fairly rare overseas, with only five of the OECD countries having one.
The idea has some political benefits. Labour’s scrapped wealth tax of 1.5 per cent tax on net wealth above $5 million would only have hit the wealthiest 0.5 per cent of Kiwis (to pay for large tax cuts for about 4.5 million income earners). That’s far, far far, fewer people than would be hit by a capital gains tax, even if it excluded a family home.
The smart behind the wealth tax is that if you even think you’re wealthy enough to pay it, you probably aren’t (people with net assets worth more than $5m generally know it). A lot of ordinary Kiwis have two homes - or aspire to.
The wealth tax brings in a lot of revenue fairly quickly - more than $3b in its first year. This was enticing to MPs spoken to at Labour’s caucus retreat this year, who could be observed mentally spending the revenue such a tax would gain, not unlike the way one contemplates, in great detail, the purchase of swathes of the French Rivera in the period between the purchase of a Lotto ticket and 8pm on Saturday night.
The real kicker of the wealth tax was the fact that Parker had designed it to be a “tax switch”, raising taxes on 0.5 per cent of people to cut taxes for everyone else. This might have contributed to the tax’s longevity - a future Government trying to get rid of it would have the unenviable task of raising 4.5 million people’s income taxes by $20 a week (for most) or finding $3.5b a year through cuts or other taxes.
For evidence of how impossible that might be, witness the pain National has endured finding a third of that sum in public service cuts this year.
If it all sounds too good to be true, well, it might be. The too-good-to-be-true argument is always the strongest against the wealth tax, partly because it’s impossible to prove or disprove until New Zealand actually tries it. Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) thought that on balance, the tax could be accomplished with minimal capital flight, but the fact so few countries had gone down the same path would have made it a challenging sell for Labour.
Hipkins, instinctively more conservative, might eventually land on a CGT as a compromise position. The caucus position is difficult to tell, with a few diehards on both sides of the debate (skewed slightly towards CGT), and most MPs in the “persuadable” camp.
He’ll come under intense pressure from the party membership who, bored of elections fought and lost on a CGT, are enticed by the boldness of a wealth tax, and what it could promise the electorate. Running two elections in a row on regurgitating failed tax policies from the 2010s may simply be unviable.
Hipkins, weakened by the election loss, might not have the power to resist them this time around and the last thing a leader wants is for a policy discussion to become a de facto referendum on their power within the party. Whatever the party decides, it needs to do it in a way that makes it look happy and unified. Hipkins and Parker emerging from a room with the red outline of “YTTEKIP” slowly fading from the former’s forehead simply won’t cut it.
A capital gains tax has much going for it including the balance of senior Labour members (as Labour has argued for more than a decade), but the political winds from the membership feel behind a wealth tax.
Thomas Coughlan is deputy political editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
Thomas Coughlan: Wealth tax or capital gains tax? Labour’s big choice
Labour has a big, taxing decision on its hands.
www.nzherald.co.nz
SBS have dropped one of their 12 month home loan rates to 6.15%, well below any other bank. But there are a number of conditions including that the borrowers have to be first home buyers with a 20% deposit or be eligible for the KO First Home Loan Scheme. Borrowers are also required, amongst other conditions, to move their KiwiSaver to SBS. Mortgage brokers aren’t talking about this being a start of interest rate drops as the RBNZ won’t drop the OCR until November at the earliest (when it has twelve months data showing a reduction in the CPI) and because the band of those eligible for this rate is quite restricted. Other banks will probably start offering similar schemes but at a higher interest rate as SBS, being a smaller lender, usually offers lower rates to attract more customers.
www.oneroof.co.nz
‘Sugar hit’: Bank slashes its mortgage rate by 1% for first-home buyers
But should Kiwis get their hopes up?
www.oneroof.co.nz
So Bill English writes an “independent report” which, surprisingly, finds lots of fault In KO. Anyone not expecting that result would also think that Michael Cullen’s Tax Review wasn’t going to recommend the introduction of a CGT. Both were just complete waste of money…. the outcomes were already decided before both groups had their first meetings.
Then we’ve got over $40,000 taxpayer money looking into what Darleen Tana knew about her partner’s business.
Doesn’t matter which party they are, all of them love spending our money.
Then we’ve got over $40,000 taxpayer money looking into what Darleen Tana knew about her partner’s business.
Doesn’t matter which party they are, all of them love spending our money.
Last edited:
You mean CGT?
Damn…… and thanks.
- Thread starter
- #8,715
I agree. It’s a shame as it opens the door to bias and makes it easy to dismiss when there’s real issues in KO
I actually wonder if it is worth splitting KO into two parts….. one department to concentrate on providing new housing, FHB schemes and development and the other department as a landlord/social housing provider which purchases state housing from the first. At the moment, it’s almost like there’s a huge amount of confusion from within KO as to what their role actually is.
I was listening to Chloe Swarbruck yesterday. She was at pains to describe the money spent as being funding that all political parties are allocated, for a range of things, etc etc etc...
...still money extracted from the sweat of hardworking taxpayers, many of whom are struggling
Goes a long way to explaining how politicians view taxpayer money as "funding" as if it magically appears in their budgets for spending, at their discretion
- Thread starter
- #8,718
When KO spends $9k pm to build a new build and private developers spend around $3k…
Just close the place down! They don’t deserve to be building anything - just buy straight off developers.
Don't say that too loudly..... Seymour will want to "blow the place up"
It was set up that way and probably still is.
They do buy off private developers when they get toward the end of the financial year and realise they haven't delivered anywhere near what they said they would, so they panic buy, break internal policies and ignore design guides.
Development on their own land is driven by a multitude of consultants providing endless invoices to incompetent KO management.
They have had a big increase in staff but it wont be related to tenancy services. The lowest paid and hardest working staff at KO are Tenancy Managers. Their portfolios are way bigger than private sector equivalents and they have much bigger rent arrears to deal with and report on. Then there is all the social work they provide to tenants which is part and parcel of keeping arrears down and maintaining a steady hand on tenancies. High turnover of TM's.
